Dr. Brown Takes Your Toughest Questions

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. Well, let's do it. You've got questions. We've got answers.

Phone lines are wide open. 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 Line of Fire today. You've got questions. We've got answers.

That is our entire agenda and plan for the program today. Any subject that you want to talk to me about on any level, as long as it relates in any way to the Line of Fire. If I've ever written anything about it, if I've ever said anything about it, if it ties in with something I've talked to a guest about, if it's something you heard regarding me, you want to clarify if it's true or not. 866-34-TRUTH, 866-348-7884 is the number to call.

Going to the phones momentarily. I just have this one thing on my heart I want to share with you. It's always true, but I just feel prompted to share it in particular now. If God is for you, who can be against you? If you know that you know that you are in right relationship with God and to the best of your knowledge, you are not walking in willful disobedience to his commands. To the best of your knowledge, you are seeking to live under the lordship of Jesus and you are in right relationship with God through his son. If God is for you, who can be against you? It's better to have all the armies of the world against you, all of the forces of the media against you, all the the forces of government against you, every bank against you, every person against you, every educational institution against you, every everything against you and God for you, then everything else in the universe for you and God against you. If God is for you, rejoice. Everything will work out for his purposes and to your ultimate good. 866-34-TRUTH. We'll start with Todd in North Carolina. Welcome, sir, to the line of fire.

Thank you, Dr. Brown. Recently, I was reading in 1 Kings, Chapter 20 and in verses 31 and 32, it speaks about the representatives of Ben-Hebab, King of Syria, coming to negotiate peace with King Ahab. And it mentions that they came with ropes on their heads and sackcloth. I understand about sackcloth, but what's the significance about these men having ropes on their heads? Yeah, it's just a mourning custom. In other words, it's an unusual one. It's not one that we hear about. So let's just say that we never read about this anywhere else in the entire ancient world, except here, we deduce from here that it had to do with some kind of mourning. And, yeah, so again, it's not the normal thing like sackcloth and ashes you read about a lot in scripture, and to this day there are religious groups where people wear sackcloth to make their body uncomfortable, to mortify the flesh or to suffer for their sins, et cetera. But, yeah, just a less common form, but nonetheless, another form of mourning and humbling oneself.

That's simple. Well, thank you very much. Like I say, it's just very unusual to read about it. There are several things through the years I've spoken to you about. Things will just reach out to you when you read a particular verse. You can read them several times over.

And it's like all of a sudden something will just reach out and grab. Oh, yeah, like I said, just that particular deal did. So I was very curious about it. So I appreciate your answer.

Yeah, sure thing. And stay on. Keep listening through the broadcast, as I trust that you do with our great stations in North Carolina. And I'll give you a little bit more info later in the broadcast. But thank you for the call.

Hey, shout out to everyone in Lynchburg, Virginia, listening on our new FM station there, 93.7 FM in Lynchburg. If that's you, give me a give me a thumbs up now. All right. Great. OK, back to the phones. Let's go to Canada in Toronto. Nick, you're on the line of fire.

Hi, Dr. Brown. I want to know your opinion, your thoughts. Why didn't Jesus, after he was resurrected, stick around like, you know, for a few years and show himself to like a lot of people, leaders, that type of thing?

Yeah, it's a fair question. But the whole reason he died for our sins and then rose from the dead was that was the culmination of his mission. And then his goal was to leave here and impart the work to the disciples.

So in the period between Passover and Pentecost, the feast of Passover, the Feast of Weeks, that was 40 days to be with them, to teach, instruct, solidify their faith. And then the whole goal was that he's out of here. And now by the Spirit, his work is done through a multitude of different people around the world. Remember what he said to his disciples?

It's better that I leave because the counselor, the Spirit of Truth, will come and he will testify on my behalf. So rather than being limited to one place and one time, the Spirit working through the disciples could now be all around the world working perpetually and giving further proof to the resurrection. Because in his name, miracles were happening. In his name, demons were leaving. In his name, people were being set free. So this was his way of demonstrating his resurrection. And in point of fact, he didn't make all kinds of public appearances.

Right? He didn't go around to the general public. He didn't go back to the religious leaders and say, all right, you see, look at this. So that was never his method. And in fact, in many cases, all that would have brought was more rejection and people try to kill his resurrected body. Instead, he made sure the disciples were prepared and then he got out of here because that was the whole purpose. He finished his mission. Now he turned it over to us.

