Dr. Brown Answers Your Best Social Media Questions

The following is a pre-recorded program. You've got questions. We've got answers. 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.

Hey friends, welcome to The Line of Fire. I will not be taking your calls. Oh, I won't be taking your calls. I've lined up a bunch of questions already on Facebook. So don't post now.

Don't call now. I've got all the questions lined up and you are going to love some of these questions today. We'll get to as many as we can on our Friday broadcast. You've got questions. We've got answers. Welcome, welcome to the broadcast, Michael Brown. Delighted to be with you. All right, first question.

This is from Steve. Are you ready? Do you believe the pets of believers go to heaven when they die? Okay. I'm going to tell you what I believe, but first let me say I would not be dogmatic about my answer.

This is not a hill I'm going to die on. All right. Do I personally believe that the actual pets you had, like a frog I had, Cutie Pie J. Schninkelheimer III, or some name like that, or the lizard, Mimplest Dinkus. Yes, these are some of the names I gave to the pets I had as a boy, or the fish in your fish tank, or Buzz, your favorite little dog, or Birdie the parakeet. Do I believe that those actual creatures will be in heaven for us when we die? And some are, you know, some, that dog was your companion for years, and you cried when that dog died. And I remember the trauma with some of the, you know, having to put a dog to sleep or something, and if I tell you a funny story about that in the moment. But do I believe that that actual animal will be in heaven?

No, I don't. Because I do not believe that they have souls, inner beings, spirits, the way we do, in the same way. Could it be that a heavenly duplicate of that animal, maybe one that can talk, maybe a perfect one, will be in heaven? Yeah, it could be. As some have said, you know, God is so exceedingly good and amazingly loving beyond anything we can imagine. Yeah, it could be.

When I think of pets, probably the one that we got closest to was our little Shih Tzu, Yoshi. And you think of, yeah, Yoshi, I could see that, but I don't think it'll be the identical Yoshi, because Yoshi here didn't have a soul. But it could be the exact duplicate physically, but better, right? Better. So, but ultimately, we don't know, right? We don't know.

We don't know. Okay, quick story. So I remember as a boy, my mom and dad telling me, I think my dad sat me down and said, okay, listen, you know, our dog's getting old and a little sick. And so we're gonna send him over to this farm in Pennsylvania. It's a beautiful farm.

And just be able to run and have fun there. And it was sad. But I thought, what's goes out in the field there and beautiful field in Pennsylvania can just run and, hey, I'm a little kid for years, just have a nice place.

Great. So Nancy and I have been married for some years. And she's talking about, you know, when she was little, and they had a dog and they were sending the dog, remember we lived in New York, sending the dog to a farm in Pennsylvania. I said, they sent your dog to a farm in Pennsylvania? And we burst out laughing because we realized it hadn't dawned on us because we never thought about it. That was just what our parents told us rather than saying the vet is going to kill your dog now.

The vet's going to put the dog to sleep. Anyway, okay. Emily, can you briefly explain preterism and perhaps your view of it?

Thanks. Yeah, so preterism is that which is in the past. So we all agree that certain prophecies were already fulfilled and are in the past. The prophecies about the death and resurrection of Jesus, most prominently, those already happened. We say there are many, many other prophecies still to happen. The physical return of Jesus, setting up his kingdom on the earth, the salvation of Israel, the millennial kingdom, and things like that. So many of us are looking at passages in the New Testament saying they are still future. So a preterist says, no, many of those already came to pass also. That would be a partial preterist who says that Matthew 24 where it talks about the coming of the Son of Man and destruction and the stars falling from the sky, that was actually the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70.

And that was the second coming that was spoken of there. But they still believe that there will be a future eternal kingdom. They believe that we will be physically resurrected.

So those are partial preterists. So I differ with them, but that would not be a heretical position. A full preterist says that not only has Jesus already returned, but there will be no physical resurrection of our bodies.

We have already been spiritually raised and we are already in the new heaven and the new earth. That is heretical. That is a doctrine to be categorically rejected. So I reject partial preterism. I do not believe that Matthew 24 has come to pass fully already. I believe that there are key parts of it that have still not come to pass that parallel some of the developments of the first century. But I am not a partial preterist, although there are brothers and sisters who love the Lord, who are partial preterists.

Those who are full preterists have crossed a heretical line and I'm concerned about where they stand. All right, Al, I've heard someone say that Peter did travel to Babylon, because he writes to the believers in Babylon, or I am in Babylon, right, first Peter, did travel to Babylon. Others say no, he never went that far east, but Babylon was a code word for Rome. Did Peter actually go to Babylon? What's your take on this?

