Hello, we're live. This is Patrick Hines. I am the pastor of brittle heights, Presbyterian church. Uh, happy to be doing another live program and to be alive, to do it. Um, just had a birthday. That was, uh, is that, yeah, no, two, two days ago. And, um, people have been like, sorry, are you, did you reach the big five? Oh, I said, yep, I did. Barely. Um, thankfully to, to, uh, tech, modern technology and, uh, stents, uh, I made it to 50. barely. So I want to try to redeem the time I have, uh, and a fellow sent in an email and, uh, it was a good email. It was a good email. He said he grew up non-denominational. He was taught, you know, accept Jesus into your heart, things like that. And, uh, you know, until he said he was, uh, had kind of a somewhat his own words, a shallow faith, never, never challenged until my brother introduced me to you. So he, um, I started listening, and my thing is I've learned a lot over the years. Thankfully, I'm very, very, very thankful for where I was raised and the Evangelical Free Church. It was a very sound, good church. It still is a good church. I've learned a lot in my Christian life from reading good theologians and good commentators and some bad ones, too, and have had to uh, unlearn certain things and relearn certain things and learn certain things for the first time. And it's been a great joy to be able to help people understand stuff that I struggled to understand myself long ago and some things I've learned recently. So, but anyway, there was a number of questions here and I actually, I put together eight pages of notes. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get through all these, but I want to go ahead and jump right into it here. Matthew five 31 to 32. Let me pull that up. Uh, I didn't even fire up accordance yet. Look at that. I thought he had put the text in the, the, into the, um, email and he did not. So let me, uh, pull up accordance, you know, for years and years and years, it was always Bible works, but now it's just, uh, accordance and I'm still getting the hang of accordance. It's pretty nifty. It's a pretty cool. I do miss Bible works because I use Bible works for like 25 years, you know, and I was very, very, very used to it. So okay, the New American Standard, 1995 edition, Matthew 5, 31 and 32. It was said, this is Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount, it was said, whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce. That's quoting from Deuteronomy. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. So this fellow is asking, um, um, At the end it says not to marry a woman who has been divorced. The implied context there is divorced for an unbiblical reason. So if a woman was divorced and did not have grounds to do it, and there really are only really three grounds for, actually it's not divorce, but to be able to remarry. If your spouse dies, obviously you can remarry. If they commit adultery against you, some form of sexual immorality against you, you can sue out a divorce. Or if they desert you, if they divorce you, uh, and leave you, uh, then you're free to remarry. Okay. So that's the first question there. Um, let's see. Uh, while taking communion, is the flesh and blood symbolic or literal? Um, good question. And I should just watch Jason Wallace, uh, ancient paths TV with that. That is a great YouTube channel. Um, they did a video on the Lutheran. Luther's understanding of the Lord's Supper and C.F.W. Walther, who was the founder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Pretty, pretty weird stuff. I mean, it's like, if you don't believe it's literally Jesus's body and blood, then you're like seven times worse than a papist or something like that. I'm like, what in the world? Like why? In, with, and under. What in the world does that mean? And then he played clips from Jordan Cooper, who's a Lutheran YouTube fella. And he's going through the passages, and this is literally his body and blood. And I'm thinking, if it's literally his body and blood, like literally, then why don't you worship it? Oh no, we would never do that because it's not literally literally. So it's literally, but not literally literally. Okay, so the biblical teaching on the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is that we take bread and wine in the mouth and Christ in our hearts, really and truly. really and truly Christ in our hearts. He is spiritually present with us by faith, and what's amazing to me is that historically, if you look at the history of Christian thought and the history of Christian theology, Philip Schaff and I think William Cunningham I think also touches on this, Augustine's doctrine of the ascension of Christ, that Jesus is in heaven and the Christian church is now deprived of his physical presence, his understanding of that and his very much non-physical understanding of the Lord's Supper. It took eight centuries for that to be overcome, for the Romanist idea of transubstantiation to try to start gaining ground. And that's why transubstantiation is not defined formally as a dogma of the Roman Catholic religion until the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. And so scholars of Christian thought know Augustine's doctrine of the ascension of Christ and that the church is deprived of his physical presence and that the Lord's Supper is not physical or corporeal or carnal or anything like that. He's not physically, literally there, but by faith we are partakers of his body and blood. That influence took a very long time in church history to overcome in order for the Roman Catholic, and I would maintain the Lutheran, concepts to be overcome. You'll often hear Lutherans cite from polemics in the early church by Ignatius of Antioch against Proto-Gnosticism, where they say, they don't confess the bread to be the flesh of Christ, they don't confess the wine to be the flesh of Christ, as if that's referring to the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence of Christ, or the Roman Catholic doctrine. Ignatius is combating Proto-Gnosticism, but he's not really addressing directly the elements of the Lord's Supper. He's talking about what they represent, because the Gnostics did not believe that Jesus really was physical, that he had flesh and blood. And so it's amazing to me to hear Roman Catholics, and now Lutherans, citing Ignatius as if he's a proof text for their understanding that Jesus Christ is literally present in the Lord's Supper. Point number five of chapter 29 of the Westminster Confession, paragraphs five and six are really good. I would encourage you to look at paragraph five and six of the Westminster Confession, chapter 29 of the Lord's Supper, which read as follows. The outward elements in this sacrament duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ have such relation to him crucified as that truly, yet sacramentally only, They are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ. And I'll tell you, it is truly bizarre to hear people say, he says, this is my