Give Me Your Best Bible Verse to Prove Me Wrong

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. We're going to have some fun today in the scripture.

Give me your best verse in the Bible that shows me where I'm wrong in one of my positions. It's time for The Line of Fire with your host, biblical scholar and cultural commentator, Dr. Michael Brown, your voice for moral sanity and spiritual clarity. Call 866-34-TRUTH to get on The Line of Fire. And now here's your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Welcome, welcome to the broadcast.

This is Michael Brown. Phone lines are open. I can't wait to get into the broadcast today. Yeah, you can hear and see the smile in my voice.

Here's the number to call 866-34-TRUTH, 866-348-7884. We're going to have a word based show today. We've got a really important broadcast coming your way tomorrow. And God willing, on a major moral, cultural issue, you'll be shocked to hear the things that we talk about on the air today, tomorrow.

Today, we're going to be word focused and we're going to have some fun. So if you differ with me on any of the things that I believe, in particular, if you're a fellow follower of Jesus, but you think I'm wrong on the end times, on aspects of salvation. So soteriology or eschatology or some other beliefs that I have, especially things that I feel strongly about, and you believe I'm wrong on any of those issues, the gifts of the Spirit for today, believers' relationship to the Torah, et cetera. Give me your best verse on any one area where you think I'm wrong. Your best verse that proves me wrong. In other words, if you believe in one saved, always saved. What's your best verse to argue for that? If you believe in cessationism, that the sign gifts are no longer for today, what's your best verse to argue for that?

If you believe I'm wrong about a pre-trib rapture, what's your best verse to argue against my viewpoint? So phone lines are open and we'll have some interaction. You might say, well, I'm not a debater or theologian like you are, Dr. Brown, but that's fine. My goal is not to intimidate.

My goal is to have friendly interaction. All right. And we may go back and forth a little.

We we may go back and forth a lot. But everything's open. You may be a Jewish person and you differ with me about Jesus.

You may be a Mormon and you differ with me about the Bible and Joseph Smith. So phone lines are open. 866-348-7884. And let me say this before I go to the phones and we may have some other callers that got in immediately that just want to raise some other issues.

So we'll talk some other issues, too. But let me just say this. I obviously do not claim infallibility. I'd have to be a fool, an idiot, arrogant jerk to claim infallibility on every point I believe on every subject. That would mean that I alone am right out of all believers in the entire world. And everyone else is wrong on something except me. That would be the height of arrogance, foolishness, the height of failure to recognize that we're part of a body and that we know in part at the same time their hills I'll die on.

You know what I'm saying? Their hills on which I have staked my life, my eternal destiny on certain points that I'm super dogmatic about. And that comes from, obviously, decades of being with God in his word and being convicted and being convinced that other areas I feel strongly about. I'd be really surprised to find out I'm wrong on them, but wouldn't be the end of the world to me.

And there are other areas that this is my view, but I'm open to hear other views. But of course, I'm always open to interact in dialogue. All right, 866-344-TRUTH.

And again, we may be taking some general calls before we get to your specific responses to my challenge. But we'll start with Eugene in Fort Huachuca. Is that it? In Arkansas.

In Huachuca, sir. All right. Well, that was close.

I forget I'd give it a try. Yeah. What's on your mind?

Closer than most people, yes, sir. So I'm not sure if I entirely hold to this perspective, but I do remember quite some time you made a comment on how you slightly differ with your typical reformed Calvinist and their understanding of man's depravity. And hearing Bodhi Bakham teach out of Genesis 6 by saying the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention and thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. He basically expounded on his verse saying that anyone outside of Jesus Christ ultimately can never do anything.

That's good. OK. That sounds very, very extreme to me. And whenever I do hear the Calvinist or the reformers talk about man's depravity, it is always in kind of like this really very upfront confrontational type of extreme way. And I'm just wondering the way he explained it. It did make sense, Dr. Brown. So I'm just wondering in your perspective, in what ways are they maybe right about this and what ways do you differ in your understanding of man's depravity?

And if there's any other books or resources that you could recommend me that I could further study this on my own, I would also appreciate that, sir. Sure thing. All right.

