Episode Information
- Date: 2026-05(May)-29(Fri)
- Number:
e0030 -
Links
- Episode: 29 May 2026 (Q&A) | Corey J. Mahler Podcasts
- Transcript:
-
Other Platforms
-
Original Broadcasts
YouTube
X
Episode Wiki
This is the episode wiki — trusted users can edit it.
Topics Covered
- Jobs in the New Creation
::–::
- If an adult convert and his future wife had a miscarriage outside of wedlock and before they returned to Christ, do we have any way to know if the baby is saved in spite of its faithless parents?
::–::
- Do you think kindness to animals count as works? People exist for people, and they are who God wants us focused on. But do you think works extend beyond purely human affairs?
::–::
- How can you argue against race-mixing from a Christian perspective? I am convinced by natural law but my family uses Jesus as a defense for their betrayal. I want to convert but this is a hindrance.
::–::
-
- Since you want deportations of people who aren’t white in usa. What happens if someone like a Indian born in USA doesn’t know how to speak a language other then English. Gets deported wouldn’t he feel like a Foreigner in India since he can’t even communicate with other Indians ? How would your nationalist political view will address this problem ?
::–::
- The Enlightenment and connection to the American Revolution
::–::
- Do you think a republican form of government could be Christian? The CSA wrote its constitution on behalf of God, and the Boer republics tied citizenship to race and church membership.
::–::
- Ein Freund von mir meint, im Alten Testament sehe man nicht, dass Menschen durch den Blick voraus auf das Kreuz gerettet werden, und findet die christliche Lehre deshalb nicht wirklich überzeugend.
::–::
- What exactly is speaking in tongues? The church I grew up in didn’t have great teaching on this
::–::
- The Old Testament contains concubinage and the use of slave women as surrogate mothers. Where do these concepts stand in terms of the Moral Law?
::–::
- Q
::–::
- Q
::–::
- Q
::–::
Transcript
WEBVTT
00:00:00.520 → 00:00:03.320
It is the 29th of May, 2026.
00:00:03.480 → 00:00:04.440
I am Corey J.
00:00:04.440 → 00:00:06.460
Mahler, and this is At Any Cost.
00:00:06.460 → 00:00:09.260
I assume that you all have sound now.
00:00:09.260 → 00:00:12.940
The levels all look correct on my end, so please let me, thank you.
00:00:13.120 → 00:00:14.880
I was going to say, please let me know in the chat.
00:00:15.560 → 00:00:20.180
But at any rate, no idea why OBS is deciding to do this, which it occasionally does.
00:00:20.720 → 00:00:30.500
So if you hear panting in the background, that would be Gizmo, who is hiding at my feet currently, because we have a storm starting here, and he really does not like thunder and lightning.
00:00:31.580 → 00:00:36.980
At any rate, now that the audio is working, I can go ahead and get into the questions here.
00:00:37.800 → 00:00:42.460
Question one, some easy questions before I get into something that’s a little longer.
00:00:42.460 → 00:00:46.400
Like I said, I would get into some more complicated material this week.
00:00:46.420 → 00:00:49.260
Probably a longer answer will take up more of the episode.
00:00:49.840 → 00:00:52.320
But at any rate, question one, an easy one to start.
00:00:52.320 → 00:00:56.440
Do you think God will have jobs or careers for us in the new creation?
00:00:56.960 → 00:00:59.940
And the person says, no reason, just fun to think about.
00:00:59.940 → 00:01:05.500
And the answer is that yes, you will have something to do in the new creation.
00:01:06.520 → 00:01:11.140
The distinction here would be between labor and work.
00:01:11.660 → 00:01:18.560
And you’re going to have work in the new creation, which say you’re going to have something to do, whatever it happens to be.
00:01:18.560 → 00:01:23.980
God originally made us to be gardeners, so certainly that’s going to be a thing that will do in the new creation.
00:01:24.440 → 00:01:26.500
Some of us already enjoy that, so that’s good news.
00:01:27.240 → 00:01:31.560
But God did not create us just to be idle.
00:01:31.860 → 00:01:33.140
That’s not a human life.
00:01:33.140 → 00:01:36.800
That’s something fundamentally different from what a human being should be doing.
00:01:37.260 → 00:01:51.540
So there will be work, but it won’t be labor or laborious in the sense of being something we dread having to do, or something that is taxing on us, weighs us down, beats us down over time, right?
00:01:51.900 → 00:01:53.480
Not that sort of work.
00:01:53.540 → 00:02:00.500
But work in the sense of something that is productive, makes you feel like you are doing something because you are indeed doing something.
00:02:00.880 → 00:02:02.680
So that will still exist.
00:02:03.880 → 00:02:16.560
But on a tangentially related note there, I usually don’t say that much about paradise or about the new creation because so much of it is speculative.
00:02:16.640 → 00:02:23.460
There are some things where we can clearly say that this or this will not be the case, or this or that will not be there.
00:02:24.240 → 00:02:30.560
But in many cases, we live in a fallen world, and we live thousands of years into the fallen world.
00:02:30.920 → 00:02:34.600
So it’s difficult for us to understand what a perfect world would even be.
00:02:35.160 → 00:02:40.740
And God doesn’t really give us a ton of specifics about the new creation.
00:02:41.220 → 00:02:43.900
We just know that it will be what he intended it to be.
00:02:43.980 → 00:02:49.240
So everything that is bad in this creation due to the fall will not be there.
00:02:49.580 → 00:02:57.360
That’s why I usually don’t say that much on the topic, because it is somewhat speculative, generally speaking, because we only know so much about that.
00:02:57.360 → 00:03:04.360
Just like we only know so much about angels and demons, and how they interact with our world, and the rules God has set for them.
00:03:05.220 → 00:03:07.540
God doesn’t give us much in the way of details.
00:03:07.540 → 00:03:12.660
So generally speaking, I don’t comment too much on that, because it’s too speculative.
00:03:12.660 → 00:03:15.960
I would just be guessing, extrapolating.
00:03:16.780 → 00:03:20.380
It’s not certain enough for me to want to make a public statement on that kind of thing.
00:03:21.360 → 00:03:22.220
Question 2.
