The desire for a unified Lutheran church in America faces significant historical challenges because various Lutheran bodies have historically held specific interpretations of the Lutheran confessions that were considered definitive for fellowship, particularly in bodies like the Wisconsin Synod and Missouri Synod. For true unity, a broader view of what it means to be Lutheran would be necessary—one that encompasses all who adopt the Lutheran confessions as their confession, rather than requiring adherence to particular interpretations of those confessions.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Answering Your Questions Live!
Added:Hey everybody. Um, just going live again. Trying to do another Q&A. I know that I had some issues last time that I tried to do this with uh with the mic. I think I figured out what was going on.
So, uh, if you guys could just in the chat tell me is this coming through.
Okay. Are there issues with the mic? Uh, I want to make sure that those uh issues are resolved before I before I go on here. Uh, I think it was the like auto remove background noise setting that uh seemed to think that when my voice got quieter it was background noise so it was trying to silence it. So I think that's what happened. Um, so well uh thanks for tuning in everybody who is here. I see that I already have some questions here in the chat and so I'm going to just start with some of the some of the first questions that I see here. Um, am I related to James Phenomore Cooper? Actually, I may be related to James Venomar Cooper. Um, I really like James Vanomar Cooper. His book, The American Democrat, I thought was a very insightful examination of American culture and quite relevant today and I I've looked into this and it it I actually can't tell. What I can tell is that his family and mine came to the same area of the country near Philadelphia uh at the same time and were both Quakers. And so uh you can't really trace his generation back definitively uh to England. And the same thing is true of the family that I'm from. So it's it it is very likely that the Cooper family that I am that I am a part of is also James Venmore Cooper's family. But uh as far as I've been able to tell there's there's nothing definitive uh but from the same area. Uh anyway, so I see some other some other questions here. Someone's asking about the reconcordia. Yeah. So, I see that there are uh some Lutheran online who uh are very zealous to try to make some kind of unified singular Lutheran church and to to take all these disperate Lutheran bodies and bring them together and form one body at least in the United States. And I understand the desire for that. But I think if you know much about Lutheran history and Lutheran history in the United States, that just becomes kind of difficult to do. I was going to show you a book here. I got it off the screen here, but hold on. Uh this book called A Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America by uh JL Neve. I really like this book. It's one that I recommend all the time if you want to understand American Lutheran history and where our various uh sen church bodies all come from. And if you get to know much about the history of Lutheran in America, um the desire to form one church would necessitate a broad view of what it means to be a Lutheran, at least broad enough that it would encapsulate everybody who adopts the Lutheran confessions as their confession, which you know theoretically should be enough.
Uh but historically it is uh that is not the case. Uh in that there are a lot of American Lutheran groups that have desired specific adherence to certain interpretations of the confessions. And this is like a continual debate among Lutheran is confessional Lutheran that is like is our agreement in the confessions or a particular interpretation of our confessions. Uh I take absolutely the broadest view of that. um uh my view would be the same as somebody like Arthur Carl Pecorn. Uh but at least in the history of certain um churches like the Wisconsin Senate or like the Missouri Senate, though it's a bit different today, at least historically, um there were some pretty clear uh interpretations of the confessions, even in areas that were really not consistent with the entire Lutheran tradition prior to that uh that were deemed definitive for fellowship. Uh and so that would be that would be a major issue. And so in order for there to be a reconcortia, what you'd need to have is an adoption of essentially the perspective that the general council took, which is the the church body that Charles Kra helped found, that River Franklin Widner and Henry Jacobs and all the theologians I site all the time were part of. um which is very much the tradition I identify myself with uh theologically and and temperamentally as well, which would have this broader view of of Lutheran unity. And so there have always been challenges around that from certain views of of Missouri historically. Again, I think today it's not quite the same because there's a lot of uh variance actually in in modern Missouri. But uh yeah anyway um so yes it would be ideally good to have some sense of unity but not if one particular interpretation of the confessions uh on a disputed point is made like definitive for for fellowship. Uh I think for that to happen you have to have a something that authentically represents the entirety of the Lutheran tradition uh not simply one uh narrow part of the Lutheran tradition. All right. So, um let's see here. I see a lot of questions and uh I see one super chat.
So, thank you for for that. On the Moravian church. Yes. Do I know much about the Moravian church? Um yeah, the the Moravian church is something that I did quite a bit of reading on back in college. I wrote uh some kind of paper on the Moravian church and I bought a book on Moravian history which was pretty interesting. The Moravians um you know historically have some tie to Lutheranism and the the kind of major name there for a Moravian spirituality is is Count von Zinszandorf. Uh Zinsandorf was a a Lutheran pyotist of a pretty extreme variety and and doesn't really represent at least a more traditional confessional Lutheranism. So his approach was was pretty pretty different. He came into controversy actually not just with like the the more scholastically oriented Lutheran but also with a lot of other Lutheran pitists for his views because they were uh rather controversial on a number of issues. But uh Moravians aren't are an interesting group. I know they adopted the Auxburg confession. I think today the Moravians that exist today for the most part at least in the United States are are pretty have have strayed I think pretty far from their doctrinal orthodoxy. At least that's that's as far as as far as as far as I understand. Um my thoughts on Christian hiphop. Serious question. I um I don't know. I was in the whole new Calvinism thing back in college and that was like the the major time for uh Christian hiphop. I mean obviously I know Flame was the friend but uh and I used to listen to him back then too actually. So I I listen to all that stuff but that was a long time ago.
It's not like something I listen to all the time. Now there are things that I appreciate about it. Sure. Um, but it's not like I'm I'm listening to that on a on a regular basis, but I had a lot of friends in college that were like really into into that scene, which was cool.
Um, so I I appreciate it.
All right. Uh, if Timothy Zhan writes another Star Wars novel, what would you want it to be about? Uh, if I if Timothy Z were to write another Star Wars novel, what ideally what I would want is uh for a book written in the continuity of the old expanded universe. uh that is written to tie up the stories that were never actually tied up before Disney ruined uh ruined everything. That's what I would say. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh okay. Uh am I crazy or is there a rampant epidemic of Lutheran pastors who have almost altogether stopped teaching on wisdom and uh the law and just generally pushing back against sin um in their in their own congregations?
I mean that is a problem in a number of of congregations. Sure. Um I don't know that that is something that is new. I think that that is something of a certain generation that's actually changed quite a bit and I think that's going to that's going to change. Um let's see. Lutheran have been either unsuccessful or uninterested in converting black Americans. I know that was a focus in times past but not lately. Why? Yeah, I think that's actually a very good question. Um, the reason for this, I think it depends.
It depends on the Lutheran and it depends on the culture in which that Lutheran church existed. I I really think a lot of it just has to do with the fact that Lutheran congregations were formed by immigrant groups who largely kind of settled their own communities with their own people. A lot of Lutheranism in the 19th century began in the United States that way. And so it the mentality was quite different because those churches kind of just survived on the people that were in the community which is their ancestors from uh you know Germany or Finland or Denmark or Norway or wherever it was uh that largely formed those communities.
And so um unfortunately I think this is just the reality of of how it is now that a lot of uh Lutheranism was not formed in the kind of urban settings where you are interacting with a lot of people from different places and doing a lot of outreach. I think that's just the nature of Lutheran demographics and our history. I do think it's something that clearly has to change and and is changing to some degree. I I think but I really think it's more sociology than anything else. You know, I think it's just kind of the culture, the sociology, the nature of how these things happened.
I don't know that there's some like theological thing underlying. I really don't think there there is. Uh because I think the same the same thing is true of like I think urban communities in general or even coastal communities as one from New England. Uh I I think any area that is not as maybe ethnically homogeneous with those particular groups that formed a lot of Lutheran congregations uh that that really has been the focus of Lutheran, you know, Lutheran outreach as a whole in the United States. Okay. Uh Brandon, thank you for the super chat there. Since Gerbering followed in the steps of Widner, Jacobson, Kraut, do any of those theologians give explanations of conversion similar to Gerbering's views expressed in the way of salvation? Yeah, that's a good question. So George Henry Gerbering um talks about which is a wonderful book he does talk about the nature of conversion and in his chapter on conversion there is at least a perceived kind of synergism in some way though Gerbering certainly would deny being a a synergist. Um I think the the wording of Gerbiting is a little bit confusing in that one section. uh Widner is much more careful about the nature of conversion and so is Kra though Jacobs does at times use somewhat similar language to Gerbering but again I think is a little bit more a little bit more careful some of that's just the nature of these groups in their relation to this debate about election that happens in in American Lutheranism uh where Widner takes I think kind of a mediating view which I think is right but uh between the view of Missouri on the one hand and then the view of a lot of the American intuitive people on the other hand. I think a widner's view essentially ends up being the same as as someone like Johan Gearhard which is firmly anti-inergistic um but not quite all the way where where Walther goes on certain certain points and that he's not willing to just throw out the the phrase to a doofy day. He thinks there there's a valid way of talking about it in that sense. So yeah, on on conversion, yeah, Gerbering um is a little bit probably a little bit more uncairful, I would say, than those other theologians in at least that like one small section of that book, which is otherwise a really really fantastic book. Um, okay. Uh, let's see. Spencer, thank you for the super chat. Where did you get your red and blue tie? Oh, well, thank you. Uh, I'm trying to think of which one that was. I actually have a number of like red and blue stripes. If you're talking about like the rep ties with stripes, th those are mostly Brooks Brothers or Jpress ties. Uh, and I my ties are pretty much all thrifted. I hardly buy anything new. It is very easy to get really nice ties for really cheap because people aren't that into ties these days. Uh so uh also you know living in New England does tend to give you a bit of a wider range of selections from thrift stores when it comes to uh you know like Ivy or Prep kind of style things. So yeah. Yeah. A lot of my stuff is either Brooks Brothers, J Press or Spear and McKay. Um pretty much all not all of my clothes but most of it's from those those three places.
Okay. Um okay. Thank you, uh, Matt Harris for the super chat. Thank you for all you do. Would you ever consider making videos addressing OCD from a Christian perspective? Um, yeah, that is something that I probably should do more on since I have OCD and I've dealt with a lot of stuff because of that. Um, I've managed to handle it pretty well, at least at this point in my life, but there was a time when it was um, it was pretty difficult for me. So, I I certainly can talk about that a bit more. I'm happy to share my story and my the things that helped me. I haven't like totally um conquered it or something. It's not like I don't deal with that, but I'll tell you being within the Lutheran tradition certainly has made a huge difference more than anything else, honestly. Okay. Um Oh, Robert Larson, thank you for the super chat. Can you explain the sacrificial language in Malachi 1? Yeah, so Malachi 1, there's a text here that talks about the Gentiles offering sacrifices, and this is used by Roman Catholic pmicists.
apologists to say, "Well, therefore, this text because it says that Gentiles offer sacrifices, this means that the Eucharist must be a propitiatory sacrifice u because of this prophecy."