body, this is my blood. Well, it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate precisely what you think he means by that if you're saying, well, he's literally saying this. I mean, because in Genesis 17, 10, 11, God calls circumcision my covenant. This is my covenant. So circumcision is a covenant? No, it's not a covenant. It's a sign of a covenant. Same thing with the bread and the wine. It's not literally, physically, corporeally, or carnally His body and blood. If it was, we would need to worship it. I think there's a glowing inconsistency there with the Lutherans. They want to insist, we take it literally. We tell you, you guys don't take this for what it says, just face value. Well, Jesus said, I am the door. Jesus said, I am the bread. I am the good shepherd. I am the vine. using, you know, the same equitive verb. Does that mean he's literally a hunk of wood with hinges or a plant? Of course not. Oh, you just don't take Scripture seriously. Folks, that's not how you do biblical interpretation. And I would challenge, you know, Lutheran, what does Genesis 17.10 mean when he says about circumcision, this is my covenant? Let's take him literally. Circumcision is his covenant. No, it's not. It's a sign of his covenant. The very next verse even says that. It goes on here, the Westminster Confession, albeit in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before. Point number six, the doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, or by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason. overthrows the nature of the sacrament and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries." And then point seven, "...worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporeally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ, crucified, and all benefits of his death." In other words, If you looked in their stomach after they eat the bread and drink the wine, you're not going to find blood cells in there. It doesn't actually turn into its blood. That's RH-typeable. You're not going to have skin cells or bone cells or muscle cells in your stomach. And you would think, listening to these people talk, that they actually think that. Now, Rome doesn't think that because they think that the Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance Evidently apply here. So it's actually physically literally really truly just bread and wine but the substance underneath it, which is unseeable unverifiable on Undetectable by senses actually changed into Jesus Christ body soul blood and divinity which is really nothing like a biblical miracle. Biblical miracles were, you could actually see them, like a serpent, the staff of Moses turning into a serpent, someone with congenital blindness being healed, and people who had lifelong paralysis being healed. Miracles in Scripture are verifiable, but the Mass is not even, you can't even see it. Okay. The body and blood of Christ being then not corporeally or carnally, in, with, or under, that's a direct shot at the Lutheran doctrine, under the bread and wine, yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. Okay, so there is a sacramental union, and it's a real union. I believe in the real presence of Christ. I believe in the real presence of Christ. The early church did too, and they did not need to believe that Jesus was in, with, and under the bread, or that the substance had been transubstantiated into Jesus Christ, body, soul, blood, and divinity for Him to be really present with them. It is a spiritual presence embraced and apprehended by faith. Okay, you believe those words of institution. God strengthens our faith in Christ through the Lord's Supper, through those elements, through bread and wine. It's mysterious. It is a mystery how He does this. Okay, next question. When there is a new heaven and a new earth, what will that look like? I don't know. I'm not sure. I think it's going to be spectacular. I do think that if all of the animal and plant kinds that were part of the original creation are there, most of what we see, we won't recognize because most kinds of animals are extinct. Most most plants are extinct too. I think He then asks is the earth like the earth now with day and night plants and animals, but without sin I think so because there was day and night before Um the fall and then he asked one more question if so, is there death now? Soulless creatures the nefesh kaya will not die the animals and humans will never die and the new heavens in the new earth If not, what is the point of there being a new heaven? I'm wondering if this guy's asking it because he's been influenced by hugh ross Because Hugh Ross thinks that the only thing affected by the fall was Adam. Everything else in creation was dying, getting cancer, getting disease and everything else. And it's a bizarre position. I just listened to the debate that Terry Mortensen did with Hugh Ross on YouTube. It was a very good debate. I think Mortensen annihilated him with scripture, but that's just me. Okay. Real quick before I move into the next session, because this is going to be a little bit longer answer. Let me see who's over here real quick. There's Julia falling. Howdy there. Yeah. Interesting topics. We're doing pulpery today. Um, there's Robert Vogler from PA. Um, yeah, you've used accordance has been around since 2003. Wow. I didn't realize that I've been, I learned how to use Bible works early on. And I, the PF shortcut keys, I can like fly through Bible works. And now with accordance, I'm having to like learn everything that's taken forever. Oh, so we're aren't going to pray to Mary. No, we are not praying to Mary, not here. For Harrison, all I'm getting is soundbite. Yeah, I've got some good Mary quotes for you. So stick around. You're going to, you're going to want to hear that, uh, hear that one. I heard James say, this is this in his video after the debate last weekend. Oh, funny. James white there. Susan Kassman. Howdy there. Uh, Tim Manson hyperbole, like poke your eye out and cut off your hand. What, what is the title of this? I can't even remember what I called it. Okay. I must've called it something. Provocative that's okay. That's good. Whatever gets people in here. There are 33 people watching this right now That's pretty amazing to me 33 people. I wish all of you would like just put something over there in the chat So I can see yeah, I like the lighting. I want to find a way to get this I went to an antique store and found this cool lamp. Look at this thing. This is a Himalaya a Himalaya Salt lamp. So look at that. It's like making me turn red I've got to get away to like get this like in the background or something. It looks like I'm holding a ball of fire anyway It actually you can actually taste it. It's real. It's real salt and my kids were like, oh you got to get that We went downtown Kingsport and we're looking at um, Oh praying to Mary's in the title. Okay? Yeah, we're not I'm not going to tell you how to do that. I'm gonna explain why it is gross