00:03:22.540 → 00:03:35.500
If an adult convert and his future wife had a miscarriage outside of wedlock and before they returned to Christ, do we have any way to know if the baby is saved in spite of its faithless parents?
00:03:37.480 → 00:03:42.800
This is a difficult question, because there’s not necessarily an easy answer here.
00:03:43.620 → 00:03:54.100
Certainly, we know that if you have one believing parent, you can be certain that God has provided for that infant.
00:03:54.460 → 00:03:56.580
I went over this in a previous episode.
00:03:56.660 → 00:03:58.160
In fact, I went over it last week.
00:03:59.080 → 00:04:07.760
Because you have the passages that speak of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by the believing spouse, and then the children are holy because of the parents.
00:04:08.080 → 00:04:22.100
And then you have the passage with David and Bathsheba, where clearly a child conceived outside of wedlock, and then David, as a prophet, says that he is certain he will see the child again, and that is comforting to him.
00:04:22.760 → 00:04:25.040
I have gizmo moving around and now sitting on my feet.
00:04:25.700 → 00:04:39.840
But with regard to those who are not believers, scripture does not actually state what happens for the children of unbelievers who die very young.
00:04:39.840 → 00:04:41.820
So miscarriage, for instance.
00:04:43.280 → 00:04:47.600
All we can do in that case is commend that child to God.
00:04:47.600 → 00:04:50.720
I don’t think it’s wrong to pray to God about that child.
00:04:50.720 → 00:04:54.460
I don’t think it’s wrong to pray for the departed, right?
00:04:54.820 → 00:05:01.340
Obviously, in Lutheran, I don’t believe we pray to the departed, but I don’t think that it’s wrong to pray for the departed.
00:05:01.620 → 00:05:05.880
And it’s not a matter, it’s not an issue that you’re praying after the fact, right?
00:05:05.880 → 00:05:09.220
You’re not praying for something in the future, you’re praying for something that’s already occurred.
00:05:09.780 → 00:05:11.160
God’s outside of time.
00:05:11.520 → 00:05:18.940
When you are praying within your frame of reference with regard to time, doesn’t matter to God, right?
00:05:19.700 → 00:05:23.720
So I don’t think it’s wrong to pray for something like this.
00:05:23.720 → 00:05:25.640
In fact, I think it’s a good thing to do that.
00:05:26.160 → 00:05:30.060
So, the short answer is that we have to leave this up to God.
00:05:30.420 → 00:05:38.820
We don’t really have any firm word in Scripture other than God will do what is perfect, and all things work together for the good.
00:05:39.520 → 00:05:43.640
God knew this individual would come to faith, would return to the faith.
00:05:44.120 → 00:05:49.480
God knew that that was a child of someone who ultimately will be saved, who is numbered among the elect.
00:05:50.480 → 00:05:54.920
Take comfort in that, and knowing that what God will do is perfect.
00:05:55.920 → 00:06:00.200
We don’t know exactly how that works here in time, and that’s fine.
00:06:00.200 → 00:06:02.020
We don’t have to know everything here in time.
00:06:02.380 → 00:06:05.120
We know enough that we can take some comfort from that.
00:06:05.120 → 00:06:10.080
We just can’t be absolutely certain, because scripture doesn’t give us that answer.
00:06:11.400 → 00:06:18.120
And I know that’s not necessarily the answer everyone wants to hear, but sometimes the truth is what it is.
00:06:18.300 → 00:06:20.560
It’s not necessarily exactly what we would prefer.
00:06:20.960 → 00:06:24.320
But we can again take comfort in the fact that God’s plan is perfect.
00:06:24.320 → 00:06:25.840
God knows all of his sheep.
00:06:25.840 → 00:06:27.260
God knows all of the elect.
00:06:27.640 → 00:06:32.060
And it doesn’t matter when, how you die, when you pray, right?
00:06:32.680 → 00:06:35.340
These things are outside of time from God’s perspective.
00:06:35.340 → 00:06:36.960
So, take comfort in that.
00:06:39.440 → 00:06:45.000
Question three, do you think kindness to animals count as works?
00:06:45.060 → 00:06:49.020
People exist for people, and they are who God wants us focused on.
00:06:49.500 → 00:06:52.800
But do you think works extend beyond purely human affairs?
00:06:52.800 → 00:06:58.120
I guess it’s a good question, since I currently have a small dog sitting on my feet, hiding from the thunderstorm.
00:06:59.480 → 00:07:08.200
I think that those definitely count as works, because many of the things that we have to do are duties that do not pertain to human beings, right?
00:07:08.200 → 00:07:10.720
We have a duty to care for the natural world.
00:07:11.000 → 00:07:15.120
We have a duty to care for the possessions that God has entrusted to us.
00:07:15.120 → 00:07:19.080
So, we shouldn’t be destructive, unnecessarily destructive with regard to those.
00:07:19.080 → 00:07:22.840
We should treat our things well, not just people.
00:07:23.340 → 00:07:24.360
That includes animals.
00:07:24.360 → 00:07:26.880
God certainly entrusted the animals to our care.
00:07:26.880 → 00:07:28.160
We are supposed to treat them well.
00:07:28.160 → 00:07:29.900
So, you shouldn’t abuse your farm animals.
00:07:29.900 → 00:07:31.240
You shouldn’t abuse your pets.
00:07:31.840 → 00:07:33.040
You should take good care of those.
00:07:33.040 → 00:07:36.960
And that does count as a good work, because you are doing what God designed you to do.
00:07:37.520 → 00:07:41.400
And a good work is simply doing that which is consonant with God’s will.
00:07:41.480 → 00:07:47.380
So, taking care of your pets, treating them well, taking care of your other physical things.
00:07:47.400 → 00:07:51.980
These are all good works, because you are doing your duty that God has given you.
00:07:56.660 → 00:07:58.280
Question 4.
00:08:00.300 → 00:08:05.020
How can you argue against race mixing from a Christian perspective?
00:08:05.020 → 00:08:10.520
I am convinced by natural law, but my family uses Jesus as a defense for their betrayal.
00:08:11.000 → 00:08:13.140
I want to convert, but this is my hindrance.
00:08:13.140 → 00:08:24.820
So, this one comes up all the time, which I don’t mind going over it again, because it’s an important question that’s going to keep coming up for the foreseeable future for reasons that are obvious to everyone.
