Dr. Brown Answers Your Best Bible and Theology Questions

The following program is recorded content created by Truth Network. You've got questions, we've got answers, all subjects that relate in any way to the line of fire or anything a guest has ever talked about, any area I have expertise on, or expertise in, if you want to dialogue with me at anything under the sun that relates to any of those, 866-348-7884. Friend and foe alike can call in.

If you missed yesterday's broadcast, I really encourage you to check it out. We had a guest the first half hour with some incredible insights in terms of world history and what is currently happening now. There's another dimension we didn't really talk about, which is that Putin in many ways sees himself, according to many reports and quotes that I've seen, as kind of the guardian of the Russian Orthodox Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, more broadly, but specifically Russian, and that Ukraine is a key part of that. And this is part of a spiritual supremacy and the rebuilding of Christendom. Remember, there are certain conservative moral values that Russia has more strongly than America, but it's not so much by the consensus of the people, but by the will of the government. So, in any case, continue to pray, Ukrainians fighting back, I'm looking at a report now, furious Putin prepares to use father of all bombs as defiant, Ukrainians hold up his advance. A question, a thought I posted on Twitter earlier, and I'm going to your phones momentarily, it's just exceptional circumstances with the war right now between Russia and Ukraine, but I just speculated, I wondered, Ukrainians are willing to shed their blood to defend their country. Are Russians willing to shed their blood to take the country? Now, some would say, well, if you're in the Russian army, you don't have any choice. Yes, but there is a will of the people. You know, when body bags with killed Russians were being sent back in Russia's occupation of Afghanistan a few decades back, that did not sit well, ultimately. Is there a will from the Russian people to sacrifice?

If sanctions do take effect, if there are more Russian casualties, what happens then? Just a question mark, question that we're asking. 866-34-truth.

We start with Jim in Tahoe, Nevada. What's your question, sir? Oh, yes. Thank you for taking the call. I have been really upset this week watching all this, particularly the news coverage about what's been going on there. And what is really upsetting me is just the vast misinformation and disinformation coming from our media.

And I'm a conservative. This is coming from conservative media as well, and frankly from your guest yesterday, who I think mischaracterized what's really going on there. Your guest said that Vladimir Putin wanted to recreate the Soviet empire, and I think that's balling. I think what's really happening, I would classify what's going on in Russia as a re-emergence of, I would call it a neo-Byzantine empire, with the Russian Orthodox Church as the center of that civilization's culture. And the struggle, your guest, I'm just so frustrated. And look, I've traveled to Russia, and I have been studying this issue for many, many years. This is something that's been of great interest to me. I don't see this as, your guest yesterday has, as many conservatives do, he has a Cold War mindset.

Just hang on one second. You can fairly present your views and have a difference, but please don't mischaracterize him. He has anything but a Cold War mindset. And really, you don't know him beyond the interview, but if I would want someone for an in-depth perspective on what's happening in Europe and the world with spiritual balance and without political baggage, he'd be one of the first people I'd look to.

But in any case, feel free to, let me just mention one thing and then I want to go back to you. I mentioned this very thing about the Russian church, and you're referencing that as well. I saw a headline on Drudge, and it was saying, is this a spiritual war? And I read a lengthy article yesterday saying that this is a spiritual thing for Putin, and he sees himself as the protector of Christendom. Putin after more than land, he wants religious soul of Ukraine, which ties him with what you're saying. But you feel that aspect is being underreported and misunderstood as if it was trying to regather or reconstitute Soviet Union.

So here's my question for you. From what I read one of his speeches, he basically said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was like the saddest day in history, something to that effect. And I did say, my guest didn't bring it up, I did, said there are many who believe he's a megalomaniac and wants to recreate the Soviet Union. So you differ. So just flesh out your perspective a bit more.

Okay, okay. I know that that comment has been used against Putin. And look, I am not defending Putin.

I'm not saying he's a saint, okay? He's a Russian leader. And we have to, Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned Western audiences that we have to judge Russian leaders, not by Western standards, but by Russian standards.

It's a different culture and civilization. And what he meant, Putin hated the Soviet Union. He hated communism. He thought it was a blight on the Russian people. He is a Russian ethno-nationalist. And when the Soviet Union broke apart, there were ethnic Russians now living in different countries.

And that's what bothered him. Well, that came up yesterday, that Stalin and his redistribution of population put people... Look, but you're guessing, I've heard other, Ben Shapiro said the same thing, that Putin wants to recreate. We are about democracy. We are trying to push democracy.