Thank you in advance. I've always understood that that was a code word for Rome. I have never studied or investigated the possibility that Peter actually went to Babylon, and it's such a random thing it makes no sense that he would bring that up or say that.

But Babylon being a code word for Rome, that would be the normal scholarly understanding, the normal scholarly consensus. Bill, why is the dead rising and walking around upon Jesus' death not discussed? That's a good question.

It's a very good question. It is one of the most striking accounts in the New Testament, and it's one that critics will often raise and say, well, where's the account of this? If this really happened, you think that someone would write about it?

And my answer is, someone did write about it. Matthew, right? But the question is, why don't we hear more about it, or why don't we talk more about it? So we have the resurrection of Jesus at the beginning of the 28th chapter, but prior to that, you know, we have a striking account, and it's Matthew 27 51, when the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook, the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. Coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

That's all it says. So why don't we talk about it more? Probably because we don't know more about it.

It's definitely something that's quite striking, and shows you the tremendous power of what happened on the cross. That with that, it actually raised people from the dead, and they become a first fruits of those who will be raised from the dead, those of us who will be raised from the dead in the future. But we don't know more about it, and we can only speculate.

But I agree, it is something that is worthy of more discussion, and worthy of more speculation. What happened to those people? We don't know. I mean, there's the kind of grotesque thing that the critics paint, the picture they paint, or they just go around like zombies, like walking around like zombies, or did they go back to the graves? Or did they just mingle among the people and disappear? Or did they ascend did they ascend to heaven?

They're just snatched up. To me, it's obviously the latter of these two. There's no notion that they went back to the graves.

All right, bury me again here, or just fell in the tombs, or walk around like zombies and deteriorated, something like that, God forbid. But we don't know beyond that. It could well be they mingle among the people, people are like, well, that's so and so. They just knew it?

Or it was someone that had been known earlier in that generation? Either way, because it's mingle among the people and then been gone? Where are they? We know that that's what happens with Jesus, with the two on the road to Emmaus. He's suddenly gone. Where did they go? Were they taken up to heaven in bodily form? We assume not before Jesus ascended in bodily form, but we don't know. It's a good question.

Good question. Now, some have argued that it's all symbolic, that it has symbolic spiritual meaning. It's not to be taken literally, but it certainly seems like it's written to be taken literally. And I take it literally. I'm just trying to do one question for each.

All right, I'll do another quick one from Bill. Besides being listed as such, what was it in particular that determined a clean versus an unclean animal in Leviticus? Well, just the characteristics, right? So fish that had scales and things like that, or animals, you know, that didn't chew the cub or chew the cub but didn't split the hoof and things like that. Leviticus 11 Deuteronomy 14, and then beyond that with insects and things like that, we don't know exactly why.

It doesn't seem to be based completely on diet. Some said that the creatures they would have been more familiar with were the ones that were considered clean. Those that they were less familiar with were unclean. There may have been certain categorizations that seemed self-evident then that were missing. Many scholars have really dug into this, and certainly some of it does relate to health. In other words, God was being pragmatic here as well. Especially in the ancient world, eating pig, for example, and much of the world today is very unhealthy. It's unhealthy in general, even in a country like America, but in much of the rest of the world, the way pig scavenge and the diseases they carry and all these other things, it's very unhealthy to eat pig.

But it does not seem to be all dietary, and we can't give an answer for every last one as exactly why. All right, let's see. David, what would it take to make you go, okay, this guy actually seems to fit the biblical criteria to be Antichrist, that he is a one-world leader, that the whole world is following his lead, that he has appeared to be the savior of the whole world, that we have now become dependent on him. That would really make me wonder, could he be the one? He would not have to fully reveal all of his evil and wickedness for me to wonder, okay, could this be the person? Because he is leading the entire world, we have a one-world government that's overseeing all the other smaller governments, and this is the man, that would absolutely, just that, get my attention, especially if he seemed to, he's the one that fixed the economy, he's the one that solved the problems of family, he's the one that brought peace, everything would be saying, it looks like this is the guy.

And then, of course, the rest would unfold quickly enough. Nobody in my lifetime has gone, come within a million miles of that, thus nobody has been identified by me as the Antichrist. 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 joining us on the Line of Fire. My friendly reminder to sign up for my email so we can equip you with the latest resources. Friends, we are here to infuse you with faith and truth and courage, and you may faithfully listen to this broadcast an hour a day. You may have done it for years and at times when we were two hours a day. You may never miss a minute, but this is only a small part of what we're putting out every single week.

