Dr. Brown Tackles All Your Questions

Full lines are open. You've got questions. We've got answers.

Here's the number to call. Any question of any kind that relates in any way to anything we ever discuss here on the broadcast. Anything I write about. Anything you've heard about me you want clarification on. Phone lines are open. If it's appropriate to ask on Christian Radio, go for it. 866-348-7884.

866-344-TRUTH. Just flew in from Maryland this morning. My flight got delayed an hour, so it was cutting it close, but we got here in good time. But my grandson, our second grandson, graduating from high school, Connor.

So congratulations to Connor on his graduation yesterday. And then tonight after the show, scheduled to fly out to Vero Beach. So if you're in the Vero Beach area, a great church I'll be speaking at this weekend, God willing, tomorrow night, Saturday night, and Sunday morning. Always controversy, always crazy things going on around us, but our goal is not to start controversies. Our goal is to address controversies in a constructive way to infuse you with faith and truth and courage so that as you're built up in God, your faith is stronger in God, grounded in the truth of God's word, strengthens your backbone, then you in turn strengthen others, you share what has been shared with you, and before you know it, change is coming to our personalized, to our families, to our churches, to our communities.

866-34-TRUTH. Let's start with Zach in Piedmont. All right, hang on. We'll just get a few questions on the board.

Appreciate Dwayne running hard to get this all done. So I'll be getting to your calls momentarily. We got a flood of calls right to start and getting everybody queued up. So we'll be going to your calls momentarily. I wrote an article yesterday afternoon that's on our website, AskDrBrown.org, and in that article, I deal with the issue of why many people hate us, why they consider us hateful, especially in the gay and lesbian community.

I think it's important to read and understand how the world looks through other eyes, and not to react to that, but seek to overcome wrong perceptions with love and the truth of the Gospel. All right, let's go to Zach in Piedmont, Oklahoma. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown. How are you doing?

Doing well, thank you. So I was listening to Pastor Kevin Swanson's show, and he made the claim that it is unbiblical for Christians to support any type of gun control laws, and he cited Nehemiah chapter 4 verses 13 and 14 as a command for families to be protective, and apparently in turn this calls for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. That's what I got out of that. What would you say about that? All right, so I don't know, Kevin Swanson, and I am assuming that what you're saying is accurate, so I just have to be fair, you understand. In other words, you could be a thousand percent accurate, but I just need to be fair because I didn't hear the show myself. But if what you're saying is accurate, it strikes me as utterly, absolutely bizarre. First, you have a historical account in Nehemiah.

It is not prescriptive, it is not telling us these are laws, guidelines for all time, but it is descriptive. What happened in a particular situation there as they're trying to build the walls of the city and as they've got hostile people, et cetera, ready to take them down and hurt them. So you have a particular situation, you ultimately have people working, they've got a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other. That's not normal life. Israel did not live all their life with a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other.

That's the first thing. And again, it is just a historical description. But to now apply that by some type of exegetical method and then to apply it to the Second Amendment as if the Second Amendment is somehow sanctified or holy, I think it's important. But the idea that it's sanctified and you can't touch it, that to me is utterly bizarre.

So because I didn't hear him say that, I'm going to leave my response there and now give a totally separate response, which is this. You better believe that Christians should be as pro-life as possible and that means we need to examine current gun laws, we need to examine why people commit the crimes they commit. Right before coming on the air, I saw about another shooting at a college and then of course the shooting right before that, day before that, the hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma, maybe two days before that, one after another after another. I know it's people doing evil things, but we need to look at everything. So Christians, like anyone else, should sit down and say, okay, let's look at current gun laws. Is there anything we could do to help keep guns away from bad people? No one's talking about take away all your guns, but is there anything we could do to keep guns away from unstable people? Or should certain guns not be available until a certain age or just have a discussion? In other words, everything's on the table because we're still grieved and shocked over the massacre in Uvalde and people are never going to get over the massacre in Sandy Hook, their family members taken and destroyed for life. So these are realities, and the idea that if you're Christian, you can't talk about gun control, what's the connection? I could see people going to the other extreme and being 100% pacifist to the point there's no self-defense.