idolatry to do So yeah, we're gonna talk about marriage, praying to Mary, blasphemy of the Spirit, like how to blaspheme the Spirit and how to speak in tongues. That's pretty funny. We should have put that in the title. How to pray to Mary, how to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Oh my goodness. Hey, other people are chiming in there. Hey, from Canada. No way. And someone from Canada on there, Emmanuel, from Portland, Oregon. So you're three hours off from us. So yeah. Wow. From, uh, Georgia, Georgia. Is that what that means? Kathy heart. Wow. Amazing. Well, that's very cool. I appreciate that so much. Thanks for chiming in over there. All right. I'm going to be closing the screen now. So I got to pull up some other stuff here to get to the questions. Um, Oh, wait, no, no, I can leave this up here. Okay. Here we go. Um, all right. What is speaking in tongues? Good question. Good question. All right, what is speaking in tongues? Well, the Greek term glossolalia refers to languages, okay? Not a heavenly private prayer language, but a real human language. Acts chapter 2, verse 2. Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. There appeared to them divided tongues as a fire, and one sat on each of them, And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other languages, tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. I've always wondered, if English Bibles always translated the Greek term glossos or glossolalia with the word language, so much of what passes for tongues in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches may not have ever happened. Because historically, that's what the church always knew these were. These are human languages. It's clear, these are known human languages that the speaker didn't know before. Okay. Acts chapter two, verse four, the Greek glosses, tongues, and also in Acts chapter two, verse eight, the people that heard them speaking in tongues say, how is it that we hear each in our own language in which we were born? So the people that were listening to the apostles preach were like, wow, they're speaking in our language. And that's the word dialectos, dialecto. It's a real dialect, a real human language. Okay, it is plain what this gift was, the gift of tongues. It was the ability to speak in a human language unknown to the speaker, such that people outside of them who knew the language could understand it. Okay, now what was the purpose of tongues? 1 Corinthians 14, verse 22. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers. But prophesying is not for unbelievers, but for those who believe. Okay, so continuationists interpret this to mean that that's someone who believes that people can still speak in tongues today, but they've redefined tongues to be incoherent babbling rather than human languages. But continuationists say speaking in tongues is impressive to unbelievers to witness, but Paul immediately says that's not what he's talking about. The fact that tongues were happening and that the apostles could speak in tongues, it was a sign of judgment on the Jewish people who rejected Christ. Because now, instead of confusing languages to divide people, now God is going to speak to Gentiles in Gentile languages so they can come to Christ. 1 Corinthians 14, 23. Therefore, if the whole church comes together in one place and all speak with languages, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? So what does Paul mean when he says that tongues are assigned to unbelievers? Think back to the Tower of Babel. God confused languages at the Tower of Babel. Then God speaks to one man, Abram, in one of those languages, Hebrew. But God promised in Genesis 12-3 that all the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham's seed, Christ, one day. 1 Corinthians 14-21, Paul cites this Old Testament passage from Isaiah 28-11. For with stammering lips and another tongue he will speak to this people. God sent Israel prophet after prophet But Israel would not listen. God then speaks to other nations in their own languages, languages other than Hebrew. And Isaiah was in that passage in Isaiah 28, 11. prophesying the coming Babylonian captivity where Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed, the people would be carried off by foreigners, and Paul specifically cites this prophecy from Isaiah 28 11 as an explanation for the New Testament gift of tongues. Okay, y'all tracking with me here? First Corinthians 14 21, Paul cites Isaiah 28 11. Listen, So here's the Scripture, 1 Corinthians 14, 21, "...in the law it is written," and here he cites Isaiah 28, 11, "...with men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people, and yet for all that they will not hear me," says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers. The gift of tongue was not meant to be an impressive sign to unbelieving Gentiles. It was actually a sign to unbelieving Israel that God was judging them in revealing Himself savingly to Gentiles and choosing to speak in languages other than Hebrew. It was a curse to the Jewish people who had rejected Christ. It was a blessing to the Gentiles who got to hear the gospel, and the Jews also got to hear the gospel. God was going to make one new man from the two. So instead of dividing people by confusing languages, now tongues are going to bring Jews and Gentiles together. Jews and Gentiles together. Okay. The gift of tongues, um, what, what are biblical tongues? The Greek glossolalia, uh, from two words, glossa, which means language and lalao in Greek to speak. So glossolalia, um, means speaking in languages, speaking in languages. Charismatic say, this allows for ecstatic utterances that are not languages. And well, especially once I took Greek in seminary, you look at this and you kind of realize the word means language. It's not babbling incoherently, it's a real language. Okay? The charismatics say, that means ecstatic utterances. Is that what they did in Acts chapter 2? If the people standing there couldn't understand what they were saying, they wouldn't have said, hey, we hear them speaking in our language. And then they list 16 distinct human languages in Acts chapter 2. Okay, what many Pentecostals and Charismatics today do not know is that the early Pentecostals, early Pentecostals believed speaking in tongues was known human languages. Charles Fox Parham himself said in the newspapers that now that God has restored the gift of languages, notice early Pentecostals were not continuationists. They were restorationists. They thought that the gifts had ceased for a whole big, huge, long time, and then now we're being restored. Now that God restored the gift of tongues, nobody's going to have to go to language school anymore. Now, think about this, folks. I've always wondered why charismatics don't put Wycliffe Bible translators out of business by simply using their gift of tongues to get the Bible into all the remaining languages of the world. Why are you wasting all your time trying to translate the Bible in all