So let me just ask this one question. If since we all acknowledge that human beings do good outside of the cross, in other words, outside of being redeemed believers, every day human beings are doing good things. Human beings are not doing bad things because they feel guilty about it. How do you think Vody, who I deeply respect, or some of our other Reform brothers would explain that? In other words, on what basis are people doing good things outside of being born again believers? Right.

Just a quick response. His explanation came out of Romans 8, basically saying that anyone in the flesh cannot please God. And so ultimately, because they don't have a relationship with God, they can never do anything that's ultimately for God's glory, therefore making it not about God, but about something else. And so he said, therefore, it's not ultimately good. So since they're not saved and they can't live for God's glory, therefore even what seems to be good that they're doing is not ultimately good. That was his explanation.

Right, right. So if we're defining things like that, that a human being that is not born again will not do something with no ulterior motive whatsoever other than only the glory of God, then perhaps you could make that argument and I'd accept that. But when you have the impression that human beings don't do any good outside of being born again believers, scriptures really say other than that in other ways. So the broad thing I agree with is that we are hopelessly fallen, that we are sinful creatures outside of the gospel, that if left to ourselves, we will go away from God, not towards God. Right, the old Luther adage that a rock can go up and down.

It goes up if you pick it up, it goes down if you drop it. So I agree with that. So in that sense of total depravity or need for a savior or inability to save ourselves or draw near to God or approach God, no, in ourselves we will never do that without being drawn by God and changed by God, so I agree on that score. But we also have examples of of people doing good that God acknowledges as doing good, for example, King Abimelech in Genesis, the 20th chapter.

What does it say there? That that he did not that God saw the integrity of his heart and because he saw the integrity of his heart. Therefore, he didn't allow Abimelech to commit adultery with Sarah.

Right, because he knew that Abimelech didn't know that it was another man's wife and he saw the integrity of his heart. So that's a human being outside the cross of which God says, I saw the integrity of his heart. So I believe based on the principle of human being still being created in the image of God, although it is now through the image of Adam. So it is in the image of God yet fallen.

That's Genesis five. And since John one tells us that that the Son of God lights everyone that comes into the world, I do believe that there is human conscience. And based on that, that there are aspects where I don't see every human being every day doing only that which is depraved.

If that was the case, obviously the whole world would be destroyed. So I agree with the large picture that's being painted. Some of the specific nuances of it, I would see differently. The book The Grace of God and the Will of Man is a useful book on some of the larger issues. The grace of God and the will of man.

I don't know how much it gets into these. I have to check and I'll get you the editors during a break. But the grace of God and the will of man, I found to be a thoughtful response to Calvinism. So, again, fundamental amen to the large picture that's being painted.

Some differences in the nuances, as you said. Hey, thank you for the call. It's 6634 Truth. Let's let's go to Mike in Owensboro, Kentucky.

Welcome to the line of fire. Thank you for taking my call, Dr. Brown, I appreciate it. Sure. And I don't have I don't really want to I don't really disagree with a viewpoint you have, but I would like you to ask to ask you to clarify it. I want to ask you about something that you wrote a while back in a book over 20 years ago and see if you think any differently on that subject.

Can you do now? Great. Years ago, you wrote a book called Let No One Deceive You. And in that book, you had a chapter on well, it was on end time revival and it was on harvest about how it's harvest time. You were contending for the last day's harvest. Okay. Now, the reason I bring this up is because I kind of have an overarching fear.

And I'll tell you where that stems from myself. Just like a lot of other people in the faith, we are waiting for an end time revival, an awakening, a move of God, something that's going to make a difference in this culture. While we're not resting on our laurels, we are anxiously awaiting for God to do something mighty, as he has done in the past. Yes.

Here's my overarching fear. You know, I'm aware of the Welsh revival, the Azusa Street revival, which was in the early 20th century. Then, you know, a healing revival, the Jesus movement, then that spawned kind of a charismatic movement and renewal.

And then some of the later things like, you know, Pensacola and things like that. And what I'm kind of concerned about is all that that happened in the 20th century, that a lot of it really impacted my life and my family and just the way we worship, the way we see everything. And I'm wondering, did the revival already happen? Did the harvest already happen? Am I anxiously awaiting something that has already occurred and is already in history?

And do you feel any differently about it being harvest time than you did, like, twenty three years ago? All right. I'm going to answer fully on the other side of the break.