Does that make sense? Great. One more question, a similar one. Why didn't God put angels around the Garden of Eden? And does that make him liable because he didn't protect Adam and Eve? No. From Lucifer?

No, no. He gave them absolute freedom of choice and a perfect environment. And they completely of their own free will chose to do what was wrong. So the fact of the matter is, if God put them in an environment where they could never freely make a decision, freely choose whether they were going to do what was right or do what was wrong, then there never would have been the love that God was looking for. It would just be like a child is born and you give them surgery, operate on their brain a certain way so they can only do good things and submit, they can't do bad things. I'm not saying that's possible, but it would be that same mentality. Well, why does God give us free will at all?

Because we make so many bad choices because love cannot be coerced. And that's the whole thing we must freely say in response to his grace. Lord, I want to follow you. I need your help, but I want to follow you.

Those are the ones he's going to be with forever and ever. Hey, Nick, thank you for the questions. I really appreciate it. 866-34-TRUTH. Let's go to Howard in Greensboro, North Carolina. Welcome to the Line of Fire.

Good afternoon, Dr. Brown. I have a question about the term that's used for people who are explaining the Gospel, and that is teaching or talking in apologetics, and with reference to where the state of Christianity is in the United States right now. So if they're explaining the Gospel, and words matter, I mean, the usage of words, their definitions, and all that kind of stuff. So if a person is an apologetic, they're coming at it from a standpoint of having to apologize for Christ before they even start to explain anything. Yeah, but that's not what the word means, though. Apologetics and apologists does not mean that.

It's not an apologizer. It comes from the Greek word apologia, which is defense. It is the defense of the faith. It's a biblical word. Paul says in Philippians one that he's in prison for the apologia of the faith. And 1 Peter 3. 15, we're all told to be ready to give an apologia a defense of the faith. And we don't go around.

Here's the other thing, Howard. We don't go around to the world and say, hey, we're apologists. We talk to people. In other words, if my friend Dr. Frank Turek was talking to somebody in an airplane, he wouldn't say, oh, I'm a Christian apologist, as that person was explaining why they don't believe in God. Frank would give them reasons to believe in God. Or if you were talking to William Lane Craig, I don't think he'd say, oh, I'm an apologist. He'd probably say, I'm a philosophy professor and you're asking some really good questions about the problem of evil, here's how I would address those. So we are identified as apologists. But when I'm talking to a Jewish person, I don't say, oh, by the way, I'm an apologist, I say, I'm a Jewish believer in Jesus. And, oh, we don't believe that.

Okay, well, why? Let's talk about it. So it's a term that we use in house. That means the defense of the faith. There's nothing we apologize for.

Quite the contrary. We go on the offense to explain why what we believe is true and real and right. But it's a good, biblical word. Apologia, the defense of the faith.

That's what we're engaged in. Okay, then it was my misinterpretation of the word and thank you. But I guess to carry that on the next step, you had a gentleman on Tuesday or something like that that was trying to, he was breaking down believing in Christ into a very analytical and trying to define it from a science standpoint, I guess is how I saw him speaking. And I guess I have a problem with kind of people who have to do that when you look at what Jesus said about how the mentality you should have when you're coming to him.

And that is of a child. And in Romans, one of the big things about Romans 1 is how the Corinthians were very analytical from a humanistic standpoint, instead of from a biblical, instead of being from a biblical standpoint. And I guess I see people like that gentleman you had on earlier this week, is he will never find it because he's only looking at it from a humanistic perspective. So Howard, I really appreciate your perspective.

He's not looking at it through the eyes of worldly wisdom at all. You're talking about Professor Jonathan McClatchy. He is a believer in Jesus, born again, loves the Lord, understands the Gospel and can share the simplicity of the Gospel. And he is a scientist who is in awe of God's creation. David said in Psalm 139, we're fearfully and wonderfully made. Paul said in Romans 1 that the whole world is without excuse and that God has made himself known through creation. So Jonathan is studying creation. And the Bible says that in our understanding, we should be mature adults.