That would be taking a Christian value and ideal too far. But no, no, no, look, I'm not a gun person myself, but we were just having a conversation in the living room in Maryland with our family there. And Nancy was talking to my son-in-law Jimmy. Now he's a gun person. He's been hunting all his life. He's got quite a collection of guns.

I've never seen it. He's got quite a collection of guns. He's taken his kids hunting with him. This has been a lifestyle for him.

He's been a fireman, friends with police, so very much around law enforcement as well. And he agrees, yeah, of course you have to discuss certain things, or should there be age changes, or should all weapons be available? Of course!

The idea that Christians shouldn't discuss gun control, utterly bizarre. Hey, thank you. Thank you for asking. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to Luke in Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hey, thank you, Dr. Brown. I have some questions about Hebrew idioms, and there's two examples in particular that I've seen some people say that these might be Hebrew idioms, and I wanted to get your thoughts on these. So one of them is when Jesus says that he would be in the grave three days and three nights. Could that possibly be an idiom, because if he died on a Friday and then rose on a Sunday, that wouldn't be three days and three nights. And then the other one is Moses in Exodus, I think it's 32, it talks about him not eating bread or drinking water for 40 days and 40 nights, and so some argue that this 40 days is kind of like an Hebrew idiom, that Jesus was in the wilderness 40 days, that it just means a long period of time. So I'm just wondering your thoughts on that, because if it's not a Hebrew idiom, I don't see how Moses could survive without water for 40 days. So three days, three nights, it's not a question of a Hebrew idiom, but Jewish law. In other words, there's nothing in Hebrew, the Hebrew language that would say that talking about three days and three nights means any part of three days and three nights.

That's simply a matter of Jewish law, that Jewish law would say, OK, if you let's say you arrive somewhere 1158, what would do this with American time? You arrive somewhere 1158 p.m., right? OK, that's one night. And now you stay through the day, the next day, and then the day after you get up at 1202 in the morning and you leave.

So you've barely been there 24 hours, but it would count as three days because you were part of one day, full day and night of another and part of another. So that's just Jewish law. It's not a Hebrew idiom. It's just under Jewish law that the expression could be understood a certain way.

But that's why not idiomatic, but just legal. You know, it's like when you get some tour and it's four days and three nights, it's not necessarily fully all of those hours, but just parts of. The other thing as far as 40 days, 40 is used a number of times in the Bible for significant things, and it is often connected with testing. But there's no indication that it was not a literal 40 days. Traditional Judaism, which would certainly recognize idioms as well, counts it as a literal 40 days. And there's nothing in the text to suggest it was anything other than that. And there's nothing to suggest that Jesus was not in the wilderness 40 days. So clearly, the reason it's telling us he ate no bread and drank no water was to tell us it's supernatural.

And in point of fact, even if it just meant a really long time, you can only survive without water about three days, right? So even if it was 20 days or 25 days, no, definitely not an idiom being used there. Now, some would argue that five, like David took five stones, that five is an idiom for a few.

There's no way to prove that. Some have argued that. Just like we could say, what is a few? That's probably between two and four, right?

But, you know, it's not an exact number. But no, those are, there's no indication those are Hebrew idioms or that a Hebrew speaker would recognize that as an idiom. That's the thing. If I say I don't drink, that's an idiom. What does it mean? I don't drink alcohol, right?

Everyone understands that. I don't smoke. What does that mean?

I don't smoke cigarettes. So those are idiomatic usages. You have in Hebrew the verb shalah, to send, and sometimes that's idiomatic for to send a messenger. Or you have the verb nasa, to lift up. Sometimes it's idiomatic for nasa kol, lift the voice, meaning speak up. Or it could be nasa yad, raise the hand.

It could be raised in different ways. So those are known idioms. I originally started my doctoral dissertation at NYU on abbreviated verbal idioms in the Hebrew Bible, a comparative philological approach. I was going to go through the whole Hebrew Bible, analyze all the abbreviated verbal idioms I could find, and then go from there and compare other Semitic languages to see what I found.

But then when God shifted my heart, I went in a more practical direction and wrote my doctoral dissertation on the Hebrew word for healing. Hey Luke, thanks for calling and asking your question. 866-348-7884.