these languages? We have the gift of languages. Well, because they don't have the gifts of languages. The budding Pentecostal movement actually sent missionaries to foreign countries, assuming that they would be able to speak their languages, only to discover they couldn't. They all came back disappointed and dejected. The Pentecostal movement, instead of repenting of this sinful behavior, simply decided to change the definition of tongues to be incoherent babble. And that's what you see on TV, that's what I saw in the vineyard, that's what I saw at that Pentecostal church in Williamsburg, Ohio, was incoherent babble. No one was talking in real human languages. So once they realized that they didn't have the biblical gift of tongues, they just redefined it. A second category of tongues, unintelligible speech, repetitious syllables. I have found that if you repeat the names of Japanese auto manufacturers quickly, you can speak in tongues. Shoulda bought a Honda, shoulda bought a Hyundai? Toyota? Just name them all. But, you know, Kia in there? It'll sound cool. Is that speaking in tongues? No. Are there private prayer languages where people can babble incoherently to God? No. That's not taught in 1 Corinthians 14. I think I've got that here. Anyone else will address that too. The whole point of that passage in 1 Corinthians 14, It's not so you can speak directly to God and incoherent babbling. No, the point is uninterpreted tongues are useless. Because if you can't understand it, it can't edify you. Folks, you got to understand this. The gateway to your heart is your mind. Your heart cannot rejoice in what you don't understand. That's why someone sent me an email. You got to take us on a tour of your reformed library. Yeah, I got a lot of books in here. In fact, I was thinking since I'm on vacation this week, I was thinking about doing a purge. Cause there's a lot of stuff in here I'm never going to open again and I need to throw stuff away or something. But I, I have, I own thousands of books. I have many, many, many more at home. It drives my, my precious wife crazy. Every time another box of books or another book comes, you know, what are you going to do with this one? I'm like, where there's a will, there's a way you can find someplace to put. But why do I have all these books? Because I want to understand the Bible. I want to understand the Bible, because the more I understand the Bible, the more I understand the character of God, the more I understand the character of God and Jesus and what He did and how He saved us and what it is to live a godly Christian life, the more joy, the more satisfaction, the more I can be like Jesus. You can't be like Christ. You can't be conformed to His image if you don't know anything about Him. And so that's why I spend so much time reading my Bible, and I've got my study Bibles, and Got my Greek and Hebrew tools and everything else. And you know, you got to spend that time in the Bible to understand who God is. And babbling incoherently at your desk or in a, at a prayer closet and just babbling, that doesn't do anything. There's nothing that is not taught in scripture anywhere. Okay. So the early Pentecostals, Charismatics, they opened up a second category of tongues, unintelligible speaks or repetitious syllables. You don't find the notion that tongue speaking in the Bible is anything other than real human languages until you get to the modern Charismatic movement. They have adulterated and twisted the Bible to fit their experiences. The tongues practiced today do not match biblical tongues for one simple reason. What Charismatics call tongues are not real human languages. Plain and simple. Now, people will say, what about this verse, Romans 8, 26? Likewise, the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. We do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Are groanings incoherent to Babel? No, it's just a hyperbolic way of referring to the way the Holy Spirit will intercede with us. That's not when we suddenly stop thinking or speaking real words and start doing gibberish. That's not what that's talking about. Jesus taught us not to use vain repetition, not to just babble incoherently. In fact, the Lord's Prayer is words. It's an outline for thinking clearly when you pray. In our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be your name. The first thing you do when you pray is you worship. Thy kingdom come. You pray for the coming of the kingdom of God. You pray that people will be converted and saved, that God would raise up officers for his church and that the church would thrive and prosper and do well in the world and things like that. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Pray for the law of God to reign, for righteousness to replace lawlessness. Give us this day our daily bread. You pray for God's provision to feed and clothe and take care of you and so on and so forth. And you pray for protection from temptation. You pray for God's kingdom and power and glory to expand throughout the whole world. You pray for the forgiveness of your sins and that you would be gracious and forgiving towards others. That's what prayer is. It's not babbling incoherently, thinking that that's speaking in tongues. Always remember that. The Greek term means language. These are real human languages. You really want to understand what is speaking in tongues. Just read through Acts chapter 2 nice and slowly, and you'll see the people that heard the apostles speaking in tongues list out all of the languages that they could hear them speaking in. Because that's what speaking in tongues is. It is not babbling incoherently. Now, I've heard people say that, well, 1 Corinthians 13 says, though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal." That single phrase, the tongues of angels, is that our license to babble incoherently in any way we want and call it the biblical apostolic gift of tongues? No. What Paul is doing is speaking in hyperbole or intentional exaggeration for the purpose of effect. He means even if you have the best and highest gifts that reach up to heaven itself and can speak in the language of angels, if you don't have love, you're nothing. He's not saying speak in the tongues of angels. And by the way, I'm not sure how that really helps their position, because every time angels ever talked in the Bible, did they babble incoherently? No. They used real human languages, didn't they? So the tongues of angels are the same—the language of angels is the language that we speak, right? Because they're messengers of God, of course they're going to speak in real human languages. So that's the point of the text. It's sad and unfortunate that people would abuse that phrase, the tongues of angels and say, okay, that that's why we can babble incoherently and call it speaking in tongues. That's not what it means. Okay. First Corinthians 14, 27. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two at the most three each in turn and let one interpret. That'd be great. If those who claim to be able to do this would actually follow that role. I never saw that followed in the six years I was in charismatic churches. Um, people spoke in tongues. 50 at a time, no one interpreted and they didn't take turns. So I, I, I'm sure there are places that actually try to follow that rule, but I never saw it followed. Okay. And, uh, yeah, if there's no interpreter, verse 28, if there's no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church and let him speak to himself and to God. Okay. If you don't have an interpretation, if someone cannot tell you precisely exactly what that person said, um, then they need to be quiet. So, as I said, these directions are pretty much ignored in charismatic churches. Okay. 1 Corinthians 14, 39, it's been cited before, against me. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues. And people say, well, you, you're forbidding people to speak with tongues. And my response is, no, I haven't. I have never forbidden anyone to speak in tongues, languages, to speak in languages they don't know. But I would forbid people to babble incoherently, because that's not speaking in tongues, and that's not biblical, and that's not edifying to the people of God. Okay, what is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Good question. Now, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit actually was introduced to a really good paper, and it's actually linked in the description. I sent it to Brother Rich and asked him to include a link to it in the show notes here in the description. by a fellow named Nick LeMay, and that's spelled N-I-C-K, and his last name is LeMay, L-A-M-M-E. It's an article that was published in the Mid-America Journal of Theology, which I'm finding out is a really good source, and I've been listening to the Marscast, Mid-America Reform Seminaries podcast. Sadly, not many people know about this, and their videos on YouTube don't get very many views. They should! It's a very good podcast, and they address the most pressing issues of the time, and I look at their view count, I'm like, man, these guys are doing great work. Those professors at Mid-America Reform Seminary are doing really good work, and they address issues head-on. They just did a program, they did some programs on Christian nationalism, addressing Doug Wilson directly, and I'm pretty sure, I've not verified this, but I've heard from several others, that they are very strong six-day creationists, which again, is really unusual. So I'm looking into Mid-America Reform Seminary, but it was around back when I was looking for a seminary. It just wasn't one that I looked into enough, I think. But so anyway, so this guy was interviewed on their podcast maybe a year or two ago. So I listened to all those programs about blasphemy of the Spirit, and he wrote a lengthy article here. I've got it pulled up, and it's It's pretty long. Let's see, how long is this? It is 51 pages long, so it's a small book on Blasphemy of the Spirit, and he goes through everything. He goes through the whole history of interpretation, he goes through the medieval period, the church fathers, and then gives a real detailed analysis of the passage and what it means. And I think he's right, and I've always suspected that this is the case, but it was helpful to listen to, I think I did two, maybe three programs. I listened to all of them repeatedly in preparation for today. But the blasphemy of the Spirit, I think that this is a sin that really, biblically, can only be committed by teachers in the church. It is an individual who knows the truth and is purposely trying to mislead people from it. It is a malicious, wicked form of opposing the Lord. And it was something that the Pharisees and scribes were guilty of, and the reason they were is—remember when Nicodemus has this conversation with Jesus in John chapter 3, he says, Teacher, we know, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one could do the signs that you do unless God were with him. So they knew. They knew that he was from God, and yet they still opposed him. most of the Pharisees. I think Nicodemus is an exception. Joseph of Arimathea is another one. I think Joseph of Arimathea was definitely a believer. I think there's good evidence that Nicodemus may very well have become a true disciple before the end, even though he doesn't understand what Jesus is talking about there. But he does pop up later on. During Jesus's trial, it says, does our law condemn someone before they've even heard him out? You know, so he does do a couple of good things there. But the religious establishment opposed Jesus, although they saw all these miracles. And it kind of culminates there in Matthew chapter 12, verse 22 and following. I wanted to read this passage and make some comments on it and show you some really interesting parallels that Nick LeMay Makes in his article and again, I commend his article to your reading. It's a careful well-balanced well-written paper Then a demon-possessed man This is Matthew 12 22 a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus and he healed him So that the mute man spoke and saw all the crowds were amazed and were saying this man cannot be the son of David can he Now so the people the people are thinking hey, I This is him. This must be the Christ. This is the one that we've all been waiting for. And it was obvious to them. It was obvious to them that he was. And even when Jesus goes into Jerusalem there in the last week of his life, you know, the people received him and were praising God and hosanna to the son of David and laying down palms and things like that as he comes riding into town on a donkey and fulfillment of that prophecy from Zechariah. And yet what happens there? The Pharisees, the scribes, the chief priests, rebuke your disciples. And Jesus says, if they were to be quiet, the very rocks would cry out. So these were men who saw the signs. They saw the wonders. They saw the miracles. They saw the thousands upon thousands, just unending miracles of healings and people being raised from the dead. Incredible things. They were eyewitnesses of this. And the people, the crowds, are embracing Jesus and saying, this is Him. This is the one. We see the signs, and they were marveling and amazed. And this is the Son of David. This is the one that was prophesied in 2 Samuel 7. This is the one. But when the Pharisees heard this, verse 24, they said, this man casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons. I mean, this is opposing what your eyeball facts can see right in front of you. You know, there are levels of culpability. You know, everyone is culpable. No matter what happens, whether you ever hear the gospel or not, you are condemned. You are culpable for your sins. But some people were given a lot more light than others. And these Pharisees, these Pharisees, and scribes and the chief priests and the individuals that conspired against Jesus here, they were eyewitnesses of all of this stuff. And they