So, yes, Coward, absolutely. The simplicity of the Gospel coming to God by faith is always at the heart of things. But God doesn't want us to turn our brains off. We're to love him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. And some of the greatest intellects in the world study the writings of Paul and the books of Job and try to translate them better and communicate them better.

So it's both and. It is not the wisdom of the world. It's rather saying, hey, look at the cell. Look at how God designed the cell. Are you going to tell me that that just happened?

You're not going to say that was the hand of God? So that's how we're approaching it. But, Howard, thank you for getting clarification.

I appreciate it. 866-342. By the way, this doesn't only happen Friday, but we get some phone lines open. Call right now and you'll get on the show today. It's The Line of Fire with your host, Dr. Michael Brown. Get on The Line of Fire by calling 866-342. Here again is Dr. Michael Brown. Thank you so much for joining us on The Line of Fire. I was just enjoying listening to Skilly again.

Yeah, I know the same song every day, but I love hearing it. 866-348-7884. This is your day to ask any question under the sun. By the way, we always, always, always invite critics, skeptics, mockers to call, almost never do.

So they want to give platform to those who differ with you. If you call, we'll give you the same platform we give everybody else. And remember, you don't want to miss my emails because every single week I'm writing normally five new articles on cutting edge issues. We're putting out brand new videos on cutting edge issues. You won't miss any. You'll know you'll get an update every week, latest articles, latest videos, latest new resource. We've got a book coming out September that's going to be a controversial but very important book. You'll be the first to find out about special preorders or Israel trip you would have been notified about on Monday.

So go to ask Dr. Brown, askdrbrown.org. Sign up for the emails. You don't want to miss the one. We'd love to be in regular contact with you and point you. We're here to infuse you with faith and truth and courage so you can stand strong in the Lord.

That's why we're here to see you healthy, thriving in every way for the glory of God. As we are touched, the nation will be touched. So get the emails and check out the Israel trip right on the home page.

Go to askdrbrown.org. OK, we go over to Jonathan in Iowa. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hi, Mr. Brown, thanks for taking my call. I just had a general type question about Israel. Wondering is society in Israel, is it is it considered top down, higher, hierarchical and patriarchal or is there do Israelis want to have a society that is not like that because they believe they want to move beyond that and on to something else and they believe that like hierarchy is a throwback. Like, man, I hate it.

Yeah. OK, so if you talk about. But for those that are curious, the ultra orthodox Jews, which are maybe 15 percent of the community, they're very patriarchal and very hierarchical, very much in submission to the rabbinic leaders, the larger Israeli society is tremendously egalitarian. There is not tremendous respect for authority. There's constant battles and very much equal rights for women, et cetera.

So the bulk of the society is more secular. All right. We go to Mara in Utah. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hello, Dr. Brown. Hey, I don't know quite how to phrase this, but hopefully you'll understand. So we may differ in our views, but I really respect your knowledge and as far as cultural aspects go, you know, the Old Testament. And as I study in the New Testament and reading some things and trying to take and find culture aspects really helps me understand so that I can share that with my Sunday school class. And I just was wondering if there was a book that you could recommend that I could, you know, find out more about the culture at that time. It really it really just brings the scriptures to life. So something that would give you general background on first century culture here.

Let me recommend if you want one book on this. So it's a it's a good sized book, but it's broken down for every verse that it comments on the New Testament. So the author is Craig Keener, K-E-E-N-E-R, Craig Keener. And it's called the IVP Bible Background Commentary to the New Testament. Craig Keener, K-E-E-N-E-R, the IVP Bible Background Commentary.

So whatever verses you're looking at, you see, OK, does he comment on it? Here's the Jewish culture. Here's the Greco-Roman culture, et cetera.

So that's that. Or you can buy a Bible, the Cultural Backgrounds Bible put up by Zondervan. The Cultural Backgrounds Bible. John Walton did the Old Testament. Craig Keener did the New Testament. So that's just an actual study Bible. So it's not as much material, but it's a lot. And there you just whatever you're reading in the Bible, you can look and it'll give you background. So either the IVP Bible Background Commentary by Professor Craig Keener on the New Testament or the Cultural Backgrounds Bible, where you'll have it right within your Bible.

John Walton and Craig Keener, the editors for that. And yes, it's very important thing. We get the background better understood, then from there we can communicate.

We can apply more accurately for today. Thanks for the call. 866-344-TRUTH. We go to John. OK, I will answer John's question.