We're going straight to the phones on the other side of the break. Remember, I would love to keep you posted on my latest articles and videos and special resource offers and new books and when I'm coming to your area to speak. So take a moment, if you don't get my emails, go to AskDrBrown.org. A-S-K-D-R Brown dot org.

Go there, just sign up for our emails, take you a few seconds, and we'll immediately send your free mini e-book, How to Pray for America. 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. You've got questions, we've got answers. One phone line open, good time to get in.

866-348-7884. Let's go to Jamar in North Carolina. Welcome to the Line of Fire.

It's Jamar, everybody gets it wrong, but it's all right. Just as before, I want to thank you for your show, for all the information you put out, and it's real helpful to me and others like me to hear what you're saying and to give power to God's people. So I want to thank you for what you do. Well, thank you. Appreciate that.

Appreciate it. I called a few weeks ago, and as I was talking, I made a mistake, so I want to clear that up as well. I said that the right suppresses freedom of speech, and I misspoke. I get the right and left mixed up sometimes. It's actually the left, the liberals, unfortunately, that are suppressing freedom of speech, so I wanted to get that cleared up.

And unfortunately, that's the case, so I pray that they will turn that around. Now to get to my question. Dr. Whoopi Goldberg contributed a little while ago, considering your stance on and your knowledge of, I guess, Jewish culture. I kind of wanted to get your take on how Judaism can be considered a race.

Yeah, thank you for the question. Judaism is a religion, but being Jewish can be ethnic or religious. In other words, God called out Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, that was physical. The only requirement was for the men to be circumcised, right?

There was no specific requirement put on the women at that time. Then, through Moses, gave the law to Israel. So you could be a disobedient Israelite or an obedient Israelite, but you were still an Israelite, right? And when God was dealing with the people of Israel, even when they were worshiping idols and had cast off the Torah, they were still his people, Israel.

There's even a rabbinic comment, even when Israel sins, Israel is still Israel. So this is, at this point, something simply ethnic. You're a descendant, your background, right? So you could be a descendant of Israel, Spanish descent, Asian descent, et cetera. So what happened then, so then Israel gets funneled down through the kingdom of Judah, the province of Judah, so people of Israel are called Jews. So again, you could be a Jew who worships idols or a Jew who obeys the Lord. And then there is Judaism, the religion practiced by Jewish people. So you could convert into Judaism, right? And now you're considered a part of the Jewish people. So even though you didn't physically descend, let's say you're not a physical descendant of Israel, even though you didn't physically descend from the people of Israel, you converted into Israel's religion. And now you would now be known as a Jew as well. Your kids would be considered Jews, or you and your wife, your kids would be considered Jews. So it's ethnic in that probably 70% of the people of Israel are not religious Jews, and many of them are even atheists, but they are ethnically Jews and can trace their descent back through the centuries. And then you have Judaism, which is the historic religion of the Jewish people.

So that's why it's confusing, because it's both racial and ethnic. The Jews of Germany that Hitler was persecuting were by and large not religious, many of them very secular, and some had converted to Christianity. But he still killed them because they were Jews, because they were of ethnic Jewish descent. If they had one-quarter Jewish blood, so even one grandparent, then they would be killed.

Wow, I didn't know that. Yeah, well, glad you asked. It's a question that is easily answered, but is complex otherwise. Right, and I have one more quick question, if I can ask a real quick one.

Go ahead, go ahead. Okay, um, it's about, um, and I just had it right here, okay, um, some people want to call Jesus a socialist, I wanted to see what your thoughts were on that. Right, well if you rightly understand socialism, which is basically the government saying that everyone has to have the same thing, and that there is no competition there, that if you're wealthy you just have to, now you're forced to distribute to others, Jesus was certainly not a socialist. If you say that he encouraged extreme generosity and sharing, and in a society, remember he said you're always going to have the poor with you, right, you know, and Deuteronomy says that. So there was no thought that you're going to force the rich to do a certain thing, but if you have a greater spirit of generosity, compassion for the poor, care, that's going to raise people up and make the playing field more equal. But socialism is about something being government enforced in terms of the distribution of goods, and that was never his position in any way, shape, size, or form.