They made it sound like this is a trying to resurrect the Soviet Union and the West is about democracy. All right, so tell you what, here's what I suggest, because, again, today is the day to call in with questions. I want to be fair to others.

But here's what I suggest. Go back and listen to the interview again. He pointed out areas where he felt America has not kept its word. He said that there's the one side that wants to spread democracy. On the Russian side, it wants to be protected on its borders and have buffer states, and that there's a perceived conflict there.

I then asked about extending the Soviet Union. That was not a major point brought up by my guest. He was actually saying there are different perspectives. We need to understand these different perspectives. But in any case, I am not a qualified expert on this, and I've made that very, very clear, which I've brought on others.

So what I'd encourage listeners and viewers to do is check out the spiritual side of things and to what degree Putin sees himself as some type of savior of Russian Orthodox Church or Christendom. But in any case, Jim, if this was yesterday and we had time to bring you on, I would have had you have dialogue with the guest, because today is the day just to ask questions, trying to be fair to other calls, but did want to give you a hearing. So thank you, sir, for calling in.

I appreciate it. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go over to— I was going to Adam in Canada.

Let's go to Barry in Wading, New Jersey. You are now on the line of fire. Thanks for calling. Hi, Dr. Brown.

I hope you're having a beautiful day over there. Hang on. Can I just ask you a quick question?

Yes. When did you call in last? I called in a couple of days ago. Ah, okay. Got it.

All right. So, Chris, if you could just give a note to our call screener to please be more careful in checking. We have a rule where you can call in within a few weeks to make things fair to others. So I hate to do this.

It seems cruel, but we've got to stick with our policies. So feel free to call back in a few weeks. It's not your fault. You didn't know the rule.

You called in, and the call screener missed that. So my apologies, but we've got to be fair to others that make every effort to get through. All right. Let's go over to David in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. Welcome to the line of fire. Thanks for calling.

Hey, Dr. Brown. God bless you. How are you doing? God bless. Good.

Yeah, I just wanted to call. I've just respected your opinion, and you've been a great help to just me and my walk and different questions that I've had. So, you know, I already have kind of my position on this, but I wanted to get yours. When it comes to deliverance and for Christians and the spiritual warfare, this might differ from the whole topic we were talking about just before.

No, there is no set topic. Yeah. Oh, okay.

Okay, cool. So yeah, what's your opinion with, because I know the word demonize, you know, is sometimes in the New Testament we see it's oppressed and possessed, but now sometimes in the English we use them as different terms, so how would you see, do you believe that Christians can, if they open up the door or whatever to sin, or, you know, different doors in their life, that they can allow, you know, they can end up being demonized as a born-again Christian and need deliverance. What's your opinion on that? If by demonized we mean come under satanic power and influence to the point of struggling with it or even finding themselves bound in certain areas of life, yes, a Christian can be demonized if that's what's meant by it. If what we mean by it is demons are dwelling side by side with the Holy Spirit, and demons have possessed that individual who no longer has free will as a believer, no, I don't believe that.

So some of it is terminology. You know, the old line, Christians can be oppressed but not possessed, and what's the difference between that? Certainly, we see unbelievers who are demonized or have unclean spirits or who are demon possessed, again, depending on how one would translate demonized in Greek, and then other things, it does say they had an unclean spirit, so certainly it happens with non-believers, you know, the man in the tombs with demons within him saying their name was Legion. On the other hand, you have, say Luke 13, where a woman who is called by Jesus a daughter of Abraham was bound by a spirit, so Jesus characterizes her as a daughter of Abraham, but she's been bound by a spirit, and it's a Satan's bounder for 18 years, and when he lays his hands on her, she's healed. So there was demonic power operating in the body of a woman whom the Lord identifies as a daughter of Abraham, and he had to set her free. So for sure, believers can come under demonic power and demonic oppression, and someone says, well, is a demon in them?

On them, I just say that they're where they don't belong, get out. If I was ministering to that person, and we saw, like, I'm trying to be free, but I opened the door to porn, or I opened the door to gambling, or I opened the door to this adulterous relationship, and I'm struggling, I'm trying to repent, but I'm struggling, I'm bound, I'm tormented at night, it's like, okay, let's really cry out, let's renounce this together, and then let's break any demonic power, and whatever is there that shouldn't be there, get out, leave. So do I believe that a Christian can be, quote, demon-possessed? No. Do I believe demons can dwell side by side with the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer? No. Do I believe that demons can take full control over the life of a believer? No. Can Christians come under demonic power, heavy oppression, be demonized?