He's not on the air anymore. John wanted to know what childlike faith is like. What we mean when we speak of childlike faith. So Jesus in Matthew 18 tells his disciples that if they want to enter the kingdom, they must become like a little child. So there is an innocence about little children. There is a trust in little children. They don't know that someone is going to con them out of their candy. They don't know that people have ulterior motives.

They are innocent in terms of they're not perfect, obviously, but innocent in terms of certain evil and trusting. And that's how we come to God. Not like, well, OK, what do you what?

What you got some other thing going on here? God is like, you know, use me for something and throw me out. Or I can I really know this is real and so on. It's fine to have questions and get those questions answered. You just trust God. You believe him. You trust him with the simplicity, with the purity that is based on a solid relationship with him.

Now, you may have a very active mind, as I do, and your mind may be racing with a million questions. But first and foremost, there's that trust, just like just like a baby laying in its mother's arms and being rocked to sleep. OK, I secure a trust. And from that place, your questions will get answers.

Your mind will get fulfilled as well. But it starts with that simple foundational trust. All right, with that, let's go over to Anthony in Sacramento, California. Welcome to the line of fire. Hey, Dr. Brown, thanks so much for taking the call. Sure.

My yeah, my question is this. So I'm a Presbyterian. I'm in seminary trying to be a pastor. And yet I'm a weird Presbyterian because I believe Israel has not been replaced or filled. I think there's still the chosen people, a nation of God. The land is so significant. And I'm reading in Acts twenty one, fifteen through twenty six, where Paul goes back to the Jerusalem church and he's speaking to the elders and the elders say, hey, look at all these thousands of Jewish men who have believed in Yeshua and they're even more jealous for the law.

So right there I was like, oh, OK, this is different. OK, so they're still obeying the law and customs. And they basically say, hey, there are there's rumors, Paul, of you telling the Jews among the Gentiles not to circumcise. But we know that's not true about you, that you yourself observe the Torah. Therefore, make the sacrifice and all this jazz. Now, as a pedobaptist, as a pedobaptist, right, one of the biggest arguments for pedobaptism is baptism replaces, replaces circumcision or fulfills it.

But looking at that text, I want to be as honest as possible with the word. And if that goes against my system of theology, I would rather change my system or change my interpretation of certain things, then try to twist the Bible to say something that doesn't. So it seems like, OK, I'm reading and I was talking to my wife and I'm like, it does not seem that these Jewish Christians, including the apostles, believed baptism replaced circumcision or fulfilled it. And if that's the case, then that's a big blow to infant baptism. And I want to get your thoughts on that.

Am I am I missing something here? No, I number one, I agree with you. I hold to believer baptism. So I agree with your observation. It's not something that many deduced from that text, but it's a right deduction.

And let's let's let's back this up a little bit. So we start with the the baptism of John and these Jewish men and women who were getting baptized, were getting immersed that had nothing to do with replacing circumcision, right? In other words, that was a repentance.

Right. And ritual immersion was commonly practiced in the ancient Jewish world for a number of different purposes. Some groups would richly immerse every morning. Others would do it only in times of uncleanness or before temple worship. But it was a rite of repentance that became more widely established. So then when when Jesus gives the Great Commission and when when we're to teach all nations and those who believe in and are baptized will be saved, now we see it beginning to be carried out.

Acts, the second chapter beginning in the 38th verse. And there again, it's all Jews getting immersed, repent and be baptized. Right. So it's all Jews getting immersed. So they understood that this is a repentance.

Right. And marking of a new beginning. But obviously it had no connection to circumcision. And then when you have in the book of Galatians that the Galatians who were already water baptized, thought that in order to be fully right with God, they had to be circumcised and obey the law of Moses. That would indicate also that those were not looked at as synonymous because Paul could have just said to them, hey, you're already baptized.

Why do you need circumcision? But he said, no, no certain decision now, if you're going to go through that right, that brings you under obligation to keep the law. So obviously the first Jewish believers did not make that connection at all. It's a great deduction. And hey, you got to follow the truth where it leads.

One last thing. Go back to the Presbyterians of the eighteen hundreds, like Robert Murray McShane, like Horatius and Andrew Bonar. These are some of the greatest lovers of Israel in church history. So there's a rich Presbyterian history. The Puritans go back to John Owen, go back to Samuel Rutherford.