And some of the best stuff that we put out is in written form in articles and then in short little videos, some of which we record separately. So by all means sign up for the emails. And then this way, when there's a new resource, you're the first to know it, a special trips around ministering in your area, you'll be the first to know it.

Go to the website, ask Dr. Brown, askdrbrown.org, sign up for the emails and we'll put you on our welcome tour that you will really enjoy. Mark, in the book of Acts chapter five. So I'm just taking questions that have been posted on social media.

I'm not soliciting new questions now, not taking calls today. In the book of Acts chapter five, Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead for lying about the money. I understand why they died. Why do we see people in the church today lying without immediate consequences, even pastors and evangelists lying like crazy? I know God will deal with it.

My question is, in Acts five, they died on the spot. It sure would keep people from lying if that happened. What are your thoughts of your ministry, Dr. Brown?

Thank you. Yes, Mark, it's a very practical question and it's a fair question. The answer is that at certain moments of God drawing near, at unique times in history, he will make very, very loud statements to drill a point home, like someone dropping dead on the spot. But if that was to happen all the time, the human race would basically get wiped out. Church would get wiped out. And people would be operating under so much terror that there'd be very little free will along the way.

So think of this. Think of Leviticus chapters seven through ten, the setting apart of Aaron and his sons as priests. And then Aaron and Moses offer up their sacrifice and fire comes from the presence of the Lord, which would presumably be from the tabernacle. I used to think from heaven, but presumably from within the tabernacle, and consumes Aaron's sacrifices. And the people fall down on their face and shout, right?

Then, next chapter, beginning of the tenth chapter, since the end of the ninth, beginning of the tenth, there's no break in the Hebrew there, just consecutive narrative. Next thing that happens is that Aaron's two eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu, who we can think of as gross sinners, Jewish tradition sees them as righteous, righteous men that just overstep their bounds there. So they go into the tabernacle and they offer their sacrifices and fire comes from the presence of the Lord and consumes them.

They die on the spot. Now centuries later, you had in the very temple of God, women weaving for Asherah. You had homosexual prostitutes right in the temple of God. And God didn't judge for a long time, but when he did, the nation was crushed.

When he did, the discipline was terrible. Temple set on fire. City of Jerusalem demolished.

Thousands went into exile. So God will sometimes do these dramatic things right at the beginning, in a shouting way, to say, this is pure. Don't infringe on it. This is holy. David bringing the ark back to Jerusalem.

That was a big thing. Utzah stretches out his hand. No, you don't grab it with your hand.

You should know better. Drops dead. It upsets David, but God's going to make a point here, all right? So that's what happened then. But it can't happen every day, otherwise the human race would just be dropping dead. And ultimately, says in 1st Timothy 5, some instances are obvious.

Now others trail behind. Everything will get judged. Everything will come to the light.

But in my book, 1991 book, Whatever Happened to the Power of God?, there's a chapter called that outpouring could be fatal. Because I reflected on these very things. I reflected on them and said, you know, if God just came in the full power of praying for right now, we might be dead with all the sin in the church.

All right, Clinton. I work very long days and have five kids and a wife waiting for me when I get home. I do my devotions in the morning around three or four a.m., but I strongly desire a more intimate relationship with God. I have limited time and try not to leave my wife alone with the kids any more than I already do for work. I struggle to find time to draw near and preempt worship.

Do you have any advice? All right, Clinton. First, you're not alone. Many men and women feel that way. Job, family, responsibilities.

It can be very challenging. And God bless you for A, getting up so early in the morning to be with the Lord and then putting in a long work day. B, being compassionate and understanding towards your wife and recognizing the load she carries. And C, wanting more time with the Lord.

I mean, that's all beautiful. What I would say is this. First, don't put yourself under unrealistic pressure. You may say, no, no, I know God's not requiring this to me.

It's something I desire. I understand. But I know in years past, I put myself under pressure. When I was in high school with a light high school schedule and not working a job, or at least here and there just a part-time job only, I had a lot of free time on my hands. Well, I spent every day for months between six and seven hours in the word of prayer every single day, at least. Plus I went to at least five church services a week and did outreach two days a week. But I had the time. I just memorized 20 verses a day. It took me an hour to do it. That was part of my discipline walk with the Lord. When I started working a full-time job, I didn't have that time. And I was like, oh, what's the matter with me? I have to cut back on my sleep. No, no, no.