Absolutely. All right, we'll be right back. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on The Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks for joining us on The Line of Fire, 866-34-TRUTH. Remember to visit vitaminmission.com. When you're there, be sure to use the Dr. Brown code.

When you do, you get a 10% discount on these wonderful health supplements from our partner, Dr. Mark Stengler, and in turn, he turns around and gives a donation to our ministry to help us reach more people, get on more radio stations, and hopefully bless and help many more. 866-34-TRUTH. Let us go over to Britt in Estonia. Hey, thank you for calling The Line of Fire.

Say hello, Dr. Brown. May I ask you, as someone very close to what is happening right now in Europe, in Russia, is there a perception from the people of Estonia as a whole, the government, the media, do they feel the same way about this conflict, or is it a lot of mixed opinion? Oh yeah, we feel the same way, and it's very intense times at the moment, so NATO is also strengthening the borders here now, so sending more military and supplies and stuff. We've been living next to Russia and next to the threat for a long time, because we've been only independent after the Soviet Union collapsed only for 30 years, so we know how easy it is actually to lose the freedom that we have, and it's really, really difficult for us right now. The next days will actually show how it's going to be from now on, because now Putin has actually made the steps that nobody actually believed that he would do, and so the threat is really real and really sensitive.

Well, many are praying, and of course, many are pushing our government to do more. Obviously, as a NATO state, you're in a better situation than Ukraine, which in many ways feels like it's been left to itself, and what's the perception there in Estonia as to what is motivating Putin? Actually, there are mixed opinions, but the main reason, because he is a hardcore communist from his soul, he's always been pro-Soviet Union, and he regrets that the Soviet Union collapsed at all. And so the ambition might be that he really wants to achieve something during his lifetime, like re-establish some of the Tsar areas maybe, because he sort of thinks of himself as a Tsar, sort of.

He uses that symbolic also in his private mansions and so on, and so yeah, this might be the biggest reason what we think. Well, may the Lord be with all of you in the midst of this and give you comfort and assurance, so thanks for calling. I hope you don't mind me asking these questions, but when I saw you were calling for Estonia, obviously I had to at this moment.

Yeah, feel free. All right, so over to you for your question. Yeah, my question actually was to you, Dr. Brown, about, are you familiar with John Leary's book Undercover and with the teaching? In this book he seems to make a case that one should submit to the leaders according to the Hebrew 1317, even if the leader is wrong and slash seems even abusive.

The more wrong you suffer under a leader, the greater is your reward, but your task is to submit anyway. So, and I have read your book also, like Playing with the Holy Fire, which was a super great book, and there is a chapter also about abusive leadership, and I wanted to hear your thoughts about it. Like, if you're familiar with this, what do you think about this teaching and how far can it go, like this being undercover? Because some teach it also here that if you're undercover, that's the only way you are protected, you know, from the attacks of the devil and so on, so you better submit, otherwise, you know, you open yourself up to, you know, like demonic attacks and so on.

Exactly, exactly. So, John Bevere has some terrific teaching that's very strong on the fear of the Lord and holiness and how bitterness can be the bait of Satan and things like that. So I deeply respect so much of his teaching and what he has laid out. He brought some challenges about prophetic ministry many, many years ago, and we interacted about those.

We hardly ever see each other, but I do appreciate a lot of his message. Undercover, when that came out, there were concerns that I had in terms of abusive leadership, and in my book, Revolution in the Church, Challenging the Religious System with a Call for Radical Change, I do talk about Protestant popes. I do talk about abusive authority, but I have a chapter dealing with rebellion first. I said, read this first and then read the others.

So let me give you the broad picture and then respond specifically. As you're talking, I was searching for a book by Frank Viola, which does not seem to be in print now. So if I can find the title or remember it, I'll share it with you. But he wrote a book with the exact opposite perspective about being under church leadership or pastor. He's very much a house group guy and said, listen, the letters like 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, most of the New Testament letters were written directly to the believers, right? Even Hebrews is written to believers, told to submit to leaders as opposed to it just came through the leaders.

And we used to tell our students, because this goes back, I'm remembering this 20 years ago, that we would tell them read John Bevere's book Undercover and then read Frank Viola's book. And we think the truth is kind of in between those two. So I have a grave concern about abusive leadership. I have a grave concern as a charismatic about Christians being told, well, I'm the anointed leader or the Holy Spirit's on me or you don't dare challenge me or the abuse of Psalm 105 15 touched up my anointed as if we can apply that to leaders today. Don't you dare speak a word against what the anointed pastor says, or I'm a prophet and I can tell you what to do. That's abusive.