They were great lovers of Israel. Thank you, sir. May the Lord guide you in your studies. So 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. What a joy to be with you, taking your calls on the line of fire. Eight six six three four eight seven eight eight four. Let us go to Marianne in front. Royal Virginia, welcome to the line of fire. Are you there, Marianne? OK, hello. All right, hang on, hang on. Looks like we got you. Go ahead, Marianne. You're on the air. Sorry about that. I was on the air.

Yeah, I was just calling. I was wondering about the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church and what your view is on both of these churches claiming that first off, Peter was a pope and the Eastern Orthodox claims, you know, other things about the apostles. What's your view on that? So my view, as someone who is not a member of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church, is that while there are many beautiful traditions that are preserved and that there is a richness in much of the heritage, some of the scriptural interpretation, the good that's been done through these these branches of Christianity, that some of the things that have developed are very much contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, like making Peter into the first pope or thinking that there would have been any notion whatsoever of him as one of the early apostles, as the Holy Father or the Vicar of Christ. I think the early church would have been shocked at the hierarchy that developed by the amount of tradition that now went side by side with scripture, because these were Jewish men who did not follow the Jewish tradition of their day, but rather what was written and the person of Jesus, especially in Roman Catholic circles. I think the early believers would be shocked by the exaltation of Mary, by the priests being required to be celibate and things like that. I think these things would would be very surprising and shocking to them, as well as the church being somewhat of its own kingdom, you know, with its own military and massive economy and things like that. I think that, and again, this especially the military and own kingdom, things especially relevant to Roman Catholics. So while appreciation for the good that's there and by recognizing there are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters that will be with forever, I do believe that the earliest believers would have been quite shocked to see some of what developed. Now, they would have been shocked to see some things that developed in evangelical Protestant circles as well. But as you asked specifically about this, that's my answer.

So again, it's not that I write everything off. That would be obscurantist and that would be small minded. I appreciate, as I said, many of the traditions and many of the insights and and good that's been done in the name of Jesus through Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians over the centuries, but then in many, many ways I would strongly differ, which is why I'm not either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. And I would, that being said, the icons in both the the images, even though people say, well, we're not actually worshipping them, it's what they represent. That, I believe, would have really surprised the first believers as well.

Yeah, and my question about that was also like, where do they get the veneration of Mary? To be honest, I really never found anything besides the angel saying, hello, Mary, I don't think you really meant, you know, Hail Mary. In Latin, the word salve means greetings or hello. Yeah, yeah, no, it's definitely a greeting.

It's definitely a greeting. There was, Mary, there was a Catholic caller that we had for years listening from New York City. I think it was Frank from Staten Island, if I remember. And he was a real New Yorker, talk like a New Yorker. So that's where it came from.

You know, I kind of enjoyed that. But he was a devout Catholic, loved the show, listened regularly. And he would call in periodically to say, hey, you're misunderstanding what we believe is Catholics.

And then would weigh in. I remember the day he called in and gave an argument for the exaltation of Mary in scripture. And frankly, it shocked me in terms of, wow. I mean, just like you had the ark, you had Mary represented the ark and all these different things. Now, it was very rich in terms of lots of thought behind it and present it in an eloquent way. But to me, it's like, wow, you've got to read that in. It's not self-evident. And the degree of certainly Mary is honored as the centuries go on. But the degree of veneration that grows over a period of time. But the idea of her being called Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, with all respect to my Roman Catholic friends, I found those terms unbiblical and offensive.

Yes, yes, very much. And also, you know, when I also heard they make, you know, exorcisms in the name of Jesus, but they also use this prayer saying Hail Mary, the Hail Mary prayer. And it's always got me wondering, why do they use that prayer? Does it work, you know, in their exorcisms?

Well, in their minds, they would say it works. Obviously, demons are not going to flee at the name of Mary. Their view would be that Mary is making intercession. In other words, that just like I say, Hey, Mary, could you pray for me?

I've got a doctor's appointment tomorrow. I'm praying everything will go well. Or, Hey, could you pray for my grandson?

He's going to be doing this. So we ask people to pray. So that would be the view that we still do that. We ask Mary to intercede for us.