00:08:25.540 → 00:08:34.300
I’m not going to give the full answer here, because in part the full answer is, you know, go listen to the race series on Stone Choir.
00:08:35.220 → 00:08:39.140
I will link to that in the show notes, so I’ll put a note here for myself to link to that.
00:08:40.380 → 00:08:56.160
You can also listen to some of the debates that I’ve done on the topic, so I’ve gone over it at some length there, although some of those were a little technical, because of the reality of the proposition that was offered by the other side, and it was more beneficial to accept than reject the proposition for the sake of the debate.
00:08:56.860 → 00:09:00.940
But I would here at least go over three points, really.
00:09:01.840 → 00:09:06.480
I guess they’re really more expansive than three points, but three sort of core points I would go over.
00:09:07.440 → 00:09:09.760
Your first point you sort of made already, right?
00:09:09.980 → 00:09:11.960
You appeal to natural law.
00:09:11.960 → 00:09:19.300
Well, God is the author of natural law, so you are appealing to God when you appeal to natural law.
00:09:20.000 → 00:09:21.240
There’s nothing wrong with doing that.
00:09:21.240 → 00:09:25.860
Christians have long recognized that the natural law is important.
00:09:25.860 → 00:09:33.520
The natural law flows from God’s character, flows from God’s essence, his nature, and so you can appeal to the natural law.
00:09:33.960 → 00:09:36.340
God is the author, he’s the one who created it.
00:09:36.960 → 00:09:41.720
The way that I’ve typically said it, and there are other men who said it as well, God wrote two books.
00:09:41.720 → 00:09:43.040
Nature is the first one.
00:09:43.580 → 00:09:48.240
And nature really is the more important one in a certain sense.
00:09:48.440 → 00:09:53.600
It’s the greater one because it’s the one to which God appeals when he speaks of his own greatness.
00:09:53.600 → 00:09:55.680
You can think of the book of Job, right?
00:09:55.680 → 00:10:01.120
He doesn’t appeal to prophecy or revelation or anything like that.
00:10:01.120 → 00:10:04.720
He appeals to creation when he is telling Job of his greatness.
00:10:04.720 → 00:10:09.160
So even God appeals to nature, creation as his greater work.
00:10:09.540 → 00:10:13.760
The way in which scripture is greater, of course, scripture reveals the gospel.
00:10:14.280 → 00:10:15.740
Nature does not reveal the gospel.
00:10:15.740 → 00:10:18.640
You need scripture for that to be saved.
00:10:18.640 → 00:10:22.580
So it’s greater in that sense, but there’s nothing wrong with appealing to nature.
00:10:23.220 → 00:10:45.040
And when it comes to appealing to nature, I think there are a few points you can bring up with someone who has at least some shared Christian framework, because if there is a designer, right, if there’s a God, and you can find evidence of the way he designed something, then you should act in accord with that design.
00:10:45.520 → 00:10:56.680
One of the strongest points for this is that the peak for fertility is, depending on the group, somewhere between third and fourth cousins, right around there.
00:10:57.020 → 00:11:02.500
Sometimes a little, maybe a little more out than that, but basically third or fourth cousins, that’s peak fertility.
00:11:03.500 → 00:11:05.420
God designed that into the system.
00:11:05.900 → 00:11:07.640
God says children are a blessing.
00:11:08.360 → 00:11:14.380
God is the one who designed where you are going to have the greatest number of children produced by a given marriage.
00:11:14.860 → 00:11:27.520
And that is with your somewhat distant, not close, obviously, that’s a different problem, but your somewhat distant cousins, not distant in the sense of like other side of the world cousins, but third or fourth cousins.
00:11:28.040 → 00:11:29.520
God built that into the system.
00:11:29.520 → 00:11:33.400
So that’s his design, that’s clearly his intent.
00:11:33.440 → 00:11:44.800
So not going outside of that and not disobeying or marrying your first cousin is a good thing, because you are acting in accord with God’s revealed will in nature.
00:11:45.560 → 00:11:46.940
So again, appealing to nature.
00:11:47.260 → 00:11:51.040
You can also use issues like the compatibility of immune systems, right?
00:11:51.040 → 00:11:53.080
There’s a reason foreigners smell weird to you.
00:11:53.520 → 00:11:55.880
It’s not just because some of them have bad hygiene.
00:11:56.240 → 00:11:59.060
It’s because you’re not compatible with them genetically.
00:11:59.140 → 00:12:01.500
Usually that’s to deal with the immune system.
00:12:01.760 → 00:12:09.560
Another thing that God built into the system, and so God has revealed his design, we should obey his design.
00:12:09.560 → 00:12:12.220
We should go along with what he clearly wants us to do.
00:12:13.960 → 00:12:18.560
There’s also the fact that Scripture is just blunt about this.
00:12:18.700 → 00:12:26.340
God is the one who created the races of men, and not just created the races of men, but set their times and their boundaries.
00:12:26.340 → 00:12:52.880
So geographic and temporal boundaries, he set those very clearly there in the Book of Acts, and elsewhere as well, because, for instance, you have when the Israelites are coming in to the promised land, God says there are certain places, he will not give them so much as enough to set their foot upon of certain segments of land, because God has given them to another race, the Edomites or the Ammonites, whoever it happens to be.
00:12:52.880 → 00:12:55.080
God has given territory to other peoples.
00:12:55.660 → 00:12:59.120
As long as they remain faithful, they retain ownership of that territory.
00:12:59.120 → 00:13:01.540
Of course, there are consequences for faithlessness.
00:13:02.580 → 00:13:09.740
But if God created the races of men, and then he set their boundaries, he clearly wanted them to be separate.
00:13:10.120 → 00:13:22.400
So, when you are marrying outside your race, or when you are moving to a foreign country, you are actually doing something that is contrary to God’s will, because God is the one who set those times, set those boundaries.
00:13:22.740 → 00:13:24.260
He didn’t do that idly.
00:13:24.520 → 00:13:35.500
If he wanted everyone to just turn into one undifferentiated mass of humanity, with no racial distinctions, no national distinctions, he wouldn’t have set times and boundaries.
00:13:35.740 → 00:13:39.960
So, Scripture, very clear on this, that God is the one who set these.
