At about 49 minutes in, the discussion about the loss of David's baby and people these days thinking that their baby losses are "punishment." I have a personal opinion towards that, my wife and I have had several miscarriages and a very heartbreaking stillbirth. Though that was the most devastating moment in our lives, holding your lifeless child changes you forever! But I know without a doubt in my mind that it will present situations in life to demonstrate the glory of God. I believe that this testimony will be used to reach people in similar situations. I believe that God is good in all things. Anybody who has, or is experiencing loss needs to know that God is always there, and always faithful. We now have 4 beautiful children, 2 before our loss from stillbirth, and 2 after.
You, and your lovely wife losing your children was not a punishment. David losing his first born of Bathesheba was a correction specific to him. I hope that helps?
The topic of 9/11 really got me... I was in the military when it happened and knowing nothing of Christianity, 9/11 was the catalyst that brought me to Christ. Men do evil actions and yet God works through them for His good
I absolutely LOVE your comment starting at the 55:15 minute mark, "God is consistent. God is both wrathful toward sin and extremely loving and gracious and merciful in the Old Testament. And he is both of those things in the New Testament. And Jesus is both of those things in the New Testament, as well."
...and, the levitical law required that both man and woman in adultery be stoned. They did not bring the man caught in the act of adultery, they only brought the woman caught in the act of adultery. Sorry, but it takes two to tango: How do you catch a woman in the act of adultery without catching the man? Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy and the refusal to actually obey the law that they claimed to uphold. So, true to Jesus form, he turned the tables on them and said let's judge all sins right now for everybody everywhere. The hypocrites ran away.
Because SHE was caught in the act of adultery she was obviouisly was married, the man was then most likely not a married man, he would therefore not be guilty of adultery, only she
@@khole15 - Nope. [+] If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Lev 20:10) Additionally, accusations could not be received unless there were 2 witnesses: [+] A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. (Deut 19:15) If they had sufficient warrant to make a case, they should have 1) two witnesses; 2) both the man and the woman. My original point still stands: both were to be executed; the Jews of John 8 didn't care about *that* letter of the law; Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy; the kitchen was too hot for them so they got out.
timffoster Agreed. Whether or not the adulterous woman passage is scriptural or not, there are multiple better arguments to show that Jesus did NOT overturn the Torah civil law. The other explanation I’ll add is that Jesus was being set up because stoning an adulterous woman was not allowed under Roman law, it was a subversive act for a Jew to follow mosaic law in this instance. Jesus was not about subverting authority but instead said to submit to caesar’s law so long as not inherently contrary to moral law (not civil).
2 Timothy 2:19 No, it was still considered adultery if only one of the two adulterers was married. The Torah never makes the distinction you’re making.
Because men wrote the laws. That's why women were always treated differently than men. Duh. Things really haven't changed all that much on a global scale.
@@rightdoctrine3922 please see Mike Wingers video on the trinity. It is thorough, and addresses many of the points that you have brought up much better than l could. Blessings to you in Christ Jesus.
@@adenjones1802 you are misunderstanding the way repent us used. It is used to mean "change His mind" - which is a very common definition of repent throughout scrioture. Words can have different definitions depending on the context - this is just the way language works. This just shows the power of prayer and how God heard the prayers and pleading of people - his prophets and others, and decided not to destroy them or go through with His plans. Many times God will send a prophet and try to get a nation/person to stop their sinful ways. And He is fully set out to destroy them because of their sheer wickedness, yet the prophets call is heeded and the person/nation repents (different use of word repent in this context) and so God decided to repent (change His mind) and not destroy them. Look up almost any word in the dictionary and you will see that different words have many diff definitions depending on context. Same applies here. And again, prayer and intercession are powerful and God was going to destroy them but they repented so He changed His mind. This is NOT a contradiction. It is just a problem with your understanding. There are no contradictions in scripture.
@@TinkerBell-bt6vuListen, I don't want to cause you to stumble friend. I'm sure there is a possibility that there is a way to resolve the passage but you merely explaining that it means "changes his mind" still presents issues. If you could help me resolve them that would be great. In all the other passages saying that God repented had a connotation of regret. Like how he regretted that he made man on the earth. (Genesis 6:6) Or how he regretted how he made Saul king. (1 Samuel 15:10-12) This could Saying that God changes his mind is a huge problem any way. If God changes his mind, this at the very least has massive philosophical implications for his omniscience and his omnibenevolence. If God was changing his mind based on human action, then he could have not known what the human action was going to be beforehand. This at the very least utterly destroys Calvinism. (Which is a good thing) there is no conceivable way that a Calvinist can explain this passage. This passage implies open theism. It implies that God does not have foreknowledge of our actions if he was going to change his mind based on them. Now God could still technically be omniscient but human action must then be unknowable in a future sense. It would then have to be like asking God a question that is unknowable by definition and so God does not have to know it. But If God changes his mind, because of the prayers of humans, then it shows that prayer is more powerful than God himself which cannot be the case. It's not as if reverse Calvinism is true, where humans dictate Gods actions and God doesn't have free will. If God changes his mind based on the reasoning of Moses on the mountain, then it means what God thought he was going to do would have been the wrong decision and Moses would have been the one who is more wise and loving than God. We cannot accept this can we? Surely God is more merciful than Moses. More wiser than Moses or anyone else. Forgive me, but once scripture takes you down this road, then I must conclude that scripture is in error before I conclude that God is in error. We have to remember that the current versions we have are not based on the original manuscript. The original manuscripts may not have included these verses which is why we should question them. Just like the longer ending of mark or the woman caught in adultery. So we need to be careful. There are entire books of the bible that may be non-canonical. The Catholics for example have extra books that don't belong in there. But even if all this causes you to give up faith in biblical inerrancy, don't let it cause you to give up faith in Christ.
I was struggling with Ephesians Gentile/Jew things just two days ago and you’re here talking about that exact verse. God always leads me to just what I need and most of the time you are involved. I appreciate you more than you know and can’t wait to meet you at the Great Restoration!
I love how l always learn something here I can take with me to the street. And regarding defending God, it’s not that he needs defending but we need to show people how they need to change their perspective of the one who created them and before they come to a decision of rejecting him they should have at least done a well rounded study of his word. But most people I talk to that do reject God and his word have barely skimmed the surface.
So crazy, I started listening to Mike about 6 months ago as I was preparing to teach a Bible apologetics class and stumbled across his TH-cam channel... I actually was friends with Josh Lewis and his sister in highschool 😅 It's such a small world! So glad to see both of you diving deep into the Word of God!
Thank you for this. I have always believed in God's sovereignty, as the answer to these tough questions, but felt like maybe it was just a "cop-out," to critical thinking. Having Mike explain it like he did, really helped me. Thank you
First time I kinda disagree with Mike! Not really, just with the way he said it. "Don't judge God." While true, I think this can easily be misunderstood as "don't question God". Many people in the OT wrestle with God. (Jacob literally) Believers doubt. I believe God wants us to engage with him, not to "put the lid on". Don't give unbelievers a reason to ignore God. God created our moral compass. Of course we don't have the whole picture. But we can and we need to show that some of what God did in the OT was justified - or at least could be. "God doesn't need to be defended." Well in that case, why was this video made? We don't need to "defend" God in a sense, but we need to break down the barriers to belief. We need to remove misconceptions. 2 Cor 10:3-5
Agree. This is the first time I disagreed with Mike too. On your point and on the parable of the woman caught in adultery. It has been verified by a very old copy of the Bible found in Egypt. It was taken out by the Church, then put back in later. Remember, all of Christianity got the Bible and the order of the books were placed in position by the Catholic Church. Why? In order to emphasize the prophetic nature of the OT. Isaiah was placed last because Chapter 53 describes the following Gospels and crucifixion of Jesus to a "T" We say "YES!" This is the Messiah that has been foretold all these years! I recognize him. If not for this very clever order of the OT, most people would not see the story unfolding to its climax/fulfillment - Jesus. They are a body that is ruled by a head. This means that if a discovery is made or a correction, it reverberates throughout the entire church. Protestant churches are not connected. Many are solely independent. This discovery was lost and not recognized and it really should be. It is one of Jesus's most important teachings. Funny, not only was the Temple destroyed and the sacrifices ended, but the punishment of stoning to death as well. See any Jews stoning anyone today? Nope. That teaching is REAL
I think explaining the meaning of scripture or shedding new light on scripture it's an explanation more than a defence. If can be used to refine your image of God, but that's incidental. He's not morally defending God. He's just showing other perspectives.
Muslims unfortunately start with the same pressupposition. No matter how violent Allah is portrayed in the Quran they shouldn't judge it, because he is God, right? I appreciate Mike's respect for the Bible. But, although Jesus corrected the rabbis, there are things which He actually reformed of the law. There is no "the sabbath was made for man" in the OT Testament.
That's something I never really understood. E.g. Job; He says all these questionably blasphemous things about God's judgment and he gives him kudos and returns all his stuff?
I find Mike to be right on in his teaching and it's so refreshing to have just found his platform, and to continue to discover through each new video I watch, his dedication to Truth. Honestly he reminds me of Walter Martin, my older hero in the faith. Easy to listen to, a humble servant who is studying to show himself an approved workman ...and rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Thanks Mike.
great comparison with Walter Martin. Mike definitely has the chops in apologetics and theology in general to live up to that name. he would definitely be a way better Bible Answer Man than Hank Hannegraf. I've literally heard that guy choke on easy, basic questions or often totally miss the point of a question and miss an opportunity to bring the gospel into his answers. I appreciate that Mike constantly brings the gospel into all kinds of questions, even topics which people would assume (erroneously) had nothing to do with Jesus
Well of course but now we need to know if He inspired the Bible. Would the Creator of the Universe say you can beat your slave with a rod as long as he/she isn’t bedridden for more than two days? I’m a Christ follower and these are the questions I ask myself and struggle with.
@@jonnyw82 Exactly this. I believe he did inspire the bible, but we can't just reduce our faith and our questioning of it to a quippy soundbite. It's too complex for that.
@@jonnyw82this is why you do research. And study in the complexities of the Old Testament and the historical background. Also including the study of the New Testament
@@sorrenzz3610 Respectfully, I’ve done that and there is no good answer. The best I’ve heard is that at least that law was an improvement from what other slave holders were doing at that time or God was meeting them where they were at. Sorry, no. God never said it was ok to beat a slave, that can’t be.