So we ask Peter to intercede for us. Of course, I reject that viewpoint. Yeah, but basically, I guess. Oh, sorry.

No, go ahead. Yeah. So basically, I guess there's what they're saying is, you know, Mary, can you tell Jesus to take the demon out?

That's what they're probably saying. I never really understood the whole concept of Hail Mary in the beginning. Yeah, but I mean, that's that's part of it. And then part of it is just whatever authority Mary has. I'm not the one to represent a Roman Catholic exorcist here and explain the methodology, but if the name of Jesus is invoked and demons leave, I rejoice. If other names were invoked unnecessarily, that's confusing to people.

But let Jesus be exalted. Hey, thank you for the call. I appreciate it. It's six, six, three, four truth. Let's go to Paul in Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome to the line of fire.

Hi, Dr. Brown, thank you so much for taking my call. I'm very new to the entire charismatic Pentecostal movement, but I am very interested in how the Holy Spirit works through the movement. And I grew up hearing that women were not supposed to become pastors, being quoted, first committed to and stuff. And then pre-tribulation rapture was the biblical thing.

But now I tend to shift differently from the position that I was taught when I was growing up on both issues. So but then I wonder your views on both of them, the rapture and the women pastors. But more importantly, I really am desperate for your advice on what seminary that I could find, because I am a Korean, I'm South Korean and I want to see the two Koreas reunite and go back home. And, you know, God willing, I want to really be used to build good churches that where the scripture meets the spirit, not just for one or the other, and I've been to two different conservative seminaries here in the States, but I felt like it was really dry and dead and it was just merely mainly just on head knowledge. So I really want to find a seminary that is both spirit and scripture filled, so I really am desperate for advice.

Yes. Wonderful, Paul. Well, I appreciate the call and the search, the belief about about women in ministry, that's you'll find a lot more variation on that in Charismatic Pentecostal circles than you will say in Southern Baptist circles. As far as pre-trib rapture, many, many Charismatic Pentecostals hold to it.

I don't. I was saved in that environment, held to it the first few years as a believer, but then study of scripture and became convinced it was not true. So if you want to study a book, Professor Craig Keener and I, we're both Charismatics and scholars, not afraid of the Antichrist. Why we don't believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, not afraid of the Antichrist, why we don't believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. So that's that's where we lay things out, not attacking others. We recognize their differences in the body. We honor those who differ.

But that's where we tackle those issues together. So we do not believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. We don't divide over it, but we absolutely do not believe in it. When it comes to women in ministry, Craig believes that it's completely egalitarian in scripture, that the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2 is in a certain context for certain reasons, but that because there is no male or female in Christ, if you look in Romans 16, there's a long list of Paul's coworkers, many of whom are women, some of his cherished coworkers in Philippians 4 are women. Psalm 68 says that the word of God gives the proclamation and many of the female in Hebrew are the women who go and proclaim his word.

So Craig would say equality there. My view is that the governmental authority has been given to men, just like the husband is the godly leader of the home, that primarily men should be pastors and senior leaders. However, God does raise up women for certain purposes, just like he raises us up and we have imperfect doctrinal knowledge.

None of us have fully arrived. So he does use us in situations that are not always ideal. So I believe the norm is the senior pastor leader. The norm would be male, but women can do all kinds of ministry preaching, teaching, ministry of every kind. The first Timothy to the prohibition, as I understand it, is to usurp authority and teach, not to say women can't teach, because we know in 1 Corinthians 11 that women can prophesy. We know that Priscilla's name is mentioned normally before Aquila in the New Testament, and the two of them, disciple Apollos, enacts the the 18th chapter, and we know that that in Titus, Paul instructs the older women to teach the younger women. So if they can't teach because they're so easily deceived, then why are the older women teaching the younger women?

That's going to get everybody deceived. OK, last thing, as far as a seminary, you might want to look at Regent University School of Divinity, Regent University School of Divinity. You may search for the Global Awakening School of Theology. I'm doing some Ph.D. classes for Randy Clark, God willing, in November. Global Awakening School of Theology. So Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Global Awakening School of Theology with a lot of online work and classes in Pennsylvania, I believe, and then the King's University in Dallas, Texas, the King's University, where I've served as an adjunct as well.