That's dangerous. If anyone leads like that, you need to be out from that church and out from that ministry. On the other hand, there is a real problem with independence, rebellion, lack of submission to authority, and we should look for opportunities to submit. In other words, we should look for a body of believers that's healthy, that we can be part of, that we can receive, that we can give, and that we can submit ourselves to leaders.

Now, there is submission in terms of what the leaders are called to do. They are called to guard against false doctrine. They are called to ground you in sound doctrine. They are called to protect you from wolves and things like that, but they don't have the right to tell you, you can marry this one or not marry that one. They can give you counsel, but they don't have the right to tell you that unless it's an absolute scriptural violation. They don't have the right to tell you, well, you can't leave this church and go somewhere else, or you can't move here for your job, or we don't approve. They don't have that authority. So we are to submit to leaders as far as they have authority, and then ultimately, if we differ with all respect to them, not bad-bouthing them, not mocking them, not slandering them, but with all respect to them, we need to say we have to obey God and our conscience.

Now, let me go one step further. I have been in situations where it is not life critical. It is not a matter of conviction or scripture. It's a matter of strong preference, and a leader has said, okay, this is what we're going to do, Mike. I'm part of a leadership team, and here's the decision.

This is what we're going to do. Many years ago, I disagree with it. I don't like it.

I have a strong opinion against it, but I can't say that it violates my conscience or that it violates scripture. So that's what the leader said. I'm part of the team. I'll go along with it. Fine. You want us to do it like this?

I'll do it like that, and I'll do my best to honor you and make it work. And God will protect me in that. That's why I agree with John Bevere. God will protect you in that sense. You know, just like if you've been wrong and you just don't say anything because you don't want to bring reproach to the gospel, you don't want to start a public fight or go to court. So you just take it.

God will bless you one way or another, this world, the world to come. So in that sense, it's just like a kid submitting to a parent and the kids submission to a parent is much deeper than a congregant submission to their pastor. Right. You know, the parents have authority over kids that are that's much more far reaching. But look, the parents don't make the best decision, but you have to submit to it because they're the parents.

All right. I'm going to trust God. So that is true. When we honor authority and take the low route, take the humble route, God will bless us for that. But spiritual leaders do not have authority to rule over your life or dictate your personal relations again unless it's in clear violation of scripture. And no one can say you can't question me or you can't question when I say because I'm anointed by the Lord. That's abusive and dangerous. And I know what happens in all circles. I think it may happen even more in charismatic circles because of her emphasis on the anointing or the man or woman of God or hearing the voice of God or prophecy.

And it can be more dangerous there. So with all respect to John Bevere, I do think that that there is a middle ground between rebellion and between everything presented and undercover. Well, thank you very much. It was very good talk to you. Well, great, great to talk with you, sir. If you're ever able to get a copy of Revolutionary Church, if you live locally, I'd send it to you.

But I think you'll find that helpful in this regard as well. Again, may the Lord be with you and your country. And may his will be done right now in the midst of a conflict that's getting bloodier and more dangerous by the moment.

866-34-TRUTH. We have less than a minute before the next break. So where are we going next? Let's get ready.

Jeremiah, Mario, Brian, Nathan. Oh, we're going around the country, around the world. You folks are up next. So stay right there. Reminder, Tuesday is the birthday of what?

Well, Silencing of the Lambs. So if you preordered the book, our copies are supposed to be in today. We'll be signing them, getting them right out to you.

But if you preordered an audio book or an e-book, they should be delivered to you on Tuesday, March 1st. And now, let our friends from Skillet take us out. We will be right back. It's the Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Yes, phone lines are open, 866-34-TRUTH. You've got questions. We've got answers. Make sure you mark down on your calendar. Let's see that I have this date right. I'm telling you to mark it down. I want to make sure I have the date right. Here we go. Yeah, it is Wednesday, March 2nd. Wednesday, March 2nd.

Jot it down. It is a Line of Fire broadcast you will not want to miss. If you miss it, you're going to want to go online and watch it afterwards. Listen to the podcast.

Watch it on Facebook or YouTube. It is an eye-opening, very candid, very painful interview with a male, excuse me, a female-to-male transgender. I know her as Kelly.