Thank you....it was brilliantly done. After watching you give such a careful & arduous defense for our Faith, I ve decided to follow your ministry work more closely for you seem to be a God fearing man. May God continue Blessing you, your family and ministry 🙌
That was a very enlightening discussion. Thank you so much to all involved. Blessings, peace and love to you all and your families always in the Mighty Name of Jesus. 🙌🏻❤🙌🏻
At the 51:25 minute mark, I love your response. Yes, there is consequences for sin and God wants everyone to know that it doesn't matter who you are, if you sin, there is a consequence. God is no respecter of persons. Same type of "poster child" analogy for Ananias and Sapphira. God want to put the fear of God into people to let them know he is not going to overlook sin.
We need more explanatory teachings like this as it would probably help a lot in correcting erroneous beliefs of many, (in those willing to be corrected) including those who were raised in the church but didn't hear them which led to their leaving later on in life and becoming bitter against God; some even becoming atheist activists. So I hope ministries like these grow much! "Sin is a lot worse than we think" and "Probably a lot more going on than we know" are great understatements to remember. I agree it is so foolish and dangerous to take the attitude He is somehow "bad" bc we can't figure it out or doesn't agree with our understanding. I constantly hear people try to impute their ideas of morality onto God, thinking they know better somehow and therefore that makes Him "bad". For me, it helps just looking at creation (as God pointed out to Job and scriptures pointing out that the heavens declare the majesty of God). I think He deliberately made them so beyond unbelievably awesome/complex/diverse to help comfort and show His reality to us, which urge us to believe and obey - especially when we are discouraged & depressed with life. If He made that, it follows He should know better than we about sin, holiness, true justice - not us. Thank you and God bless you guys and your ministries!
2 Samuel 1:26. “ Thy love to me was wonderful “. From Springs in the valley devotional of dec 28 I glanced at. It overcomes all obstacles if we believe and hence we must have love for God. May this video be blessed...🌈🌈🌈🌈 Nov 17 2019 8784 views 151 comments with 407 likes and 8 non likes. Thanks for good teaching, Mike.
I had a hard time earlier with such strict Old Testament laws about chastity. I think without birth-control ,medicines for STDs, and social security safety net how bad that would be. Maybe without a strong moral foundation to build society, things may have gotten bad. Plus I know God didn't try to change man, but work with laws for a place and time.
I don't think "God was exaggerating when he commanded the Israelites to kill everyone" is a particularly helpful or useful argument. I always go back to Exodus 4:11 - "Who made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" If God is sovereign over all things, which the Bible makes pretty clear that He is, then He has the final say over each person's life and death. Think about it - everyone who lived during the time of Israel's conquest of Canaan died eventually. Some die a violent death and are taken up into heaven, others die peacefully and go into eternal judgment. And vice versa. The manner of our death is not important, but our eternal destiny and our standing with God is. If I die a violent death and am immediately brought into the presence of God, will I be able to reprimand Him? Would I even want to?
It's interesting that the ones attacking the conduct of God will often exaggerate (e.g. adding torture to their argument when none occurs) while denying the validity of the cultural use of hyperbolics by the Biblical authors.
Regarding the part around Jesus clarifying the law regarding human behavior, around the 20:00 mark, I think of it like this: There is a law that says, "Stop at red lights". There is an implication of "...because it is dangerous." If you say "Stop at red lights", and leave people to their own devices, some will take that to mean, literally, "If the light is red, _then_ stop", instead of what is mean, "Don't drive dangerously in busy intersections. Use caution and be prepared to stop." Some will take that literally to a further degree, and purposefully try to hurt others while obeying the letter of the law. They will speed up at yellow lights, and then slam on their brakes at red lights, stopping in time, but causing accidents behind them. In a literal sense, they "Stopped at a red light", but they ignored the meaning of the law. Eventually, someone comes along and says, "Any of you who do not slow down at yellow lights *are* breaking the law on red lights." That is, they are clarifying, and reaffirming what was already said. They are removing any room for doubt or "creative interpretation" about what was meant. Saying "slow down for yellow lights" is not an addition to the rule about stopping for red lights, it's simply making the law abundantly obvious, so no one can deny both the law, and the intention _of_ the law. If I were to say to you, "Beware of 'stale' green lights" it would already be obvious to you that, a light that has been green for a while, will turn yellow, then red, very soon. Risk is something you would already be thinking about - you already know the risk of stale green lights. The only issue is whether you're willing to obey that law.
There is no law that says slow down for yellow... you use your best judgement based on your distance from the intersection, your speed, the road/weather conditions, other vehicles, etc. It's entirely up to the judgement of the driver what the safest decision should be...
9:10 Yes you can critique things against the moral law that seems to be instilled in us. Otherwise god wouldnt repeatedly let us know that he is good, just, loving, etc. They would be meaningless statements if he wasnt letting us kno that while God could behave in a certain way, he does NOT behave in just any way. This is precisely why abraham did exactly what ur saying we cant do. Abraham called God out (albeit respectfully) asking for clarification cuz it seemed to abraham that god was about to do something against his character. Something unjust by wiping the righteous away along with the good.
I am going through the entire bible again. I am in the Old Testament. How can people not see the loving support of God? Feeding, saving from slavery, encouragement and giving people a chance to change. How is it the killing is the only thing seen? Like said in video , how does one not see sin and how awful it is? Perhaps, we don't think 'doing wrong' is that bad. 😮
The problem for some of us is the wholesale destruction. "Kill the child that was born yesterday"; "Kill every living thing (including animals)". I'm not asking you to justify or explain this, just telling you why some of us struggle with it.
True...but our human viewpoints about God have always been in a state of continuous evolution. Originally, YHVH was simply conceived as a polytheistic tribal deity. The god of one people. Eventually the Hebrew understanding of YHVH evolved into a monotheistic God of all people. In the incarnation of God in Jesus, we encounter the God who is Love made manifest, who directs His followers to love even their enemies. It is truly tragic that fundamentalists like Mike Winger would rather cling to archaic passages that condone genocidal murder than a beautifully inspired passage like John 8 (the woman caught in adultery) which reveals the true character of God revealed in Christ. Such is the god of fundamentalists.
Hi, Mike! I can’t find any videos from you about wether or not Christians should engage in war, using weapons (or hands) killing people to defend their country. Same goes from self defense: where does the line go between defending and murdering. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these things
The explanations you give around the 30 minute mark sound like an attempt to evade the question, sorry to say. Why is the apparent answer to "this is morally revolting" to say "1) because God is right by default, whatever feels wrong to us must be us being in error, 2) how dare we criticize him, with us being wretched and sinful?". It doesn't actually explain why the laws and actions in the OT are okay after all. If God is right, hopefully there is a way to show this. And at least in discussions among humans, we have this rule that it shouldn't matter who an argument is coming from because the argument stands on its own. And this isn't coming from an atheist - this is one of the questions I have never found or heard a satisfying answer to.
SonoraDW I think that when Mike talks about that he doesn’t realize that anyone can say that about their own version of God. “How dare you question God?!” - this can be used to refute any criticism of God, and calvinists use it all the time. They say, “well his ways are higher than our ways.” I agree with Mikes exegesis of a lot of those passages, but it wasn’t helpful when he said don’t question God. When we theologize, we are questioning our notions of God to see if they may be wrong. And whatever are current notions of God are automatically function as our version of God because that is what we know of Him.
So your question is, "how can God kill woman and children in the OT"? Why can't He? What's wrong? Has He committed a crime in doing so? Are not women and children also sinners? Did not God say, "the soul that sins shall die"? If death comes to anyone, doesn't that just prove they were in fact a sinner? Hence why Jesus didn't stay dead...He wasn't a sinner.
Great stream guys. I just want to say that I used to be that skeptic who blamed, acused, even curse God and I genuinely hated Him because I didn't understand His holiness and sense of justice and worst of all I didn't understand His love. But today we am saved by the Lord Jesus Christ and understand God through His Holy Spirit/Ghost and He forgave me ALL sins past, present and future. Although I want to disagree with you're claim that those who do that put they're soul in danger, because those who are lost are lost regardless and those who are saved are saved forever, but I'm NOT saying it is OK to do that. And the fact that I'm still alive prove that God is full of mercy. But keep on with the good work.
Thank you for this!!! I was just talking to my neighbor like two days ago and he was telling me how he has a problem with and doesn’t understand why God changes when I’m the Old Testament He says eye for eye and tooth for tooth but in the New Testament Jesus says to turn the other Cheek.. your explanation makes a lot of sense and I feel like God brought me to this video right now because I prayed that God would direct me to a video that I needed to see and then I found this! Praise Jesus :)!!!!!!! Thanks Mike :)
Yes this is what I love about Mike and this ministry. He gives us stuff that actually is scriptural and practical and is an intelligent approach that we can take to those we might find ourselves sharing God’s word with. I pray you can share with your neighbor again. God bless and keep you always
If I get one more advertisement on your videos for the Mormon Church I am going to lose my marbles. I don’t think the algorithm understands what you preach, Mike. 😂
Hi Mike apologies if you have answered this else where but I was wondering what Audio devices you use to record your Bible studies I see you have a few mics set up on the pulpit? Really appreciate your teaching keep up the good work.
One thing to consider, our culture does not value justice. That is a problem with our current culture. We find justice distasteful. We don’t want anyone, even God judging us. We don’t want to face any consequences for our actions.
Very true! I've heard people say that "if we boyish abortion then more women will die from back alley abortions." But they cannot understand that sin has consequences! If they take a sinful action then yes, there are consequences. But they just won't accept or understand that
In the NT, Paul in ref. to Alexander and Hymeneus, says he wants the destruction of the flesh so the spirit can be saved in the day of judgement. Sometimes the destruction is merciful. It prevents a society from getting worse and heaping worse sin and punishment unto itself. It's linked to salvation of the very first person or society being judged.
At 59:21 mike just explained a verse about jesus coming to judge and then says the guy hes talking about just says "nah the cross tells me jesus wouldnt do that sort of thing." Isnt that enough proof of his lack of understanding. The cross says exactly the opposite. It says He WOULD do exactly that sort of thing. Otherwise God could just forgive sin and not punish anyone. No the cross shows just how much God hates sin! If he didnt then why would He go to such an extreme measure to redeem us!? If there was no punishment required for sin then what did Jesus die for?