So keep pressing in. May the Lord bring you into the fullness of the word and spirit together. That's biblical. That's absolutely biblical.

God bless Paul. Thank you 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 Line of Fire. Oh, I wish I could get to every single call, but let's give it a shot. Let's see how many we can get to.

We'll start with John in Richmond, Virginia. Welcome to The Line of Fire. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Very well. Okay, good.

Thanks for having me. Sure. I was doing a study on idolatry.

And I came across the golden calf. I just had a couple of questions about it. Yeah. So it sounds like, are they trying to make an idol of God?

Number one. And number two, if that's what they're doing, what do they refer to it in the plural? I know in other passages like Nehemiah, it refers to it as singular. But since I was reading Exodus 32, they call it the God, then they later call it it was the Lord. So that's pretty much my question. Yes, John.

Great questions. It does seem that they are making images of the Lord, of Yahweh. In other words, they're making him in the image of a golden calf. And different gods in the ancient Near East were depicted as animals, bulls and things like this or winged creatures. So this was nothing unusual.

And this is what God had explicitly said. You saw no image. You saw no image. Don't make an image. Don't make an image. Don't make an image of God or any other being alleged God in physical form.

So that was very, very strongly taught. So in other words, they weren't saying it was a different God. They brought you out of Egypt. They were saying this is an image of Yahweh.

Go bow down at this image. Now, the reason that it's plural is because they're claiming this is the God that brought you out. So Elohim, when referring to the one God, is singular. So when it's referring to many gods, then Elohim means gods with lowercase g in the plural. If they had made 10 different idols in different forms and said, these are your gods, they would have used the same word Elohim. When they're just talking about this is an image of the one God, Elohim. That's why the plural is used there. Just the way it's used thousands of other times in the Hebrew Bible to speak of the one God. So better to translate, this is your God who brought you out of Egypt, right?

That would be better to translate in that way. Okay, thank you very much. You are very welcome. Appreciate the clear questions. Let us go over to John in Houston, Texas. Welcome to the line of fire. Yes, Dr. Brown, thank you for taking my call.

You're welcome. I have had some of my co-workers say that Paul the Apostle was a liar. And I want to hear your thoughts on that and what I can say to them to correct them on it. Well, ask them why in the world they would say that. On what basis are they making that statement? Why are they accusing him of lying? What's he lying about? Do you have any idea what they're referring to?

Well, there was a scripture that says something with Paul talking about his lies, bringing glory to God, something like that. Okay, that's that's what I thought, right? It's the opposite of what he was saying. Okay, so I'm going to read it to you. It's I actually had a rabbi actually raise that to me in a debate years ago.

I thought, are you serious? So so here's here's what he says. He's talking about how our sin exposes God's righteousness, like our being evil helps us realize, wow, how opposite God is, OK? So in other words, when I sin and God judges me, it's like, wow, that showed how right he is because I got the punishment that I deserve. So he says, but if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? I speak in a way, in other words, if my doing evil brings an occasion for God to judge me, I could say, well, you shouldn't judge me now because I'm just making you look good by judging me.

I say that's a stupid argument. So Paul's saying stupid is by no means for then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie, God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner and why not do evil that good may come? As some people slanderously charge us with saying their condemnation is just. In other words, Paul, our people are accusing Paul of lying to show how truthful God is, and he says, hey, what if that's the case? He goes, that's a lie. We never said that.

People are lying about us. I want to read it to you in a different translation. That'll bring it out a little more clearly.

But so you can look it up afterwards. It's in Romans, the third chapter. OK, Romans chapter three.

And Paul is being falsely accused. I just want to read it to you. Let's say the the New Living Translation to bring it out. So it's Romans chapter three.

And I'm going to read it to you from the New Living Translation. And it's brought out even clearly here. But some might say our sinfulness serves a good purpose, for it helps people see how righteous God is. Isn't it unfair then for him to punish us? Paul says this is a merely human point of view.

And he says, of course not. If God were not entirely fair, how would he be able to judge the world? But someone might still argue, how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory? Paul says, and some people even slanders by claiming that we say the more we sin, the better it is. And Paul says, those who say such things deserve to be condemned. So Paul, what they're saying is that people are wrongly accusing us of saying, hey, the more we lie, the more it shows how truthful God is. Paul says, God forbid, that's slander.