Now if you say, well he was a capitalist, I don't see that taught either, I see him teaching principles that transcend our earthly principles. Thank you for the call. 866-3-4-TRUTH.

Let's go to Anthony in New York City. Welcome to the line of fire. Hello Dr. Brown, how are you?

Doing very well, thank you. So I'm having kind of like, I have a question, and it's something I'm debating into. How can we balance out these three things? First, when God said, you know, God's commandment, honor your mother and your father, and what Jesus said, Jesus does not, you know, hate or, you know, his own mother, father, or his siblings is not worthy of me, and, you know, 1 Timothy 5a, when it says he does not provide for his own family, is worse than an unbeliever.

So how do we balance that out? I'm kind of having like a difficult, you know, understanding that. Yes, the words of Jesus in Luke 14, starting in verse 25, sound quite radical. Unless you hate your father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, even your own life, you're not worthy of following me, right? So, we know that Jesus rebuked the religious leaders in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, because they found loopholes in the law that allowed them to not honor their parents.

So he rebukes them for that, obviously he was reinforcing what scripture says, honor your father and mother. What Jesus is talking about is what it's going to take to be his disciple, and he uses the word hate there, not in terms of despise, but in terms of utterly reject the hold of anyone over your life, outside of God himself, then you can't be his disciple. In other words, if you say, well, I would follow you, Jesus, but my mother won't like it, or I would follow you, Jesus, but my spouse won't be happy with me, well, you can't be his disciple.

It's not going to work. You have to abandon, in that sense, everything else to be his disciple and have loyalty, ultimate loyalty to him and him alone. That being said, loyalty to him will cause us to be the best sons and daughters we ever could be. Loyalty to him will enable us to love our mothers and fathers the way we should.

Loyalty to him will enable us to really serve them and really honor them by being people who are of the highest character and quality. So it's just understanding what he means there. It's impossible that Jesus was saying violate the Ten Commandments. If he was saying that, he couldn't be the Messiah. If he was telling Jewish people, violate the Ten Commandments and dishonor your parents, then he couldn't be the Messiah. But if he is saying you're going to have to make a choice, a radical choice, between being my disciple or putting the interests and loves of your family, even yourself, first.

It's going to be one or the other. When you make that right choice, that enables you now to fulfill the commandments, which include honoring your father and mother. Also in that, as Watchman Neece said, submission is absolute, obedience is conditional.

Let's say that Jesus calls you, Anthony, and you are his servant, and he says, I'm calling you, you're a single man. I'm calling you to finish this semester, then leave school and go serve the poorest of the poor in Afghanistan. And you know that you know that that's a word from the Lord.

If your parents say, we don't want you going there, it's dangerous, we want you here, we want you to get a nice degree and be famous one day and make a lot of money. You say, Mom, Dad, I love you, I respect you, I honor you, but I have to obey the Lord. That's what he's expecting of us. If we say to him, you're jerks, idiots, you've got nothing to say to me, now we've dishonored them.

So our attitude is always one of honor, respect, but in terms of choices of loyalty, we make radical choices, and that's why Jesus uses such strong words to get our attention. Thank you. You are very welcome, I appreciate it. And all these questions, as always, are excellent and absolutely valid.

Alright, let's go to Tony in Louisville, Kentucky. Welcome to the Line of Fire. Hi, Dr. Brown, God bless your ministry.

Thank you. I am a pastor here in Louisville, and I wanted to ask your question about a theological term or description to describe this situation, and it's simply this. You have two sinners, they both feel guilty about their sin. The first is contrite, they are broken, they're humble, they turn to Christ to seek their justification and forgiveness, versus the other, who's also feeling guilty, but instead of turning to Christ, they become proud, they become arrogant, and they begin to shout their sin to the world, trying to win people to their viewpoint through intimidation or trying to convince them or getting laws of the land changed to fit their situation, and that's how they seek their justification.