00:13:40.700 → 00:13:44.860
You may have to explain to people that nation and race are the same thing.
00:13:45.220 → 00:13:48.740
Some people have trouble with that concept, but they are literally identical.
00:13:48.820 → 00:13:52.680
Look back through history, look at the etymology, they mean the same thing.
00:13:54.040 → 00:13:58.420
And sometimes people will try to argue about, you know, ethnicity and race, and they are just arguing over Greek vs.
00:13:58.420 → 00:13:58.920
Latin.
00:13:59.360 → 00:14:01.160
These are all the same terms, I mean the same thing.
00:14:02.020 → 00:14:07.960
And scripture is also clear on that point, because you will have the race of, insert name here, right?
00:14:07.960 → 00:14:13.300
Israel is called Israel, because they are the race of Israel, descended from Jacob, renamed Israel.
00:14:13.300 → 00:14:14.680
That’s the reason they have the name.
00:14:14.900 → 00:14:20.820
So that’s a point you can make with someone who has that shared Christian framework, at least some Christian framework.
00:14:21.740 → 00:14:27.160
And then the third point I would make would be, look at the consequences of miscegenation.
00:14:27.520 → 00:14:31.500
And again, God is the one who designed the system.
00:14:31.880 → 00:14:34.040
God is the one who designed how it works.
00:14:34.560 → 00:14:43.220
So when you do something within creation, and it has negative consequences, God is the one who designed those negative consequences.
00:14:43.680 → 00:14:46.340
Miscegenation has negative consequences.
00:14:46.820 → 00:14:56.280
It leads to health issues, it leads to psychological issues, it causes all sorts of problems, and that’s a very clear indication that it is contrary to God’s will.
00:14:56.600 → 00:15:13.840
So I think if you bring up those three points, if you’re dealing with someone who’s going to be honest, if you’re dealing with someone who is going to be open to actually examining the issue instead of simply shutting down immediately because they’ve been trained to react in a certain way, you can probably get somewhere.
00:15:14.780 → 00:15:16.160
That’s probably the best approach.
00:15:16.160 → 00:15:37.120
And it shouldn’t be something that prevents you from being Christian, because it’s only in the last, say, 50-ish years, maybe a little longer, kind of 1960s when it really began in earnest, where you have people who claim to be Christian and subscribe to this modern so-called morality.
00:15:37.340 → 00:15:41.080
We’ve called it the new global religion or the post-war consensus.
00:15:41.760 → 00:15:43.040
That’s not Christianity.
00:15:43.240 → 00:15:44.540
That’s a different religion.
00:15:44.860 → 00:15:46.620
It doesn’t matter what they call themselves.
00:15:46.620 → 00:15:49.080
They’re not Christians because they don’t subscribe to it.
00:15:49.080 → 00:15:50.480
Christians actually believe.
00:15:50.900 → 00:15:55.020
So you’re going to have to do some work probably in dealing with that.
00:15:55.040 → 00:15:57.340
Maybe you can get them to listen to the series on race.
00:15:57.720 → 00:16:02.880
It is just purely factual, dealing with the issues as they exist.
00:16:03.020 → 00:16:09.400
It goes over the fundamental issues, the Christian perspective, consequences, you know, where do we go from here?
00:16:09.880 → 00:16:11.560
So again, I’ll link that in the show notes.
00:16:11.560 → 00:16:19.560
I would definitely recommend that you listen to that, and then maybe recommend that your family or others listen to it as well.
00:16:25.192 → 00:16:34.872
The next question here, a related question, this one’s easier to answer, and then I’ll get into the enlightenment, which may take up a little bit of time here.
00:16:36.212 → 00:16:47.992
Question five, since you want deportations of people who are not white in the US., what happens if someone like an Indian born in the US doesn’t know how to speak a language other than English?
00:16:48.632 → 00:17:00.192
That person gets deported, but he wouldn’t feel like, or he would feel like a foreigner in India, but since he can’t communicate with other Indians, how would your nationalist political view address this problem?
00:17:03.452 → 00:17:05.292
There are a number of ways I can address this.
00:17:05.292 → 00:17:06.972
The first one is probably just to be blunt.
00:17:06.972 → 00:17:09.092
It’s not our problem, right?
00:17:10.932 → 00:17:13.492
Our own people are the ones for whom we’re supposed to care.
00:17:13.492 → 00:17:21.332
So a foreigner who doesn’t feel like he’s at home in his own home nation, that’s not my problem.
00:17:21.792 → 00:17:24.772
That’s his problem, that’s his home nation’s problem.
00:17:25.332 → 00:17:33.172
So yes, it may be that his parents or grandparents created the problem for him, but that doesn’t make it my problem.
00:17:33.532 → 00:17:41.172
My concern is my people, because I have the greatest duty to family, and then extended family, and nation.
00:17:41.292 → 00:17:43.432
And yes, sometimes nation trumps family, right?
00:17:43.432 → 00:17:46.272
When you have to go off to war, that’s nation trumping family.
00:17:46.712 → 00:17:49.832
But that’s how that works.
00:17:49.832 → 00:17:56.372
I don’t have the same level of duty to the foreigner, even if he speaks my language and doesn’t know his own language.
00:17:56.892 → 00:17:58.772
That’s fundamentally not my problem.
00:17:59.152 → 00:18:04.912
Now, in this particular case, not really an issue, because plenty of Indians know some English.
00:18:04.912 → 00:18:08.092
So this particular example given isn’t even a real example.
00:18:08.612 → 00:18:16.352
If you speak English, you can get by in a lot of countries, particularly living in a city, and then you pick up the language, right?
00:18:16.352 → 00:18:21.512
When you’re living there, it’s not that hard to pick up a functional use of the local language.
00:18:21.512 → 00:18:22.832
It’s not a real issue.
00:18:23.192 → 00:18:27.852
It’s an argument some people try to use, but it’s not a real problem.
00:18:28.152 → 00:18:36.052
And it’s not a valid argument against a nationalist policy of deporting those who don’t belong to the nation, because they shouldn’t be here in the first place.
00:18:36.352 → 00:18:37.972
Related to the previous question, right?
00:18:37.972 → 00:18:40.792
God is the one who set the boundaries and the times.