The best video I have seen so far on this topic is actually from The Friendly Atheist because he takes each killing in the Bible one at a time individually but Christians don't take the time to do that. Why is it that an Atheist takes the time to do that but the Christian apologist don't? There is not a valid excuse or reason for all of these killings given in the Bible as the apologist try to lead people to believe. I'm a Christian, not an atheist, I just want to be unbiased and fair when it comes to this important topic. I want to follow the truth where it leads.
How do you know we haven't addressed every killing? Have you searched every Christian apologist book, website and video? Go Google each one and you'll find answers
As a Christian I find Mike to be extreme on this topic. He is taking the same posture that Muslims take towards the Quran when they say you can't question it. He used that to cop out and play dodgeball through this whole video. Copan does the same thing.
Great episode! I definitely believe there is a stark contrast in defending God, and contending for the faith! When we attempt to defend God; we have already begun in error. Defending God requires putting another human being in a position of judge, and this is absolutely foolish! I am certain we are able to clarify and contend for truth, but crafting a defense for God already exalts the hearer to a position of moral superiority. Now, I have debated others in some of these tropes, but the Truth is God is always good therefore, our only responsibility is to speak truth! We should never look at the Old Testament and see anything Christ has done as appearing bad or even acknowledging that it looks bad, because that is already an erroneous position. I may not like some of the things I read, but it's never because Jesus looks bad, rather its my flesh and usually a misunderstanding. I will never forget when I heard Christ speak to my heart; do you believe I am good? I was never the same after that, because the answer is yes!! Therefore no matter what is happening or how I may feel about a certain issue; there is a firm foundational belief that He is good! Furthermore, most people who do use these accusations against Christ are not interested in the truth! It's just a scoffers treasure to use against the Almighty.
I bought Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster. Haven’t had the time to get into it yet bc of all the other things I have in my queue to read, but I’m itching to get to it.
Not sure why people don't notice that Christ reports over and over that the Father sent Him, and that His words and actions are God's (the Father's) will. What about the Lord saying: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." I agree 👍 that these ideas come from people who can't bother with Scripture and fear of God.
This is a short sighted view. Some of us are trying to understand so we can follow Christ but are struggling with the apparent bi-polar character of the OT God vs the NT Christ.
So at approximately 11:24 I hear that parts of the book of John might not be authoritative scripture? Am I hearing this correctly? Where are these other videos where he explains this because I didn’t know there were parts of the Holy Bible that weren’t original that I might want to discard. Sounds like John isn’t entirely a portion of the scripture that can be relied upon. Probably a true story about Jesus isn’t going to cut it. I was under the impression that the Bible was trustworthy. Can anyone explain this madness to me???
Hi Sean, I put a playlist in the video description explaining this in much more detail. I would encourage you to consider that if you find there is a passage which wasn’t originally in John you don’t make the mistake of concluding that “the Bible is untrustworthy”. To see that I’m not making stuff up you can probably use whatever Bible you already own and turn to John 8 and look at the footnotes.
Mike Winger Yes I found the link. Watching it now. Needing to understand why all these scholars and people who established the canon of scripture would have included John 8 if it’s not valid. “This right here is the Holy Bible now go on TH-cam for an explanation because there’s passages here and there we aren’t too sure about” is what it sounds like to me. You are certainly more knowledgeable than I so I’m sure I will come to find that I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. I hear you saying that the story that I have regarded as factual is more likely “probably a true story about Jesus” and that is something that is not a trivial matter
@@whatarefriends4 you don't have to go to youtube only. It's in the footnotes of nearly every modern bible printed for over half a century. But as he and others have pointed out, it was likely a true story, but wasn't in many of the earliest fragments of John we can find. So the early church distributed both versions as divergent copies of the book, but over time the versions with that story became dominant over the versions without it. I'm short it's presence or lack thereof us likely an editorial decision. John isn't like the other gospels. It's clearly not meant to be exhaustive or to even tell you most of Jesus ministry. It's a focused book with a singular goal: using stories from Jesus life to demonstrate Jesus divinity in subtle Jewish ways. As such the story might have been included or in mitten based on whether is suits that larger goal or not. I like the story, but I think the point of the book reads more effectively without it. But if you're not reading the book as a whole, it's a valuable story, and if true, is worth retaining in our Christian understanding of Christ. Think of it like a directors cut vs a theatrical cut. One is more elegant and efficient, the other has more cool stuff but isn't as on point.
@@whatarefriends4 Questionable passages like the woman caught in adultery are only problematic to people who cling to the fallacy of biblical infallibility. Who cares if that particular story wasn't in the original text? The issues isn't even whether or not the story is historical, but whether or not God can use it to teach a spiritual truth. There are plenty of doubtfully historical passages in the Bible, such as the vast crowd of people resurrected in Matthew's gospel. Such a monumental event somehow gets left out in all the other gospels and NT epistles? Just because a story might not be historical doesn't mean it's not inspired myth.
Joshua's mission was to deliver the plan of God as instructed (read Josh 1). We need to back up and realize that God, the just judge of the whole world, reserves the right to judge all sinful persons in any place/time according to His timetable. (and because He is God, He does not need to defend His actions to anyone). Consider: - Gen 7-8, God judges the entire planet by flooding it out and drowning the wicked - Gen 19, God judges Sodom and Gomorrah by raining fire and brimstone on it (Gen 19:24-25) - Exod 3-12, God judges Egypt by pouring out 10 plagues on all the inhabitants of Egypt - Numbers 16, God judges those who would rebel against Moses by using an earthquake to swallow up Korah and his fans Bottom line - whether flood, fire, pestilence or earthquake, God can use whatever method He chooses. In the case of Joshua (and Saul and David), God chooses to use the sword of His people in order to execute His judgment on the Canaanites. God told Abraham He would do this when the time was right, 400 years later (See Gen 15:16). One more - God can even use godless enemies to bring His judgment. See Isaiah 10:6ff, Jeremiah 51, etc.
"I am not the judge of God" is really just an unoriginal way of dodging the questions. What you should really be asking is "Is what we have written about God in the old testament accurate?" Obviously we are in no position to judge God but if we are expecting to devote ourselves entirely to the complete denial of self, then it seems fitting that we should try to rationalize the barbarism and inconsistency of the Word. Just my opinion
I've been watching Mike wingers content for a while now and somehow missed this video. Ive just started and am really looking forward to it. Right now I am working on reading my Bible cover to cover and the Old Testament is tough sometimes. I'm in 2 Samuel and SO engaged in the story but a few of the stories have really made me stop and struggle with what I think of it. For example, the story of the Levite who mirrored the genesis story of Lot sending his daughters out to be raped in place of his guests. The full meaning of what the levite did afterwards is STILL a mystery to me...im working on it...
God is the same yesterday, today and forever...but our human viewpoints about God have always been in a state of continuous evolution. The Bible does not reveal a single viewpoint about God as Mike Winger and fundamentalist Christians like to pretend, but it reveals an evolution in the way the Hebrew people thought about God over time. Originally, YHVH was simply conceived as a polytheistic tribal deity. The god of one people. Eventually the Hebrew understanding of YHVH evolved into a monotheistic God of all people. In the incarnation of God in Jesus, we encounter the God who is Love made manifest, who directs His followers to love even their enemies. It is truly tragic that fundamentalists like Mike Winger would rather cling to archaic passages that condone genocidal murder than a beautifully inspired passage like John 8 (the woman caught in adultery) which reveals the true character of God revealed in Christ.
I’m not sure that the cruciform hermeneutic necessarily comes from feeling the need to “defend God“ because, as you point out, if He did all of those things, it must be right somehow. At least for me, it means potentially rethinking my ideas about Him. God is infallible, but my ideas about him are not. However, there certainly are some very antagonistic skeptics out there who do imply they can be correct where God is wrong. This video is helpful for me as I wrestle with problematic passages alongside my pastor. Thanks!
Hey Mike. Thank you for your thoughts about Greg. But I think you misunderstand him. It would be great seeing you debate him. I think you would learn a lot :-).
@@ravissary79 Well that would have to be up to Mike. I loosely hold to Open Theism myself, so I would hope he would be gracious to Boyd and all of his brothers who don't hold to what he does. :) Love is the most important thing. The discussion would probably end up being really awesome if it stays on topic.
@@christopherkershaw261 I've seen Gregory talk to people who aren't on his side before and he's incredibly patient with people. I don't agree with all of his perspective myself, but his understanding of open theism is far more well thought out, nuanced, and accounts for nearly all arguments against of a biblical nature. But his interpretation of some scriptures can be... interesting.
@@christopherkershaw261 I'm curious...how does one who holds to open theism handle a passage of scripture like Is 46:9-10? V9 - Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, V10 - Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ Especially v10, declaring the end from the beginning.
9:20. It’s the people who say “God is evil”, that remind me of Satan saying (basically) “I could rule better than God”. It’s all sin and the work of Satan; people have such a human concept of right and wrong, that God literally had to write a book about how to do right by a holy standard.
I went to Greg Boyd’s church for a while. Left that church. I think we should get our understanding of God from the Bible and not try to make God fit into our preconceived notions of who God should be and how He should act.
While I agree with you, we also have to be aware that we can also bring pre-conceived notions of God into our own reading of scripture, so just reading the Bible isn't necessarily solving that problem. This is why faith is personal, but it is also something we participate in as a community of believers. Sometimes we need other people to point out the flaws or blind spots in our logic or reading. So I don't think it's either/or, I think it's scripture AND church community. Iron sharpens iron.
He just gained my respect by stating the fact that the woman at the well was not in the original gospel of John, he's correct, and most people don't acknowledge this. It's just 1 of 2 major passages like this. It probably happened, but if was definitely not in the original gospel
I feel that there is a difference between God the Father before & after Christ. The Word tells us that when Christ became sin & died on the cross, the wrath of God was satisfied. Excellent video though. Extremely enlightening. Particularly the part of us having no right to judge God.
Consider that throughout the history of mankind up until this very day that man has invoked God to justify crimes and killings. That doesn't mean they are telling the truth and it doesn't mean that God did it or told them to do it just because it says that in a book.
Why don't intellectually responsible Christians simply say, "yes the Bible does seem to support---or at very least NOT condemn---certain immoral things in places, BUT... I, as a Christian, am big enough to admit that Christianity is based upon faith and not upon an infallible book... the Bible was written to satisfy man's ideas of what man thought Gods ideas were at certain points in history." That way, you are being open and honest to yourself and others, while maintaining respectability.