Is there a theological term or description that describes that situation? Right, well, in a less brazen sense, in case two, I would say it's the difference between repentance and remorse. You know, one feels guilty and bad because they got caught, but there's no real repentance in it, the first there's an about face. But in this case, I would say it's the difference between repentance and feeling guilty, and remorse at least sometimes has some regret, but what you're describing, does it seem like a matter of regret? I'd say it's the difference between being truly repentant versus having a guilty conscience, and because of that, you're now going to try to suppress that, and you're going to try to justify yourself.

And you know, sir, as a pastor, true repentance, the person points at themselves only, I sin, my fault, I take responsibility. Hey, may the Lord bless you and your labors. Thanks for the call. 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. Welcome, welcome to the broadcast, 866-34-TRUTH. Remember to visit vitaminmission.com, get some of the best health supplements you can, use the Dr. Brown code, get a special discount, and a donation will be made to this ministry to help us to do what we're doing right now, and to reach more and more people. Vitaminmission.com. All right, you've got questions, we've got answers, 866-348-7884.

Let's go to Alvin in San Jose, California. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Hey, Dr. Brown. Listen, I just want to say that your ministry has significantly impacted me. I listen to you from week to week, and your voice is one of the voices that contributed to my formation, so man, I pray for you, and bless your ministry.

Thank you. And I was listening to your radio show this week, and listening to you, the episode on spirit and truth. You're talking about God's word and truth, and that it's not one or the other, but it requires a balance of both. Believers should emphasize both, not one or the other. And I'm a charismatic believer, I'm non-reformed, I'm not Calvinistic, and I know that's your standpoint. But one of the questions I get from some of my reformed friends, or one of the things that I've seen on the internet, is, you know, where are the great, charismatic pastors and Bible teachers that are faithful to interpreting and teaching the scriptures, but also hold to what we believe, the continuation of the spiritual gift?

Right? Well, first I could turn the question around and say, why are so few reformed preachers and teachers charismatic? Because to me, it's not debatable, the Bible's totally clear that the gifts and power of the spirit continue for today, the so-called sign gifts, etc. And based on scripture, again, no insult made to my reformed friends or other cessationist friends that differ, but I could say that's massive. This is a massive fundamental New Testament reality that's laid out so clearly in scripture. If you reject that, then you're in serious error, so I could say, why are there only a handful of fine reformed scholars who are also into the things of the spirit?

So you can see, it's just a matter of perception, right, when you ask that question, that's number one. Number two is that some of the finest biblical scholars on the planet, like Craig Keener, for example, dear friend of mine, are continuationist and are non-Calvinist. And Ben Witherington, the professors at Asbury Theological Seminary or John Oswald, they're either continuationist and non-reformed or simply non-reformed, so there are plenty.

If you go to the Society for Evangelical Arminians online, the Society for Evangelical Arminians, you'll find commentaries, find teachings by non-Calvinist scholars, many of them are also continuationist. And then some well-known megachurch pastors over the years, men like Jack Hayford or today like Robert Morris, I mean, these are really solid Bible teachers and they're also continuationist. So there are plenty out there, and I would say 99% are not well-known. You know, the vast majority of those laboring in the Word and teaching and preaching are not well-known, they don't have massive followings, they don't have megachurches, so I would say that across the board for all the different groups that the vast majority are not well-known.

But there are plenty out there. In my book, Authentic Fire, which is a response to John MacArthur's Strange Fire, a respectful response, you'll find the whole chapter where I talk about top continuationist scholars, and the vast majority of them would be non-Calvinists. Or some of the great Bible teachers of the last generation or before, A.W. Tozer, for example, was Arminian and continuationist.

So the list goes on and on. So Moody, of course, was an evangelist more than a Bible teacher. Tozer was an expositor and kind of a devotional teacher. Moody was a great evangelist, so there are plenty if you go back before the rise of the modern Pentecostal Charismatic movement, you know, the men like John Wesley, or like D.L. Moody, or in the 20th century, non-Charismatics but non-Reformed like C.S. Lewis, there's a great list on both sides. And there are amazing people like Charles Spurgeon, or Demart Lloyd-Jones, or popular chiefs like John Piper.

Well, Piper's actually a continuationist. But yeah, Alvin, there are plenty. And here's the other thing, though. Is that how we weigh things?