That was a unique season I had. Now I didn't have it. Well, I put pressure on myself. I was self-condemning.

So don't be self-condemning. And don't think God is expecting something impossible from you. What I would say is to ask the Lord to allow those times to be specially rich that you have with Him.

To see if there is time you can redeem, maybe driving in a car with more worship, listening to the Word when you can't read the Word, things like that. Ask God to bless you with a sense of the sacredness of working your job and being there for your wife and your kids, that there'd be a sense of His presence in that. And then perhaps you and your wife can work things out where you say, okay, hey, here's one day a month where I'm gonna take care of the kids or bring them out or the grandma's out, whatever, and you just meet with the Lord for a whole day. You just get a whole day, a whole night, and you don't have to think about anything. And then your wife tries to do that for you once a month. Something like that, that alone could bring a big change. Or just say, hey, once a week, I'll stay with the kids all night and you just meet with the Lord or go hang out with your friends and try to do it for me once a week, one night, whatever you can work out without putting undue pressure on yourself.

May. When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit? Was it in John 20 19 through 23 or in Acts 2? So in John 20 when Jesus says, receive the Spirit and you breathe on them.

Or Acts 2 when the Spirit comes to them and they speak in tongues. This has puzzled me for a while now and I'm seriously hoping you could shed light on this. May, it hasn't only puzzled you. It's puzzled many. I can't be dogmatic on it.

I'll give you my opinion. But here are the only two choices I can see. One, or three choices. One, he said receive the Spirit and this was a deposit. He spoke the words and now some weeks later at Pentecost they'll receive the Spirit. That's one option.

Another option, to really boil it down to two for simplicity. He said receive the Spirit and they did in terms of the Holy Spirit coming to live within them. Then at Pentecost they were empowered by the Spirit. So it would be a Pentecostal view today of when you're saved you're indwelt by the Holy Spirit and then subsequent to that is the baptism of the Spirit, the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. You speak in tongues or other things like that.

So it's one of those two. I've never been dogmatic on it. I've generally seen it as symbolic. He speaks it and then they receive the Spirit several weeks later. But it could well be that they he said it because he told them earlier, he dwells with you and will be in you. This is when the Holy Spirit came to dwell within them.

Then at Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon them in empowerment. Also do you mind posting a link to the Brown vs Brown video where you debate it yourself? I don't have a video. I believe we had an audio file. I don't know if we still have it.

I'll have to get my team to check. But there is a local ministry that brought together on a weekly basis four, five, six hundred college and career young people. And I came in, taught on holiness, did a different series of messages, and then was asked to do one where I passionately presented Calvinism. Then I passionately presented Arminianism. And then I said, okay, here's how we work together as one, because it was a unity gathering, as Calvinists and Arminians. And then at the end I asked them what they thought I actually believed. So probably two-thirds or more got it right that I'm more Arminian than Calvinist. But a good third, I think, or close to it, thought I was Calvinist.

So I did my best to present both views with equal passion. Holly, can we as Christians bind Satan? Over the years I've heard some believers say, I bind you Satan in the name of Jesus. This is biblical. Okay, we cannot bind the devil, Satan himself. He will be bound and thrown into a bottomless pit, according to Revelation 20.

So he'll be bound a thousand years during the millennial kingdom. But can we bind demons? Is that scriptural?

I believe when rightly understood it is. That even if it's not the first reference to what Jesus is talking about with binding and loosing, all right, Jesus says that when a strong man fully armed guards his house, that he's secure, right? And then he has to be overcome. So that's what some mean. In other words, we're right now by the authority of Jesus driving you out. Or we are rebuking you and stopping your power right now. The person himself, herself, wants to be free, wants to be liberated.

So I'll leave this from looking at the clock here. Maybe on the other side of the break, Matthew 12 lays it out clearly. This is something that Jesus empowers us to do.

If we rightly understand that it means we can't just do it random over anybody we want, and we do not have power to bind Satan himself. We may use those words speaking of the amount of power that's under. This is how we rise up. 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 back to The Line of Fire. You've got questions. We've got answers. Not taking calls today, but answering questions that are already solicited on social media. So not taking new questions, not looking for new questions.

We've got a bunch more to answer. So going back to this idea of binding, loosing. It's interesting in Luke 13. I mentioned Matthew 12. That's the unclean spirit leaving a man, and if he comes back to the same place where he was driven out, and it's empty, swept, and garnished. In other words, someone gets delivered from demons, delivered from demonic oppression or possession. Now they're set free, and they don't walk with the Lord, fill their lives with God. They just go back to their old ways.