Those things were not immoral, if they were commanded by God. Why don’t you be responsible and understand that “morality” is meaningless outside of God’s commands.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 well, ive heard that same pathetic excuse used by apologists before.... a super lame cop out. But, it's basically the ONLY way to hold onto the Bible is by admitting Yaweh is a monster by sinful human standards, while being perfect by "god" standards. Give me a break!!!!!! Duh.
@@monkkeygawd "by sinful human standards" - humans have no standard.. if there is no God, human standards are the whim of each individual. Might makes right.. it is meaningless to call anything objectively good or bad. One who wants to be "intellectually responsible" would realize that. I will be making a video series on the killings of the Canaanites, and even pay attention to the women and children who were included in the targeting of those campaigns, and show how it does not contradict other laws or commands taught in the Bible (in fact, it is consistent with the OT and the NT). I will be showing how these actions are just and logically consistent according to Law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus, but I cannot do it here in one comment. Stay tuned if you are interested. (I do not take Paul Copan's stance, in fact I disagree with him.)
@@toughbiblepassages9082 I'm tired tonight. But, I will show you some serious holes in your worldview tomorrow. Christianity is a mess if/when the Bible is taken literally.
I'm a Christian. But I've always thought to myself, if I were to ask other Christians, would you kill others if God required it of you? Or would you do some of the things that people did in the OT. Because if I'm honest, I think I couldn't kill anyone. I would like to know what peoples thoughts are on this.
God will not contradict His command not to kill. Killing in the Old Testament relates to a nation acting in defense in order to preserve the nation. Like how we have an army today. Hope this helps brother/sister.
@@Rawjugga0 That's what I always thought, but what about the children during the destruction of their dwelling places. I think that's what confuses me most.
@@Jordan-1999 remember the time of Noah, when God wiped out creation due to the wickedness of man. Well the Amelekites faced a similar judgement. The Amelekites opposed Israel from the very beginning and sought the destruction of Israel many times. In opposing Israel they opposed the God of Israel and therefore God judged against them in His righteousness.
Rawjugga0 what the hell are you talking about? God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites including infants...you’re honestly going to try to justify the slaughtering of children and infants?
Praise ADONAI Elohim no....you’re right to be worried about that. God commanded the slaughtering of the amalekites infants with swords. There’s no possible way I would try to justify the slaughtering of children and infants...could you imagine stabbing a baby with a sword? God commanded it...that’s definitely something to think about
Regarding your explanation why innocents die at 33:40, your comparison between when we shoot down a hijacked plane and when god serves judgement on the wicked, you're ignoring one tiny detail. God is omnipotent, so he can kill only the wicked but save the innocent yet he still chooses to kill the innocent which means their deaths were not unintended
@@xaindsleena8090 Psa 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Psa 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Rom 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- We are born in sin, born with a sin nature, and store up wrath for the day of wrath. There is no fault by God to bring death to anyone, young or old, male or female. The particular sin that was being judged was idolatry of the divinity of the house of pharaoh. Obviously, he was not god, nor was his son. Compare that to the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus came back to life proving He had power over life and death.
@@toddcote4904 where did the sin we are born with come from? Where did our sinful nature come from? Why are babies punished for something they were not part of/never did?
The fact that you say that part in the book of John is not fully authoritative kind of goes against Scripture saying all of Scripture is God-breathed and suitable for teaching and instruction.
@Mike winger, at 10:47 you said that "the Law was not created for all", I highly disagree with it. To start, Messiah will not interfere or will break His Father's Torah (instructions), as the Logos of Yahweh He recognized the rules to stone all who break the Law, it would have been unjust and unbiblical to stone just the woman and without witness, the pharisees only said she was caught in the act but never presented witness or said they were witnesses of the sinful act. Just like any secular human judge he could not (if being called himself just) condemn her without witness and without the other party (man), He let her go in that premise but still told her she was a sinner (broke the Law) and told her to stop sinning (disobeying). Biblically, the law is the same (one) for the native born of Israel and one for the foreign, if we are part of the olive tree we are bound to obey the same laws and statutes and regulations, which will identify us as Abraham's seed by the way and not as the devil's children. As saved children we are to be obedient to His instructions (Torah) because of His grace, those who are His children do not sin (willingly) and sin is transgression of the Law, if we sin (not willingly) we are to repent which is turn around from our mistakes which then it means obedience is required; to what? To the LAW (commandments), which is for everyone who says that loves the Son and loves the Father and also loves his neighbor as he/she loves him/her self.
We used to hang people for robbery 100 years ago. Our crimes and punishments are radically changed in just 100 years. It doesn't bother me to read God's judgment from 4,000 years ago.
Even though I'm critical of Mike on this topic, he does make some reasonable points in the last one quarter of this video and he did say that Greg Boyd is 50% right. I want to be fair to Mike and commend him for this.
God is good. It is not for me to try to justify the senseless murder of innocent people over and over. Not when I can just say that God has his reasons and so it must be good
In Exodus 5:24 it says, ‘At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him.’ But we are not told why! I find it very hard to reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT. Yes, I know it’s the same God, but in the OT it’s God the Father, and in the NT it’s God the Son. This is a real problem for me.
I'm a new Christian. I'm with Mike when he talks about not being the judge of God completely. But I'm searching for ways to bring my atheist friends and family around. I'd love it if they were saved. In order to bring them to the point of submission to God, I first have to somehow satisfy their earthly judgements. I will never help bring them into a state of grace by talk of submission. I have to intellectualise it.
I don't think questioning y God afflicts in a certain situation in the bible means I am questioning his morality or condemning God. I am a believer, but my son is not.
Regarding your comment about the innocent getting caught up in the acts of judgment and dying (minute mark 34:30ish), Jesus addressed this in Luke: About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. 2 “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? 3 Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. 4 And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? 5 No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.”
My issue is why are so many people killed in the OT simply because they are associated with those who are guilty of sin such as innocent women and children.
I am working through Samuel 1 currently and you skipped over the context that Saul was deposed as king because he did not eliminate everything. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”
34:23- "It might be morally justifiable to kill an innocent person in a greater context." And then he mentions a hijacked plane being used as a weapon. Okay, but didn't the 9/11 hijackers use the same moral justification? Their "greater context" was striking at the United States for their view that our bases in Saudi Arabia were pollutions of their holy land. So they "accepted" that it was "morally justifiable" even supported by God, that the innocent people on the planes and the innocent people in the Twin Towers died to make that attack. And some radical Muslims probably still feel that way. Just as Mike Winger feels it was okay for the Israelites to slaughter men, women, children and babies for the "greater context of creating Israel." And thus the basis for all the violence carried out in the world for centuries...whether Jewish, Muslim...or Christian.
The moral judge of the universe exercises his powers by wounding and killing us? I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me but an all powerful God should be smarter than that don’t you think? Because we are smarter than that now.
You should NOT interpret it as anything detrimental to the 'God of Love' of Christianity - you SHOULD interpret it as "well, who are you to say what God should and should not do?".
Greg Boyd has been trying to make evangelical Christianity acceptable to liberals for many years, bending and twisting and reading extra stuff into (and out of) the text. Thanks for this.
At about 49 minutes in, the discussion about the loss of David's baby and people these days thinking that their baby losses are "punishment." I have a personal opinion towards that, my wife and I have had several miscarriages and a very heartbreaking stillbirth. Though that was the most devastating moment in our lives, holding your lifeless child changes you forever! But I know without a doubt in my mind that it will present situations in life to demonstrate the glory of God. I believe that this testimony will be used to reach people in similar situations. I believe that God is good in all things. Anybody who has, or is experiencing loss needs to know that God is always there, and always faithful. We now have 4 beautiful children, 2 before our loss from stillbirth, and 2 after.
God told King David his children would be a source of sorrow for his (David's) behavior/sin.
You, and your lovely wife losing your children was not a punishment. David losing his first born of Bathesheba was a correction specific to him. I hope that helps?
Keep living in your delusions, there is NO GOD.
@@SuperSilverTrees Please explain how space, time and matter came into existence.
@@kevinschaefer3945
Don't encourage him ,until he knows the Lord Jesus lives and saves (hopefully one day), no explanation will honour God.
The topic of 9/11 really got me... I was in the military when it happened and knowing nothing of Christianity, 9/11 was the catalyst that brought me to Christ. Men do evil actions and yet God works through them for His good
When you’re minding your own business on a Thursday and an unexpected Mike Winger TH-cam notification pops up 👍👍
Janice Karr
It’s amazing!
God bless you
I absolutely LOVE your comment starting at the 55:15 minute mark, "God is consistent. God is both wrathful toward sin and extremely loving and gracious and merciful in the Old Testament. And he is both of those things in the New Testament. And Jesus is both of those things in the New Testament, as well."
Mr winger you are truly a man after GOD'S own heart I truly respect your work
...and, the levitical law required that both man and woman in adultery be stoned. They did not bring the man caught in the act of adultery, they only brought the woman caught in the act of adultery. Sorry, but it takes two to tango: How do you catch a woman in the act of adultery without catching the man?
Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy and the refusal to actually obey the law that they claimed to uphold. So, true to Jesus form, he turned the tables on them and said let's judge all sins right now for everybody everywhere.
The hypocrites ran away.
Because SHE was caught in the act of adultery she was obviouisly was married, the man was then most likely not a married man, he would therefore not be guilty of adultery, only she
@@khole15 - Nope.
[+] If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Lev 20:10)
Additionally, accusations could not be received unless there were 2 witnesses:
[+] A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. (Deut 19:15)
If they had sufficient warrant to make a case, they should have 1) two witnesses; 2) both the man and the woman.
My original point still stands: both were to be executed; the Jews of John 8 didn't care about *that* letter of the law; Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy; the kitchen was too hot for them so they got out.
timffoster
Agreed. Whether or not the adulterous woman passage is scriptural or not, there are multiple better arguments to show that Jesus did NOT overturn the Torah civil law.
The other explanation I’ll add is that Jesus was being set up because stoning an adulterous woman was not allowed under Roman law, it was a subversive act for a Jew to follow mosaic law in this instance. Jesus was not about subverting authority but instead said to submit to caesar’s law so long as not inherently contrary to moral law (not civil).