But do I believe what I wrote back then? Yeah, 100 percent. Absolutely.

100 percent without question. I'm going to respond in more detail on the other side of the break. Hey, friends, one phone line is open. If you want to call in 866-3-4-TRUTH, tell me where I'm wrong on something.

Give me your best verse. It's the line of fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on the line of fire by calling 866-3-4-TRUTH.

Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thanks, friends, for welcoming, for welcoming us. Thank you for welcoming us into your home. Thank you for joining us on the line of fire 866-3-4-8-7-8-8-4.

Sometimes during the break, I'm looking at some things posted or interacting and something is in my head from the break into the intro. But I don't know where the welcoming came from. But thank you for welcoming us into your homes, into your hearts, into your lives. 866-3-4-8-7-8-8-4. The purpose of today's show is to get into the Word and have some enjoyable time.

Iron sharpening iron. If you believe I'm wrong on any position that I hold to, by all means, give me a call and give me your best single verse that backs your position. So, Mike in Owensboro, Kentucky, when I wrote what I wrote about harvest time in Let No One Deceive You, which was then republished as the Revival Answer Book, I wrote it based on a lot of things happening in the world, along with what scripture says. In other words, what missiologists will tell us is that more people have been saved, say, in the last 75 years than in the first 1900 plus years of church history combined. Some would argue that more Muslims have come to the faith in the last 10 or 20 years than in the previous 1300 years. So, there is a massive harvest of souls around the world. The Christian population of Africa has shifted dramatically from countries where it was less than 1% of the population of the country to being 40 or 50%.

Same in Latin America, massive growth, same in other parts of Asia, massive growth. So, there is a massive harvest taking place around the world. Now, with that, there's a need to make disciples. With that, there's a need to increase teaching and strengthen local churches, things like that.

But that's a reality. Any solid missiologist will tell you there is unprecedented church growth that's taking place, especially since World War II and especially since the last 50 years. Then I see the word painting a picture of parallel extremes at the end of the age, of great outpouring and great apostasy. As Jesus says in Matthew 13, the harvest is the end of the age, and there's going to be a multitude of good fish caught and bad fish. There's going to be the wheat. There's going to be the tares. There's going to be the light shining. There's going to be gross darkness. So, I'm expecting an increase in darkness and light until we reach the end of the age, just like on the planet, any one moment, one part's lit up, the other part's dark, right? I'm expecting that as we get closer and closer to the end. And I see the Bible speak of final outpouring and final apostasy.

So, my views haven't changed at all. As for is the last great revival past? Certainly not, because there's no way we can have the harvest that we need to have. There's no way that great light can shine in the midst of darkness without a greater move than we've ever seen.

That being said, I'm not waiting for that. I'm looking to Jesus every day to honor him, to be a disciple and to make disciples. At the same time, I'm praying for God to do things we've never seen him do on the earth for the glory of his son and for the honor of his name and for the good of this lost and dying world. And I do believe that we're going to see a massive move of the Spirit sweep America and shake the nation just as we're being shaken by so many other things. I believe that for years.

I still believe it, but I'm not waiting for it in that regard. I'm honoring the Lord day by day. Hey, thank you, sir, for your call. 866-344-TRUTH.

Let's go to William in Canton, Georgia. Yes, sir, please tell me where you think I'm wrong. I'd love to hear from you. OK, hey, I'm an Anglican priest and I have I have a stronger sacramental theology than you do. Hello? Yeah, I'm here. Go ahead. Oh, did you?

I'm an Anglican priest. Yeah, I got it. I heard you. I heard you. Yes, sir. Let me comment on Luke 7.

Now, maybe you can pull it up for the people. Luke 7, 29 and 30. There are two big clauses there that indicate that when they acted on the presence of the sacrament, oh, John's baptism, something happened. And it wasn't just obedience. They received the grace of being able to listen to Jesus and accept him. That indicates that a sacrament does something more than just activate obedience. There was an actual grace given. That's the Anglican position. Yeah, so I don't know. Let me read the verses.