They could end up in a much worse state than before. He takes seven demons worse than himself, and the ladder into that man is worse than the beginning. In Luke 13, Jesus talks about the woman who's been bound by Satan, right, for 18 years. She's crippled, so she has a physical condition, but it's a demon, and he calls it Satan. This is Satan because it's under Satan's power.

Not that Satan himself was doing it, but under Satan's power. Satan has bound her these 18 years. Woman, you are loosed from your firmly. She's been bound by Satan.

She's now loosed from her infirmities. There's binding, loosing language there, right? So it's not that Satan was bound. Satan was binding.

Now the woman's loosed. Then in Luke 12 verse 21, excuse me, 11 21, when a strong man fully armed guards his own palace, his goods are safe, but when one's stronger, then he attacks him and overcomes him. He takes away the arm in which he trusted and divides his spoil. So if by binding Satan you mean breaking the power of a demonic spirit over someone's life, someone that wants to be free, and in Jesus' name you break the power of that spirit over there, and drive that demonic spirit out, if that's what you mean by binding, and therefore the person is loosed, you could use that language in that way. But it's not that now that demon is permanently bound.

He's tied up and can't do anything. No, they're cast out from where they were, and now going out to do their evil until the time of the final judgment. So sometimes the words are used way too freely, but there are spiritual activities that are very real. But again, we cannot bind the devil, Satan, himself. We can rebuke him. We can rebuke him. We can resist him, but we cannot bind him.

That will happen in the future. Dalton, Jubilee of those who occupy the land of Israel now are the seed of Abraham since Israel was scattered for so many years, and Paul says in Romans that all Israel will be saved will be the whole nation, and could some of those who live in Israel, or not the land of Abraham, but rather peoples who may be grandparents or gentiles, but maybe the family has been Israel for some years and are Jews now, Jubilee they would be included in all of Israel according to the Apostle Paul. One more question. If you could pick maybe one or two Saints in your life who've left the biggest impact in your life of studying prayer, who would it be and why? Thank you, sir. God bless you.

Super quick to your second question. Probably the man that most impacted my life as a believer was Leonard Ravenel, as we were close friends the last five years of his life from 1989 to 1994, from the ages of 82 to 87 for him. I would say he most deeply impacted my life, but many others did. Okay, I believe that the Jewish people today and those living in the land of Israel as Jews are the physical seed of Abraham. Now, many married into the physical seed of Abraham, many converted into the physical seed of Abraham, meaning that they converted into Judaism and now joined together with physical seed, but I do believe that they're the rightful heirs, even though there has been intermarriage and so on and so forth, because they're ultimately joined together with that stock, that root stock that came from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When it says all Israel will be saved, I believe that speaking of the Jewish people worldwide that there will be a massive national turning, not necessarily every Jew on the planet. What about Gentiles living in the land of Israel? No, that's not a promise to them. They're promises about the fullness of the Gentiles, but all Israel understand to be those who are rejecting the Messiah now as Jews, there will be a turning at the end of the age. All right, let's see.

Miranda. Many people confuse and even mesh the following God causing evil so they believe, God needing evil to produce a good result so they believe, God using evil for his purpose, and God simply allowing evil because that's man's choice. Can you discuss these? Maybe help focus on the truth of God's Word and not just how things appear. It's a complex question and only God knows the full nuances of how everything works, how he works out his will in the midst of our wills, giving us freedom but in a limited way. So only he is totally sovereign and only his will is carried out as he desires, but in the midst of it there are many things that he desires that people say no to. They reject his will, they reject his plan.

So how does all that work out? Calvinists, of course, will speak about the secret will of God, the open will of God. So God says don't do this, but then secretly behind the scenes he may give someone over to do the very thing. Okay, so I'm not a Calvinist in any case and I just represented that in short form, but to answer your question, the big thing is God himself never does evil. God himself never does evil, nor does God force someone to do evil that really wants to do good.

He does not do that. In him is light. There is no darkness, all right? God is tempted by evil and he doesn't tempt us to do evil.

That's clear. So if evil happens, it's the responsibility alone of the human being or the demonic power or Satan. They alone or we alone, as the case would be, are responsible for evil. Now will God give us over to evil?