Like who's in the majority? Well, if that's the case, there are over 600 million Charismatic Pentecostals worldwide, so we are a whole lot more of us than Calvinists. But that doesn't prove anything.

You've got to look at the quality of the fruit as well. Hey, keep drinking in what's good, receive good from any stream, and when someone comes with a claim that sounds a little bit spiritually arrogant, turn it around, ask other questions. I will say this. In my years in the Reformed camp from 77 to 82, the Reformed churches that I visited and was part of were, oh, I don't want to be insulting, compared to the Pentecostal Charismatic churches I was used to, they were really lacking in fervor. They were not deeply people of prayer. They were not as engaged in outreach as much, but very much into theology.

And they may have had some really good qualities in other ways, but each camp has strengths and weaknesses, and we have to start with that humility. Hey, thank you for the call and the kind words. 866-344-TRUTH.

Let's go to John in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown, how are you? Doing very well, sir.

Good, good. I was calling in regards to Revelation 2-9 and 3-9, where those that say they're of our brother Judah but are the synagogue of Satan. I hear a lot of people pipe up on that, and my study shows that there were actually a physical people that had been with Judah since the beginning of time, since the Bible began. It actually goes right back to Genesis.

What do you base that on? Well, I think if you look at what happened, the two seeds of Genesis 3-15 is you got Abel and Cain. Cain killed Abel. Cain has his own genealogy.

When he says, Ye shall not touch, that's the word naga, and euphemistically it means to lie with the woman. Then if you go to John 8-44, where Jesus accuses the Pharisees and Sadducees, he says, Ye are of your father the devil. He was a murderer from the beginning. Well, the first murder was Cain and Abel.

Just to help, I think there's some assumptions that you're making. I always appreciate when people try to dig into the text, but even trying to open up what the Hebrew means and other things, I would urge you to tread with some caution there. Revelation 2-9 and 3-9 have two possible interpretations. When Jesus says, I'm going to make those who claim to be Jews and are not, bow down at your feet. They claim to be Jews, they are not. They're the synagogue of Satan.

It can have one or two meanings. One, they were Gentiles, like black Hebrew Israelites today claiming to be true sons of Israel, or some other cult group, some white supremacist cult group claiming to be true sons of Israel, whoever it is, right? So they were Gentiles, opposing the gospel, claiming to be Jews, but they weren't. They were the synagogue of Satan. Remember in Revelation 2, Jesus commends the church of Ephesus for testing those who claim to be apostles, but were not.

That's one possibility. The other is that Jesus is speaking with a strong prophetic rebuke to people who were physically Jews, but saying the way you're acting is not acting like a Jew at all. You're acting like a child of the devil. And in John 8-44, the devil's a murderer because he was the one behind murder.

He was the one behind lying. It's not specifically speaking of Cain, it's speaking about the one who was behind these things. So the other way of reading it is that these Jews who are opposing you, not all Jews worldwide, but these Jews who are opposing you and trying to stop the gospel message. So they're trying to stop you preaching the gospel to Gentiles. They're trying to hurt you and oppose you. They claim to be Jews, but yeah, they're physically Jews, but they're not acting like Jews at all. They're the synagogue of Satan. It's just like when Jesus tells us, or God tells his people in Hosea 1, you're not my people, lo, I'm me. Well, they were his people.

They were his people, Israel, but they weren't acting like his people, so he was not going to act like their God. So one of those two possibilities is the right way to read it. I would say you're looking for something but digging too far and in the wrong places, with all respect. So thank you for the call. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go over to Daniel in Denver, Colorado. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hey, Dr. Brown. I wanted to ask you about predestination theology, not to discuss the merits of it. I don't believe in it, and I'm confident in that, but I wanted to discuss sort of what your take is on the influence of this theology in the American church. It's my impression that this theology is kind of growing in popularity right now, and I have really noticed a really strong correlation between predestinationism and cessationism. And lastly, just based on sort of my experiences, I feel like the sort of dividing line in the church on this issue is becoming kind of more abrasive. So I feel like kind of the rhetoric on either side is heating up, and you know, I'm concerned about this and sort of how it's sort of dividing believers. So I've told other people I know about this, you know, I'm a charismatic believer, and, you know, told people kind of in my milieu, and they were interested, but it seems like this isn't like a huge issue among a lot of people that I know. So I know that you've kind of discussed these issues, and I wanted to kind of get your thoughts. Do you feel like predestination is growing?