And I say, "Well, that is not the way that you interpret like any of the other um typological prophecies of the Old Testament relative to the New Testament." Uh because a lot of the prophecies of the Old Covenant are couched in what is the ceremonial worship of Israel. like Ezekiel describes this very very large temple uh and and you know there were sacrifices and all these other things going on in this this very large temple. Well, we recognize um prophetically as we look back that these this these are the images that the people of Israel knew.
So that's the imagery that's going to be used. It's not to be interpreted in the most literal sense unless the New Testament interprets those prophecies in the most literal sense. Of course, then we accept the interpretation of the New Testament as the inspired interpretation. And so I I think that if you have a text about sacrifices, I would say, well, the point is pretty clear, which is simply that worship is going to also include the Gentiles. Like it's not just the Jews that are going to be offering their sacrifices. It is also the Gentiles. The Gentiles also offer their uh sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Uh also they receive the benefits of Christ's own sacrifice which was wrought for Jew and Gentile in yes the mass. Uh so I I think to take a prophetic text like that which again is using all sorts of imagery that is not meant to be interpreted in the most literal sense because it's this is prophetic imagery. This is how this works. Um that I just don't think you really have that strong of an argument because if you're going to use that methodology consistently I think you're going to end up in a lot of very strange places. Uh you'll end up with dispensational which is what you're going to do. Um and which Rome is not dispensational. So I think it's a very selective reading and interpretation of texts like that. Uh okay. Uh Rando Mango, thank you for the super chat there. What's your opinion on Eastern Orthodox and Catholic mysticism and if mysticism should be emphasized in Protestantism? Yeah, I will say I I am pro- mysticism depending on what you mean by it. So uh I I support mysticism and I also reject mysticism. It all depends because the term mysticism is used to identify all sorts of things.
And so there is not one mysticism. There are many mysticisms and there are different ways to like break this down.
So some scholars will break down at least when they're looking at Luther's appropriation of mysticism. Uh break down mysticism into three kind of basic categories and they're going to say well there's one category that Luther totally rejects and that's the Dionian mysticism which tends to be more prominent in the Eastern Orthodox Church. So that's going to be more like pseudodianis um that lies behind a lot of hessicasm.
And so this is a mysticism that is very much focused on aphatic theology, the kind of negation of thought, the negation of ideas uh of of God. Uh that's that's kind of an apothetic mysticism. And um that kind of mysticism I'm not really supportive of. That doesn't mean there's nothing good about it at all. Um but then you have something like the bridal mysticism of Bernard of Clairvo which is a very Christc centered contemplative kind of mysticism. U that's something that Luther borrows from that John Calvin actually borrows from quite a bit as well. Uh Calvin cites Bernard of Claravo I think more than any other theologian other than Augustine and I believe I believe that's right. And so uh and so Bernard of Clarvo was one of the great mystics of the medieval era and he's a significant influence on the entirety of the reformation. And so that's true of the the German Reformation, that's true of Calvinism, that's true of the Anglican Church. And so a figure like Bernard's really really influential, Luther's influenced by people like John Tower and some of the Reinland mystics.
Um, and so I think mysticism, if it depends on what you mean by it, but if by mysticism you mean a contemplative spirituality, um, a contemplative spirituality that emphasizes prayer, meditation on the word of God and the truths of God, uh, and has specific practices to train people to do that. I think that's a very positive and good thing and we should be encouraging that on like on every level.
Uh things like certain aesthetic practices, extreme forms of aestheticism are are not generally healthy. Uh but some form of aestheticism is good and right thinking about just practices of fasting and those kind of things. So all of those elements of mysticism I think are very positive. Uh and so I think we should emphasize mysticism. Yes. I think what people tend to do is do things by reaction. So we say well that those people do mysticism. we don't do mysticism instead of saying like well what's the right form of mysticism because there's a sense in which like the church fathers were all kind of mystical uh there's a sense in which the medieval theologians which Luther was mystical so what do we mean by mystical um and there are some really helpful writings on this when pyotism becomes a major point of debate in the the late 17th really more early 18th century where there are theologians that say all mysticism is bad and other theologians saying well let's let's define what is healthy and good mysticism versus a false mysticism. And so I think a good mysticism is not going to do things like search for the inner voice of God telling you things totally apart from revelation, looking for for just this kind of direct immediate revelation, uh you know, based on your own contemplative prayer, uh despising the means of grace, despising the church, all of that kind of stuff is bad. But a good churchly Christc centered mysticism that is really rooted in in written revelation is is good and right and we should not only like tolerated but we should be promoting it and practicing it. I'd love to do I have done a bit on mysticism. So you can look at my videos on like uh look at my videos on the mystical union. I have a playlist. I did something on the Giomanica. I did some stuff on Gearhart and his approach to mysticism. There there's a lot there are a lot of other things to that. Okay. Um Sean Michael, thank you for the super chat. Is Redeem Zoomer write that schism is a sin. I'm pursuing membership at a PCA church and I'm not sure if I should.
Yeah, I think so. Um I I wouldn't say like don't do that on principle. Um I wouldn't join a piece if I was still reformed. I wouldn't be in the pieces USA. Like it just I would not. Um and I reasons for that. But I would say is schism a sin? Yes. But we have to define what schism is. And everybody's asking me this. I have a video I want to make on Charles Krauss's uh approach to this because I think it's really helpful. He has some clear guidelines as to what is schis schism, what is not schism. Um he says denominationalism is wrong. What we call American denominationalism is sinful. This just splitting for the sake of splitting starting new churches just for the heck of it. Um but there are um there are grounds for starting a new church body. You just have to define what are the right and proper grounds for doing that and and which things are not. Um and and so I'll talk about that more in another video, but no, I don't think that it's that PCA is in sin for schism or something like that. Um okay, let's see. Uh like let's see, tech Z5e, is there any thank you for the the super chat there. Is there any flavor of Christian nationalism compatible with Lutheranism? Um well, Christian nationalism is he said defined by James Barrett. I'm not sure what his exact definition is. I don't like I I hate the whole term Christian nationalism because it is um it's it's a meaningless term.
Okay, it's a meaningless term because people just import whatever meaning they want in it and if you say I support it or I reject it, people assume all sorts of things. Uh and so I just say, well, let's throw out the term Christian nationalism. I personally politically I'm opposed to nationalism as just of any kind, but that's my personal political approach. Um that doesn't mean you have to, you know, agree with me on that, but that is my that's my approach.
Um so, so yeah, I'm not a I'm not a Christian nationalist. Um because, well, I'm not a nationalist. I don't like a lot of things that go under the title of Christian nationalism. Um if you're saying that is there like an approach of integration between um the the faith and the state that is Lutheran, I mean, yeah, like look at what happened after the Lutheran Reformation. um the the princes were essentially given a kind of almost episcopal authority in some sense that has to be defined a bit more uh and then you get this revival of very very strong integration of church and state in the 19th century with Frederick Julius Stall I have some videos on stall if you want a Lutheran approach that's the most comprehensive and systematic approach to this uh Hans Martinson also in his social ethics has I think a pretty wellw worked out system as well if you want to look at that uh you you can also even look back at like um what's his name? Um Count Secondh what's his name? Secondorf. Is that what I'm thinking? I'm sorry if I'm now I'm confusing him with with Zindenorf here, but I think Secondorf is the is the right name. Um who had some similar ideas and he's writing in the the 17th century as well. So yeah. No, I'm not a globalist either. I'm a I'm a localist which is a totally different thing. So all right. Yeah. So I'd look into Frederick Julius Stall. think he's the best on on these issues for something that's more modern. He's also working in a, you know, post-enlightenment context.
I think it's really hard when people want to like grab on to something that Gearhart says about about the state and say like, well, we should do that today.
It's just like it it just doesn't really work. I mean, the the entire structure of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire in this era is so different than today. And I don't even know if I don't know that we want to revise this and bring this back. I mean, I just fear if we let our political rulers have the kind of authority over the church that did happen at that time.
I mean, people are exiling each other all the time because of political debates, people getting imprisoned for things that they teach. And I really don't want our current rulers having any say over anything like that. When that happens in like the Prussian Union, you get people like Graa is like imprisoned for uh holding to Lutheran liturgy and not using like Union liturgy. And he comes and forms the Buffalo Senate of the United States in the 19th century.
So, uh, I think a lot of this stuff is like idealized. In an ideal situation, that's great. In a practical on the ground situation, it often ends up being a giant mess. Um, oh man, I have a lot of a lot of these here. This is good.
Uh, okay. So, I'm trying to I'm trying to get to to all of the super chats here. Are good works necessary for final glorification? Um, they are necessary in only in the sense that everyone who is glorified will have a will be regenerate. Uh but the language of being necessary for salvation is has been generally rejected by by Lutheran theologians at least at as at the very least very confusing and unhelpful unhelpful language. But are you saying that you know are people saved without good works? Well, depends what what you mean by good works. Uh is a baptized infant saved even though they've never done an external good work? Well, yeah.
Um have they done a good work in the sense that their heart is renewed and regenerate? Well, that would be true as well. So nobody's nobody is finally saved apart from uh from regeneration.
But are they finally saved apart from good works? It depends on what you mean by that. Um but but they are not the means by which eternal glory is attained. If that's what you that's what you mean. Uh somebody's asking if I would do lit reviews, dystopian novels.
Um I I have read a lot of that stuff.
Philip KC I've read a lot. He's a weirdo. Uh it's been a long time. I don't know. Um, I like dystopian literature enough. I liked it more in my 20s. I don't know. It seems like that kind of stuff is attractive to younger people. Uh, if I did lit reviews, it'd be boring books. So, I I don't know. I like Henry James a lot. I like uh Edith Wharton a lot. Uh, I don't know if you'd be all that interested in the kind of books that I would do lit reviews of.
The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann.
That's one of my favorite books of all time. I do like Russian literature a bit as well. So, uh, no, most of the literature I read is literature about a bunch of like, um, I don't know, rich people in the early 20th century in America. That's my favorite genre of literature. I just, that's what it is. Okay. Um, all right.
Uh, question. What resources would you recommend on the topic of siloscriptor in relation to Eastern Orthodox claims?
I mean, I still recommend um, Martin Cam's examination of the Council of Trent. I know that it's not written about eastern orthodoxy but I think the arguments for solos scriptor pertain today as well. I also wrote an essay on this subject for fes from for Richard Barcelos. Um I haven't posted that anywhere I don't think yet but you should get it. Uh and Richard Barcelus is a reformed baptist theologian and I was asked to to contribute to the fes the fest for him which was was I was honored to be able to do that and um so I have an article in there. It's called a faithful steward I think is the name of the book and I have an article there on the issue of tradition solos scriptorra. It is more addressing Roman Catholic claims but it applies to Eastern Orthodox claims as well. Okay.
Um okay question uh is it proper to say that charity exists in man either before justification in disposition or action?