Yes. Will God harden us his judgment in the midst of evil? He does that, but he himself does no evil, nor does he lead us to do evil as we were his children desiring to do good. Does he work out his will through everything? Yes, Ephesians 1, that in all things he's working out the council of his will.

So he is working things out. That which is meant for evil, he's turning for good. The best example is the Joseph account, telling his brothers, you meant it for evil, but God intended it for the saving of many lives.

So there are some real distinctions there that we should note. And again, it's way too complex an issue to get into in further depth, nor again do I know that the Bible gives us full information to go to answer every question. Josh, sorry, Morris, can you explain the viewpoint of Jesus fulfilling the law? Some say the law is abolished for Jesus, so he came not to abolish but to fulfill. Some say it's done along with the destruction of the second temple in AD 70, heaven and earth passing away was a reference to the temple. I just don't see this inside the description, nothing shows me that Jesus did away with the Lord, but rather he fulfilled it, as the apostle Paul mentions in Romans 3. Number one, it is a myth that heaven and earth passing away is a reference to the temple passing away.

That is an internet myth, that's the first thing. So we dismiss that, and you don't agree with that anyway. Secondly, Jesus did not abolish, but fulfilling does not mean that we are we all keep the law today.

What do I mean? Everything having to do with our approach to God, temple sacrifices, blood atonement, priestly ministry, he fulfilled that in his death and resurrection. We don't need earthly blood sacrifice, that's a massive change. Did he abolish it? No, he brought it to its full meaning, so now through his blood we experience more forgiveness and cleansing than any ancient Israelite could have through blood sacrifice. The biblical calendar, he has brought some of it to fulfillment with Passover, and unleavened bread, and Shavuot, Pentecost. He will bring the rest of it into its fullness with trumpets, atonement, day of atonement, and tabernacles. The moral requirements of the Torah he takes to a higher level, that's how he fulfills those.

You heard it said don't murder, I'm telling you don't have hatred, right? So he takes these things to a higher level. When Paul says faith establishes the law, what he means is it it puts it in its right place doing what it was meant to do. So no, there is not a command for Gentile Christians to keep a seventh-day Sabbath, but they now enter the Sabbath rest through the Messiah. So fulfillment does not mean it's the same as it's always been, and then he fulfills it through his perfect righteousness and thereby takes our place on the cross.

Again, complex, but trying to simplify the answer. Matthew 5 17 to 20, the key text there. Joshua, I asked about this twice already, the current trend for more and more sexual encounters with pedophiles, drag queens, groomers, yes we pray for them to be saved, but are we able in a sense to hope they get the death penalty for harming kids? Like I know it's not the Lord's will for anyone to perish, but we also have Romans 13, as you're wrong for me to say, for instance, anyone that harms their child needs to be deleted. Also the scripture of Jesus saying if one child is prevented from coming to me is that necessarily talking about harming kids, but the gospel being presented to them. The second question I believe he's referring to both children coming to him, meaning anyone that prevents them from from coming in to be blessed and receive his love, but he also talks about harming.

It's read in Matthew 18. So God's face has said that the angels that are looking down on those kids and their well-being are looking right at the face of God. I want to see evil eradicated and I want to see child traffickers and pedophiles, active pedophiles, and I want to see them stop what they're doing and I want to see them off the streets. Now I would prefer for certain crimes life in prison without parole that does give the person the opportunity to repent and get right with God as many have, but they forfeit their lives. They forfeit the rest of their lives, but I don't just think oh they should be deleted. Many of them were abused themselves, so they're guilty. They are guilty. They are guilty. They are guilty and may they be caught. May they be put in jail. If the only way to stop one of them from abusing another child, you were there and and they were about to rape a child and the only way you could stop them was by hitting them over the head with a baseball bat and it killed them. You did the right thing.

You did the right thing and the court should stand with you, all right? So I hate evil in the same way, but a lot of those people were themselves abused and their whole life got terribly messed up. So are they responsible for what they're doing? Yes, yes, but I want to see them repent get right with God. Yes and go to jail and yes and pay the full penalty they should pay under the law and yes be removed from a situation where they could ever hurt children again.

Yes, yes, yes to all of that. Whatever is right under the law, yes, but I want to see them saved. I want to see them repent. You say oh you just let them keep abusing kids till they repent. No, no, we do what we can to stop them, to catch them, to prosecute them.

Absolutely, but my sentiments are I just want them deleted. No, God has mercy on all kinds of people. Saul of Tarsus had believers killed, had them killed and God said I spent time with a man who was an assassin for Yasser Arafat. He's a lover of Jesus and a lover of Israel today.