00:18:41.172 → 00:18:44.412
These people belong in their own lands, not in ours.
00:18:44.432 → 00:18:46.572
And so they should be sent home.
00:18:46.592 → 00:18:50.312
They can use Duolingo on the plane or whatever it happens to be.
00:18:51.452 → 00:18:52.172
Use a better app.
00:18:52.172 → 00:18:53.452
That one’s not great anymore.
00:18:58.987 → 00:19:07.427
I’m going to copy some questions from the chat that I may get to today, I may not, but I just want to keep them for future reference.
00:19:08.687 → 00:19:17.367
The next question is a longer one, because I need to go over some background, it’s just more complicated question.
00:19:18.527 → 00:19:23.287
Someone asked about the enlightenment and its connection to the American Revolution.
00:19:23.967 → 00:19:31.127
And so in order to go over this, there’s some background information you have to know.
00:19:31.607 → 00:19:59.547
Because if you don’t have the history here, and how these things developed, and some of the nuance, the differences between different groups within this time period, you’re going to miss how these things interacted and played out, and how we wound up with the American Revolution, and perhaps more importantly, the documents that proceeded from it, and then indeed the United States polity as well.
00:19:59.547 → 00:20:02.867
Because it is very much a product of the Enlightenment.
00:20:03.427 → 00:20:06.407
You know, I’m not sort of, I’m not bearing the lead here, right?
00:20:06.407 → 00:20:07.927
I’m not, it’s not a spoiler alert.
00:20:07.927 → 00:20:09.427
We all know that’s where I’m going with this.
00:20:10.387 → 00:20:15.507
But in order to start off, you have to understand the Enlightenment proper.
00:20:15.987 → 00:20:27.367
And there are a handful of different regional distinctions under sort of the umbrella of what we could call the Enlightenment, primarily the Enlightenment.
00:20:27.367 → 00:20:32.547
When we speak of it, you know, uppercase E, we mean English, Scottish, French.
00:20:33.047 → 00:20:46.727
And in the American context, obviously, the Anglo portion, the English speaking portion is a little more relevant to us just because many of the founding fathers had a smattering of other languages, but they were reading primarily the English authors.
00:20:47.327 → 00:20:58.987
Some of them loved the French, Jefferson, Franklin, but mostly, they were going to read Locke and others like that, or in translation, of course, because these things were still being translated back then.
00:20:58.987 → 00:21:01.847
It was just a lot harder without AI, took more time.
00:21:03.527 → 00:21:12.567
The focus of the Enlightenment, in short, would be a focus on reason, their formulation of reason, so bear that in mind.
00:21:13.047 → 00:21:20.227
Empiricism, so divining things from the natural world, and then what they called natural rights.
00:21:20.287 → 00:21:27.367
Well, that’s a big part of this, obviously, because that’s where we get the Declaration, and the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
00:21:27.507 → 00:21:33.967
That conception of natural rights that is a core part of the Enlightenment claims.
00:21:34.227 → 00:21:41.507
And this is perhaps against some of the claims of traditional European thought, and even traditional Christendom.
00:21:42.427 → 00:21:46.567
There was also, attendant with this, a skepticism court authority.
00:21:46.567 → 00:21:56.267
So, particularly against the aristocracy, the clerical class, significantly more so against the clerical class in the French case than in the American case.
00:21:57.267 → 00:22:01.767
Partly for historical reasons, partly because, to be blunt, Satan was A-B testing.
00:22:01.767 → 00:22:02.727
He likes to do that.
00:22:03.407 → 00:22:07.167
He ran the American Revolution in one way, he ran the French Revolution in another.
00:22:07.627 → 00:22:12.367
As it turns out, American Revolution was the better way to go, worked better for him long term.
00:22:13.307 → 00:22:18.747
France descended into greater chaos, and kind of has cyclical chaos still stemming from that.
00:22:19.607 → 00:22:24.887
But by and large, the American experiment, far more productive overall than the French.
00:22:25.467 → 00:22:50.887
So, that skepticism toward the clerical class was because you had the great power of Rome, historically, in France, and the amount of wealth and power in society, and things like that, that were wielded by, particularly, archbishops and others in higher positions in the church, that made people very skeptical toward them.
00:22:50.887 → 00:23:09.967
And then there was obviously the relationship of the French crown to the Roman Catholic Church, and because of the anti-monarchical sentiment, in particularly the French thinkers of the Enlightenment, it transferred over from there into the church as well, into the Roman Catholic Church specifically.
00:23:10.407 → 00:23:18.427
Not as much hostility necessarily toward Protestants, because Protestants don’t have a pope, and typically don’t have archbishops.
00:23:18.767 → 00:23:24.367
Some exceptions, of course, Anglicans and others, but it’s not the same level of control in society.
00:23:25.067 → 00:23:32.787
Even the Anglican Church did not wield the sort of power in the English context that the Roman Catholic Church wielded historically in the French context.
00:23:34.287 → 00:23:42.907
But in addition to what we’ll call the Enlightenment proper, which is in England, France, and Scotland, that’s the core of it.
00:23:42.907 → 00:23:52.187
And then American Enlightenment is obviously sort of a daughter movement from largely the English and the Scottish, some French influence as well.
00:23:52.767 → 00:24:02.767
But there are two other movements of which you have to be aware, because they run somewhat in parallel, and there’s a feedback, a relationship between them and the Enlightenment.
00:24:03.247 → 00:24:08.987
There’s more of it with regard to one of these movements than the other.
00:24:09.807 → 00:24:11.607
But I’m going to get up for a second.
00:24:11.607 → 00:24:12.947
I’m going to release Gizmo.
00:24:12.947 → 00:24:13.467
He’d like…
00:24:37.337 → 00:24:40.677
Released Gizmo, he’s free to wander about now.
00:24:40.677 → 00:24:53.337
So, going back to these two movements, you have the Haskala, which is the so-called Jewish Enlightenment, taking place primarily in Central Europe, largely in German-speaking areas.
00:24:53.857 → 00:25:00.857
But it has some relationship to the French, as well as to the English Enlightenment movements.
00:25:01.837 → 00:25:10.457
Not as much overlap there necessarily with the American, but obviously you’re going to get a connection between that through the English into the colonies.