2 Timothy 2:19
No, it was still considered adultery if only one of the two adulterers was married. The Torah never makes the distinction you’re making.
Because men wrote the laws. That's why women were always treated differently than men. Duh. Things really haven't changed all that much on a global scale.
I really hold strongly to your explanation of the Bible ....and I TRULY enjoy listening to your breakdown and destruction of false teachings.
@@rightdoctrine3922 please see Mike Wingers video on the trinity. It is thorough, and addresses many of the points that you have brought up much better than l could.
Blessings to you in Christ Jesus.
Wow i never heard these things before. Really love the consistency of God.
AMEN! God keep blessing you!!! 🙏 💘
@@adenjones1802 Are you?
@@adenjones1802 That must be a "yes".
@@adenjones1802 you are misunderstanding the way repent us used. It is used to mean "change His mind" - which is a very common definition of repent throughout scrioture. Words can have different definitions depending on the context - this is just the way language works. This just shows the power of prayer and how God heard the prayers and pleading of people - his prophets and others, and decided not to destroy them or go through with His plans. Many times God will send a prophet and try to get a nation/person to stop their sinful ways. And He is fully set out to destroy them because of their sheer wickedness, yet the prophets call is heeded and the person/nation repents (different use of word repent in this context) and so God decided to repent (change His mind) and not destroy them.
Look up almost any word in the dictionary and you will see that different words have many diff definitions depending on context. Same applies here. And again, prayer and intercession are powerful and God was going to destroy them but they repented so He changed His mind.
This is NOT a contradiction. It is just a problem with your understanding. There are no contradictions in scripture.
@@TinkerBell-bt6vuListen, I don't want to cause you to stumble friend. I'm sure there is a possibility that there is a way to resolve the passage but you merely explaining that it means "changes his mind" still presents issues. If you could help me resolve them that would be great.
In all the other passages saying that God repented had a connotation of regret. Like how he regretted that he made man on the earth. (Genesis 6:6) Or how he regretted how he made Saul king. (1 Samuel 15:10-12) This could
Saying that God changes his mind is a huge problem any way. If God changes his mind, this at the very least has massive philosophical implications for his omniscience and his omnibenevolence.
If God was changing his mind based on human action, then he could have not known what the human action was going to be beforehand. This at the very least utterly destroys Calvinism. (Which is a good thing) there is no conceivable way that a Calvinist can explain this passage. This passage implies open theism. It implies that God does not have foreknowledge of our actions if he was going to change his mind based on them. Now God could still technically be omniscient but human action must then be unknowable in a future sense. It would then have to be like asking God a question that is unknowable by definition and so God does not have to know it.
But If God changes his mind, because of the prayers of humans, then it shows that prayer is more powerful than God himself which cannot be the case. It's not as if reverse Calvinism is true, where humans dictate Gods actions and God doesn't have free will. If God changes his mind based on the reasoning of Moses on the mountain, then it means what God thought he was going to do would have been the wrong decision and Moses would have been the one who is more wise and loving than God. We cannot accept this can we? Surely God is more merciful than Moses. More wiser than Moses or anyone else.
Forgive me, but once scripture takes you down this road, then I must conclude that scripture is in error before I conclude that God is in error. We have to remember that the current versions we have are not based on the original manuscript. The original manuscripts may not have included these verses which is why we should question them. Just like the longer ending of mark or the woman caught in adultery. So we need to be careful. There are entire books of the bible that may be non-canonical. The Catholics for example have extra books that don't belong in there.
But even if all this causes you to give up faith in biblical inerrancy, don't let it cause you to give up faith in Christ.
Loved this discussion, especially your points on hyperbolic language and the insight on all the scriptures. Love it!!
I was struggling with Ephesians Gentile/Jew things just two days ago and you’re here talking about that exact verse. God always leads me to just what I need and most of the time you are involved. I appreciate you more than you know and can’t wait to meet you at the Great Restoration!
I love how l always learn something here I can take with me to the street. And regarding defending God, it’s not that he needs defending but we need to show people how they need to change their perspective of the one who created them and before they come to a decision of rejecting him they should have at least done a well rounded study of his word. But most people I talk to that do reject God and his word have barely skimmed the surface.
Iiiii
Parable of the sower. Some fell on different soil.
People attack God because they want to defend their sin
@@JontheBerean Exodus 32:14
@@adenjones1802
Is your point that we need to intercede for the unbelievers ?
So crazy, I started listening to Mike about 6 months ago as I was preparing to teach a Bible apologetics class and stumbled across his TH-cam channel... I actually was friends with Josh Lewis and his sister in highschool 😅 It's such a small world! So glad to see both of you diving deep into the Word of God!
I like your honesty and sincerity and appreciate your wisdom in dealing with all kinds of questions being thrown at you.
Mike you are a wonderful teacher! Thank-you!
Please do more lessons on breaking down and destroying false teachings.
Right Doctrine read john1:1😂
Right Doctrine read 1John5:7 kjv
Right Doctrine Jesus is God in the flesh
@@BoiBoi-vx7pi JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!!! ( ' .*)7
Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world.
Thank you for this. I have always believed in God's sovereignty, as the answer to these tough questions, but felt like maybe it was just a "cop-out," to critical thinking. Having Mike explain it like he did, really helped me. Thank you
First time I kinda disagree with Mike! Not really, just with the way he said it.
"Don't judge God."
While true, I think this can easily be misunderstood as "don't question God". Many people in the OT wrestle with God. (Jacob literally) Believers doubt. I believe God wants us to engage with him, not to "put the lid on".
Don't give unbelievers a reason to ignore God. God created our moral compass. Of course we don't have the whole picture. But we can and we need to show that some of what God did in the OT was justified - or at least could be.
"God doesn't need to be defended."
Well in that case, why was this video made? We don't need to "defend" God in a sense, but we need to break down the barriers to belief. We need to remove misconceptions. 2 Cor 10:3-5
Agree. This is the first time I disagreed with Mike too. On your point and on the parable of the woman caught in adultery. It has been verified by a very old copy of the Bible found in Egypt. It was taken out by the Church, then put back in later. Remember, all of Christianity got the Bible and the order of the books were placed in position by the Catholic Church. Why? In order to emphasize the prophetic nature of the OT. Isaiah was placed last because Chapter 53 describes the following Gospels and crucifixion of Jesus to a "T" We say "YES!" This is the Messiah that has been foretold all these years! I recognize him.
If not for this very clever order of the OT, most people would not see the story unfolding to its climax/fulfillment - Jesus.
They are a body that is ruled by a head. This means that if a discovery is made or a correction, it reverberates throughout the entire church.
Protestant churches are not connected. Many are solely independent.
This discovery was lost and not recognized and it really should be.
It is one of Jesus's most important teachings. Funny, not only was the Temple destroyed and the sacrifices ended, but the punishment of stoning to death as well.
See any Jews stoning anyone today?
Nope.
That teaching is REAL
I think explaining the meaning of scripture or shedding new light on scripture it's an explanation more than a defence. If can be used to refine your image of God, but that's incidental. He's not morally defending God. He's just showing other perspectives.
Muslims unfortunately start with the same pressupposition. No matter how violent Allah is portrayed in the Quran they shouldn't judge it, because he is God, right? I appreciate Mike's respect for the Bible. But, although Jesus corrected the rabbis, there are things which He actually reformed of the law. There is no "the sabbath was made for man" in the OT Testament.
That's something I never really understood. E.g. Job; He says all these questionably blasphemous things about God's judgment and he gives him kudos and returns all his stuff?
@@piano9433 no but it might have been implied.
I find Mike to be right on in his teaching and it's so refreshing to have just found his platform, and to continue to discover through each new video I watch, his dedication to Truth. Honestly he reminds me of Walter Martin, my older hero in the faith. Easy to listen to, a humble servant who is studying to show himself an approved workman ...and rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Thanks Mike.
great comparison with Walter Martin. Mike definitely has the chops in apologetics and theology in general to live up to that name. he would definitely be a way better Bible Answer Man than Hank Hannegraf. I've literally heard that guy choke on easy, basic questions or often totally miss the point of a question and miss an opportunity to bring the gospel into his answers. I appreciate that Mike constantly brings the gospel into all kinds of questions, even topics which people would assume (erroneously) had nothing to do with Jesus
I finally broke my view down to: God's right, I'm wrong. Period.
Well of course but now we need to know if He inspired the Bible. Would the Creator of the Universe say you can beat your slave with a rod as long as he/she isn’t bedridden for more than two days? I’m a Christ follower and these are the questions I ask myself and struggle with.
@@jonnyw82 Exactly this. I believe he did inspire the bible, but we can't just reduce our faith and our questioning of it to a quippy soundbite. It's too complex for that.
@@jonnyw82this is why you do research. And study in the complexities of the Old Testament and the historical background. Also including the study of the New Testament
@@sorrenzz3610 Respectfully, I’ve done that and there is no good answer. The best I’ve heard is that at least that law was an improvement from what other slave holders were doing at that time or God was meeting them where they were at. Sorry, no. God never said it was ok to beat a slave, that can’t be.
Mike, I love your teaching.
Thank you....it was brilliantly done. After watching you give such a careful & arduous defense for our Faith, I ve decided to follow your ministry work more closely for you seem to be a God fearing man. May God continue Blessing you, your family and ministry 🙌
The phrase "get God off the hook" was heavily off-putting. But this is edifying:
"God isn't subject to our moral refutations."
👏 👏 ✝️
That was a very enlightening discussion. Thank you so much to all involved. Blessings, peace and love to you all and your families always in the Mighty Name of Jesus. 🙌🏻❤🙌🏻
At the 51:25 minute mark, I love your response. Yes, there is consequences for sin and God wants everyone to know that it doesn't matter who you are, if you sin, there is a consequence. God is no respecter of persons. Same type of "poster child" analogy for Ananias and Sapphira. God want to put the fear of God into people to let them know he is not going to overlook sin.
We need more explanatory teachings like this as it would probably help a lot in correcting erroneous beliefs of many, (in those willing to be corrected) including those who were raised in the church but didn't hear them which led to their leaving later on in life and becoming bitter against God; some even becoming atheist activists. So I hope ministries like these grow much!
"Sin is a lot worse than we think" and "Probably a lot more going on than we know" are great understatements to remember.