So my sentiments are different. Hating evil, want to see them off the streets, call a prosecutor, all of that, absolutely, but my heart is made to come to an end and I believe that's what I'm saying. 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 for the special edition of the Line of Fire. Michael Brown here not taking calls but answering a bunch of questions that I solicited earlier on Facebook. I want to get to as many of them as I can. Nancy, why is the church silent in today's new technology, Facebook, social media? Oh the church is not silent. Some of the biggest web pages, some of the biggest accounts are Christian accounts, church accounts.

Many are super active in many ways, but there's a lot of censorship that we have to keep coming against, but we're definitely active. Malu, I mean here you responded to me on Facebook, right? Malu, is there a difference between the gift of a pastor and the office of an elder? Sam Starnes has argued all elders are pastors, but not all pastors are elders, but most people would argue that all pastors must be elders. Yeah, so I don't... Sam's brilliant and deep in the Word, and loves the things of the Spirit, a good friend. So I don't know the quote, but yeah, I understand it the way you do, that all pastors are elders.

And maybe he means it in a different way. I see a pastor as a senior elder. I see a pastor as a lead elder. So all pastors must have the qualifications of elders, and would then be the chief among equals, the head among a plurality of other elders. The pastor would be the senior elder of the elders. That's how I would understand it.

So maybe he's talking about a technical function that I'm missing. Matthew, in terms of dual covenant theology, the only reasons I've ever heard the people hold to it are purely emotional. Are there any actual New Testament verses that would support this idea?

I mean, maybe in Romans 11 16, if the root's holy, then the whole tree is holy. That would somehow say that there is a chosenness of Israel that still applies. Just the New Testament is so clearly preaching the good news to the Jewish people and calling them to salvation.

You could go to Old Testament verses. You know, you could claim Galatians 5, if you're circumcised, you have to keep the law. So if a Jew keeps the law, there's nothing that is a direct statement, obviously.

And I normally hear it the same way you would, more of, this is only fair, this is only right. Jews already have a covenant, as opposed to explicit New Testament texts. Let's see, Reynolds, do you believe Jesus made it an even playing field for everyone, including blood Jews? Since we'll all be here for the great tribulation that rids the beliefs that the Jews will have their final chance to believe in Christ, who understand is that Jesus was born not by Abraham's literal bloodline, I believe the change from literal is spiritual. No, the promises to Israel remain.

They remain. God never changed that, quite explicitly in the New Testament. Romans 15, the Messiah confirms the promises to the patriarchs. Luke 21, you'll be scattered until the time of the Gentiles fulfill which time you return back. Acts 3, Jewish repentance brings the Messiah back. So you better believe Israel being back in the land is significant. And Zechariah 12 makes it clear that a Jewish Jerusalem will recognize the Messiah, so you better believe Jerusalem back in Jewish hands. These are all big, absolutely major, but the level, the playing field is leveled for all humanity by the cross, that any human being anywhere on the planet that calls out equally can be saved. In that sense, Romans 10 and 12, there's no difference between Jew and Greek, because the same Lord is Lord of all richly blessing all who call upon him. Michael, can you can you briefly convey the concept in God's image and likeness?

Thank you. Now, you could make an argument that the word Jews, like Selim and Demut, are talking about physical appearance, that God made us to look like him, and hence when when there are visions of God, he looks like us, right? You see a man seated on the throne or something like that, or there are references to hands and feet or eyes or whatever. Of course, those could all just be symbolic visions and don't have to mean it, but there is that aspect that especially an ancient or eastern reader would think in those lines that different than the animals, this is somehow more like God's image. But since we know God is a spirit, doesn't mean he doesn't have an image, the emphasis must be on the spiritual side, so that we, like God, can hate evil and love righteousness, that we, like God, can experience a genuine joy and sorrow in a way that's different than the animal world, that we, like God, can create new things, that we, like God, have a consciousness and a sense of morality written on our hearts.

In those ways, we are created in his image and likeness. Then at what point in history did Shavuot also become a celebration of the giving of the Torah and Mount Sinai? Was it originally so, from what I understand, so it must have changed along the way? Is it documented when that happened? I don't know exactly when it happened. It's clearly not where it was an original. A week ago yesterday, I talked about it on the line of fire, just in terms of the development. It's somewhere with later rabbinic tradition.