Um, charity, if you're talking about charity as a theological virtue, no.
If if you're talking in like a general sense of some civic form of that, maybe, but not not as a theological virtue. No.
All right. Um, okay. Thank you for publishing and recommending Sacred Meditations by Johan Gearhart. It's wonderful. Well, thank you so much for that super chat and that comment. Uh, Gearhart, Sacred Meditations is such a wonderful book. If if you have enjoyed that and are looking for something else, I do also recommend the book that we published by Hinrich Mueller called Hours of Spiritual Refreshment. That book is really just as good as Gerard Sacred Meditations and he was uh one of the masters of spiritual writing, what you call a kind of Lutheran mysticism uh in that time along with along with Gearhard really really wonderful text. I also recommend Erns Storius in that regard. Even though his writing is theological, it's very much it's like a mystical theological writing in a way.
He writes like a devotional writer, but he's a theologian. Uh very much in the same kind of kind of vein as well. Okay.
Um let's see. Catholic Jake $10. Thank you for the super chat. Looking into Lutheranism. Why did Lutheranism condemn transubstantiation?
It does not contradict scripture and has some petristic backing. Yeah. So, um, yeah, transubstantiation, the big issue with transubstantiation really, uh, is binding people to one very particular theory of how it is that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Uh, and and to bind consciences to a very particular formulation of how that works uh, goes beyond what the church really should should be doing. Um, generally Lutheran have just said, "Well, I don't know if Paul is comfortable enough just calling it bread and calling it wine, even when it's consecrated when he writes to the Corinthians, then we should also be okay calling it that, too." Um, and and so I don't have a personally, it's not like I have a major issue with transubstantiation, but that's not really the the point of division. I mean, that's a point, I suppose, but not uh it's it's I don't just don't think it's that significant.
Um again the the bigger issue is really binding consciences to one particular explanation uh of of what is a divine mystery that's not quite that's not revealed in that that precise way. Um and then there are some things kind of related maybe to understandings of transubstantiation that would be a problem which maybe aren't transubstantiation proper. Okay. Uh somebody is is recommending young Anglican's article uh and North American Anglican. He takes the most robust approach respect Rickenista debate. I can check that out. I'm not familiar with it, so I haven't read it. Can't give you any thoughts on it, but uh but thank you for the recommendation there.
Um let's see. Uh why don't you find the Eliakim argument convincing? Um that's one that I haven't delved into all that much to be honest. I've read a little bit on it. I wasn't compelled by it when I read it and it's something that I do want to do a further video on just exploring that precisely. So yeah, unfortunately um unfortunately I can't like give you a quick answer right here that would really be sufficient. But um but I will keep that in mind because I do want to actually delve into that and give a proper answer to that uh to that argument. Um mythopouya uh thank you for the super chat. Close friend of mine feels confessional Lutheranism has dampened his zeal for Christ. He thinks too much focus on us being sinners can overshadow Christian growth. How would you respond? Yeah, I would respond by saying that I understand that because of the unfortunately anemic Lutheranism that dominated the 20th century that whose carcass is still with us today. Uh and I think that it is not healthy or good or right and I think that it is that type of Lutheranism is rightly dying the death that it deserves uh and is attempting to hang on. Um well no there is so much material written in terms of spiritual growth in our tradition all over the place and it's so robust people are just afraid of pyotism and so they've done this overreaction thing in the 20th century um so what I would recommend is looking at a lot of Lutheran spiritual manuals I already mentioned like sacred meditations uh already um and Henrik Mueller I mentioned his work as well there are so many great works on Lutheran spirituality are recent book um publication of Christian ethics by Rever Franklin Widner has some really great advice on spiritual formation and ethical formation. I think it's a wonderful text. I recommend that. So I I just would say that uh you should spend your I would tell your friend to spend some time in classical Lutheran sources that talk about this uh because unfortunately what you sometimes find in certain kinds of formation within um the Lutheran tradition are just really not actually consistent with our history in that area. Yeah, I care a lot about spiritual growth and I think there are a lot of Lutheran that do as well. Uh I know that you're not in the United States. I don't know what the uh depends on, you know, I could recommend something perhaps depending on on um where where you're at, but uh but there are other writings of Gearhart as well that are that are in in English uh on you know spiritual practices as well. So uh recommend recommend Gearhart probably above everybody else. Johan Art is also I mean he's the most famous and most popular of any of our spiritual writers.
There is some weird too much introspection sometimes in AR but I still think he's very helpful as well.
Okay. Uh let's see. What do you think about the Eastern Orthodox argument that the first 10,000 years of the church taught that there is one visible institution like in the creed? I mean, what do you want me to say? I mean, that just is the historical reality that these things hadn't changed yet. I mean, they uh but even then, you have do have the Coptic Church, and I still think that they're in the church despite, you know, disagreements on exactly how they understand the two natures. So, I'm not I'm not convinced that it's as different as this. They're truly monophysicites. I don't think they are. Um, but yeah, I mean, that's just the historical reality. So, like I I don't know that anybody's saying, "Oh, it's ideal or great that a bunch of the church just kept splitting." I don't I don't know that anybody's like, "Good, that's great. I'm glad that happened. That's ideal." So, we're just talking about uh the historical reality, unfortunately, that that's that's what is the case today.
Um, okay. Here, Jess, thank you for uh the super chat there. Intending on attending, intending on attending CSL in the fall. Uh, great. Congratulations.
I'm glad to hear it and uh hope that that will be the formation there will be a blessing for you. Uh, any general tips on preaching and how do we preach the law without preaching about it? Um, yeah, I have a lot of tips on preaching, but I don't know how to give them in a really concise format here. Um, so to some degree, when people say like, don't preach the law, don't preach the gospel or don't preach about the law or about the gospel. Just preach the law, just preach the gospel, I I think that's a silly false dichotomy, and I think it's totally unhelpful. Um, so like you can preach about the law. There's no way to preach the law without preaching about it. Like how do you preach it without saying what it is? It doesn't make sense. So like you can preach about the law but um yeah I would say if you're talking about if if you are talking about like how to preach the law in a clear way that's not just abstract direct it to the people. I mean just and and give specific examples and don't speak in generalities. I think that's the biggest problem with Lutheran preachers that I hear a lot of times is that when they and I don't think this just affects us, but it affects lots of people. But uh when people preach the law, they just preach in a general sense like we're sinners, we break the law. Uh the most important thing is be specific.
Be very very specific about what breaking the law means and what the law actually requires uh and in its precise requirements. So that's the biggest piece of advice I'd give to you in terms of of preaching uh preaching the law.
But I will say it's also okay to preach about it. It's okay to explain what the law means and what it actually requires and that means you know actually explaining and teaching and catechizing some um on on these issues. I think for a long time Lutherans were like we don't have to do a lot of catechesus in the pulpit because people come to Bible study and confirmation classes and it's like people don't do that all the time.
We need to we need to use the pulpit for catechizing as well. Um okay let's see here. Uh how much Luther thank you sir uh how much can be gained by reading the apocrypha. Um I mean it's just as helpful as another like helpful pious book would be. I think that it's very beneficial. It gives you some idea of um God's provision for his people between the testaments. It gives you an idea of what was going on between the testaments. Uh I think that it gives you an idea of the spirituality of the people you know leading to the New Testament. So, I think there's a lot of uh I think there are a lot of things that are that are helpful. Yeah. So, I'd say there there's a lot that's there's a lot that's helpful there.
Okay, let's see. I think I got through all the super chats, man. I'm trying to like catch up here. So, okay. Um, would I watch a 4-hour version of Revenge of the Sith? Of course I would.
Like if there was the unedited version that supposedly exists out there somewhere, like the the full cut. Um yeah, I'd watch a 10-hour version of Revenge of the Sith. Why not?
If uh if that existed.
Everybody's asking about schism. Should I leave my denomination? Um I really don't think you have to be as concerned about schism as many of you are. And like I said, I think that there is a very precise um view of like what is schism and what is not. Not everything is schism. A lot of things in America are schism, but not everything is schism. So, um, without more information, I can't give you a yes or no. Just wait for my video on it. I need to do that, man. This is like half the questions I get are this this question.
So, I understand because it's a topic of conversation, uh, now, but okay, let's see. If good works are not necessary for salvation, why does the Bible state that everyone will be judged and rewarded according to their works?
Yeah. Um, I mean, it's obviously a good question. There is plenty of I mean there are plenty of texts that talk about the role of good works in final judgment. There are texts talk about rewards according to works. So one is that heavenly rewards are given for works. I mean we know that in a number of different places scripturally um that that uh we have like Jesus talking about not you know getting treasures for yourself on earth but treasures in heaven. Like there are treasures in heaven that you can you can receive uh based upon based upon works. You know it's not by way of strict merit we would say but yeah of course scripture talks about blessings and rewards for good works both earthly blessings and eternal blessings for for good works. So yes that's true. Um do good works play a role in final judgment? Absolutely. I mean that's clear all over the place in scripture.
Um the question is what is the role of good works? Are the do the good works play a demonstrative role? Right? Are they demonstrative in um showing one's faith externally?
Uh or is are they instrumental? Right?
Are they instrumental in one's say glorification? And so we would say I mean I I would say that that it's the former rather than the latter. So they're not they're certainly not irrelevant to final judgment. Oh, nice Frasier mug. Oh, thank you. Somebody noticed. Somebody knows. Somebody's got real taste here. My cafe nervosa mug.
People never never know. Frasier, when I use this smug, nobody ever says anything. That's okay.
All right. Um, any thoughts on reading the Bible for life? Feel like it gets difficult reading the same passages and getting getting anything new and such?
Um, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that the more you read the Bible, I don't think you ever I mean, maybe you you could say you're kind of sick of reading the same things over and over again, but it's not like you can ever exhaust scripture. Like, even if you know, you could exhaust say the meaning of scripture, you understand the meaning of every single passage. you know, if if that was um if that was, you know, the case, you still wouldn't have applied scripture perfectly to your life, right? So, even if if you were to like somehow do that, and I don't think that you really can.
Uh there are always new ways to apply it. I mean, unless you have, you know, perfect, complete, and entire obedience, which I don't think you probably do, just taking a guess. So, yeah, I I understand. And I also think though that it is good to I don't know you can use commentaries alongside of scripture as well. Um you can use devotional texts that are written uh expositing passages of scripture as well. I think there are plenty of things that uh other things that you can do to supplement your reading of scripture scripture too.
Those things can be can be quite helpful.