The world knows her as Scott. Shouting from the top of her lungs. Do not mess with kids and transition them. Do not put them on puberty blockers.

Do not allow them to get surgery. I mean, this is someone who has been through hell and is raising a voice, not as a Christian, not as a believer. We even had a joke beforehand. No profanity on the show.

Right. It's an interview you don't want to miss. And I am so, so grateful to Kelly for being willing to come on in very different territory than she'd normally be. It means the world to me that she did this. And I want to honor her and get this message out.

It is critical. I wish 100 million people could watch it and listen to it. OK, with that, we go to the phones. Let's go over to Jericaiah in Harker Heights, Texas. Welcome to the line of fire. Shalom, Michael Brown. Shalom.

It's good to hear you haven't talked to you in a while. The last time I was on, I was talking about second minute rights. But this time my question in particular, I've been listening to an Orthodox and I mean Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't know if you're familiar with a guy by the name of Jay Dyer, but he has a lot of objections against Protestantism. And I was just really trying to understand their perspective.

And I wanted to hear your stance on it, like, because they think that the Protestant church is a heresy because they have abandoned the original historic church and they don't go by the traditions and stuff like that. So, like, what would you say would be a response to that? How would you refute an Orthodox position? Yeah, I would say, well, let's test everything by scripture that we both agree on is inspired by God. And let's let's test it by based on what we agree on is the Bible. So the Old and New Testaments outside of the apocryphal books. Let's first test that.

Let's first examine everything based on that. So the Greek Orthodox Church claims to be or Eastern Orthodox, the original church and claims to have the original Jewish roots. Roman Catholic Church claims to be the original church. And Protestants would say, actually, we would go back to the beginning because we're following scripture only and testing the church fathers and others by scripture. And and then messianic Jews might say, well, really, if you want to go all the way back to the apostles and their disciples, then you've got to get the messianic Jewish perspective. So obviously, each different group claims authenticity. But we would all agree on this, that if one of our foundational traditions or doctrines is an explicit contradiction of scripture, then we have to reject that tradition.

And if that tradition is supposedly part of an unbroken chain of truth or inspired tradition, then we have to question the whole system. So I am by no means expert in Greek Orthodoxy. And I don't believe, for example, when Hank Hanegraaff converted to Greek Orthodoxy, that he therefore apostatized and is no longer saved. Although I fully understand why stations took him off as the Bible answer man, because it would be like an evangelical Christian being on Greek Orthodox stations as the tradition answer man.

You know, it was it was not an appropriate fit. Others were convinced that that he was now hell bound and had renounced the faith. I find some of the Eastern Orthodox writings to be beautiful. I find there to be different spiritual insight coming from a different perspective, which I appreciate. Nonetheless, under no circumstances would I accept it as being the authentic original church, nor would I accept the authority of its traditions. And of course, when when it crosses swords with Roman Catholicism in terms of claims of originality and where the real authority lies, even if they they work together more ecumenically today, if you dig down deep enough, they each have claims of authenticity.

It's like, well, how do I decipher this? I go back to the Bible and I examine each system. I examine Roman Catholicism and teaching on the pope and teaching on the mass and teaching on purgatory and teaching on other subjects. I examine that based on scripture and the same with Greek Orthodoxy. So what I would say is, OK, do we agree on X, Y, Z?

Yes. Would you say that these are the fundamentals by which someone is saved? If they say no to you as an evangelical, as a Protestant, then you would say, OK, then what must I do to be saved? Why do you consider me a heretic?

And then they lay it out. Then you test it by scripture. What are the distinctives of Eastern Orthodoxy by which Protestants would be branded heretical? OK, let's examine those claims and then test them by scripture. That is how you have to do it. OK, yeah, and I really appreciate your insight on that.

I just wanted to comment real fast, if you don't mind. And I heard that response and basically they said that, you know, you don't have the scriptures. They just all they get out of the conversation and say, well, I don't grant you the scriptures.

You have to prove it from church history and stuff like that. So that's typically where the conversation goes, arguing about the church fathers and all that stuff. Right. But then you have right.

Right. So you have you have differences between the church fathers as the centuries go on. You have differences between the Greek fathers and the Latin fathers. You have things added that are explicitly not in the Bible that are then added by the fathers.