I don't know where to pinpoint it. I've never tried to recover that information in terms of do a diachronic study to go back historically and sift out. I'm sure some scholars have done it. I haven't looked into it in more depth, but I don't know at what point and how widely these things would have been thought of in Jesus' day, to what extent intertestamental literature sheds light on that. I've just not studied that in depth, but it's certainly clearly not what the Bible was teaching in terms of why the feast and the timing of it initially. David, several times in the Bible there are references to other gods. What are the gods going to be other than man-made idols? So there were man-made idols, but behind these idols were demonic powers. Behind these idols were fallen angels. So the ones that the people worshiped as gods were fallen angels, demons. Paul speaks written 1st Corinthians the 10th chapter. And God will sometimes speak about them, like in Exodus he's going to judge the gods of Egypt.

So what does Moses say in Exodus 15? Mihamocha ba'alim adonai, who is like you among the gods. There are these other beings. They're all created beings. They're lowercase gods, not the true God who's the creator of all, right? They're lowercase gods, but it's gonna be fallen angels or demons that people worshiped as gods, because there is no other god aside from the true God in terms of an actual eternal deity.

But there are these lesser beings, these spiritual beings that were called gods and worshiped by the people. All right, I answered a couple questions directly posting some links. Let me get to one more here from Robert. When will you write more articles on our current president, gaslighting division in our country as we did with our last president? When you speak out against this rhetoric of calling people fascists, bigots, and domestic terrorists, you used to write an article almost weekly on this topic.

Now it's crickets. This president claims to be a Christian just like the last one, but yet you're silent just like the media when it comes to covering him. You know there are Christians that support him as well, right? What about their delusion? Is it because it won't sell as many books? The last comment is completely unfortunate, not only a judgment of a sinful nature, but a complete misunderstanding of the reality that some of the stands that I take cost me book sales, cost me donations, cost me support.

And what do I do? What does my team do? Did we ever in the history of my ministry sit down with our team and say well if you if you write on this it's not going to sell as well? Or you know if you if you address this you're going to lose support?

Nope. We might say we're about to take a hit, but all we care about is what's true and what's right in God's sight. Period. That's number one. Number two is I write as I feel burdened to write.

I don't sit around and think I'm the man to fix everything. That's number two. Number three, I wrote a lot more about Trump, more articles supporting him than against him over the years if you look at the several hundred articles that I wrote. But I wrote a lot more about Trump because he was embraced by a large percentage of evangelicals. Now I have loudly, strongly, like a broken record in multiple articles, at least three or four different articles, called out the group that was pro-life evangelicals for Biden.

I was like beating, even beating a dead horse, even when their whole website was pulled. I wrote an article about that a few weeks ago, a few months ago on Daily Wire. I wrote another article on Daily Wire about the Biden administration as a picture of radical LGBTQ activists and said look at some of the people he's appointed.

This is the extremes of LGBTQ activism as part of the cabinet. And I'm frequently speaking out against his attempts to push transgender activism and things like that. But I wrote much more about Trump because of the close evangelical association with Trump, because the vast majority of people that were following me on social media were Trump voters and Trump supporters, and because our reputation was much more cut off with him. I personally, in terms of friends, colleagues, don't know a single believer that voted for Biden. Now, obviously he got votes for believers, but I don't know a single one who did.

And those who did, if they did it, were either voting against Trump or for some other reason. I haven't met, I don't know any, I'm sure they're out there, I'm just saying I don't know any that said Joe Biden is the one that's going to help our nation. He's the one that's going to help with pro-life. He's the one that's going to help with family matters.

He's the one that's going to be strong. No, no, it was either Trump is too destructive or they didn't care about abortion. They didn't care about these other issues and therefore they voted for him.

The pro-life evangelicals for Biden, that was one of those shameful things. And then when, of course, he did what he always said he was going to do, I said, how you feel about that now? But I've never sat around bashing President Obama as much as I deeply differed with many of his policies. I basically address things when they cross certain lines and I felt they should. It's been the same with President Biden. When certain lines are crossed, I feel I should address it. Trump came up a lot, one, because he was getting attacked a lot.

So I wrote more articles to say, hey, he is doing a lot of good and I appreciate that. Then when I got increasingly concerned about almost this fanatical support and she went on conspiracies being believed and all the false prophecies, that's when I started to raise my voice. That cost me a lot. That cost me thousands and thousands of followers. And I'm sure some supporters, too. But I'm owned by God. I'm trying to do His will, not calculate what sells and what doesn't. And to my dying breath, I want that to be. Another program powered by the Truth Network.