All right. Um thoughts on the Schultz Velts dispute over semiotics and reader situatedness. Yeah, it's actually been a little while since I've read uh Veltz's book. Uh I know a lot of people really hate Veltz's work on, you know, semiodics and and his kind of use of some more, I would say, contemporary linguistic there, but it's not actually contemporary. It's like half a century old at least at this point. Um I thought there were things that were very helpful in it. I I felt like most of much of the critique was people who didn't really understand what he was trying to say and that a lot of it was um simply saying well it sounded like something in postmodernism and that's bad so therefore we reject it. Uh that's not to say that there aren't valid critiques of what belt is doing but I think a lot of the critiques I was just very disappointed by and didn't really see any substance to them. So I I just would at least want to hear a more substantive critique than the ones that I have. But it's been a while since I've read the his book too so I don't know. Yeah. Um, okay. Thank you uh for your excellent YouTube lectures. Well, thank you from the Church of South India, mainland United Protestant Church in let's see, in the Anglican Communion and I've learned a great deal about Protestantism from you. Well, thank you so much. Yeah, I understand that there is a pretty big Anglican presence there. So, um yeah, that's that's great to hear. There is a Lutheran presence at least somewhat in in uh India as as well, but but not nearly as big as far as I understand it.
Uh is John 6 about uh communion?
Uh if yes, should kids take it? Without taking it, there's no life in you?
Augustine says yes. Why did the church change on this? Yeah, I talked about that last time. Um I did uh I I did address this in the last Q&A and you know what I said is I do think John 6 is eucharistic. Um this is something I really need to do a fuller ex exposition of. Uh I do think it's eucharistic. I don't think it's exclusively eucharistic. And and I I also think you say that about Augustine, but there are plenty of statements of Augustine um where Augustine speaks about a spiritual eating as well. And so uh I would say that there is some sense of a spiritual eating in faith as well as a a eukaristic eating as well that that are referenced. So I I think it's yeah um I think it's talking about a couple different things. So uh I do think it's I do think it's eucharistic though. Uh but then how does that relate to to young communion? Um, and that's always been a challenge. If you're going to take that in the most eucharistic, in an exclusively eucharistic sense is going to be, well, okay, if this is about the Eucharist, then you literally have no life in you unless you eat the body of Christ. So, uh, does that mean that all infants are damned or we should be given communion from the moment that they're that they're born? U, you know, so, uh, and obviously if we take it in a most literal sense, we should be giving communities as young as possible. Um, and so I don't know, but um, I I will say that I am supportive of of a younger communion practice for sure, but I don't think that that text uh necessitates like infant infant communion or something. Um, I like I said, I support a younger communion certainly than like 13 or something. Um, because I think we've we've kind of overvalued what it means to be able to to discern the body and blood of Christ. But but I'm not compelled by like a you know child at the moment of baptism has first communion kind of thing that the Eastern church does though you know pal communion does certainly have precedent historically in in the early church.
Okay. Uh let's see. What do you think about Leviathan and behemoth? I to be very honest with you I when I'm sorry I'm gonna gonna have people annoyed at me because I don't care about all the supernatural things. I really don't care. It just is totally irrelevant to me. I doesn't matter. I I'm sorry. It doesn't matter. I like all the weird things that people are into of like the Nephilim and all this stuff. I just don't think it it's important. Um I care about it in so far as it matters for the meaning of the text, which is not really specifically about Behemoth and Leviathan, but if you're looking at like the Job text, we're talking about the power of God in creation. I don't really care just of what those refer to.
Sorry. Um, yeah. I think people just get too hung up on certain things. Okay. Um, when are you making your next obligatory trip to Texas for a men's retreat? I'm actually not uh Well, thank you. I'm I don't No, I don't think I have any trips to Texas planned anytime soon. Uh, it has been a little while now. Um, I've taken a lot of trips to uh Texas, but but nothing Yeah, I think I can think of two recently. What do I think about Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes? Uh, I think a lot of things about Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. I've done a whole Did I do my talk on Hobs? I'm like, actually, I don't know. I don't know.
Did I do a video on Thomas Hobbs? I've written stuff on Thomas Hobbes. I thought I did a video on him, but maybe I didn't actually get around to it. I don't remember. Um, but uh, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. I mean, Thomas Hobbes was was a weirdo, like theologically. I mean, he wrote a lot about theology. We think of him as a political philosopher, but he saw himself actually as a as a much broader thinker than that. Um, politics was only a small part of his philosophy. And he wrote about theology.
He believed that God had a material body, that souls are material. I mean, just all sorts of crazy stuff. Um, but Leviathan, I mean, I'm not like I don't know. I'm not like convinced of Hobbes's political theory at all. Um, he's interesting historically important historically.
Um, let's see. Books by the fathers that show solos scriptor. You want me to point to like a I mean, you're not going to find a Turkish father writing a book on solos scriptorer if that's what you're looking for. like there there's no book written on structures of authority in the church. There's no book on like what is tradition, what is scripture, how do they relate to each other. I mean those are the kinds of questions that really aren't dealt with in depth until the medieval period. So you're not going to find anything. Um you're going to find what what I would say is look at the methodology, look at what they how they are arguing, look at the sources of authority that they are using and ask the question um when they are in disputes, what are they citing as the highest authority? Does it does it seem as if they are equally weighing uh traditions and scripture in the same way? So, you have to look more at their their mode of argumentation and their methodology than something that's like clearly, you know, laid out somewhere.
It's just not in one way or another.
Um, okay. Let's see. I was baptized in a non-denom church, but I left. I thought I was a Christian, but was not and was brought to Christ many years later.
Should I be rebaptized? Um, no. If if your baptism uh had the triune name, right? If the baptism invoked the triune name, the father, son, and holy spirit and if the baptism included water that was applied to you, it is a valid baptism, right? Those are the elements that constitute a valid baptism. If there is doubt about the formula, if the baptism was in the name of Jesus or in the name of the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier to make it gender neutral or something, uh then then you'd have a question. But if it was a uh you know, a triune baptism and it then and there was water applied to you, then it's a valid baptism. And that's true of I mean, we would accept that as a valid baptism. So with the Anglicans and um so would Rome the east who the heck knows but uh but everybody else would.
All right, let's see. Uh Gritter 98, thank you for the super chat. Thanks on the meaning of Bioas. Does it mean daily or does it have a ukoristic undertone?
Why did Jerome translate it as super substantial? To be honest, that's not an issue that I have really put much thought into at all. So, um I would have to I'd have to do some more uh more reading on that. Sorry.
Uh sometimes you guys give me uh you give me some good questions where I'm like I don't know, you know, and uh these questions that I'm that I haven't looked into yet uh always give me good ideas for things I should look into for for future discussions as well. So, all right, let's see. Uh John Michael Rue, have I read his dogmatics? Um, I have it as a scanned PDF. Someone sent it to me very nicely and I have not yet read it. He was an important theologian for my own church's history. I read his ethics and I thought it was kind of bad. I I'm sorry. I know that he's a theologian that I'm supposed to really like and I I was kind of disappointed with it to the point that I just didn't read the dogmatics, but the dogmatics is supposed to be the better work. So, I'm sure it's good. I just I I just the ethics was just I I just wasn't impressed by it. So I just didn't move to anything else. Um he he seemed to have a pretty like anti-filosophical bent in a way that I thought was kind of disappointing. So uh but I did read his book on Luther on holy scripture which is a small book and I thought that was that was well done. I I appreciated that book. I thought it was helpful. Um I know he's an important guy uh for my own tradition and he's somebody that I should read more. Um Michael Gorman's work on theosis. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I've cited Gorman on in a couple of my things that I've written, but um yeah, I think Gorman in his work on theosis and Paul, I think, is largely right. I mean, I wouldn't agree with everything that he says in terms of um like how he interprets Paul and justification, but I do think that a lot of the theosis themes that he draws on, the themes of participation in Paul, I think are done very well. I think he's right about about a lot of it. So, yeah, I think Gorman's work is is worthwhile.
Is listening to gangster rap and metal a sin? Uh if you try to do them together, it is. Metal core or something certainly is. Yeah, that's that's for sure.
But uh no uh I listen to Well, I mean I don't know. I don't I don't like a lot of metal. I listen to metal core because I was a scene boy back in the day. Yeah, I was in the the scene, you know. Um, so I did the whole like metal core thing. I even had a band and stuff. So I was the the vocalist, mostly screaming, a little bit of singing. Um, so I'd be kind of hypocritical to tell you not to. Yeah, I know. It's metal plus hardcore. And the thing the thing is I like hardcore. I'm not as much a metal guy as I am like punk. And for me it's like hardcore. So that's why I the only forms of metal I like that are the most punk kinds of metal. Yeah. So that's what it is. I listen to a lot of indie rock and emo as well, but um Oh, new I new metal. I do not like new metal. Sorry for those of you who do hear I just not not a fan personally.
All right, a lot of you guys are asking about predestination I see in here. Um and a lot of different questions on predestination.
I will say bad brains, that's the stuff I listen to. Yeah, DC hardcore was was my my favorite. I listen to a lot of well like a lot of youth crew straight edge stuff. Definitely Bad Brain. So yeah. Yeah. Used to listen to a lot of Trance uh as well. Uh wasn't wasn't like a raver or something, but I listened to a lot of that music back in the day when I was yo-yoing a lot. Uh part of the yo was part of the yo-yo scene when I was doing that at a competitive level. Okay. Uh, is there a difference between Kemnets and Gearhart interpreting scripture? To me, it seems Chemnets insists much more on Petristic authority and importance than Gearhart does. I actually think that's probably right. Um, I I do. I think Gearhart certainly cites Petristic sources a lot.
uh and he thinks they're very important.
But um yeah, sometimes Kemnets does seem to speak uh I think more clearly about a kind of authority that lies in tradition than some of some later Lutheran do. uh and I think the reason for that at least later is the controversy with Kixstus who claims that there is a secondary source of authority uh that is binding upon all Christians that is the consens the petristic consensus as he calls it the first 500 years of the church and this leads to a whole big controversy and so you do get like especially in Quench and Kov and some other later dogmatians because they're arguing against Kixstus' views um statements about scripture that do I think seem to go a little bit beyond where cabinets goes Yeah.
Um, you had a feeling I was a scene kid.
Yeah. Do I seem like I was a scene kid?
Yeah. I had the I used to have like black hair that I used to straighten because my hair was all wavy and put over one eye and Yeah. Um, tight jeans and band t-shirts that were like I used to wear youth large band t-shirts like we did. I was real skinny then too though. I did the whole thing.
I had my MySpace photos of I don't know.
Yeah. Yeah. That was that was me. For those who are old enough to to remember those days, my favorite area of New England is the Bergkers. Uh which is like right near where I grew up. But I love the Bergkers. They're my favorite.
I could never live out there because there was no uh there there just were like there are no churches out there like at all. But it's still my favorite area of the country.
I'd love to go there. I think it's beautiful. They have great museums and they have Tangle Wood out there and you can see go see John Williams live and go see YoYo Ma hanging out at the the chocolate shop I used to go hang out at. So, uh it's a it's a great place and it's beautiful but again spiritually pretty dark but uh but otherwise it is a beautiful place to go visit.