So you say, boy, how do we sort this out? So once again, it's just like with with rabbinic Judaism. The claim is made that the written Bible cannot be understood in and of itself, and particularly the Torah and Torah laws cannot be understood in and of themselves. Therefore, God gave Moses an oral law which was then passed on through the generations. So an ultra-orthodox Jew believes that he is keeping the traditions that were passed on to his father and to his father's father all the way back to Moses. So when I sit there with my Bible and quote, it's like, who are you to tell us? We have an authoritative chain of tradition. So then my response, OK, if if I can show your chain of tradition blatantly contradicts scripture, then I have to reject your claim of an inspired, authoritative oral tradition going back to Moses. So I've been dealing with this for 50 years in my Jewish community. And there's a parallel, not an exact parallel, but with Greek Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, which claims inspired traditions. So you say, boy, you know, my friend is Roman Catholic and he just gave me the same argument that you're giving me, except in favor of Roman Catholicism, you know? And then so how do I sort this out? And it can't be a historical battle because the deeper you dig, you're going to find further contradictions.

It has to be OK. Even if we don't agree on sola scriptura, we do agree that the Bible is God's word and that if God says A is true and the tradition says A is false, or if the Bible says A and B are not true and the tradition says, well, A and B are true, then you have to reject the tradition. So I look, the question is not to win an argument, it's to have fruitful interaction.

And if they won't grant you the authority of scripture or the supremacy of scripture or testing everything by scripture, then you just politely end the conversation. It's that simple. Thank you. I really appreciate that.

You're very welcome. And again, just say, OK, tell me why, according to you, I am not a Christian or I am a heretic based on what? Based on what? And I'm I have no question that there are many Greek Orthodox who are not believers.

They follow tradition, but they don't know the Lord at all. It's six, six, three, four truth. Let us go over to Mario in the UK. Welcome to the line of fire. Thank you very much, Dr. Brown, for taking the call. You bet.

A little bit to the previous one as well. So I have two questions. Two questions.

One is general and one is more specific. So generally speaking, I never found a good source for the canonization of the Old Testament. I don't understand why some books have been excluded. I heard you talking a little bit about it a couple of times, discussing how the ancient Jews believe some books were more inspired than others. But I really don't know. Like if someone comes to me and says, why is this book not in the Bible?

I don't know how to respond. And the specific question, which I think is a good case for this, is the Book of Enoch. It seems to me from Jude chapter one, verses 14 and 15, it looks like Jude is quoting the Book of Enoch. I heard a couple of sources discussing this issue when they say, you know, maybe it's mentioning a common tradition rather than a direct reference. However, it seems to me like if Jude is quoting Enoch, then there is a strong case for Enoch to be part of the Old Testament. And then it kind of opens and kind of warms because there may be some new theology coming out of it.

And obviously it's the claim that the Catholics and Orthodox make. So I kind of want to get your thoughts about it. Thank you very much. Sure thing.

I appreciate the question. I'm just checking to see if some books are still in print. Let me let me recommend a few good titles to you on the canonization of of the Old Testament. If you want a rabbinic Jewish perspective, one of the best books that was written on this subject. The author is Sid Liman.

L-E-I-M-A-N. Sid, middle initial Z, Liman. The book, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. It seems to still be available as I'm looking for it.

Well, maybe available on Amazon, may not. But otherwise, you can find it at the library. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. This is going to give you a rabbinic perspective as to how the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament was canonized. A scholar who's very well versed in Jewish sources as well, Roger Beckwith, and has been an expert on canon and things like that. His ancient calendars, et cetera. Beckwith, B-E-C-K-W-I-T-H, the Old Testament canon of the New Testament church and its background in early Judaism. So just remember it. Roger T. Beckwith, the Old Testament canon.

And then imagine this is still going to be in print and this one may be a little bit simpler read. F.F. Bruce. And that is so he was one of the premier New Testament scholars of the last generation. The Canon of Scripture. F.F.

Bruce. Yeah. And that's definitely in print. And that will be the simplest read for you. The Canon of Scripture.

OK, so those would be good resources. I don't doubt for a second that the Book of Enoch was being quoted simply because those words are found in the Book of Enoch. And as far as we can tell, predate New Testament times. But the New Testament also quotes pagan poets. The Old Testament quotes other books that we don't have. It quotes the Book of Yashar. There's a later forgery you can get online, the Book of Yashar, but that's not the original. So just because something is quoted doesn't mean it's canonical scripture.

So how do we arrive at the idea that the Book of Enoch is not part of the canon? I'll address that on the other side of the break. Stay tuned. Line of Fire by calling 866-34-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks, friends, for joining us on the Line of Fire, 866-34-TRUTH. So Mario, you can go to my website, AskDrBrown.org and just type in Enoch, because we got asked the question so many times. We have we have a video about Enoch there.