Do you feel like there is a strong link there with cessationism? And do you feel like kind of that dividing line is becoming a little more hostile in the American church? Yeah, great questions. So I'll answer part on this side of the break and the other part on the other side of the break. A few years back, Calvinism seemed to be more on the rise in America, and you had the young, restless, and reformed kind of a shift towards that John Calvin being recognized as a highly significant figure again in America. There was definitely growing interest. From what I can tell, it's somewhat leveled out, and some were kind of in and then left.

But there are some good reasons why some became Calvinists, even though I'm not a Calvinist, that I'll explain on the other side of the break and then answer your other questions. Alright, we'll be right back. Friends, stay right here. 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, friends.

Alright, I'm going to answer Daniel, get to as many more calls as I can at the time that we have. So, Daniel, I believe that so much American preaching was all about me and was me-centered rather than God-centered. And in a lot of our charismatic circles, there was some shallowness and maybe too much emphasis put on experience or not enough expository preaching. That people fearing God, honoring God, wanting to be more balanced, now heard about Reformed theology and its emphasis on sovereignty of God and things like that. I believe it shifted. In my view, it shifted too far, right? But the pendulum had swung so much in a me-centered way, it was a way to swing back to a more God-centered way.

In my view, though, just going too far. And also just a lack of a theological system. People often felt a need there and that's why some have gone that way. Others have converted to Catholicism, looking for more of a system or even a calendar and a schedule and that kind of thing. So, again, I'm not Reformed but I'm not getting into that part now. As for a connection between being Reformed and being cessationist, yes, there are two reasons for it. One is the vast majority of major Reformed teachers for years now have themselves been cessationists. So, you learn from them and you're in that camp and now you kind of accept the other things they teach on other subjects, maybe end time views, things like that. Also, going back to the time of Reformation, because of the Catholic emphasis on ongoing miracles, there was in some ways a rationalism among the Reformers that broke away from that and also said, well, they're obviously wrong and they're claiming to have miracles, so there's a counterfeit and a pushing away from miraculous confirmation, even though the word does indicate that's for today. The last thing is, as far as the contentiousness, I have noticed that those people who I would call hyper critics, those who are engaged in ad hominem arguments, those who attack in ways that is very unhelpful, the vast majority of those I've dealt with are Calvinists.

So, I look at that as a weakness in the Reform cessationist camp, just as I look at flakiness and unaccountability as a weakness in the charismatic Pentecostal camp. So, let's be aware of our own weaknesses and do our best to strengthen those and learn from one another's strengths where we can. Thank you, sir, for the call.

All right, let us go to Isaiah in Ocala, Florida. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. Yeah, it's very hard to hear you, so not sure if you can do anything about the environment you're in. Oh, can you hear me now?

A little bit better. Yeah, go ahead. Oh, okay. Thanks for taking my call. I have a question.

I was...what's that? Go ahead. Okay. I thought you couldn't hear me.

Okay. Yeah, I was reading Isaiah 40 to 66, and it just makes how clear the fact goes, don't you? Anyway, my question is, do you think that the Masoretic text was corrupted specifically, or especially in the areas where there are messianic descriptions, like in Isaiah 53, I was reading it, and the way that it said that he would justify the many, it was, like, really weird. It's like, the just one will justify the many to the righteous one. It was, like, really weird.

Yeah, tell you what, it's a little hard to hear you, so let me try to answer your question. As far as 5213 to 5312 in the Masoretic textual tradition, has it been intentionally altered in ways that would downplay it pointing to Jesus the Messiah? No, I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever. And some of the idioms, methods of speech, syntax, in the Hebrew Bible are different than what we're used to, but that's just the way they're speaking. In other words, when you read ancient Near Eastern literature, it's not 21st century literature. And when you read modern Hebrew compared to medieval Hebrew or rabbinic Hebrew or biblical Hebrew, they're all going to be different in that regard. And some are for points of emphasis, but even there, there's nothing that is altering the text to point it away from Yeshua. And the argument that there are major intentional corruptions within the Masoretic textual tradition to point away from certain messianic truths or to be reinterpreted to deny Christian views, I don't believe there have been major wholesale views. A couple books came out on this, making that major claim about the so-called corruption of the Masoretic textual tradition. But certainly there are places where either superscriptions in the Psalms or the order of books laid out or when an accent is put, things like that, that there are some changes, and whether they were intentional or just in the process of transmission can be debated. And it is a healthy debate to ask here and there if that's the case, but in some wholesale major way, no, I don't believe there's support for that.