attributed the miracles to the devil, Beelzebul, the lord of the flies, the ruler of the demons. And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? If by Beelzebul I cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason, they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." And notice he's not saying, well, the kingdom of God is near, right under your nose saying, it's here now. It's come upon you. Now, the Pharisees continued to oppose him, and it's a knowledgeable opposition to the truth. It is a willful opposition to what you know and what you can see with your own eyes. That's what blasphemy of the Spirit is, and I think, can it be done today? I think that it can. Someone who really does know the truth and Really does does experience some motions of the spirit and yet they are just with every fiber of their soul are in opposition To Christ and are determined to lead people astray from him Yeah, I think that they they are guilty They are guilty of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and it's a sin For which there is no forgiveness in this life or in the age to come Okay And that's what Jesus is really talking about there. Okay. Um, from Nick LeMay's, uh, article here, he says this, he, he cites second Peter chapter two verses one and two, kind of as a parallel to, uh, this blasphemy against the Holy spirit. And he says this, um, second Peter two, one says false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them. bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed." You hear that? So he actually thinks that 2 Peter 2, and I think he's right, is addressing the same thing, this blasphemy against the Spirit. And what's interesting here is that in 2 Peter 2, and I would encourage you to read 2 Peter 2, These are individuals who are around the church, they arose from within the church, they were among the people of God, and they secretly introduced destructive heresies, denying Christ, and they blasphemed the truth. Now listen to this. Because of them, this is from Nick LeMay's argument, or article, Because of them, says Peter, the truth will be blasphemed. The church will be exploited for selfish gain with false words. They are the unrighteous who are considered to be trials for the church from which God will save His people. They indulge in defiling passions and despise authority. They are bold and willful, irrational animals born to be caught and destroyed. Peter assures his readers that they will be destroyed in their destruction. They're not from outside the church. Rather, they feast with you. These false teachers entice unsteady souls, and for this, Peter calls them accursed children. Their false teaching also involves the love of gain for wrongdoing. They are waterless springs for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved, and their followers are destroyed by their teaching. What is remarkable—now listen carefully to this—what is remarkable about these false teachers is that they know the Lord Jesus Christ. They know the Lord Jesus Christ. Clearly, Peter does not mean that they know Him savingly, but that through a certain knowledge of the Lord, they have left the world and come into the church. I want you to listen to that passage. 2 Peter 2.20, for if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. So this is an individual who made a profession of faith and was in the church, but then turns and becomes a heretic and is just radically opposed to the truth. They have a special kind of condemnation. because of how dangerous they are and how many people will be led astray by them. Now, the article goes on, clearly, Peter does not mean they know Christ in a saving way, but that through a certain knowledge of the Lord, they have left the world and come into the church. They have repudiated their pagan ways, but become entangled and overcome by defilements. Peter says that for them, the last state has become worse than the first. For it would have been better for them to have never known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the Holy Commandment delivered to them. I would just say by extension, it would have been better for the Pharisees to have been born and lived and died as Gentiles than to have seen all the light that they did and opposed it. Because they blasphemed the Holy Spirit. They sinned so egregiously against so much light. that it's a kind of sin from which repentance is not possible. And I'll listen to the last paragraph I cited here from Nicola May. He says, Peter's words echo those of the Lord Jesus, who, speaking to the Pharisees, says, But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces, for you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you travel across sea and land and make a single proselyte. And when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Jesus calls the Pharisees blind guides, blind fools, and blind men. He concludes, thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. And he goes on from there. Because of their destructive teaching in the face of what they knew, Jesus curses them. and condemns them to hell. So the blasphemy of the Spirit, I think, is really limited to teachers in the church who know something about the Lord, have some knowledge of the Lord Jesus, and yet still radically oppose Christ. Okay, next question. Why do Catholics believe we should pray to Mary, and is it unbiblical? Okay, some of the argumentation that you will hear from Roman Catholics, especially from converts, anyone influenced by the resurgence in modern times of Catholic apologists, is that, well, if someone asked you to pray for them, wouldn't you pray for them? I ask people to pray for me all the time, and wouldn't they pray for me? But if a person's dead and they're a true believer, they're an even more fully functional member of the body of Christ, and we can ask the saints in glory to pray for us. And that's all we're doing. We're just asking Mary to pray for us, just like you would ask a friend to pray for you. Okay, here is a prayer, a prayer from a little book called Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help. Here's a prayer. You tell me, is this just asking Mary to pray for us? Here's the prayer. Quote, O mother of perpetual help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners. And for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then to my help, dearest mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants. Take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For if thou protect me, dear mother, I fear nothing, not from my sins, because thou will obtain for me the pardon of them, nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together. nor even from Jesus, my judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O mother of perpetual help." End quote. Oh, we just, we just asked the saints to pray for us. When we, when we have problems, we just ask them to pray for us like we would pray to anyone else. And I would just simply say, are you serious? You're