I agree it is so foolish and dangerous to take the attitude He is somehow "bad" bc we can't figure it out or doesn't agree with our understanding.
I constantly hear people try to impute their ideas of morality onto God, thinking they know better somehow and therefore that makes Him "bad". For me, it helps just looking at creation (as God pointed out to Job and scriptures pointing out that the heavens declare the majesty of God). I think He deliberately made them so beyond unbelievably awesome/complex/diverse to help comfort and show His reality to us, which urge us to believe and obey - especially when we are discouraged & depressed with life. If He made that, it follows He should know better than we about sin, holiness, true justice - not us.
Thank you and God bless you guys and your ministries!
2 Samuel 1:26. “ Thy love to me was wonderful “. From Springs in the valley devotional of dec 28 I glanced at. It overcomes all obstacles if we believe and hence we must have love for God. May this video be blessed...🌈🌈🌈🌈
Nov 17 2019 8784 views 151 comments with 407 likes and 8 non likes.
Thanks for good teaching, Mike.
300 views and 11 comments..10:19 am....nov 14
5521 views and 109 comments 12:59 Friday 15 nov...
@@billhildebrand5053 I'm still not clear about what the big deal is about "views." I'm not trying to be cynical, I just don't know...
@@caroleimani9754 I don’t know neither, maybe OCPD..😅😅
I had a hard time earlier with such strict Old Testament laws about chastity. I think without birth-control ,medicines for STDs, and social security safety net how bad that would be. Maybe without a strong moral foundation to build society, things may have gotten bad. Plus I know God didn't try to change man, but work with laws for a place and time.
I don't think "God was exaggerating when he commanded the Israelites to kill everyone" is a particularly helpful or useful argument. I always go back to Exodus 4:11 - "Who made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" If God is sovereign over all things, which the Bible makes pretty clear that He is, then He has the final say over each person's life and death. Think about it - everyone who lived during the time of Israel's conquest of Canaan died eventually. Some die a violent death and are taken up into heaven, others die peacefully and go into eternal judgment. And vice versa. The manner of our death is not important, but our eternal destiny and our standing with God is. If I die a violent death and am immediately brought into the presence of God, will I be able to reprimand Him? Would I even want to?
It's interesting that the ones attacking the conduct of God will often exaggerate (e.g. adding torture to their argument when none occurs) while denying the validity of the cultural use of hyperbolics by the Biblical authors.
Regarding the part around Jesus clarifying the law regarding human behavior, around the 20:00 mark, I think of it like this:
There is a law that says, "Stop at red lights". There is an implication of "...because it is dangerous." If you say "Stop at red lights", and leave people to their own devices, some will take that to mean, literally, "If the light is red, _then_ stop", instead of what is mean, "Don't drive dangerously in busy intersections. Use caution and be prepared to stop."
Some will take that literally to a further degree, and purposefully try to hurt others while obeying the letter of the law. They will speed up at yellow lights, and then slam on their brakes at red lights, stopping in time, but causing accidents behind them. In a literal sense, they "Stopped at a red light", but they ignored the meaning of the law.
Eventually, someone comes along and says, "Any of you who do not slow down at yellow lights *are* breaking the law on red lights." That is, they are clarifying, and reaffirming what was already said. They are removing any room for doubt or "creative interpretation" about what was meant. Saying "slow down for yellow lights" is not an addition to the rule about stopping for red lights, it's simply making the law abundantly obvious, so no one can deny both the law, and the intention _of_ the law.
If I were to say to you, "Beware of 'stale' green lights" it would already be obvious to you that, a light that has been green for a while, will turn yellow, then red, very soon. Risk is something you would already be thinking about - you already know the risk of stale green lights. The only issue is whether you're willing to obey that law.
There is no law that says slow down for yellow... you use your best judgement based on your distance from the intersection, your speed, the road/weather conditions, other vehicles, etc. It's entirely up to the judgement of the driver what the safest decision should be...
9:10 Yes you can critique things against the moral law that seems to be instilled in us. Otherwise god wouldnt repeatedly let us know that he is good, just, loving, etc. They would be meaningless statements if he wasnt letting us kno that while God could behave in a certain way, he does NOT behave in just any way. This is precisely why abraham did exactly what ur saying we cant do. Abraham called God out (albeit respectfully) asking for clarification cuz it seemed to abraham that god was about to do something against his character. Something unjust by wiping the righteous away along with the good.
@Mike Winger thanks so much for helping me with my walk with God.
I am going through the entire bible again. I am in the Old Testament. How can people not see the loving support of God? Feeding, saving from slavery, encouragement and giving people a chance to change. How is it the killing is the only thing seen? Like said in video , how does one not see sin and how awful it is? Perhaps, we don't think 'doing wrong' is that bad. 😮
The problem for some of us is the wholesale destruction. "Kill the child that was born yesterday"; "Kill every living thing (including animals)".
I'm not asking you to justify or explain this, just telling you why some of us struggle with it.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever! Thank God!~
True...but our human viewpoints about God have always been in a state of continuous evolution. Originally, YHVH was simply conceived as a polytheistic tribal deity. The god of one people. Eventually the Hebrew understanding of YHVH evolved into a monotheistic God of all people. In the incarnation of God in Jesus, we encounter the God who is Love made manifest, who directs His followers to love even their enemies.
It is truly tragic that fundamentalists like Mike Winger would rather cling to archaic passages that condone
genocidal murder than a beautifully inspired passage like John 8 (the woman caught in adultery) which
reveals the true character of God revealed in Christ. Such is the god of fundamentalists.
Always remember the enemy of God will always fight against God's children.
Hi, Mike! I can’t find any videos from you about wether or not Christians should engage in war, using weapons (or hands) killing people to defend their country.
Same goes from self defense: where does the line go between defending and murdering.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these things
The explanations you give around the 30 minute mark sound like an attempt to evade the question, sorry to say. Why is the apparent answer to "this is morally revolting" to say "1) because God is right by default, whatever feels wrong to us must be us being in error, 2) how dare we criticize him, with us being wretched and sinful?". It doesn't actually explain why the laws and actions in the OT are okay after all. If God is right, hopefully there is a way to show this. And at least in discussions among humans, we have this rule that it shouldn't matter who an argument is coming from because the argument stands on its own.
And this isn't coming from an atheist - this is one of the questions I have never found or heard a satisfying answer to.
SonoraDW I think that when Mike talks about that he doesn’t realize that anyone can say that about their own version of God. “How dare you question God?!” - this can be used to refute any criticism of God, and calvinists use it all the time. They say, “well his ways are higher than our ways.” I agree with Mikes exegesis of a lot of those passages, but it wasn’t helpful when he said don’t question God. When we theologize, we are questioning our notions of God to see if they may be wrong. And whatever are current notions of God are automatically function as our version of God because that is what we know of Him.
So your question is, "how can God kill woman and children in the OT"?
Why can't He? What's wrong? Has He committed a crime in doing so? Are not women and children also sinners? Did not God say, "the soul that sins shall die"? If death comes to anyone, doesn't that just prove they were in fact a sinner?
Hence why Jesus didn't stay dead...He wasn't a sinner.
Great stream guys. I just want to say that I used to be that skeptic who blamed, acused, even curse God and I genuinely hated Him because I didn't understand His holiness and sense of justice and worst of all I didn't understand His love. But today we am saved by the Lord Jesus Christ and understand God through His Holy Spirit/Ghost and He forgave me ALL sins past, present and future. Although I want to disagree with you're claim that those who do that put they're soul in danger, because those who are lost are lost regardless and those who are saved are saved forever, but I'm NOT saying it is OK to do that. And the fact that I'm still alive prove that God is full of mercy. But keep on with the good work.
Lovely video 234 views and 7 comments. Am into it now...thanks Mike...
You are doing a great work...
Let God be true...apologetics is your Forte..
Thank you for this!!! I was just talking to my neighbor like two days ago and he was telling me how he has a problem with and doesn’t understand why God changes when I’m the Old Testament He says eye for eye and tooth for tooth but in the New Testament Jesus says to turn the other Cheek.. your explanation makes a lot of sense and I feel like God brought me to this video right now because I prayed that God would direct me to a video that I needed to see and then I found this! Praise Jesus :)!!!!!!! Thanks Mike :)
Yes this is what I love about Mike and this ministry. He gives us stuff that actually is scriptural and practical and is an intelligent approach that we can take to those we might find ourselves sharing God’s word with. I pray you can share with your neighbor again. God bless and keep you always
Amazing video/interview!
Hey Mike bad feedback in your audio. Like fuzz. Okay well just the beginning. Trying to help, not a negative comment.
@n b it was just the first part, ut worked out. I have headphones on so I pick up everything lol
could be solved with just a gate probably
@n b it's not just on his end. It's a light buzz notice in the intro part...
If I get one more advertisement on your videos for the Mormon Church I am going to lose my marbles. I don’t think the algorithm understands what you preach, Mike. 😂
I get Mormon and JW ads too lol!
@@melindamercier6811 wild!!
Hi Mike apologies if you have answered this else where but I was wondering what Audio devices you use to record your Bible studies I see you have a few mics set up on the pulpit? Really appreciate your teaching keep up the good work.
One thing to consider, our culture does not value justice. That is a problem with our current culture. We find justice distasteful. We don’t want anyone, even God judging us. We don’t want to face any consequences for our actions.
Very true! I've heard people say that "if we boyish abortion then more women will die from back alley abortions." But they cannot understand that sin has consequences! If they take a sinful action then yes, there are consequences. But they just won't accept or understand that
In the NT, Paul in ref. to Alexander and Hymeneus, says he wants the destruction of the flesh so the spirit can be saved in the day of judgement. Sometimes the destruction is merciful. It prevents a society from getting worse and heaping worse sin and punishment unto itself. It's linked to salvation of the very first person or society being judged.
Thumbnail caption: "Thinking about violence"; Thumbnail image: Mike smiling deviously
At 59:21 mike just explained a verse about jesus coming to judge and then says the guy hes talking about just says "nah the cross tells me jesus wouldnt do that sort of thing." Isnt that enough proof of his lack of understanding. The cross says exactly the opposite. It says He WOULD do exactly that sort of thing. Otherwise God could just forgive sin and not punish anyone. No the cross shows just how much God hates sin! If he didnt then why would He go to such an extreme measure to redeem us!? If there was no punishment required for sin then what did Jesus die for?