So you can go there and check for that at AskDrBrown.org. But in short, Enoch may have some parts that go all the way back to Enoch, words that were passed on, but otherwise it's written much, much later and does not all go back to Enoch. And basically arises in the time after the Old Testament and before the New, meaning that it comes into play at a time when there was basically a fixed understanding or an increasingly fixed understanding of what the Hebrew Bible was. But in any case, the ultimate test is how was something received? If God intended it to be part of scripture, ultimately we believe it would be. How was it received?

How was it recognized? And although Enoch was highly regarded by early Jews and early Christians, it was not considered to be part of the Hebrew Bible. It was not to be considered to be part of the Christian New Testament canon, obviously. And the only group that received it as scripture was the Ethiopic church. So Eastern Orthodox didn't, Roman Catholic didn't, earlier traditions to us on which we based Protestant beliefs didn't, earlier Jewish traditions didn't.

So it's only in that one branch which would then say, okay, it was not received canonically. But check out the Enoch video on AskDrBrown.org. Thank you, sir, for the questions. All right, let's go over to Brian in New York City. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hello, God bless, Brother Michael Brown. Shalom. Shalom. I have two small questions. I hope they're quick.

I'm trying to speed this up so it doesn't take too much time. But I had one question that's a biblical question, and then another question that's an opinional question. And the first question would be on John chapter 6 verse 37, which a lot of Calvinists like to source. I used to believe in Calvinism, I no longer believe in it after watching latent flowers and seeing all that kind of stuff. And it helped me get out of it because I actually never felt secure on my salvation through Calvinism because, of course, they're predestined for the foundation of the earth, and when you mess up, you feel like, oh, what if God didn't predestinate? Yeah, and what if I'm deceived and I'm a false convert, and the only way you can know for sure is if you make it to the end? Right, I actually had less assurance as a Calvinist from 77 to 82 than I did as an Arminian, so you're not the only one that felt like that.

Yeah. And so verse 37 says, All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I was certainly not cast out for a while, I actually struggled with this chapter, and I knew that it wasn't saying what it was saying, but it kind of sounds like, you know, gives and will come to me implies like the Father's giving, but I wanted to know what your interpretation of that is, and then I'll ask my second question, and how that works. Right, we can't come to God on our own initiative because our own initiative will not draw us to him.

Our own initiative is fleshly and will draw us away. So God has to draw us, God has to help us, right? But we know that John 12 32, Jesus says, If I'm lifted up, I'll draw all men to me. So that same word is used that's used over here in John 6 37 to 44 in terms of drawing. So the Jesus by the Spirit has been drawing all people to him through the gospel since he died and rose.

So that's the first thing. But who does the Father give? Well, if you start in John 1 1, it's those who look to Jesus. It's those who humble themselves. It's those who are looking for God's praise versus human praise because right up through the previous chapter, Jesus is faulting people. You won't come because of your pride. You won't come because you fear man more than God.

You want the praises of men. So those that humble themselves and say, God, help me, are then given to the son and whoever you are, whatever your background, he won't cast you out. So don't read John 6 37 in isolation. Start John 1 1.

What about John 1 12? He came to his own. He was in the world. The world was made by him, yet the world didn't know him. He came to his own, but his own didn't receive him. But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God.

So the same thing. Lord, we recognize Jesus. We want your salvation. We want your help. Our eyes have been opened through the gospel.

Now he gives us to the son and salvation. So works very simply. Yep. Go ahead.

So the opinion question. The opinion question is there are two great evangelists out there right now that I watch, and I was just wondering if you know of them and what your opinion was of them. There's a pastor from Canada named Pastor David Lynn of Christ Forgiveness Ministries, and then there's an evangelist missionary named Philip Blair of Torch of Christ Ministries.

He was the one who had the sackcloth and ashes on 42nd Street telling people to repent. And both of them have been an incredible influence in my life, and I was just wondering what your opinions of them are. And if you haven't seen them, go check them out. David Lynn of Christ Forgiveness Ministries and Philip Blair of Torch of Christ. I just wanted to know your opinion on them and their, you know, yeah.

Yeah, appreciate that. You know, Brian, just in general, I avoid just, if someone says, what do you think of this church, this pastor, this leader, just weighing in, unless there are major issues where the person's being falsely accused or rightly accused, then I can weigh in. You know, if someone says, can you recommend a church in my area? For many reasons, we're not able to do that.