seriously trying to sell that to me? So when you go to your friends, you tell them, in your hands, I place my salvation and I entrust my soul to you, buddy. to your buddies at church? Do you say, would you please obtain from me pardon for my sins and save me from Jesus? Hopefully, I will not fail to call on you. I mean, Rich, what would you think if I said that to you? You know, Rich, save me. In the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on you, Brother Rich. I would encourage y'all, you don't want to talk to me that way either. Folks, the fact is, this is idolatry. This is idolatry and paganism of the highest order imaginable. How could anyone seriously try to say that that's not worship? You see, here's the real problem. You can try to say that there's lesser forms of worship, lesser forms of this or that. Prayer is worship. And I don't care if you say, we're just invoking their intercession. We're just asking them to pray for us. We're not praying to them. When you look at the piety, when you look at the prayers, read, I have on Kindle, Alphonsus Liguori's book, The Glories of Mary. It is wall to wall heresy and idolatry of the highest imaginable order. And I would say anyone who would pray to the Virgin Mary and ask her to save them from Jesus doesn't know Jesus. That person cannot possibly know my dear Lord and Savior. Jesus said, come to me, not come to my mother because I'm so mean. Come to me, all you who labor and are weary and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Jesus is eager. He loves the repentance center. I don't care how badly you have failed, how much you have sinned. Jesus says, come to me and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you for my burden is easy and my burden is light. My yoke is easy. My burden is light. So good, good question. Why do Catholics believe we should pray to Mary? The answer to that is very, very, very simple. Are you ready? Why do Catholics think that we should pray to Mary? Because they don't believe in Sola Scriptura. And have you ever noticed? Do a search on YouTube, do a search on the internet, Catholicism and Sola Scriptura, and you will find thousands and thousands and thousands of pages. hate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's unbiblical. It's not patristic. It's not historical. It's self-refuting. I mean, they just go on and on and on and on and on. Why? Why do they hate Sola Scriptura so much? Because they know, as long as you believe in Sola Scriptura, you're never, ever going to give any credence to, let's see, the papacy, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, the Marian dogmas, Papal infallibility, the Sabbatine privilege. What is the Sabbatine privilege? Well, if you die wearing a brown scapular on your forehead, the Virgin Mary will come and get you out of purgatory on the Saturday after your death. Yeah, if you believe the Bible is true, you're not going to try that. You're not going to do that. Plus, there's no such thing as purgatory. Purgatory is not taught in Scripture. Purgatory is mythology. It's not real. There's heaven and there's hell, and you either know Christ or you don't. You either trust in His imputed righteousness or you're lost. It's as simple as that, folks. Okay, next question this fellow asked, another good question. If we are predestined, why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Great question. Because the decree to save the elect from their sins and bring them into heaven, you cannot have a decree to save without a cross to actually do it. The decree of election is a decree not just of who would finally end up in heaven, but all that was needed for them to go to heaven, and that includes the Incarnation at just the right moment. God sent forth His Son, Galatians 4, 4 and 5. God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law. and the fullness of time. And Jesus enters into that broken covenant of works, achieves its righteousness for us that is imputed to us. Romans four, six, Romans five, 17. And then he satisfies its penalty. Christ in his body bore our sins on the tree. And so God predestined, not just the final outcome, but he predestined the cross. Look at Acts chapter two, verse 23. Um, the cross of Christ was predestined. Praorizo is the term that's used there. It's predestined. Acts 4, 26-28, Herod and Pontius Pilate were raised up in fulfillment of Psalm 2 to do what the hand of God had decreed, determined, and predestined, determined beforehand to be done. So there is no decree to save us without a decree that the cross of Christ would actually do it. Okay, God can't just save us by a bare decree. The decree is that Christ would come into the world to accomplish our salvation. So the decree includes all of the means by which the elect are saved and brought to heaven. So, good question. Okay. What spiritual gifts are still active? And if not, why not? Asking what gifts have expired. Here are the gifts that are still active. Teaching, Romans 12.7. Exhortation, Romans 12.8. Giving, Romans 12.8. leading or administration, Romans 12.8, 1 Corinthians 12.28, mercy, Romans 12.8, service or helps, Romans 12.7, 1 Corinthians 12.28, wisdom and knowledge, 1 Corinthians 12.8, and faith, 1 Corinthians 12.9. Those are the gifts that are still operating today. We would maintain, as cessationists, that the gifts of prophecy, tongues, raising the dead, exorcisms, and healing ceased after the apostolic age, if you would like proof of that. Go to Bethel Church in Reading and notice they don't ever heal anybody. It's a sad thing. It's a tragic, horrifying, sad thing. Nabil Qureshi, when he had cancer, a lot of people at Bethel prophesied he was going to get healed, and he wasn't. That precious little girl, Olive, who died. In that church of 12,000, they chanted and chanted and chanted and chanted over her and tried their best to raise her from the dead, and they couldn't. So you're telling me in a continuationist church with 12,000 members, not a single person there has the gift of raising the dead, not one person could do it. Well, the thing is, if those extraordinary gifts were still given to individuals, there would be no debate. We wouldn't be debating it because we'd be able to see it, and that's precisely what you don't see. Can God still heal people? Yes. Can God still do miraculous things? Yes. Does he give those gifts to individuals who have those abilities? No, he doesn't do that anymore. Now this individual is asking, why? Why did those gifts cease? Because they serve their purpose. There are three major epochs of time in Scripture when God gave miraculous powers to individuals. There's a total of about 200 years. In 1400 BC, Moses and Joshua, about 65 years, they had the ability to do miracles. Elijah and Elisha, for about 65 years, they had the ability to do miracles. Jesus and the apostles, for about 65 to 70 years, they and their associates had the ability to do miracles. What was the purpose of those miracles and all three of those epics of world history? To confirm those men as God's appointed messengers. The purpose of miracles and the ministry of Jesus and the apostles is identical to what it was with Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. Now think about it. When Moses was speaking to God at the burning bush. And God told him, I want you to go down to Pharaoh and I want you to tell him to let my people go. Moses asks the very same question that I would have asked. What if they don't believe me? What if they say, um, how long have you been in the desert now? 40 years. And how old are you again? 