Let's see how well do how well do I think Christianity fits with the philosophy of Star Wars. Oh, especially New Jedi Order. Yeah, that's going to lead me in a People are going to be totally lost if I talk about that about traitor. Um, yeah, Bergkers is a church desert. Unfortunately, it is. Yeah, we had people like in Westfield where I grew up, which is how I grew up in just east of the Birkers, people would go out there to church or to Albany. There's nothing out there. Um, yeah. Uh, the philosophy of Star Wars according to George Lucas at least. It's more difficult when you get to like the New Jedi Order stuff, but Lucas talks like he's got a Buddhist view or something, but he really doesn't. I mean, balance in the force, according to George Lucas, is not there being this like neutral balance of light and dark. This yin-yang thing. I mean, Lucas is very clear that balance in the force is the overthrow of evil. And that's what it means that Anakin is the chosen one. It brings balance to the force. So, the view of good versus evil is actually a pretty Christian one that you find in in Star Wars, at least in Lucas' vision. That's not always where Star Wars writers go.
Yeah. Um, man, view on contraception and waiting and spacing children.
I feel like that is something that I need more time to explain. And I've had a lot of conversations about this through like premarital counseling with couples. Yeah, I think um I don't like a lot of the way that the contraception arguments or or discussions go today.
Um, in a lot of ways I think it's a really big problem that like especially when it came to like artificial like contraception, the pill or whatever that Christians just kind of adopted whatever technology was out there uh and just started doing it just because everybody else did it. Uh, and then we didn't really think about ethically what that meant. So I think that there are a lot of uh the reason I say I don't want to answer it that much here is because I I feel like there are a lot of basic philosophical theological ethical questions you have to ask first um to kind of lay the groundwork to really answer the question clearly and well uh which is you have to ask about things like what is the purpose of what is the purpose of sex what is the purpose of marriage um and then how do we relate to technologies what is medicine people call everything a medical technology when it's really not. Um so certainly uh the idea of like just accepting whatever is out there just because it's there and saying well it's all fine uh is obviously bad. Uh but I'm also not compelled by like the kind of quiverful take which is like you can you h like there is a divine command to have as many children as you possibly can and even like natural family planning and stuff is something you should not do. I mean I I run into this view and I'm just I just not I'm not convinced by it at all.
Um, yeah. So, um, yeah, I I should do something more in depth on it so I can actually give a like a proper clear answer to it, but it certainly is something that we need to be thinking about. And, um, I like I said, when I meet with couples in premarital counseling, I was I always spent a session just walking them through this issue and trying to to ask them the right questions to help them think through the process uh, and help them think through the issue instead of just giving them an answer. I just tend to think that that works better, but more of a Socratic approach. And is the validity of the Eucharist dependent upon the validity of the ordained priesthood?
Can layman have it apart from it? Yeah, I to be honest, I'm not sure. And when I read some other like older Lutheran sources, I'm not sure that they're sure either. Um I would say, you know, so there is a question of validity. Uh and then there is of course the question of whether it's it's right order or not. So I would say it's certainly not right order. So to some degree to ask is it well is it valid technically is not isn't really important. Uh because the question is well is it is is it proper order anyway. Um so don't do it to be like well it's valid anyway even though I'm not supposed to do it. It's still valid so I can still do it. I mean don't do that. So so I just don't know how much it you know how much it matters.
Gunar Rosenall familiar uh by name but anything more than that? No. No. Um so sorry I can't really help with that. Uh let's see.
John O' Conor used to love Gearhard Fertie on being a theologian of the cross. Uh, and I watched your video and it ruined it. Sorry. Yeah, I'm being a theologian of the cross. I when you read it by itself, it doesn't seem like a like a bad book. Um, but then I think when you read the rest of F's writing, you start to realize like, oh, there's some, yeah, there's some stuff there that's a little um, uh, you know, that he doesn't really mean in a traditional sense, and you start to see some things in there that are, you know, sorry, less than helpful.
So, sorry to do that to you. I don't know. Um, I I mean, when I read the book, I thought it was fine, and then I read his book, Where God Meets Man, and I was like, oh, wait a minute. Where is this guy coming from? Um, and then I went back and reread it after reading Where God Meets Man. And then I read The Law Gospel Debate and I was like, "Oh, yeah. I don't think I'm going to recommend this book anymore. Um, so that was actually my the first book I read of his. I didn't have a problem with it initially.
What are my opinions on Jonathan Pio's method of interpreting the Bible?" I can't say. So, obviously I know Pedro.
We've had a conversation. My my wife knows him. Um, but we uh I I haven't like watched a bunch of his I haven't watched a bunch of his um videos enough to really to to really know. Um some of the stuff with symbolism I think is interesting at least from what I've seen and um but but I haven't watched like enough to tell you enough that's that's informed right now.
Uh I when kind of he initially started his channel and people were watching him a lot. I had watched some things of his and I thought they were pretty interesting but it's it's just been a while so I feel like anything that I say I don't want to sound dumb or misrepresent him. So uh I'm just going to yeah avoid that. Does he only answer people who give him money? No. Because I just answered you and you didn't. Um no.
Well I do prioritize the people who have given me money. It's just that that takes up most of the time. So, it's not like that's all I theoretically am doing, but um if you do do that, I'm going to prioritize your question. So, yeah.
Um what is your view on the himnity the church sings versus what it should be singing? Man, that that's a that's a tough one. Uh there are a lot of schmaltzy awful hymns that we have in our himnels that we shouldn't. So, I'm not a big fan of a lot of the Methodist in principle like we can't read, we can't have hymns from anybody except our tradition. Um, but there are a lot of Methodist hymns that are not that great that too many people say that I think we could do do without. But, uh, but there's no perfect him or anything.
Let's see. When an ordained minister consecrates the sacramental elements, but non-alcoholic grape juice is used instead of wine for pastoral reasons, does this affect the sacrament? I don't think it does. No, I don't think it does. non-alcoholic. Um well well okay you're saying grape juice if you're talking about like Welch's grape juice um I sorry I'm hearing non-alcoholic I'm thinking non-alcoholic wine which is still wine but you remove the alcohol so it's still wine uh with grape juice you know I I mean I'm not going to say it's invalid but I will say that we should try to use something close to what Jesus commanded us to do which is why um I would say non-alcoholic wine is usually a better way to go. Um there are very few circumstances in which somebody could not have alcohol removed wine uh or or must which is another option which kind of stops the fermentation process at the very beginning. So so there are other things other than like a kind of unnatural Welch's grape juice but am I going to say it's invalid? I don't think it's invalid. Um but I don't know. Yeah, I haven't watched the um Peasio discussion with with um Gavin Hortland yet. So I I do want to watch it. I just haven't had a chance chance to do that.
My opinion on the ethics of IVF, I think there are a ton of problems with IVF.
Um, and my wife has actually done a lot more research on this than I have. And I I just the whole industry itself has so many issues. Um, and yeah, I think there there are a lot of ethical concerns that people don't really think about very much when they are doing this. It's pretty universal that like when IVF, this kind of technology was developed, it's like everybody was against it. Uh and then everybody just kind of adopted it because it's just what happened. Like we just adopted it without actually thinking through the issue ethically. So it's a big problem. Uh I I just I'm always careful in how I talk about it because you know there are a lot of especially when you're talking to a congregation, it's like chances are like how many people have had those procedures done like IVF and how many kids do you know in your church that are in your confirmation class that were born that way? you don't want to talk in such a way to be like well I wish you weren't alive. I mean obviously that's not true. So uh you just because there's so much personal connected to it for a lot of people. I it just you have to take have some care in how you discuss it. Um but there are some when if you're considering IVF uh there are a lot of serious like ethical I think concerns that that you should be considering.
Let's see. Uh love your stuff. I know that Lutheranism is a possibility of losing salvation. If that's the case, how can one find assurance since there's a sense of anxiety that I can lose it?
Um yeah, I I think that um yeah, I I think like to me it doesn't cause the same kind of anxiety. It just doesn't cause the same kind of anxiety.
Uh for a couple reasons like one is that when you're speaking about losing salvation, right? So people use that language. I think what they're often thinking is is that you're just like in and out of a state of salvation all the time. Uh which is really not the case.
What we're saying is that if you live in perpetual sin, willful sin, um, which is sin that is continued in, it's not repented of, then yes, you can cut yourself off from the grace of your baptism. Um, of course, you can always return to your baptism. It is always there for you. It is always there for you. But it's not like this idea that every time you sin, you're out and you have to come back in. Like you're you're not bouncing in and out of salvation all the time. And I think that's unfortunately the way that people think about it. And that's just not not really really the case. Um, I can't give you like some there's no way to give you some absolute 100% assurance in every circumstance ever, no matter what your view of salvation is, unless you're going to say what you're universalist.
Or you just say, well, if you are baptized, therefore you it's impossible for you to ever fall away. Like Calvinists have the issue of assurance on a diff in a different way because there's always the question of, well, am I saved at all? Um, with a Lutheran approach, you can always definitively say, "I am saved. God loves me. God's given me his grace. Here it is objectively in the means of grace." Uh, so that's something that we can grab on to clearly objectively. And um, and I think there's there's a lot of assurance in that. But can you have like absolute certitude that you could never possibly fall away? I mean, I don't know how to You can have a general certainty, yes.
But can you have an absolute certitude?
I I just don't think that's possible.
But I don't think it's possible in any system.
So I I think that's asking something that that's not really not really possible unfortunately. Uh which I understand why that would cause cause some issues especially as myself as someone with OCD, you know. Um yeah, let's see here.
Um oh, Genesis 38. Okay. The story of Onen condemned for spilling his seed.
Does that mean any contraception is a disgrace to God? Historical view. Yeah.
I mean, people talk about like oninism, which is any spilling of the seed in any, you know, I don't want to get too crass in this discussion. Um, but I think it's pretty clear that like I that text by itself, I will say this. Um, just by itself, I don't think it's a compelling text. Um, and I just I don't think like I think that there are other more compelling arguments just because like it seems pretty evident that Onan is particularly trying to avoid his duty in that particular situation. And so I don't know if it's like the particular location of the seed and where it went that is the problem um per se in that in that narrative. So I I I but I think there are are other you know philosophical deeper theological grounds to talk about that. I just that particular text to me I just have never found particularly compelling. Um do you have to affirm theos to be saved?
Is it heresy to say Mary is only the mother of Jesus and would this heresy put you uh in hell?
Um well, okay, this is a couple different questions. Is the denial of Mary being Theotokos, is that heresy? And I mean, yeah, if you think about the actual full implications of what that means in terms of the relationship between the two natures and Christ, yes. Uh does that mean in a literal sense that everyone who would uh happen to not like the phrase mother of God um because they think that the phrase mother of God somehow implies that Mary like created the divine nature uh and they're confused. Does that mean that they're well of course that doesn't mean they're like that's silly. I mean, so so no, I mean, when we're talking about errors that the church identifies, you know, as heretical, this isn't like or or heterodox, when you define false teaching, that is not some absolute statement on the salvation of everybody who is confused or uses weird language.