All right. Jesus says in John 7, I tell you, among those born of women, none is greater than John, yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. When all the people heard this in the text like these two, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God, not having been baptized by him. So I want to give two responses, one exegetical and one theological. The theological, I'm going to agree with you. The exegetical, I'm going to differ with you. Exegetically, I what I understand Jesus to be saying here is not a because. I'm just just looking at the Greek here. Yeah, I'm not understanding this as a because, but rather the ones who were baptized by John, they were excited to hear what Jesus was saying because they were in harmony with him. He was he was defending them. And the ones who weren't baptized by John, they were upset with Jesus because he was speaking against them.

That's all I see this text saying. However, I do believe, even though I'm not a Catholic and you're not, I do believe that God works through the sacraments. So, yes, you're more sacramentally oriented than I am.

And you could be right. In other words, this is not a hill that I die on. All right. But I do believe that when we partake of the Lord's Supper that, no, he's not physically present. I don't believe in transubstantiation.

So he's not physically present in the wafer and the juice. But I believe his presence is there as we do it. And there is power to heal and forgive as we partake. And the same way I believe that in baptism, although I believe in baptism for believers and for infants. That's another discussion. But I believe that God does something, that it's not just an outward sign that the presence of God is there.

And it's the extent we take hold of that, that there is power in it. So. Right. Yeah. And we Anglicans would call, for instance, the Lord's Supper. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, go ahead. We Anglicans would say that in the Lord's Supper, there's a real presence. Yes. Don't go beyond that. You know, don't go into transubstantiation.

But something really happens to the person when they receive communion. Yes. Yes. So we agree there. So theologically, we're in sync.

Not in everything, but yeah, for sure. Hey, as an Anglican priest, thank you for listening to the broadcast and calling in and having us emphasize these points together. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. 866-344-TRUTH. I love having dialogue. OK, let's go to Mark in Lewisville, North Carolina.

Welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Dr. Brown, it's good to talk to you again. If I can help you with this. Hello? I'm here.

Oh, I'm sorry. I need permission to read two passages. I can't do it in one passage.

But as you know, you know, I don't believe in a literal 1000 year millennial kingdom. But if you could, I'll read these two real quick and you can answer. Yeah, go ahead. You can answer.

You bet. OK. John 6, 54. Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. That's believers. John 12, 48. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

It sounds to me like Jesus is saying the unbelievers and the believers are going to be raised at the same time, which goes perfectly with Matthew 13, 30, the wheat and the tares that both grow together. How can there be a literal 1000 year millennial after that? Got it. I'll hang up and hear your answer. OK, sure.

Stay there. Are you still here, Mark? Yes. OK. Just just one question for you. As you see the second coming, right? Jesus appears in glory. Where are we then as believers resurrected to meet him?

The dead in Christ will rise first. Do you believe that 1 Thessalonians 4? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. Got it. OK, so at that same time or is so we are resurrected to meet him.

So that's the this at that same time or the wicked dead raised. Absolutely. From that with John 5, 29.

Got it. OK, so so your your scenario then is that when Jesus returns that it says we're we're caught up to meet him in the air, right? Right.

Yeah. So we're transformed. But at that same time, all the wicked dead are also raised. That's what John. OK, and then and then caught up to meet him in the air also. That's that they are judged, they don't necessarily meet him in there, but they are resurrected.

That is what the the sheep and goat judgment is. Got it. OK, so got it.

Got it. OK, just wanted to be clear on that. All right.

So here here's so so thank you, sir, for the question. You could make a case for that using Daniel 12 to as well. All right. You could definitely make a case for your argument based on these verses that the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous occurs at the same time, called the last day, and you are therefore interpreting First Thessalonians four in harmony with that, even though Paul only mentions the resurrection of the righteous there. So you could definitely make a case for that based on those verses. John five, you mentioned they all fit together and they would work potentially.

Second Peter three, although it doesn't mention resurrection, there could tie in. So the question is, why don't I accept that? Why do I believe there is a millennial kingdom and then after that, the final resurrection? So perfectly fair question. Good versus to support your view. And you could make that point. All right. So why don't I accept it? I'll explain on the other side of the break, but totally legitimate. Fair use of the scripture, sir.

I agree with you. 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. Thank you so much for calling in today. Our phone lines are jammed right now. I want to get to as many calls as I can.

I've got to respond to Mark from before the break. Before I do that, there is limited seating for our trip to Israel, God willing, May of next year. I have actually been thinking about a lot of dreams. We're on the tour together. It doesn't mean something prophetic.