We would never think like that. So just show them what it says in context. Read it through in a few different versions.

Go to Bible Gateway dot com, read it through in a few different versions. And then they'll see that he's saying, people are lying about us claiming we take that position. He goes, no, the opposite.

God forbid. So hopefully, if they have any integrity, they'll recognize it. If not, then you can't argue with them because they're not they're not willing to hear the evidence.

All right. And one other argument they said was that Paul changed his story when he was talking about his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And some of these said the other people who with me heard me and some others that I didn't hear him. What is your thoughts on that? So it's in Acts nine, Acts twenty two and Acts twenty six, where the first story occurs in Acts nine. Then he repeats it in Acts twenty two and he repeats it in Acts twenty six. It's just a misunderstanding of the Greek. Read it in the NIV and you'll see it. It's all reconciled.

It's simply a misunderstanding of how to translate the Greek. But he tells the same story three times. He just adds a little detail here and there, but same story three times. So check out.

Here's when it happens in Acts nine, then Acts twenty two, then Acts twenty six, and then read them all in the NIV and you'll see there's perfect harmony between them. Okay. And what I told him was that if something happens to you, you have some experience and you tell one story to one person. And then two weeks later, they have the same stories. And I guess it's not going to be word for word saying you're exactly right.

Highlight certain areas and omit others. You're given the story about what is most important at the time to the person that you're speaking to. You're one hundred percent right. One hundred percent right.

In fact, if you repeat it exactly the same, if if four different witnesses give the exact same report of the crime scene, the investigators question it, it's like you must have gotten together on this. And you're right. Also, depending who you're talking to, you're going to emphasize a certain point, but you won't blatantly contradict. That's what they're claiming, that it's a blatant contradiction. You gave the perfect right common sense answer and there is no actual contradiction. It's simply a matter of rightly understanding a couple of Greek words.

And sometimes they were translated differently, but there's no need to do that. Hey, thank you, John, for the questions. All right, let's go to Will in Virginia. The time is short, so dove right in, please. Hello, Dr. Brown. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. So I'm so glad you took my call.

Thank you very much. I know you're not a cessationist and neither am I. I was curious how you view the baptism of fire, given a few things that I find hard to navigate, so is it separate from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers? For instance, in Romans eight, verse nine, it says if a man doesn't have the spirit of Christ, he's not off Christ. And then another question, another big question, is it a prerequisite for salvation or do we view it the same way as baptism in water? But in Luke 11, Jesus seemed to indicate that one has to ask for the Holy Spirit.

Yes. And then he breathed the Holy Spirit over his disciples before Pentecost, and then he says you'll be endued with power. So somehow there is a power aspect to this.

Exactly. And then we read that the baptism of fire in the Book of Acts was given by the laying on of hands. Now we know the Holy Spirit is also God. So it's omnipotent and omnipresent and so forth. It works even in nonbelievers. But how do you reconcile all these different viewpoints? All right, I'm going to interrupt that.

Yeah, I'm going to interrupt because I have a minute left. Yes, Luke eleven thirteen asked for the Holy Spirit. Yes, Matthew three eleven. Jesus references the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, which I understand is one of the same. Yes, Luke twenty four forty nine, Acts one eight, we receive power with the Holy Spirit. So number one, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at salvation. The moment we are saved, we're indwelt by the Spirit.

We have the Spirit. We become temples of the Holy Spirit. The general charismatic belief is that from there the Holy Spirit works to empower us through gifts and things like that. The Pentecostal belief, which is what I've held to, is that the baptism in the Spirit is something subsequent that is an enduement with power from on high for the sake of being empowered to witness.

It is not a salvation issue. It is post salvation. It can happen at the same time as salvation, like Acts ten with Cornelius and those listening to the message of Peter. But it is generally taken as an enduement with power subsequent to salvation, also with the fire, the purging fire of the Holy Spirit. So the moment we're saved, the Holy Spirit lives in us. We can grieve the Spirit. We can be led by the Spirit. But there is a subsequent empowerment for the baptism in the Spirit. That's how we understand this Pentecostals. That is an enduement with gifts and power to make us more effective witnesses. However we come at it, let us all arrive at that same place, a full enduement of power with the glory of Jesus name. God bless friends. We're out of time. Another program powered by the Truth Network.