Um, but if you talk to them about it, probably doesn't really believe what they think they do or or how they're articulating it, you know. So, people are inconsistent. And so, no, I I certainly don't think that sends people to hell. I don't think that's the case at all. Somebody asked me about chick publications, like Chick Tracks. Man, that's funny. Uh, no, I um What do I say about Chick Tracks? They're great. I love them. Good theology in those things. Oh, man. I I have uh I have some Chick tracks. Uh I've had them dropped off at my house and stuff and I I've kept them. My favorite is the the Dungeons and Dragons one, man. The I know they've done multiple, but there was that What was that one particular one? um that uh they actually there was a movie made based on it. I'm not thinking of Mazes and Monsters. It was something more recent than that. But um yeah.
Yeah, they're they're wild. I mean, they're wild. I I don't know what else to say about it, but they're they're kind of nuts.
Yeah.
Um okay. Do you agree or disagree with Philip Henry Goss's view that the earth was created with a mature appearance or do you agree more with the gap theory?
Um, I'm going to get myself in trouble.
I don't talk about these things because people get mad about it. Um, I'm not in theory opposed to the gap theory.
One of my favorite theologians has the holds to the gap theory and um Johan Heinrich Kurtz, he's got a really good book uh that we're actually going to be publishing soon and this book doesn't actually touch on that um because he came to that conviction actually after he wrote this but he's uh he essentially does like biblical theology as you'd consider it with like your heart's boss that kind of thing. And um he's got a a a very very high view of scripture. He's an inaratist. He believes in literal Adam and all that stuff. Um um but he does hold to a gap theory and I hear his argument. I'm like I see what he's where he's coming from. I I get the argument.
Um I'm not I'm not in theory completely opposed to it. Um my view is like view that the earth is created with a mature appearance. Is this the idea that like the earth is essentially just created with a bunch of fossils already in it?
and um essentially that you don't have to use the answers and genesis models of science and you can just kind of proceed with science as if the earth is old even though it's really not because it was just created that way. Um yeah, I mean that particular view for me is the only Yeah, I uh that uh sorry something started playing on my computer. I don't know what that was.
Um but uh yeah, sorry that uh that view seems to me to be like intellectually the only the only one if I was definitively convinced of a young earth creationist that's the only one I could I could just generally hold genu genuinely. Um but but I don't tend I I I don't tend toward a young earth so I I don't really care either. I' said there are things that I just don't care about that everybody else seems to care about.
I just don't really care. Uh sorry. Um, yes, I believe in a literal atom. Of course, I believe in a literal atom.
Yes, I believe that, you know, all that, you know, the the Genesis narrative of the fall is real. It's not mythical. I don't think that. Okay, let's see. Um, how do you explain close communion to other Christians who feel hurt by the practice? Um, I would say facts don't care about your feelings. No, I um that's kind of true to be honest. I mean, I would be more sensitive than that, but to say like what I try to tell people is like this is an issue that every church like every church should practice close communion. I say to people, your church shouldn't let me take communion. That's where I always start. So, I say it's it's not just that our church is being mean that like if we really don't agree on this issue, um like then we shouldn't commune together. I that that's where I where I start. Um and the it's really hard not to there are people that are going to be hurt by it, right? That's just the reality. That's just the reality. And I think that we unfortunately live in a time where people are just just make decisions and people do this naturally anyway, but um people make decisions based on how they're feeling. And uh in most of church history, you would not have been able to just partake of communion at whatever church you felt like. I mean the reality is in most of history like even if you look at um read Charles Kra and his approach to this issue. I mean he says even churches that are in fellowship you should always talk to the pastor before you take communion. So like even then communion is really something or how to how how to defense communion is really the duty of the local pastor who knows who actually knows you. Um, am I saying that we have to go by that standard? No, I think there's some sense to it though. Um, just it was really just the ease of travel that changed that because people are just traveling all over the place and there are people that travel for work and they're a different church all the time. So, we just never take communion because you're not home in the same way that you would be otherwise.
These these kind of factors are really what end up changing the church's view of that. Um, sorry I can't really give you a real easy way to to explain it that isn't going to be offensive. going to be. Um, but just try to be gracious in how you explain it. I don't know what else to say.
Um, would you suggest with pastoral authority that Christians not take the Eucharist in a non-denom church? Yeah, 100%. If if you're a Lutheran, if you're not denom, go for it. So, I would say that really no Christian should be taking um communion in a church that shares a different confession. Yeah, that that would be that would be my view. So, I would say, you know, uh, and that's not to say like that non-denom people are terrible or something at all or they're not Christians. Um, but we we don't know, we don't agree on what's going on. They have a very different view of of what the Eucharist even is and what the purpose of worship is. And so, uh, there there is a level of agreement that we don't have there. And you know, it's unfortunate. Of course, the reality like the the desired reality is we all partake of communion together, but that's just the kind of the nature of how things are in the church at at the present moment. Why do evangelicals not use the sign of the cross? I I mean, ask an evangelical. I don't know. Um, generally, they would just say it it's like superstitious or something. Um, it looks too Catholic. I don't know. Um, but I do certainly get weird looks when I'm with my evangelical friends and uh settings and I make the sign of the cross, you know, even after praying and I don't really think about it. I just do it and then I was like, "What are you doing? What are you doing? What's that about?" But uh I don't know if I ever get a real good answer or anyone says it's like wrong to do it, but they're just like, "But why? It's kind of superstitious. It's pointless."
It's more the response I usually hear. I want to know the Lutheran view of baptism. Does water baptism save from hell? If so, a water baptized baby saved from hell and the unborn not. That's a good question. So, yes, I mean, I would say baptism applies the benefits of salvation. And so, the means of grace all apply the benefits of salvation. And so, it it applies regeneration. So yes, if water baptism does save, but Lutheran also, you have to recognize, believe that it is possible to um it is possible to reject the grace of your baptism, right? So if you are baptized, you can um reject the grace of baptism and then be lost. So I always say that because people get this idea that well, you believe that if you're baptized as a baby, you're doesn't matter what you do the rest of your life, you're just saved no matter what.
No, that's not what we're saying. Um the language that's sometimes been been used the imagery that's sometimes used in our theologians is that u baptism is like the the seed a seed of spiritual life that's that's given that's that's planted in the the child. So the spiritual life is there um there is this this faith even the work of the holy spirit that is present within within that child uh that has to be nourished in order to grow and so uh you have to have just like a seed has to have certain conditions in order for it to grow. You got to have sunlight, you got to have, you know, water and all that stuff. The same thing would be true uh would be true here of baptism. So, you need to have a Christian family that is instructing you in the word of God and and going to the you know uh church and hearing the word of God, all those kind of things.
Okay. Um the question of whether the unborn or unbaptized infants are in hell, there is not. So I will say that when you look throughout our history, there's a little book from Charles, the theologian Charles Kra that talks about this and um he gets a bunch of quotations from older Lutheran theologians uh who essentially say uh that they do trust and Johan Johannes Muse I know has the there was a controversy a little bit that he was involved in talking about this too. Um that there is a general trust that God will save infants who die in infancy and the unborn. Um, but that's not something that can be said with definite with definite certainty.
But that is something that we trust is the case because of God's graciousness and kindness. And we recognize that God can regenerate outside of means. We are bound to those means and that's all we know. But God and his wisdom can do what he desires to do. Um whereas Calvinists tend to be a little bit more strong on the damnation of infants.
Okay. Uh, how would you go about explaining to a low church denomination friend that they're missing out in regards to the Lord's supper? What are they missing out on? Yeah. I mean, what are you missing out on? I mean, this is like Jesus. This is your savior giving himself to you, his like actual body and blood given to you. This is the most intimate communion that you can have with your Lord, with your savior. I I mean, that that's, you know, that's a wonderful thing. Uh, and certainly if that's the case, how could you want to miss that? And not only does he give himself to you, but he also gives you his gifts. He gives you his forgiveness and love and grace. And he also prepares us for that feast that is to come, that that feast on the final day. And so there, I think, are innumerable benefits to our Christian life and sanctification that come through through the gift of of holy communion. To some degree, I say when people ask me this, sometimes I explain this and they're like, I just still don't really know why that matters. Um, when you are in a church where you receive the Eucharist and recognize that this is the body and blood of Christ, it forms your spirituality, your piety much more than you know. Like to some degree, I can tell you intellectually what the difference is, but you don't really know until you're doing it. And and when you see that this is really the center of what you're doing at worship is receiving Christ in this this bodily way.
Um, okay, let's see here. Uh I feel like Lutheran is a perfect middle ground between Rome and evangelical. Yeah, I mean we we are kind of a middle ground.
I mean that's I think that's fair. Uh some people say that Anglicans are the via media, the middle way and in some ways they are. I feel like Anglicans in some way are really just a via media between Lutherans and Calvinists. So though with Episcopal polity so um you know you get that you get that too.
Yeah.
Um, yeah. Is ecclesiology and theology the holy office of the ministry the Achilles heel of Lutheranism? There seems to be much internal division and confusion with this. Oh, yeah. It is. It is. I mean, 100% is the biggest issue with our theology. Yeah. I don't know. I I I I could tell you like, oh, no, it's fine. There's there's clearly a confessional view and Yeah. No, this is this is the reality. And, you know, I'm not going to help anything by pretending that my tradition is perfect. Like, no, none is. Uh and so that's the reality of the messiness. That is the the issue that we struggle with the most is uh defining what the office of the holy ministry is and what and how the church should be structured. Um that doesn't mean that we don't have views on that.
Doesn't mean I don't have views on I do have views on that. Um I do recommend and I'm just pushing books that we're selling. So sorry, but hey, this is my stream. I can do that. So, um, we are going to be publishing the third volume next month of River Franklin Widner's system of dogmatics. And that third volume is the one that covers the office of the ministry in the church. If you want a good explanation of Lutheran ecclesiology, uh, I think it's really helpful. It's really helpful not only in the fact that I think Widner's right, but I do, but I also think he's very fair. I think he's very fair to to other views. And so he lays it he lays out all the views I think very very clearly very fairly and he also points out the benefits of each of these views as well like what they get right what he thinks that they get wrong and he does have a perspective but he stays relatively objective in doing that um so I think that's that that's a really good place to go I'll reference a book I referenced earlier in this stream and that is again uh a brief history of the Lutheran church in America by JL Neve this book is so so helpful in so many ways and he explores that in some depth if you want to see how that's formed, how Lutheran view various things. Um, I think the reason why like the reason why it became such a point of debate, it's kind of weird because it wasn't a point of debate in Germany. It wasn't in even in Scandinavian countries. It only became a point of debate in America because there were a lot of assumptions that those churches had about how their ecclesiology functioned uh and about how the state related to the church. And it was when Lutheran came to America that Lutheran were like, let's just adopt a bunch of things that the other American churches do. And then everybody got very confused. And so so it's it's not always that confused. Uh there were issues of like lay ministry with with some pitist elements of the pietist movement and those kind of things that are relevant to this. But the the debates are largely American debates. Um but then those debates have affected everybody else since then unfortunately.