This means I've been thinking about it when I dream about things. So I can't wait to see you there. Check out the details on the website. Couples, families, individuals. AskDr.Brown.org. A-S-K-D-R Brown dot org. Right on the home page.

Find out about it. The earlier you register, you'll be guaranteed a seat as you do. So today we've asked you to call in and give me your best verse to argue against something that I believe. So Mark just called in.

He's called in before, and we've had some dialogue back and forth. But red verses indicating, pointing to, the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous at the same time. At the last day, the hour is coming, that Jesus will do this. And there are other verses I brought in, like Daniel 12, too, that would seem to support that. So why do I not believe that? Why do I believe that Jesus will return? There'll be the resurrection of the righteous, then a thousand year millennial kingdom, after which there'll be the final resurrection, judgment of the wicked, and then the eternal age. Matthew 25 was also alluded to by Mark in support of his views. So if that's the case, so be it. In other words, if he's right, if there is no millennial kingdom, if Jesus returns at the end of this age and we go straight into eternity, so be it.

That's not a hill I die on. Here's why I don't believe it. First, Peter tells us in Acts three that Jesus will not return until the time of the restoration of all things spoken of by the prophets. And the prophets, if we read Isaiah two, if you read Isaiah 11, spoke very much of a literal kingdom on the earth where the nations of the world will come to Jerusalem to learn from the God of Israel. Zechariah 14, the survivors of the nations that attack Jerusalem will come to worship and those that don't will be judged, a time of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. So I see all these verses spoken of that haven't come to pass yet that Peter tells us in Acts three beginning verse 19 will. Then when I get into the book of Revelation, yes, I understand that there's much symbolism in the book of Revelation and I understand that numbers can be taken to have different meanings. Fully understand that.

Recognize it. But you have Revelation 19, the return of Jesus in glory, King of kings, Lord of lords, clear, bringing judgment on a sinful world, indisputable and in terms of that's what's being painted there. Then you have Revelation 20, which speaks six times, six times of a thousand year reign and then the new heavens and the new earth after that, and it speaks of Satan being bound for a thousand years. Well, he hasn't been bound yet.

He's continuing to deceive the nations even now. Right. So if I'm trying to figure out when did this happen? Well, it hasn't yet happened. The binding of Satan for a thousand years. Then John says that I saw thrones and see that there were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and those who would not worship the beast or its image, not receive the mark in their heads. They came to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. So there are verses about us reigning with Jesus, quite a few actually about us reigning with Jesus.

I just wrote an article about that on stream dot org. So I understand this is when it happens. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection over such the second death has no power. But there will be priests of God of Christ and the rain with him for a thousand years, then when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released.

So to me, that's crystal clear. It's a thousand years is repeated over and over and over and over. We're promised to reign with the Lord. This is after the second coming, but before the new heavens and the new earth of Revelation 21, 22. So what do I do with all the verses that Mark referred to and others understand that it is very common in prophetic language, that it puts a large picture in a short picture, that it's the proverbial two mountains that you see and you think it's one mountain, it's actually two that are separated. And we have look at Isaiah 52, 13 to 15. Isaiah 52, 13 to 15.

What does that speak of? It speaks of the exaltation of the Messiah and his terrible suffering. So the terrible suffering, first coming, exaltation, second coming. All telescoped into one. Or Isaiah 61, where the Lord comes to bring comfort and to bring judgment.

Jesus quotes the first part, the comfort part in his first sermon in Luke 4. The judgment part is later than that. So that's how I see it.

They are telescoped together. But fair question, totally fair question. That's my answer as to why I see it the way I do. All right. Let us go to Zev in Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Dr. Brown. Thanks for taking my call.

Sure. I saw a counter missionary video about Jeremiah 31, and then he was cross referencing, correct me if I get it wrong, Hebrews eight, I believe, about where it's basically talking about one verse says, God, Israel is not faithful to God, but God remained Israel's husband. And my understanding of Jeremiah 31, the whole the whole chapter is basically God recounting his faithfulness. And it ends with him saying, you know, if, you know, if the stars cease to exist and so forth, then, you know, Israel will cease to be a people before me. So I went and read a apologetics view of it and where it says, God, God had just discarded us, had no regard for us, cast off. I'm not sure if I'm quoting it exactly right, but it seems to imply something completely different.