And I'm sure the argument's going to heat up again as people are raising it more, but no, I don't believe there's overall widespread support for that. Hey, thanks for your question. Let's go to, here we go, William in Troy, Ohio. Welcome to the line of fire. Yes sir, can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear. Okay, so please break apart my question the best you can, I'm not very versed. In the book of Samuel, there's a king that comes, and I'm curious as to if that's the king that carries the Holy Spirit, and then if so, what is he to usher in, and how does he go about that purpose? So you're saying in the books of Samuel?

Yes sir. Okay, so 1 Samuel 1 ends with the death of Saul, who was the first king of Israel, right? And then 2 Samuel tells the story of David, King David. And that continues into 1 Kings, the early chapters there, which speak of David's death and the raising up of Solomon. So the last king mentioned in 2 Samuel is King David, and King David was promised a lasting dynasty from God, and ultimately David becomes a prototype of the Messiah, a king who also performed priestly functions, a king who will rule and reign over the earth. So the Messiah will be a greater David. So it has nothing to do with carrying the Holy Spirit or bearing the Holy Spirit as a major role, but rather that King David becomes the prototype of the Messiah to the point that sometimes the Messiah is simply called my servant David, meaning a greater David who will come. The key verse or passage to read is 2 Samuel chapter 7.

2 Samuel chapter 7. Alright, let's see. I've got to go really fast here. Time is short.

Let's go to Izamar in Chicago. Welcome to the line of fire. Hello. Hello. 8 years old.

Oh wow, thank you for calling. Well, I have a question. Me and my dad have been reading the Bible, and it said, Babylonians, when they took over Jerusalem, did they actually take the Ark of the Covenant?

Yeah. They did. They took the Ark of the Covenant, and it's never been returned. It's never been returned. We don't know where it is. So in this day, you can't find it? We still don't know where it is. It's a mystery. Now, some people believe that it's hidden somewhere, that one day, it's going to be discovered. Some people claim it's in Ethiopia, which is in Africa, and that the Christians there know where it is, and they guard it. They protect it. Most believe we simply don't know what happened to it.

It got lost. But there are actually movies that have been made, like Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. These famous movies about the Ark, as someone found it, the Nazi Germans, the really bad guys found it, and it has these special powers. But that's all make-believe. Those are just make-believe stories. So the Babylonians took the Ark, took it into Babylon, and we don't know what happened to it. We do know that God told Jeremiah the prophet that the day would come when people wouldn't talk about it anymore, because God would be there himself in such a real way, they wouldn't think about it. But when the Jewish people came back from Babylon, and they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, they had a lot of the things from the temple, but not the Ark, so we really don't know where it is today.

It's a big mystery. Hey, thank you for the call, and I'm so glad you and your daddy read the Bible again. Listen, anytime you and your dad have a question, call in the show, and we'll do our best to answer your question. I really appreciate it. Thank you. All right, friends, as always, I wish I could have gotten to all your calls, but we got to as many as we could. I appreciate the calls.

I appreciate your great content, great questions, getting us all to think and dig deep. Let's be people of the Word and the Spirit. Let's be people who are doers of the Word and not hearers only.

Let's be people who look around at a world that's really messed up as the world has been since the fall. And rather than just pull our hair out, rather than just drop out, rather than throw on the towel, rather than just look for an exit plan, let's be those who, full of the Spirit, full of the Word, full of love for Jesus and love for our neighbor, let's be those who go into the world and make disciples. Let's bring blessing and shine the light wherever we go. May the blessing of the Lord be on you this weekend. Thanks for being with us. You're welcome.