Um but um I yeah I I think we had a functioning polity in well I think we had a functioning policy that functioned decently well in Germany and in in much of Scandinavia as well that we probably would have been better just to simply import into America but it just didn't happen that way. Yeah.
All right.
Um, let's see here. Oh, why did people in 1 Corinthians 15 baptize on behalf of the dead? I have no idea.
Sorry. I have no idea. I don't know why they did that. I I don't think I don't think Paul is approving of the practice, by the way. I think when Paul cites the the idea of baptizing on behalf of the dead, I think what he's doing is he's he's using this as an illustration and he's and he's he's referencing something that he knows was going on in the Corinthian church and that they knew they were doing. And because it's tied to the resurrection, it seems that the Corinthians because of the resurrection seem to have believed that if they like you had to get baptized to partake of the resurrection and therefore people who already died had to get baptized but weren't baptized so they would do it on their behalf. Um I don't think Paul's approving of the practice. I think it's a practice that the Corinthians had engaged in that most likely had been stopped, but Paul's aware of, and he's using it rhetorically to say, if you really don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, which people are challenging, well, why'd you do this whole baptizing on behalf of the dead thing? I I think that's what's going on. Um, but but I don't we don't have any more information. So, seemingly God didn't really need us to know that because that wasn't that wasn't the point. Um, oh, any advice for a friend who's still influenced by satanic panic?
Oh, man. Everything is bad, music, holidays, etc. Yeah, I mean the satanic panic has never really gone away. Um, I mean it has in to a large degree, but not entirely. Now, every time I talk about this, people get mad at me again because they're like, "No, there really are, you know, satanic cabals that do all these weird things and uh you just are, you know, part of the Illuminati or something because you deny it." I don't know. I get this all the time. People get so annoyed about these weird supernatural things. I believe that there are supernatural demonic things in the world. Uh, 100%. I believe that people do weird occult things and that these influence the world. Yes. Do I believe though that there is an organized satanic group that runs um like every element of society? I mean maybe but not not in such a way that I have been convinced uh that that it exists. I mean, if you look at like the roots of a lot of those ideas, I mean, so many of those people who founded the satanic panic essentially or the ideas behind it, like John Todd or something, like he's a he's a nut. He's crazy. He's a crazy person, you know. Um, so you get a lot of of people that a lot of these ideas stem from who claim to have inside information that we know were lying. Like we know that that they were lying. Um, and so so I don't know.
Um, so there's a lot of evil in the music industry for sure. There's a lot of satanic satanic imagery in the in the music industry. Like that's that that's just I don't doubt that that's the case.
Uh, and so I don't doubt that there's evil things within it. Uh but if you're talking about something that like well every heavy metal was necessarily evil uh that like everyone has to you know sell their souls to the devil at least in a literal sense to be in the music industry. I don't think that's the case.
Maybe they kind of do though. Maybe not in a direct sense. Um uh they they do.
But if you're talking about like I don't know back masking where people are like hiding you know secret audio in their records when they play them backwards like that kind of thing. No. I mean that that there there's no, you know, evidence for for that kind of thing. Or if you're talking about the ideas that yeah, all Christian holidays are taken from uh paganism or something and there's some vast conspiracy from the Jesuits. And I'm no fan of the Jesuits.
So uh but but some vast conspiracy by the Jesuits to like do all this weird stuff and they like stuck a cult things into Dungeons and Dragons to you know control children or something like all that stuff is just is just silly. Um, so how do you convince somebody of that stuff? I mean, you you can just a lot of it you can just look at historically. I mean, so if you're looking at like holidays, for example, I mean, there are I mean, how many videos does, you know, inspiring philosophy have over many years dealing with the claims about Christians taking pagan holidays? I mean, so you can trace this stuff historically. There are a lot of resources out there. Yeah.
Yeah. Halloween is evil, but that's not even the correct day. Uh, Reformation Day, that's what you're talking about.
That's what we celebrate in my house on that day. But, um, the secret messages played backwards are cool. Yeah. If if you It's just weird what your brain does because the human brain is naturally like naturally created to recognize patterns. Like God created it that way because you're made to recognize speech and faces and those kind of things. And so if you play a record backwards, it is true that your brain looks for patterns.
Now, if you ever do this thing with back masking where like show somebody um audio that that says say something like um what was it the Led Zeppelin song? I forget which Zed Zeppelin song was that said supposedly they said my sweet Satan when you play it backwards, right? Play that for somebody uh without without telling them what it what what it's supposed to say.
they're not gonna be able to understand anything that that the track says and then show them a video with subtitles while it plays and now all of a sudden they hear it really clear, right? So So it's something your brain is just doing.
There's no reason to think that that stuff is um is legitimate.
Um not not that there isn't evil imagery hidden in media. I mean there is, but not not in that way.
Okay. Um can praying for the dead change anything? Luther said we may pray once or twice and then leave the matter to God. But doesn't that contradict justification by faith alone? Um, well, I mean, I don't know. I think prayer for the dead is something that you do find bits sometimes like in like Lutheran have done it. It's not condemned in the in the book of Concord. Um, and yeah, prayer for the dead is something that often does depend at least in its medieval form on a certain view of purgatory, right? So that your prayers are you know efficacious and removing time in purgatory or something like that. Um but do we have to have that view of prayer for the dead to pray for the dead? I mean the east prays for the dead too um without a doctrine of of purgatory and what does the prayer for the dead actually do? I mean I don't know. Um there is some comfort in it. I think I remember I've had loved ones who have died and I have prayed for them and there's just it's really probably more reassuring myself than anything else of like God surround them with your love and there there's kind of a more of assurance for myself in in uh uh speaking to God of the promises that he's given to his people in some way.
The Lutheran have a closed biblical cannon. Uh there are some Lutheran who believe the dudero cannon is is scripture.
And I I'd have to hear what who those Lutheran who those Lutheran are. Um like closed in the sense it's closed in the sense that like we're not going to add more to the biblical cannon. No. Um closed. Do you mean closed in a sense that there could be a new dispute about a book being or not being canonical? I mean not really. I mean, not like when you you make the distinction between these kinds of books, um, we're making that distinction because it's it's historical, right?
There it's it's recognized that there are some historical disputes about particular books.
Um it is never it's always going to be the case that those disputed books are going to have a kind of second uh secondary use as opposed to the you know fully adopted books. So I I guess it depends on what you mean by by closed canon. If you mean like could does the church have the authority to someday decide first clement should be in the Bible? No. I mean that no it's not going to happen. Um, is there some room to maybe dispute the exact role of the Apocrypha? Well, yeah. I mean, that's been a debate that's been ongoing in the church's history, so sure. Sure. Yeah, that's that's fine. Um, okay.
Let's see here. Now, I see thoughts on Mcabes and praying for the dead. Yeah, I think again, I don't really see a a particular issue issue with that. Um, what is this? Why didn't the Lutheran leave the doctrine of the immortal soul on the Roman dung heap where Luther placed it? I don't know what you're talking about. There are uh people that think that Luther didn't believe in an immortal soul or didn't or uh believed in soul sleep. Um I don't there there are some statements I understand that people take from Luther that they think is saying that. I think what Luther is really doing is trying to highlight the value of the body. I don't think he's denying that. Uh and certainly Luther Church doesn't do that. So I I think that it's a misread of Luther based on a couple couple statements of his. Yeah.
Does Lutheranism have an understanding of conditional sacraments? Oh yeah. So it is true that there there could be debate or dispute. We could be like I'm not sure if this is this is valid or not. If there is a baptism that you're not sure about, um that uh if that's the case, then we would uh redo the sacrament with the understanding that if it was already done right, it was valid. But we don't know. It's always better to redo it if there's uncertainty than just to have just leave someone in perpetual uncertainty. Uh that that really wouldn't uh wouldn't be healthy.
Yeah. But but there will be something it'll be prefaced before the sacrament is is you know performed.
Sure. How to change my uncle's belief in the rapture. Uh yeah, it's kind of hard to convince people away from the rapture if they've been like if it's a lifelong uh commitment. People are just so so obsessed with that issue. Again, it's an issue people are so like taken by for whatever reason. I don't really understand it. Um, and to the point that people say you're not a Christian if you don't believe in the rapture. So when somebody's so like entrenched in that, it's hard to to convince them, I think.
But really what you have to do is not just deal with the rapture specifically, but the rapture depends on a whole theology of dispensationalism.
So uh, what I would do is look at the various places where the New Testament, this is what I always do with dispensationalists. I go to the places where the New Testament cites the Old Testament and say, "How does the New Testament apply the Old Testament prophecies about Israel?"
And when you do that, you see that the New Testament authors apply the promises to Israel, the pro the prophetic utterances to Israel. Like for example, the prophecy of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31, which is like, well, this is the new covenant with the church.
It's addressed to Judah, right? Israel and Judah. Uh Jeremiah chapter 30, David's going to be raised from the dead. Well, like that doesn't happen. Uh because it means Jesus because we understand prophetic language. It's not meant as a literal fulfillment for Israel, but it's the true Israel, which is the church. So, I would go through like how the New Testament interprets Old Testament passages. Uh that's the best way to go because if if they're going to just be like, "You're spiritualizing the passages." Say, "I'm not spiritualizing the passages. This is what the apostles did with them." So, you you'd get mad at the apostles, but they were the ones that interpreted the passages this way. It's not me doing that. I'm just trying to consistently interpret Old Testament prophecies the way the New Testament authors also interpret those those prophecies.
Um, what exactly is dispensationalism and how should Lutherans view Israel? Uh, dispensationalism is way too complicated to explain real briefly because I have to go off in just a like few minutes here. Um, dispensationalism is essentially the idea that God has two different groups of people. Like he he's got his people that is the church. Uh, and then he has the national Israel. And there are two sets of promises that apply to each of those groups that are different. So there's a promise to Israel that is is a land fulfillment which would say that like and most dispositions at least would say that Israel's place in the land today is fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Um, and then there are different promises that are given to the church. And so there is much left prophetically for national Israel. Um, that's not a view that is consistent with the the Lutheran approach in terms of national Israel.
No.
Um, yeah. So I don't really want to get into geopolitical questions of Israel, especially not today after recent events, but um, just leave that as it is. But I will say from a theological view, from a theological perspective, um, the existence of national Israel is not a fulfillment to biblical prophecy.
I don't I I just don't think that's the case.
Um, is Luther light on infant baptism in the large catechism? Does he imply baptism doesn't always grant faith that we do it merely because it's oh, merely because it's biblical practice. No, he just is saying that the the imperative to baptize is enough. Like it's not just because we believe we we are baptizing in view of the effect that it gives.