00:25:11.817 → 00:25:21.497
And then the other movement, the final portion of this, which we have to be aware, is the Aufklärung, which would be the German version of the Enlightenment.
00:25:22.557 → 00:25:28.977
Not the same thing, because the Jewish one is sort of similar.
00:25:28.977 → 00:25:53.817
There’s a focus on reason, and, you know, reason on secularization, on secular education, and on, for the Jews, integration into European society in order to avoid persecution, and a push for religious tolerance from the society, the host society, with regard to the Jews.
00:25:54.657 → 00:25:59.977
You see this push for so-called religious tolerance across the board, all of these movements.
00:26:00.537 → 00:26:07.657
Not as much in the German version of it, the Aufklärung, but you certainly see it there as well.
00:26:07.657 → 00:26:16.697
Because, for instance, in Russia and Austria, you see liberalization of control over the Jews and more tolerance.
00:26:17.037 → 00:26:25.157
But you certainly see it in the French context, with the French Revolution, and in the English context, and then a little bit in the American context as well.
00:26:26.237 → 00:26:43.157
But the distinction, with regard to the German version of the Enlightenment, it’s almost a misnomer to call it the Enlightenment, but it’s the equivalent intellectual movement happening in continental Germanic Europe, roughly the same time that the Enlightenment is happening in the Anglosphere and the French.
00:26:44.497 → 00:26:49.537
The focus in the German context was on reformation instead of revolution.
00:26:49.797 → 00:27:00.057
So you get the revolutions and the radical changes in some parts of the Anglosphere, because obviously you don’t have a revolution in England, really.
00:27:00.317 → 00:27:05.397
You have some changes, but it’s not the same thing as the American Revolution or, say, the French Revolution.
00:27:06.257 → 00:27:19.897
But you didn’t have this just sort of wholesale desire to oust the aristocracy and the monarchy that you certainly found in the US, in the colonies, and in France, in the German context.
00:27:19.897 → 00:27:34.197
In the German context instead, you had the nobility, the aristocracy, and indeed the monarchy, sort of working with the intellectuals, working with the philosophers and others to implement some of these things.
00:27:34.517 → 00:27:51.397
So the rational exploration of some of the sciences and things like that, the philosophical examination of some of these things, that sort of stuff took place, but in a structured way that did not trend toward revolution.
00:27:51.757 → 00:27:55.217
Obviously, until you get into the 1800s, and that’s Marxism, it’s a separate thing.
00:27:56.037 → 00:27:59.757
It was very bureaucratic and administrative in the German context.
00:27:59.897 → 00:28:02.997
Very unsurprising for anyone who is aware of how Germans are.
00:28:03.537 → 00:28:17.637
If you want to get more into that, because typically speaking, Americans are less familiar with this than they are with the Enlightenment, the sort of three thinkers you would want would be Immanuel Kant and then Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolf.
00:28:17.817 → 00:28:19.277
Those would be the three thinkers.
00:28:19.277 → 00:28:23.697
I’ll make sure to put that in the show notes for people, so you don’t have to know how to spell those German names.
00:28:23.697 → 00:28:37.637
But the core focus here, of course, is going to be the Anglosphere plus French Enlightenment, because that is what influences American thinkers the most.
00:28:38.637 → 00:28:47.597
Because while there were Americans who spoke German, certainly, the first speaker of the house was a German Lutheran pastor, son of a German Lutheran pastor, he certainly knew German.
00:28:48.497 → 00:28:51.097
Most of the founding fathers did not know German.
00:28:51.377 → 00:28:53.137
They were reading the English materials.
00:28:53.717 → 00:29:05.777
And so, in the American context, what you have, perhaps even more so, certainly than the British, but perhaps even more so than the French, is sort of a classical republicanism.
00:29:06.437 → 00:29:10.017
This love of the republicans, they were obsessed with Athens, right?
00:29:10.237 → 00:29:12.437
The Athenian model was a big thing.
00:29:12.757 → 00:29:22.217
And so, this republicanism focused on, derivative from the Enlightenment, the social contract, which is to say the consent of the governed.
00:29:22.217 → 00:29:29.077
And the argument is that the government is legitimate only so long as the governed consent to the government.
00:29:30.337 → 00:29:36.697
We’re just going to ignore the fact that that’s incoherent, but that is how this was structured.
00:29:36.697 → 00:29:42.637
This was a big part of the thinking in the American context, subsequent to the Enlightenment.
00:29:43.157 → 00:29:45.237
This is social contract theory, right?
00:29:45.897 → 00:29:53.857
And so, that suspicion or hostility toward the monarchy, toward the aristocracy, also carried over into the American context.
00:29:55.017 → 00:30:12.357
Perhaps a little easier in the American context, although at the same time a little less relevant, because you didn’t have the same formalized structure with regard to aristocracy and nobility in the US., in the colonies, what would become the US that you had in England.
00:30:12.357 → 00:30:14.257
It just hadn’t developed yet.
00:30:14.577 → 00:30:31.277
You had stratification in society, but largely as a result of wealth, not necessarily as much a result of family lines, because that just hadn’t entrenched yet in the new world, at least in the American context.
00:30:31.877 → 00:30:37.217
And some of the writing that would be most relevant for this would be Common Sense from Thomas Paine.
00:30:37.657 → 00:30:43.197
He was definitely anti-monarchy, perhaps more so than a number of others.
00:30:43.417 → 00:30:48.977
He described it as artificial and basically railed against it and just wanted to complete the do away with it.
00:30:49.577 → 00:30:55.637
So, argues for the state of nature, things like that, obviously, descended from Enlightenment philosophy.
00:30:56.817 → 00:31:05.397
But key here in his writing, and this was very accessible, many men read this because it was very accessible prose.
00:31:05.397 → 00:31:06.277
It was in English.
00:31:06.277 → 00:31:08.097
It was not something that was difficult to read.
00:31:08.097 → 00:31:09.957
It wasn’t in Latin or anything like that.
00:31:10.417 → 00:31:36.557
He argued for a right of revolution, that basically the people, the common people had a right to rebel if certain things, basically this enlightenment checklist of things, was not fulfilled by the government, if the government was not properly achieving the ends for which the enlightenment argued that government was instituted.