The best video I have seen so far on this topic is actually from The Friendly Atheist because he takes each killing in the Bible one at a time individually but Christians don't take the time to do that. Why is it that an Atheist takes the time to do that but the Christian apologist don't? There is not a valid excuse or reason for all of these killings given in the Bible as the apologist try to lead people to believe. I'm a Christian, not an atheist, I just want to be unbiased and fair when it comes to this important topic. I want to follow the truth where it leads.
How do you know we haven't addressed every killing? Have you searched every Christian apologist book, website and video? Go Google each one and you'll find answers
As a Christian I find Mike to be extreme on this topic. He is taking the same posture that Muslims take towards the Quran when they say you can't question it. He used that to cop out and play dodgeball through this whole video. Copan does the same thing.
Great episode!
I definitely believe there is a stark contrast in defending God, and contending for the faith!
When we attempt to defend God; we have already begun in error. Defending God requires putting another human being in a position of judge, and this is absolutely foolish!
I am certain we are able to clarify and contend for truth, but crafting a defense for God already exalts the hearer to a position of moral superiority.
Now, I have debated others in some of these tropes, but the Truth is God is always good therefore, our only responsibility is to speak truth! We should never look at the Old Testament and see anything Christ has done as appearing bad or even acknowledging that it looks bad, because that is already an erroneous position. I may not like some of the things I read, but it's never because Jesus looks bad, rather its my flesh and usually a misunderstanding.
I will never forget when I heard Christ speak to my heart; do you believe I am good? I was never the same after that, because the answer is yes!! Therefore no matter what is happening or how I may feel about a certain issue; there is a firm foundational belief that He is good!
Furthermore, most people who do use these accusations against Christ are not interested in the truth! It's just a scoffers treasure to use against the Almighty.
I bought Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster. Haven’t had the time to get into it yet bc of all the other things I have in my queue to read, but I’m itching to get to it.
How do you spell Paul Capon, and what is he name of his book? Thank you! 👂👀
Here you go
www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751
Can you please do a video on personal self-defense or pacifism??
Not sure why people don't notice that Christ reports over and over that the Father sent Him, and that His words and actions are God's (the Father's) will.
What about the Lord saying: "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."
I agree 👍 that these ideas come from people who can't bother with Scripture and fear of God.
This is a short sighted view. Some of us are trying to understand so we can follow Christ but are struggling with the apparent bi-polar character of the OT God vs the NT Christ.
So at approximately 11:24 I hear that parts of the book of John might not be authoritative scripture? Am I hearing this correctly? Where are these other videos where he explains this because I didn’t know there were parts of the Holy Bible that weren’t original that I might want to discard. Sounds like John isn’t entirely a portion of the scripture that can be relied upon. Probably a true story about Jesus isn’t going to cut it. I was under the impression that the Bible was trustworthy. Can anyone explain this madness to me???
Hi Sean, I put a playlist in the video description explaining this in much more detail. I would encourage you to consider that if you find there is a passage which wasn’t originally in John you don’t make the mistake of concluding that “the Bible is untrustworthy”. To see that I’m not making stuff up you can probably use whatever Bible you already own and turn to John 8 and look at the footnotes.
Mike Winger Yes I found the link. Watching it now. Needing to understand why all these scholars and people who established the canon of scripture would have included John 8 if it’s not valid. “This right here is the Holy Bible now go on TH-cam for an explanation because there’s passages here and there we aren’t too sure about” is what it sounds like to me. You are certainly more knowledgeable than I so I’m sure I will come to find that I’m misunderstanding what you are saying. I hear you saying that the story that I have regarded as factual is more likely “probably a true story about Jesus” and that is something that is not a trivial matter
@@whatarefriends4 you don't have to go to youtube only. It's in the footnotes of nearly every modern bible printed for over half a century.
But as he and others have pointed out, it was likely a true story, but wasn't in many of the earliest fragments of John we can find. So the early church distributed both versions as divergent copies of the book, but over time the versions with that story became dominant over the versions without it.
I'm short it's presence or lack thereof us likely an editorial decision. John isn't like the other gospels. It's clearly not meant to be exhaustive or to even tell you most of Jesus ministry. It's a focused book with a singular goal: using stories from Jesus life to demonstrate Jesus divinity in subtle Jewish ways. As such the story might have been included or in mitten based on whether is suits that larger goal or not.
I like the story, but I think the point of the book reads more effectively without it. But if you're not reading the book as a whole, it's a valuable story, and if true, is worth retaining in our Christian understanding of Christ.
Think of it like a directors cut vs a theatrical cut. One is more elegant and efficient, the other has more cool stuff but isn't as on point.
ravissary79 I don’t give a damn how you think it reads
@@whatarefriends4 Questionable passages like the woman caught in adultery are only problematic to people who cling to the fallacy of biblical infallibility. Who cares if that particular story wasn't in the original text? The issues isn't even whether or not the story is historical, but whether or not God can use it to teach a spiritual truth. There are plenty of doubtfully historical passages in the Bible, such as the vast crowd of people resurrected in Matthew's gospel. Such a monumental event somehow gets left out in all the other gospels and NT epistles? Just because a story might not be historical doesn't mean it's not inspired myth.
What about joshua what was his mission?
Joshua's mission was to deliver the plan of God as instructed (read Josh 1).
We need to back up and realize that God, the just judge of the whole world, reserves the right to judge all sinful persons in any place/time according to His timetable. (and because He is God, He does not need to defend His actions to anyone). Consider:
- Gen 7-8, God judges the entire planet by flooding it out and drowning the wicked
- Gen 19, God judges Sodom and Gomorrah by raining fire and brimstone on it (Gen 19:24-25)
- Exod 3-12, God judges Egypt by pouring out 10 plagues on all the inhabitants of Egypt
- Numbers 16, God judges those who would rebel against Moses by using an earthquake to swallow up Korah and his fans
Bottom line - whether flood, fire, pestilence or earthquake, God can use whatever method He chooses.
In the case of Joshua (and Saul and David), God chooses to use the sword of His people in order to execute His judgment on the Canaanites. God told Abraham He would do this when the time was right, 400 years later (See Gen 15:16).
One more - God can even use godless enemies to bring His judgment. See Isaiah 10:6ff, Jeremiah 51, etc.
"I am not the judge of God" is really just an unoriginal way of dodging the questions. What you should really be asking is "Is what we have written about God in the old testament accurate?" Obviously we are in no position to judge God but if we are expecting to devote ourselves entirely to the complete denial of self, then it seems fitting that we should try to rationalize the barbarism and inconsistency of the Word. Just my opinion
What should we do with the verse, “All scripture is God-breathed”?
I've been watching Mike wingers content for a while now and somehow missed this video. Ive just started and am really looking forward to it. Right now I am working on reading my Bible cover to cover and the Old Testament is tough sometimes. I'm in 2 Samuel and SO engaged in the story but a few of the stories have really made me stop and struggle with what I think of it. For example, the story of the Levite who mirrored the genesis story of Lot sending his daughters out to be raped in place of his guests. The full meaning of what the levite did afterwards is STILL a mystery to me...im working on it...
God is the same yesterday, today and forever...but our human viewpoints about God have always been in a state of continuous evolution. The Bible does not reveal a single viewpoint about God as Mike Winger and fundamentalist Christians like to pretend, but it reveals an evolution in the way the Hebrew people thought about God over time. Originally, YHVH was simply conceived as a polytheistic tribal deity. The god of one people. Eventually the Hebrew understanding of YHVH evolved into a monotheistic God of all people. In the incarnation of God in Jesus, we encounter the God who is Love made manifest, who directs His followers to love even their enemies.
It is truly tragic that fundamentalists like Mike Winger would rather cling to archaic passages that condone
genocidal murder than a beautifully inspired passage like John 8 (the woman caught in adultery) which
reveals the true character of God revealed in Christ.
I’m not sure that the cruciform hermeneutic necessarily comes from feeling the need to “defend God“ because, as you point out, if He did all of those things, it must be right somehow. At least for me, it means potentially rethinking my ideas about Him. God is infallible, but my ideas about him are not. However, there certainly are some very antagonistic skeptics out there who do imply they can be correct where God is wrong. This video is helpful for me as I wrestle with problematic passages alongside my pastor. Thanks!
Mike!! There's an audio issue you probably wanna look into. Theres like a buzz
Absolutely love your teaching
Hey Mike. Thank you for your thoughts about Greg. But I think you misunderstand him. It would be great seeing you debate him. I think you would learn a lot :-).
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE LIFE OF PASTOR MIKE THAT YOU MAY BE GLORIFIED IN OUR LIFE
If David could repent without Jesus why do we need Jesus?
because the world needed a complete sacrifice for sin,you still need to have faith in Jesus to be saved from eternal death
@@chrisamandadeysel5117 is God not capable of forgiving without killing something?
@@Justinsatiable hebrews 9:22 without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Why it needs to be like this i do not know
@@khole15 I am aware of the passage you listed. What I have no answer for is the reason why this must be so. Why can God not forgive without killing.
@@Justinsatiable i can not understand why either
Hey brother, you should invite Greg Boyd on to chew on this together! That would be really fruitful! Greg is such a loving brother.
Is he open enough for that?
Mike seems awful gracious to everyone except Open Theists.
It's a big double standard amongst youtube apologists.
@@ravissary79 Well that would have to be up to Mike. I loosely hold to Open Theism myself, so I would hope he would be gracious to Boyd and all of his brothers who don't hold to what he does. :) Love is the most important thing. The discussion would probably end up being really awesome if it stays on topic.
@@christopherkershaw261 I've seen Gregory talk to people who aren't on his side before and he's incredibly patient with people.
I don't agree with all of his perspective myself, but his understanding of open theism is far more well thought out, nuanced, and accounts for nearly all arguments against of a biblical nature.
But his interpretation of some scriptures can be... interesting.
@@christopherkershaw261
I'm curious...how does one who holds to open theism handle a passage of scripture like Is 46:9-10?
V9 - Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
V10 - Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
Especially v10, declaring the end from the beginning.
Was there a buzzing at the beginning or is that just my earbuds?
Yes there is
9:20.
It’s the people who say “God is evil”, that remind me of Satan saying (basically) “I could rule better than God”. It’s all sin and the work of Satan; people have such a human concept of right and wrong, that God literally had to write a book about how to do right by a holy standard.