It's enough that God has told us to do it, so we do it.
Yeah. So, so the imperative to baptize infants is is based on the the command institution of God, not specifically just on the faith that is granted and strengthened through baptism, though that is obviously essential to our understanding of of baptism.
What's the explanation for lead us not into temptation? Yeah, I I think pretty clearly like lead us not into temptation is not I don't think the point is implying that God leads us directly into temptation. Um I think the the point is to say it really just saying lead us away from temptation. Yeah. Like lead us lead us in the other direction where temptation is not around us.
How should young Lutheran handle dating and they if they live in an area with very few young Lutheran? I that yeah, that's a tough thing uh if there aren't any in your area. A lot of people I talk to people that you know that are Lutheran. You even talk to people online uh that know other Lutheran that may be at least in a driving distance even if they're not really really close to you.
Uh connect with pastors and ask questions that may be able to to set you up with somebody.
Um, do Lutheran have a view how what should happen to any remaining bread and wine after holy communion? Would you consider disposable plastic cups problematic? Yes. Yeah, it's a it's a problem. Yeah. Um, I would say there are reverent practices in terms of disposing of the elements of holy communion. And so my practice generally is to certainly consume the the host and then the wine is either consumed uh and if it's too much you know the pastor should can someone else can consume it as well uh or it is poured into the ground you know and the argument is well that's what Jesus's blood was poured into the ground on the cross and so that's a referent way to to deal with it. No I I think that using disposable cups is a problem.
Yeah, I think it it communicates especially when you get like just dump them in a basket and you've got the you know wine just dripping all over the place. I mean that's a that does not seem to honor the sacrament. So I think that's a that's a problem. Reverence is important in uh in the sacrament. So I I prefer that everyone just use a common cup. I think it's the best way to do it.
But uh most congregations can't really quite get there. So there are other ways to do it without having disposable cups.
Is it tenable to think that God accounts prayers from the future from yourself and others to you? God grants them proactively. Yeah. Uh that's a good question and I' I've thought about that before and I've been asked that question before. Scripture doesn't really answer it. Like God is not bound to time. So could he use your prayers from the future into the past to affect the past?
Yeah, he could. Does he? I have no idea.
So that's kind of about where where I'm at. I don't know. I don't definitively know, but I trust that he can do that.
There have been times where I've I've like someone's asked me to pray for some event or something and then it's afterwards I'm like, "Oh, I forgot." I didn't talk to the person yet. Then I'm like, "Well, pray now because God God knew what I was going to say, right?"
So, I don't think that's a that's a bad thing.
Do I think there are different levels of hell? I mean, there are different levels of punishment. I don't know what that means exactly, but you're judged for your actions, right? So, you're judged in accord with your actions with how good or evil your actions are. So, they're not um it's not all the same, but but yeah, there there is judgment. I don't know if like levels in like the Dante sense. I don't I don't know about that. Um but definitely different punishments.
Um do Lutheran believe the covenant of grace is one in substance differently administered across both old and new covenant epochs? Yeah, I mean we don't generally use like a lot of Lutheran, the majority of Lutheran don't use that kind of covenantal framework, covenant of works, covenant of grace framework to frame things. Um there there is a tradition of Lutheran mostly in the 18th century that did use the federal theological system. So you do find I did a program on Johan Wolf Gang Jagger who talked about a lot of that and his system. Um, so he took that kind of approach. And when you get Lutheran who do that, they do tend to have a view of the Mosaic covenant that is a bit different from reformed theologians. I mean, just kind of what you'd expect.
They're going to see less continuity with the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant than they do between the Abrahamic and New Covenant. Um, because of the works principle that underlies the Mosaic covenant. I mean, law gospel distinction stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah.
Well, I appreciate that you are um asking about the LCMS election, but I'm not in the LCMS. So, uh what are pros and cons of both of them? I'm not going to get into who would be better in leadership in a church body. I'm not in.
So, I I can't tell you about all that stuff. Uh I do think people are like freaking out way more than they need to.
I'll tell you that. Um I've had Joel Beerman on because we're we're just friends and we've done things on a number of issues. So, I just really like Joel Beerman. I think he's uh I think he has done a lot of good things. he's spoken out against some of the kind of reductionistic radical Lutheran approaches to sanctification. Um he's been doing that for years. So he's done a lot of good stuff on virtue ethics. So um I appreciate him a lot for those for those things. But uh in terms of like what that means for LCMS politics, that's not really you have to ask somebody else.
Uh, I will say that all the the paranoia I've seen about Joel Beerman as some kind of liberal, I think is just crazy and you need to chill out. So that's that's about that's about all I have to add to the conversation. Otherwise, you know, um, have your own debates. Okay.
Um, lowest level of hell is where Kenneth Copeland really is the best theologian. Oh boy, that's a little scary. If salvation is by faith alone, why do we need to confess our faith and our sins with our mouth to be saved and forgiven? Aren't those works? Those are not works. No, I'm just No, they're not works. I I don't know what else to say.
I mean, like, and are they like absolutely necessary? Well, no. If somebody's mute, are they still saved?
Do they have faith? Well, yeah. Like, I mean, it's it's not like in an absolute sense that you have to utter specific words, and God's like, "Well, I heard the formula, so therefore, you're saved." And it's not that's not how it works. Um, but but the faith of the heart, of course, leads to the confession of one's faith with the mouth. Yeah. Of course.
Yeah. Um, what's your advice on how a person should live his or her day-to-day life?
Tips on being more holy or more faithful. Yeah, that's a really great question and it's one that I want to delve into a lot more. I'd like to turn more attention to Christian spirituality and ethics. Um, I really would like people to be interested in that. Just I don't know if they are as interested in that as they are in PMIC. So, I I don't know. But I I want to do a when I finish my introduction to Christian theology series, I really want to do a series on like practical spirituality ethics. That would be pretty long and um that'll be that'll be part of that. So I did do something on on Christian devotional practices recently and I I went through five devotional practices. Check out that video. I think that will give you at least an overview of some things. Um there's a lot more. I do want to recommend once again the book that we've recently published which is uh rever Franklin Widner's wi- ne uh system of Christian ethics which it's not I mean it it's not just like a philosophical ethical text I love philosophical ethical texts but that's not one of them we have those two uh harles is much more like that but wideners is a very practical Christian life text uh and so I think that that's my recommendation is to is to look at that book. There's just too much to say that that uh that I could really give in a short format like this. All right, so let's see. Uh I'm going to take like maybe one two more quick questions here.
Um I see someone asked about the disposable communion cups again. I already answered that one. So I don't know about uh I don't know about why you're asking that again. Maybe you didn't hear it, but is prayer a means of grace? Yeah, that became a point of debate between the pitists and and the Orthodox who opposed it. Potist said it was. Um and it certainly is a means of spiritual growth, right? So, so certainly prayer, prayer is good and it's good for our spiritual growth and our sanctification. Um is it though an appointed means where God like delivers the forgiveness of sins through prayer?
Um no. Prayer looks to the promises of God, right? So prayer like if I confess my sins to God um it is not a my my confession isn't a means of grace because it's not like my confession is deserving of grace. The promises of God are the means of grace but my prayer is coming to the means of the promises of God and and confessing my sins and putting myself in a posture to receive the gifts uh that that God gives to us.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Um oh sorry you just joined. I thought you were the Sorry. I thought you were the one who who had asked the same question before. That's just funny.
You just asked right after somebody else did. Sorry, go back and um yeah, go back and and look at the the answer to that to that question. So, I'll take like one more one more question here.
Um what are my favorite philosophical ethical texts either religious or secular? Um there are so many. There's so many um yeah I mean a lot of like a lot of the if you read a lot of the early Lutheran ethical texts those early ethical texts are largely they're very philosophical like some are exclusively philosophical uh and many are philosophical and theological so the line between the two is not always that clearly demarcated um there are ethical texts that are purely theological but if I'm thinking of something more more philosophical I really like Baltazar Meisner's work. I mean, that's not translated, but um his his work on the highest good is extremely good. I think it's extremely helpful. Um he has a really good section on like the distinction between theology and philosophy uh and what is the end of the ethical life relative to each of those. So, that that one's really helpful. That may be my favorite of that era. I do like though I don't agree with all of his conclusions. Johan France Budas's uh like institutes of moral theology which is very phil it's theological but it's very it's extremely philosophical as well. Um Adolf Harles is really good u Martinsson as well which is meant not just to be theological but also philosophical. Um a lot of Widner's work is a is a summary of and condensation of Martinsson's. Um Meen is good. I mean I Aristotle's Nikkamakian ethics you know there there's a classic of course I mean everybody's drawing an Aristotle so certainly that's that's there um you know I mean I've read a lot of ethical texts like I I enjoyed as much as one can enjoy reading Khan I don't agree with fully with Khan system I think it has a number of problems but I certainly enjoyed reading it at least um yeah not a big fan of Kierard sorry I know that's where everybody tends to go So, um, all right. Well, I know I see some other super chats here, but I really got to got to head off here. Um, Lutheran view of other denominations.
Man, I got stuff on my channel you can find on that. Um, really good questions here. I do have to I do have to get off unfortunately. So, um, I am looking at you these questions and I'm thinking about these for for future videos. The video on Russian Orthodox Theology is coming. I just I' I've been doing a writing project that has just stalled me out from doing more research on those kinds of videos. So, uh it it is coming. I haven't forgotten about it. I just haven't had a chance to really put it put it together yet because of just a bunch of other things that I'm that I'm working on. All right.
Um well, thanks everybody for tuning in and I'm sorry for the questions I didn't get a chance to to get to. Um it's been an hour and 46 minutes here and my kids are going to come home any minute and make lots of noise. So, uh, thanks for thanks for tuning in. I'm trying to do these more often. I'll be at the ALC's convention next week, so I certainly won't do it next week, but I'm going to try to shoot for one the week after. Uh, and if by any chance any of you are not subscribed and you're watching the this, make sure you subscribe. So, God bless everybody.
Related Videos
The 1950s changed everything.
thesongthestoryofficial
962 views•2026-06-16
The Roots of the Seven Years' War – The Silesian Question
STTStepsThroughime
478 views•2026-06-17
FDR's Historic First Flight (1943) ️
BygoneNarrative
14K views•2026-06-14
What Admiral Ugaki Wrote After Watching The Musashi Go Down
WW2Stories1234
2K views•2026-06-17
The Nigerian Leader Who Became the Face of Independence
DiscoverBeyondMedia
559 views•2026-06-16
The WW2 “Potato Battle” That Became U.S. Navy Legend
KilroyWasHereUSA
2K views•2026-06-15
Kaspar Hauser: The Boy Who Appeared From Nowhere | History's Greatest Mystery
ECHOESofMIDNIGHTstyle24
324 views•2026-06-15
The Final Hours of Hitler
Hidden_Archives101
316 views•2026-06-14