00:31:36.917 → 00:31:41.737
And you can see the ends in the Declaration of Independence.
00:31:42.197 → 00:31:52.037
Life, liberty, and the Declaration says pursuit of happiness, instead of doing, essentially, this is Locke, right?
00:31:52.217 → 00:31:55.217
But for Locke, it’s life, liberty, and property.
00:31:55.577 → 00:31:59.337
And of course, you have property protections as well, but we have pursuit of happiness instead.
00:31:59.337 → 00:32:03.417
It’s the same sort of idea, advancing the same arguments.
00:32:03.717 → 00:32:05.317
It’s the same thought behind it.
00:32:05.317 → 00:32:06.357
It’s the enlightenment.
00:32:07.157 → 00:32:11.357
And then, subsequent to that, of course, you have the Constitution.
00:32:11.617 → 00:32:22.457
The Constitution carries forward a great deal of the thinking of the enlightenment, this time pulling in a lot from the French, and in particular, from Montesquieu.
00:32:22.937 → 00:32:32.197
So, in Montesquieu, you find the division of the powers that would historically have all resided within the sovereign.
00:32:34.017 → 00:32:37.437
And you can think of Carl Schmitt, perhaps, as a contrast to this.
00:32:37.437 → 00:32:47.217
But within the sovereign, you have the right to legislate, you have the right to enforce the law, you have all these different powers, right, and the right to interpret the law, so judicial.
00:32:48.397 → 00:32:49.657
Not in our system, right?
00:32:49.917 → 00:32:52.957
We have a tripartite division of our government.
00:32:53.017 → 00:32:57.077
We have the executive, we have the legislative, and we have the judicial.
00:32:57.077 → 00:33:08.097
So, this is from Enlightenment thought, which basically argued that if you have this division of power, you can have checks and balances, and you can stop the power from becoming tyrannical.
00:33:08.637 → 00:33:30.057
I think those of us living now in this time at a distance of some centuries from these men and what they created can see that in fact, our government has become more tyrannical despite these supposed limitations than the kings of old, and is certainly doing less for us and is certainly doing more evil against us.
00:33:30.737 → 00:33:36.257
So, for Montesquieu, that would be the spirit of the laws, would be the book if you want to go and look at how that sort of developed.
00:33:36.857 → 00:33:46.437
And then, we also have enshrined in the Constitution this freedom of religion, which is very much, like I said, sort of across the board.
00:33:46.437 → 00:33:57.977
You have the Jewish involvement in the Haskew Law, leading in to these other groups, and then you have this push for tolerance of different religious opinions in society.
00:33:57.977 → 00:34:02.177
This is a deviation from the historical norm of having a state church.
00:34:02.777 → 00:34:20.137
Even if you were in a country that was divided with regard to confession, like you may have some reformed, some Lutherans, some Roman Catholics, usually in a given area, you would have an established church because the ruler of that area was of that religion.
00:34:20.917 → 00:34:21.997
That was how that worked.
00:34:22.377 → 00:34:24.897
And then in some cases, you have just a state church, right?
00:34:24.977 → 00:34:25.797
Anglicanism.
00:34:26.657 → 00:34:31.057
Even in the US context, you had established state churches.
00:34:31.877 → 00:34:34.017
This is the beginning of the end of that.
00:34:34.697 → 00:34:54.857
And so, you have what the founding fathers almost certainly meant to be, and their writings do support this, but what they almost certainly meant to be a freedom of denomination, eventually becomes what we have today, which is, you know, you could call it a true or a full freedom of religion, right?
00:34:55.657 → 00:35:01.837
What they thought, undoubtedly, and this is backed up by Locke, I’ll mention that in a minute here.
00:35:02.377 → 00:35:17.957
What they thought is, basically, you can be Anglican or Lutheran or Methodist or Presbyterian or Baptist or whatever, freedom of denomination, freedom of tradition, not necessarily freedom of religion.
00:35:17.957 → 00:35:29.017
So, the idea of being, you know, a Hindu or a Muslim would have been completely insane sounding to the ears of basically every founding father.
00:35:30.917 → 00:35:41.077
But, that is ultimately not what they actually wrote, because the way they wrote it was freedom of religion, which is unfortunate.
00:35:41.617 → 00:35:47.997
They could probably have solved some problems we’ve had subsequent to their wording if they had just done a better job.
00:35:49.277 → 00:35:58.457
For instance, one of the ways you can see this, like I said, Locke, Locke has a letter concerning toleration, is what the title is, a letter concerning toleration.
00:35:58.817 → 00:36:13.497
And in that, he argues for this freedom of basically conscience and denomination, tradition, but he actually explicitly says, this doesn’t mean that we should tolerate atheists and papists, so Roman Catholics.
00:36:14.197 → 00:36:18.277
That’s more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind when they were drafting this.
00:36:18.857 → 00:36:24.637
They didn’t draft in that way, and so that’s why we now have, you know, monkey statues in Texas and things like that.
00:36:26.597 → 00:36:37.857
But the fundamental point is, they were already doing away with Christendom by their actions, because Christendom requires you to have an established church.
00:36:38.477 → 00:36:45.717
It doesn’t mean that you have to go out and persecute, say, every group that is deviant in some way.
00:36:46.197 → 00:36:53.477
If you have the Presbyterian church, it might be difficult for the Presbyterians to make that argument, so the Anglican will go with them instead.
00:36:53.737 → 00:37:00.637
If you have the Anglican church as your established church, it doesn’t mean that you have to go out and execute all the Lutherans, right?
00:37:01.117 → 00:37:15.357
But there is a fundamental difference when you have an established church, you have Christianity as your official state religion, you have ceremonies that are Christian, you have all these trappings of Christendom versus what we have today.
00:37:16.217 → 00:37:23.017
The most we get today is sometimes Congress will say a prayer, and sometimes it will be a Jewish woman leading the prayer, right?
00:37:23.577 → 00:37:33.637
That’s where you end up when you start doing away with all these pillars that supported Christianity, that supported Christendom, that ultimately supported our civilization.
00:37:34.317 → 00:37:40.837
Because this is what many of the individuals who were part of the Enlightenment did not realize.