And the the description given or the reason given was Septuagint and that it's a gimel in the beginning and it changes the meaning of the word to discard it. And even if that was true, I don't know how in context you could say that entire chapter and then you get to a verse where God says, I have just discarded Israel or divorced Israel or had no regard for them or put them away when later in that chapter, God reaffirmed his commitment to Israel. And this seems like a verse that would scream of replacement theology and this view that... No, no, no, it's not, no, it's not, it's not, it's not replacement theology at all.

And thanks for the question. So the issue is why the the New Testament Hebrews 8, which quotes Jeremiah 31 verses 31 to 34 in full and is the the lengthiest quotation of an Old Testament passage in the New. And then part of it's quoted again in Hebrews 10. Why it reads differently than the Hebrew text that we have in our Masoretic Bibles, for they did not continue in my covenant. I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. Or others would even say I rejected them. Throughout the Old Testament said God rejects Israel. Not forever.

All right. He rejects them all the time because of their sin. It commonly happens and even uses that language. Like read Hosea 1 and 2. Why is Hosea told to name one of his kids Lo Ammi and another Lo Ruchama? Lo Ammi means not my people. God says you're not my people. Well, they're still his people, but they're not his people. Lo Ruchama is not going to have any compassion on them. Does he still have mercy? Yes, but for seasons he rejects them.

He has wrath and anger. So that's all this is saying. There's no disagreement. The Septuagint, by Jewish translators before Jesus, there's nothing of replacement theology and the Septuagint by Jewish translators.

So that's just a weak countermissionary argument. One one textual tradition says God was a husband to them. The other textual tradition says God rejected them.

Either way, it's the same thing. It's the same promise that he's going to be faithful to them in the long term, even though in the short term he rejects it. Here, does not Jeremiah tell us early, earlier in the book chapters two, three, four because of Israel's unfaithfulness that God divorced them? So that's already in Jeremiah that God divorced them, but he's going to take them back if they repent. So same thing here.

There's just two different sides of the same coin and the overall meaning of the passage remains absolutely identical. All right. So we are taking questions on other subjects, but in particular, looking for those who differ with me. Let's go to oh, let's see.

Let's go to Terry in Montreal, Canada. Yeah. Where do you differ with me, sir? Thank you.

Thank you. I wanted to know before I ask you my question or stipulate my position. Do you believe a person who doesn't believe in the classical or to box position of the incarnation to be a heretic? In other words, I don't believe Jesus had two embodiments, divine nature and a human nature. So do you believe that he was fully human or?

He was fully. My position stipulates that he was fully divine in heaven. He inhabits eternality as per Isaiah 57, 15.

He stretches out the heavens as per 2 Samuel 22, 10. And he sends his light and at the end of that light was a fully human person, the Messiah. So was he God in the flesh? He was God in the sense that his ontology, but he had the title God still because he humbled himself. But in his being, since God does not change his essence, right, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13, 8.

Malachi 3, 6, 7, the Lord, I do not change. Was he the same eternal God, simply not operating in his divine prerogatives, but was he the same eternal God in the flesh? No, he obviously didn't have his eternal nature.

And I've heard the changing. I don't believe God, that the sun changed because he was still in heaven. That's why I was about to quote John 3, 13. No one has ascended or descended, but he who descended, even the son of man who is in heaven. So as he's on earth for the human, being linked by that light, being projected by himself in eternality to different realities.

So my model is one person, two natures, two different realities. So you're suggesting that he is eternal. Well, you would have to respond to Jeremiah 23, 6, which says he will be called by the eternal name that he's supposed to have, Yahweh, our righteousness.

And you would have to respond to Psalms 2, 7 that says today, time and space. Yeah, Terry, in candor, since you're running out of my position, I did ask for one best verse that argues with me, but that's fine. God's your judge. I'm not your judge. God's your judge, but I believe you're quite wrong in your position. God's your judge, not me. So I'm not going to tell you whether you're saved or not or in right relationship with God or not, that's between you and God. And God meets us in various stages of knowledge and ignorance and takes us deeper. However, absolutely. I say your position is wrong because first, those other verses you mentioned to me don't prove your point at all.