I went to Greg Boyd’s church for a while. Left that church. I think we should get our understanding of God from the Bible and not try to make God fit into our preconceived notions of who God should be and how He should act.
While I agree with you, we also have to be aware that we can also bring pre-conceived notions of God into our own reading of scripture, so just reading the Bible isn't necessarily solving that problem.
This is why faith is personal, but it is also something we participate in as a community of believers. Sometimes we need other people to point out the flaws or blind spots in our logic or reading. So I don't think it's either/or, I think it's scripture AND church community. Iron sharpens iron.
He just gained my respect by stating the fact that the woman at the well was not in the original gospel of John, he's correct, and most people don't acknowledge this. It's just 1 of 2 major passages like this. It probably happened, but if was definitely not in the original gospel
I have been a Christian for 60 years. But have never had such clear teaching on the law, sin and the importance of Jesus'
death for my salvation from God's point of view .
I feel that there is a difference between God the Father before & after Christ. The Word tells us that when Christ became sin & died on the cross, the wrath of God was satisfied. Excellent video though. Extremely enlightening. Particularly the part of us having no right to judge God.
Consider that throughout the history of mankind up until this very day that man has invoked God to justify crimes and killings. That doesn't mean they are telling the truth and it doesn't mean that God did it or told them to do it just because it says that in a book.
Why don't intellectually responsible Christians simply say, "yes the Bible does seem to support---or at very least NOT condemn---certain immoral things in places, BUT... I, as a Christian, am big enough to admit that Christianity is based upon faith and not upon an infallible book... the Bible was written to satisfy man's ideas of what man thought Gods ideas were at certain points in history." That way, you are being open and honest to yourself and others, while maintaining respectability.
Those things were not immoral, if they were commanded by God. Why don’t you be responsible and understand that “morality” is meaningless outside of God’s commands.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 well, ive heard that same pathetic excuse used by apologists before.... a super lame cop out. But, it's basically the ONLY way to hold onto the Bible is by admitting Yaweh is a monster by sinful human standards, while being perfect by "god" standards. Give me a break!!!!!! Duh.
@@monkkeygawd "by sinful human standards" - humans have no standard.. if there is no God, human standards are the whim of each individual. Might makes right.. it is meaningless to call anything objectively good or bad. One who wants to be "intellectually responsible" would realize that.
I will be making a video series on the killings of the Canaanites, and even pay attention to the women and children who were included in the targeting of those campaigns, and show how it does not contradict other laws or commands taught in the Bible (in fact, it is consistent with the OT and the NT). I will be showing how these actions are just and logically consistent according to Law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus, but I cannot do it here in one comment. Stay tuned if you are interested. (I do not take Paul Copan's stance, in fact I disagree with him.)
@@toughbiblepassages9082 I'm tired tonight. But, I will show you some serious holes in your worldview tomorrow. Christianity is a mess if/when the Bible is taken literally.
@@toughbiblepassages9082 and, I'm not an atheist.
I'm a Christian.
But I've always thought to myself, if I were to ask other Christians, would you kill others if God required it of you?
Or would you do some of the things that people did in the OT.
Because if I'm honest, I think I couldn't kill anyone.
I would like to know what peoples thoughts are on this.
God will not contradict His command not to kill. Killing in the Old Testament relates to a nation acting in defense in order to preserve the nation. Like how we have an army today. Hope this helps brother/sister.
@@Rawjugga0
That's what I always thought, but what about the children during the destruction of their dwelling places. I think that's what confuses me most.
@@Jordan-1999 remember the time of Noah, when God wiped out creation due to the wickedness of man. Well the Amelekites faced a similar judgement. The Amelekites opposed Israel from the very beginning and sought the destruction of Israel many times.
In opposing Israel they opposed the God of Israel and therefore God judged against them in His righteousness.
Rawjugga0 what the hell are you talking about? God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the amalekites including infants...you’re honestly going to try to justify the slaughtering of children and infants?
Praise ADONAI Elohim no....you’re right to be worried about that. God commanded the slaughtering of the amalekites infants with swords. There’s no possible way I would try to justify the slaughtering of children and infants...could you imagine stabbing a baby with a sword? God commanded it...that’s definitely something to think about
Regarding your explanation why innocents die at 33:40, your comparison between when we shoot down a hijacked plane and when god serves judgement on the wicked, you're ignoring one tiny detail. God is omnipotent, so he can kill only the wicked but save the innocent yet he still chooses to kill the innocent which means their deaths were not unintended
You assume some are innocent. No one is innocent, so God is never at fault.
Todd Cote when god killed children in the Old Testament, what were their crimes? Eg killing the firstborn during Passover
@@xaindsleena8090
Psa 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Psa 58:3 - The wicked are estranged from the womb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Rom 5:12 - Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-
We are born in sin, born with a sin nature, and store up wrath for the day of wrath. There is no fault by God to bring death to anyone, young or old, male or female.
The particular sin that was being judged was idolatry of the divinity of the house of pharaoh. Obviously, he was not god, nor was his son. Compare that to the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus came back to life proving He had power over life and death.
@@toddcote4904 where did the sin we are born with come from? Where did our sinful nature come from? Why are babies punished for something they were not part of/never did?
@@xaindsleena8090
Our sin and sin nature comes from Adam. All who sin, die. Death comes to all men.
The fact that you say that part in the book of John is not fully authoritative kind of goes against Scripture saying all of Scripture is God-breathed and suitable for teaching and instruction.
@Mike winger, at 10:47 you said that "the Law was not created for all", I highly disagree with it. To start, Messiah will not interfere or will break His Father's Torah (instructions), as the Logos of Yahweh He recognized the rules to stone all who break the Law, it would have been unjust and unbiblical to stone just the woman and without witness, the pharisees only said she was caught in the act but never presented witness or said they were witnesses of the sinful act. Just like any secular human judge he could not (if being called himself just) condemn her without witness and without the other party (man), He let her go in that premise but still told her she was a sinner (broke the Law) and told her to stop sinning (disobeying). Biblically, the law is the same (one) for the native born of Israel and one for the foreign, if we are part of the olive tree we are bound to obey the same laws and statutes and regulations, which will identify us as Abraham's seed by the way and not as the devil's children. As saved children we are to be obedient to His instructions (Torah) because of His grace, those who are His children do not sin (willingly) and sin is transgression of the Law, if we sin (not willingly) we are to repent which is turn around from our mistakes which then it means obedience is required; to what? To the LAW (commandments), which is for everyone who says that loves the Son and loves the Father and also loves his neighbor as he/she loves him/her self.
I've been struggling with this recently please pray for me I've sinned in that I've judged God's acts. I repent.
We used to hang people for robbery 100 years ago. Our crimes and punishments are radically changed in just 100 years. It doesn't bother me to read God's judgment from 4,000 years ago.
If it were not for violent men fighting wars to preserve our freedoms one being able to worship God, then we might be talking about this right now.
Even though I'm critical of Mike on this topic, he does make some reasonable points in the last one quarter of this video and he did say that Greg Boyd is 50% right. I want to be fair to Mike and commend him for this.
God is good. It is not for me to try to justify the senseless murder of innocent people over and over. Not when I can just say that God has his reasons and so it must be good
God bless You 😊
Well explained!
In Exodus 5:24 it says, ‘At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him.’ But we are not told why! I find it very hard to reconcile the God of the OT with the God of the NT. Yes, I know it’s the same God, but in the OT it’s God the Father, and in the NT it’s God the Son. This is a real problem for me.
Are you sure you got the chapter and verse right? Because that's not in my Bible, there's only 23 verses in Exodus 5
@@boatcaptain6288 Sorry, Exodus 4:24.
I'm a new Christian.
I'm with Mike when he talks about not being the judge of God completely.
But I'm searching for ways to bring my atheist friends and family around. I'd love it if they were saved. In order to bring them to the point of submission to God, I first have to somehow satisfy their earthly judgements. I will never help bring them into a state of grace by talk of submission.
I have to intellectualise it.
As a babe in Christ who wants to see their family saved, it would probably be worthwhile reading through Paul's epistle to the Romans.
I don't think questioning y God afflicts in a certain situation in the bible means I am questioning his morality or condemning God. I am a believer, but my son is not.
Regarding your comment about the innocent getting caught up in the acts of judgment and dying (minute mark 34:30ish), Jesus addressed this in Luke: About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. 2 “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? 3 Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. 4 And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? 5 No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.”
My issue is why are so many people killed in the OT simply because they are associated with those who are guilty of sin such as innocent women and children.
Being a woman doesn't make them innocent, lol.
I am working through Samuel 1 currently and you skipped over the context that Saul was deposed as king because he did not eliminate everything.
But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.”
I am late on this topic but it seems like you guys were refuting theonomy somewhat
34:23- "It might be morally justifiable to kill an innocent person in a greater context." And then he mentions a hijacked plane being used as a weapon. Okay, but didn't the 9/11 hijackers use the same moral justification? Their "greater context" was striking at the United States for their view that our bases in Saudi Arabia were pollutions of their holy land. So they "accepted" that it was "morally justifiable" even supported by God, that the innocent people on the planes and the innocent people in the Twin Towers died to make that attack. And some radical Muslims probably still feel that way. Just as Mike Winger feels it was okay for the Israelites to slaughter men, women, children and babies for the "greater context of creating Israel." And thus the basis for all the violence carried out in the world for centuries...whether Jewish, Muslim...or Christian.
The moral judge of the universe exercises his powers by wounding and killing us? I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me but an all powerful God should be smarter than that don’t you think? Because we are smarter than that now.
I have no problem with God judging and punishing sin
You should NOT interpret it as anything detrimental to the 'God of Love' of Christianity - you SHOULD interpret it as "well, who are you to say what God should and should not do?".
Not "Tit" Moses or "Tip" Moses. It is Tut Moses which means "Born of Thoth"
The Old Testament got it wrong??
No. Greg Boyd got it wrong :)
God made me...i read Numbers 31:17 - 18, question God, I'm wrong?
Greg Boyd has been trying to make evangelical Christianity acceptable to liberals for many years, bending and twisting and reading extra stuff into (and out of) the text. Thanks for this.
Jesus Christ didn't add anything to the law, He clarified it.
For example, to covet someone, it begins in the heart and mind.
Why does God allow confusion?
For us to seek his guidance I’m guessing.