80. I'm sure it looked very much like a bush was burning, but not being consumed by the fire, old man. Sure, I'm sure that God said something to you. Yeah, sure. They're not going to believe me. That's what I would have said. If I was Moses, I would have said, Lord, what if they don't believe me? God said, throw your staff on the ground. It became a serpent. Stick your hand in your bosom. He gave himself leprosy. Pour out that water. It became blood. Moses had the ability to do miracles on command, and they worked. When people challenged him, we don't believe you. We don't believe God talked to you. He said, Oh yeah, watch this. And they worked. God's giving miraculous abilities to people for short periods of time was simply to authenticate them as God's spokesman. That's what, um, that passage in first Corinthians is the second Corinthians 12, 12 or first Corinthians 12, 12, second Corinthians 12, 12. Yeah, the signs of a true apostle were performed among you. How did Paul differentiate himself from lying apostles, false apostles? He could do miracles and they couldn't. That's the signs of an apostle. And it's laughable when people like Sam Storms is trying to say the signs of an apostle are humility and things like that. The signs of an apostle were performed among you with all perseverance by signs and wonders and miracles. You're going to try to turn signs of an apostle into something else? The fact that signs, wonders, and miracles in Greek are in the dative case, it doesn't mean anything. There's still an apposition to what's being said there. They're an explication of what the signs of an apostle were. And as I said, there's no group that's given more proof of cessationism to the world than Pentecostals and Charismatics, because they can't do those kinds of miracles, and they know they can't. I mean, you can literally spend the next 12 lifetimes doing nothing but watching videos of Charismatics claiming to heal people, and nothing happens. Now, can God heal people? Yeah, I've seen him do it myself. But does that mean that someone has the gift of healing? No, it doesn't. God can still do miracles, but he doesn't give that gift to individuals anymore. And it's interesting when, when we say, okay, well, look, if you've got the gift of healing, why don't you go heal, heal the kids in a children's hospital? Well, I'd be happy to go and I'd love to go and pray for all those kids. No, no, no, no, no. We don't want you to go pray for them. We want you to heal them. And why, why would they not do that? Because they know they can't do that. They know they can't do that. Um, they don't go to children's hospitals to try to heal sick children, uh, for the same reason that psychics don't play the lottery. Cause they're lying. They don't have those abilities. Then they know they don't. Okay. Um, he asked a question about second Corinthians five 14, but that's going to take a long time. I put some commentary notes in here. Maybe we'll do that next time. Okay, the last question is a really good question. He says, if the penalty for sin is death, how was Jesus able to die on the cross if He was sinless? Wonderful question, because 2 Corinthians 5.21, God made Him, Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we would become the righteousness of God. Jesus Christ was sinlessly perfect, but our sin was laid upon Him. It was imputed to Him. Isaiah 53, 6. And Yahweh has laid on Him, legally credited and charged, the iniquities of us all on Him. Jesus was held legally responsible for the sins of all His people by His Father, by imputation. In exactly the same way that we, although we are sinful, can be justified before God. Well, how can God do that if we're still inherently sinful? Imputation. That legal reckoning, crediting. God credits righteousness to our bank account, our legal ledger before God, so that we're seen as if we had always been holy and righteous and as if we had never sinned. That's the gospel. That's the gospel. And let me pull up, I'm just going to read it to you. Um, Heidelberg catechism. Whoops. I can pull up Google here real quick. Google with one Oh, with two O's Heidelberg catechism. Question 60 question 60. How are you righteous before God? How are you righteous before God? If I can find it, how are you righteous before God answer only by true faith in Christ. Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God's commandments, of never having kept any of them, and of still being inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without any merit of my own, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me, imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, that's the crosswork, righteousness, that's his life of obedience, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner. And as if I had been perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me, all I need to do is accept this gift with a believing heart. That's the beating heart of the gospel. Okay. Let me see who else is here. Anyone else new here? Tongues have ceased, but God can still use them for personal anxiety. Um, let's see, look to Christ and fill your thoughts. Someone, someone, uh, struggling up here. I always appreciate that people will do counseling here in the chat. Yeah. Um, yeah. Okay. Uh, all right. Well, thank you all. There's Ashley. Hey, Ashley, say hello to Dylan miles and Ezra there. I pray for them every day. Um, Mars cast is such a blessing. Yeah. Jeremy Nethercutt, seriously. Mars cast is a great podcast and not enough people know about it. It's been been out there for a couple of years now, two or three years now. And, um, I've been going through the archives on Spotify. Man, I've been learning so much. I've gotten some new books, as if I need more books, but introduced to some good theologians I didn't know about. And that's always a good thing. I always actually pray for that, that God would direct me to the right books, the right theologians, the right stuff at the right time. So Marscast has been a huge blessing. Uh, for sure. So I definitely recommend that to your, I'll put the name of it at Mars cast on spotify there. It's also on apple iTunes. It's on, it's on used to, or it's on YouTube Mars cast on YouTube as well. So just search for that. It should pop right up. Okay. We just crossed the hour mark. That's usually as long as I like to go, but thank you all so much for watching or listening and we'll see you next time.