The last couple, Jeremiah 23, Psalm 2, just to be candid, but quite flatly, your Jesus is not the same yesterday, today and forever. So you wanted my view. I'm giving it to you and I'll finish on the other side of the break.

Thanks. 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. So just to respond quickly to Terry's other points and just doing this in short here, Jesus identifying himself as I am, Jesus having the authority to forgive sins, Jesus being recognized by demons as the Holy One of God, Jesus receiving worship both before and after his resurrection, and yes, post-resurrection. But when Thomas refers to him as my Lord and my God, you might say post-resurrection is different.

I don't have time to get into those nuances here. But for sure he is operating as God. Colossians 2 tells us that the fullness of the deity dwells in him in bodily form. Colossians 2, 9. The fullness of the deity dwelt in him in bodily form. And Psalm 102, the end of that Psalm about the Lord the Creator is spoken with regard to the Son incarnate in Hebrews, the first chapter. So, Terry, with all respect to the thinking you're putting into this, I do believe you are in error on the point.

But in a significant way, that being said, God is your judge, not me in terms of your relationship to him. Hey, thank you for the call. This is exactly what I asked for today. Let us go over to John and John's not there. Let's go over to Sonja in Jamestown, North Carolina. Welcome to the line of fire.

Thank you so much for taking my call. I want to say that in regards to eternal security, as a Pentecostal, I do agree with you that the Baptist Church that I go to disagrees with both of us. And while I don't debate them or argue with them, I would like very much to hear your position on John 10, 28 and 1 John 2, 19, which are the two main verses that I hear from them. So, John 10, sure thing. So, John 10, 28, that no one can snatch us out of the Father's hand. And yeah, I agree with that.

No one can. So there's no debating that, that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, that nothing in itself has the power to pull us away from the Lord. It's entirely a matter of will we stay or not. In other words, God does not force his children to stay in his house. Nowhere does he force us to stay in his house in the Bible, which is why all the verses that we raise come down to our will, come down to our choice, come down to that as children of God, we can still turn away from him, as children of God, we can still reject him. So all of the warnings that we get from Hebrews 2, from Hebrews 3, from Hebrews 4, from Hebrews 10, from Hebrews 12, from 2 Peter 2, from other passages that clearly speak of the danger of apostasy, they remain just the same.

Yes, I dwell in complete security. I never, ever, ever for a split second worry about, quote, losing my salvation at the same time, I'm careful with my walk before God, recognizing that that I can walk away as for 1 John 2 19. It doesn't tell us that every person who ever falls away was never truly saved. It's just saying that those who left, they're obviously never really part of us. Otherwise they'd still be here with us.

But John's making an observation there. What he's saying is, yeah, there were people that were among us, if they were, you know, it's like you're forming some team and you're building some team in the business place. And how many are really with us for the long term? And when it gets rough, you're going to be here.

When you have to sacrifice, you're going to be here. And then a month later, half the people have dropped out. You say, hey, they never really bought into our values. That's why they're not here anymore.

They never really signed up for the long haul. That's why we weed them out to see those who are really with us. So that's all 1 John saying, if they had really been with us, they would have stayed with us. It's not saying it's impossible for someone who is with us to ever leave us. It's saying, yeah, these people, they're obviously never really with us or they would have stuck around.

So I let that first stand by itself. And that's certainly the case with many. Yeah, they're in church for a while, but they were never really saved, but they still would have been here. And then others, yeah, they turned away. And as it says in 2 Peter 2, it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away.

Because and that's like into a dog returning to its vomit and a fool returning to its folly. So they abandoned and they went back and we have the power to do that. So that's how I'd respond. I agree very, very much. Thank you. All right. You are very welcome.

Let us go over to Kathy in St. Louis, Missouri. Welcome to the line of fire. Oh, thank you, Dr. Brown, I didn't know you were going to have enough time for me today. Yeah, this is about the 144,000 in the Book of Revelation in your book, Not Afraid of the Antichrist. It's not a disagreement as much as I wondered why. I felt you had omitted an important passage. It's been a little, I only read your book once, it was a little over a year ago, but you say you use Revelation 14, 1 on the bottom of page 223, The Followers of the Lamb, the 144,000. But there's a much more detailed passage in Revelation 7, 4 through 8. And I don't recall you using that in your book where it lists the tribes out, the 12 tribes, the Israel out by name.