I can only say that I'm not familiar with Philip's ministry at all. And David, I believe we had on the radio show as he was getting shut down and accused of hate speech, and the little that I saw of the video and his spirit and temperament in it and him being on the air, I really appreciate it, the way he conducted himself. So I believe we're talking about the same person there.

Hey, Brian, keep lifting up Jesus and going for it. I appreciate it. And again, friends, if you say, well, I heard this teaching.

Is it accurate or not? I'm happy to weigh in. If you say, well, I've been following this ministry and this is what they emphasize or teach, I'm happy to weigh in on that. But just in general, I'm not going to say I like this guy, I don't like this guy because I don't know everybody out there. And I'd rather deal with the issues and go from there.

And then if someone needs to be marked specifically, then we'll do that. All right, let's go over to Jim in Chicago. Welcome to the line of fire. Thank you, Dr. Brown.

I appreciate you very much. So the question is 1 Corinthians 6, chapter 9 verse. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

I know you know this, but be not deceived for the cleaners, idolaters, adulterers of feminine, abusers of selfless mankind. So the question is, there's a well-known syndicated radio Bible teacher, I'm not going to mention him, I'm just wanting to know your take on this based on your knowledge of the Bible. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

This is his take on it. There is a big difference in inheriting the kingdom of God and entering, meaning that Christians can still do these things, but they're not going to be an inheritance, kind of like a father in a loving relationship, the best I could understand. But he was saying the church at Corinth had a lot of sexual immorality, and even the Christians were engaging in this, but he says this does not mean they won't enter, it means they won't inherit.

Please help me understand how you would take that. Yeah, I categorically reject that view, that this is a matter of reward so that you may be a practicing adulterer, you may be a practicing homosexual, you may be a practicing thief, you may be a practicing drunkard, and you are not repentant in any way, so you lose your reward. I find that completely contrary to the whole testimony of the New Testament. Notice when Paul addresses it in Ephesians 5, he says, But sexual immorality and all impurity, or covetousness, must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.

Let there be no filthiness at first. And then he goes, You make sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure or covetous has no inheritance in the kingdom of God and of Christ. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience.

Therefore do not be partners with them. So he's saying wrath is coming because of this, and you don't want to partner with it. Now here's the other thing that's interesting. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses this identical expression, which is inherit the kingdom.

And notice what he says here. He says, Look, I'm telling you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we should all be changed in a moment. So when the Lord returns, what's going to happen? And what he says, I tell you this, brothers, 1 Corinthians 15, 50, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor is the perishable inherit the imperishable.

And then he says, Here's the mystery. We're going to be changed. So inheriting the kingdom does not mean getting a reward within the kingdom. And look, if you are a practicing sinner and you know, OK, the worst that happens to me as I lose out on some reward in heaven, but I'm saved, I'm with the Lord forever and his presence is fullness of joy. It's not like there's going to be a doghouse in heaven.

Right. You know, for OK, you were an unrepentant fornicator for 20 years. But because you prayed a prayer and asked Jesus in and once saved, always saved.

So you're therefore in. So, OK, you look, I know people that were raised in those circles and there was a call given for salvation. And these kids said, look, I don't want to go to hell. I want to go to heaven.

But I also want to keep saying. And they were told, well, no matter what you do, if you're saved, you still go in. Later in the week, later later in the week, one of my friends was at a youth camp. So they first had a call to get saved. Then they had a call to receive Jesus as Lord. And he said, hardly anyone else, like we're already saved. We're going to heaven. We get to sin at the same time.

So you say, oh, no, no, no. That's not what the Bible said. Well, if you're telling me that I can be in that I genuinely come to Jesus, I'm born again. But now I choose to continue living in unrepentant adultery for the next 20 years and die in my sin. Or my life's cut short, 10 years and die in my sin. I'm still saved. I still go to heaven.

I don't get my reward, though. That's not going to put the fear of God in somebody, especially if they're caught in sin. And plus, that's not what Paul's saying. He's wondering the wrath of God comes on the disobedient.

So don't partner with them. Otherwise, wrath will come on you. And here he says, flesh and blood, in other words, physical bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That is not speaking of getting a reward.

That's speaking of being with him forever. Inheriting his heavenly and eternal kingdom. We have to be resurrected or transformed as living people to go in because it is a spiritual kingdom. So, Jim, you are correct. It is not what the Bible's saying. Inheriting the kingdom is another way of being, saying, being eternally saved. Back with you on Monday, friends.