Right. So, the deal is that the Revelation sections of the book were written by Professor Craig Keener, not by me. And he's a brilliant New Testament scholar, leaves me in the dust behind them in that regard. And as far as the Book of Revelation, he's an expert in it. So, why he quoted one text and not the other, I can't answer that. I don't know why.

So, unfortunately, I can't interact more with your question. I would say this, though, just my own view is that the listing of the 12 tribes is meant to be symbolic, because one whole tribe is missing, right, tribe of Dan, that it is meant to be symbolic of the salvation of all Israel at the end of the age. The 12 times 12,000 is speaking of the fullness of Israel. So, Israel's salvation at the end of the age. But why Revelation 14 was quoted versus Revelation 7? And I'd have to look at the book and see the context.

And as far as I know, that was written by Craig Keener, as I said. So, unfortunately, I can't answer in more depth, because as far as I know, I didn't write that line or that paragraph. But thank you. Thank you for the call, which could have helped more.

Let's go to John in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Welcome to the line of fire. Hi, Dr. Brown.

How are you? I appreciate your show. Thank you.

OK, I get a quick one for you. When John the Baptist and the Pharisees and Sadducees are coming to him, he says, you serpent, you generation of vipers. Yeah. I look up this word, generation. It's a Greek word, 1081, and it means offspring only.

If it was to mean through proselytization, they would use the Greek word 1081, which brings someone over to preach into them. So this 1080 means it's physical offspring only. Yeah. OK, so you're quoting from numbers, of course, that would relate to Strong's concord. So when Jesus, when John is addressing them, the brood of vipers, yeah, it's... they are the spiritual offspring of the enemy.

All right. It's not literal children. John 844, when Jesus says to Jewish leaders who are rejecting him, you are of your father, the devil. The Old Testament uses that imagery, you're a brood of vipers. It didn't mean that they were literally born of physical snakes or literally born of Satan, but spiritually, that's what it's talking about, spiritual offspring. And this word absolutely, it's used metaphorically.

It's common sense metaphorical use. So not a literal seed of a literal snake. Right. But spiritual offspring of Satan who rejects God.

Yeah. First John 519, the whole world is under the power of the evil one. Ephesians 2, we were by nature children of wrath doing the will of Satan. 2 Corinthians 4, 4, Satan's the god of this age. So he does have spiritual offspring for sure.

Yeah, but not literal offspring. Thank you for the call. And do we have time? All right. Really quickly, Chris in Sardis, Georgia, dive right in, please. Yeah, Doc Brown, are you there?

Yeah, I am sorry to rush you, but please go ahead. Yes, sir. I just want to say, one, I'm a little disappointed.

I don't see any orange carpet in that office anywhere. Yeah, well, we carry the spirit of the orange. Well, my question was something that I've been looking at and delving into. I got in a conversation with an individual about tongues and interpretations and stuff, and I feel like I looked into the verse Jeremiah 33 three, and of course, I'm sure you're familiar with it. Yeah, you are calling to me and I will answer you and I will show you great mighty things that you don't know. And there are several different variations of that verse. And I think one of the variations is mysteries calling me and I'll show you mysteries, you know. And of course, in Romans eight, it talks about praying in the spirit. Right.

And it says when you when you don't know what to pray for, you pray in the spirit and you and you pray through mystery. Yeah, so just to jump in, because we're out of time, the reference to the orange, there was this very unusual color orange carpet in our main building that we met in in Browns Revival School of Ministry that was called the orange. The other main building was the blue. So that was the reference to that.

No orange carpet here. Just a joke that I would recognize. But no, I don't connect the God answering us here and and and and answering with things that we don't know. All right. I don't look at that.

This is great and mighty things here. It's literally Hebrew, which you don't know. I don't connect that with the mysteries. Praying in the Spirit, mysteries to God. First Corinthians 14 or Romans eight.

I don't see a direct connection between that and Jeremiah 33 three. All right. With that, friends, right here, an important interview tomorrow. You don't want to miss it. Trust me on this. We'll be right back tomorrow. Oh, another program powered by the Truth Network.