00:37:41.837 → 00:37:49.677
What they were doing relied entirely on centuries of Christendom to give them the foundation to pursue these things.
00:37:50.077 → 00:37:53.757
But they were undermining that foundation with what they were doing.
00:37:53.977 → 00:37:56.977
They were destroying the very thing on which they were standing.
00:37:57.517 → 00:37:58.837
And this happens all the time.
00:37:58.837 → 00:38:13.197
It happens even today, when you argue with atheists and others, they will import the moral law, they will smuggle it in, and deny they’re doing it, but they’re relying on Christian morality in their argument.
00:38:13.197 → 00:38:19.537
And so it comes up all the time in debates where, you ask them, why is murder wrong?
00:38:20.057 → 00:38:22.017
And they don’t have an answer.
00:38:22.717 → 00:38:29.757
At best, what they’ll do is construct something that ultimately is actually resting on Christian morality.
00:38:29.757 → 00:38:34.657
It’s resting on the moral law, but they reject the moral law at the outset.
00:38:35.237 → 00:38:38.637
So their argument is self-defeating, it has no foundation.
00:38:39.437 → 00:38:41.217
This is sort of the beginning of that.
00:38:41.537 → 00:38:51.597
Many of the enlightenment thinkers were undermining Christendom and the ability to maintain and restore Christendom with what they were pursuing, even if they didn’t realize it.
00:38:53.597 → 00:39:00.817
And so, the bottom line here, I guess in summary, I don’t want to go too long necessarily on the topic in any one given episode.
00:39:01.157 → 00:39:15.457
I can comment more on it in the future if people have specific areas of interest, but the United States is, and particularly with regard to its founding documents, a product of the enlightenment, and particularly a product of enlightenment thought.
00:39:15.997 → 00:39:33.937
And the attendant rejection of tradition and traditional forms of governance and how authority runs and rights versus duties, all of that has contributed to the decline of Christendom.
00:39:35.337 → 00:39:37.917
It’s one of the reasons I am opposed to the Constitution.
00:39:37.917 → 00:39:39.737
I do not think it is a good document.
00:39:40.177 → 00:39:51.517
It is a thing that is descended from and is tied to, inextricably tied to, the enlightenment and all of the wickedness that flowed from the enlightenment.
00:39:52.357 → 00:39:53.637
You can’t divorce them.
00:39:53.977 → 00:39:59.997
It is something that is fundamentally alien to Christendom and to all of our history.
00:40:02.857 → 00:40:04.337
It was Satan AB testing.
00:40:05.017 → 00:40:11.977
The US system was better in the long run with regard to the goals he wanted to achieve.
00:40:12.237 → 00:40:14.877
The French option was too chaotic.
00:40:14.877 → 00:40:15.997
It was too violent.
00:40:15.997 → 00:40:17.937
They went overboard.
00:40:18.317 → 00:40:19.937
The French kind of do sometimes.
00:40:20.677 → 00:40:29.497
And so, that’s why I oppose the way our government is currently structured and the documents on which it relies, because they are products of the enlightenment.
00:40:29.497 → 00:40:44.017
And I do not think that the enlightenment is something the Christian can in good conscience support once you actually delve into it and learn about not just the things they were arguing, but the consequences of those things, because consequences do actually matter.
00:40:44.717 → 00:40:45.317
You’re right.
00:40:45.817 → 00:40:46.697
Fruit, tree.
00:40:48.157 → 00:40:49.457
Good trees produce good fruit.
00:40:49.457 → 00:40:50.957
Bad trees produce bad fruit.
00:40:51.297 → 00:40:52.877
The enlightenment produce bad fruit.
00:40:54.137 → 00:41:04.437
So, I guess that’s the overview, as it were, of the connection between the enlightenment and the American Revolution, and the American experiment that proceeded from that.
00:41:04.777 → 00:41:13.777
And I do want to briefly note, there is a distinction between the United States, the political construct, and the American nation.
00:41:14.177 → 00:41:16.857
The American nation should be preserved.
00:41:16.857 → 00:41:18.617
That is the thing for which we are fighting.
00:41:19.397 → 00:41:23.697
We’re not fighting ultimately for the Constitution, the Declaration, the United States.
00:41:24.377 → 00:41:26.797
Those are political creations that come and go.
00:41:27.237 → 00:41:29.757
The nation is what endures, the nation is what matters.
00:41:39.573 → 00:41:40.193
Let’s see.
00:41:49.864 → 00:41:53.804
I guess, sort of a follow-up question, I may as well answer it now, since I just went over some of this stuff.
00:41:53.804 → 00:41:57.084
Someone asked, let me get the exact text here.
00:41:58.724 → 00:42:03.584
Do you think, this is question seven, do you think a republican form of government could be Christian?
00:42:03.804 → 00:42:11.464
The CSA wrote its constitution on behalf of God, and the Boer Republic tied citizenship to race and church membership.
00:42:12.784 → 00:42:27.604
I think that, yes, you can have a republic that is Christian, and I think that it can function for seemingly, well, maybe not seemingly, but in theory, an indefinite amount of time and remain Christian, functional, etc.
00:42:27.604 → 00:42:29.664
Apparently, I activated my HomePod.
00:42:30.384 → 00:42:34.344
At any rate, I do believe that’s possible.
00:42:34.784 → 00:42:50.944
I think the problem is that as we have seen, the form itself inevitably leads to certain forms, certain types of decay over a not very long period, a couple centuries, give or take, and ultimately, I think it destroys itself.
00:42:51.364 → 00:43:00.364
And if you compare that to, say, centuries of Christendom under aristocracy and monarchy, I think the option is pretty clear.
00:43:00.744 → 00:43:11.104
And there’s also the problem of, if you’re going with a republic, and I’ve said there’s no real difference between democracy and republic, and I say that because the one inevitably leads to the other.
00:43:11.304 → 00:43:15.384
Republics become democracies in the due course of time.
00:43:15.384 → 00:43:16.444
That’s just how it goes.
00:43:16.884 → 00:43:22.984
But let’s say you could have a republic that stayed a republic with a very limited franchise.
00:43:23.804 → 00:43:28.864
That’s workable as long as you very strictly maintain that limited franchise.
00:43:29.284 → 00:43:34.244
That’s your challenge, because you’re dealing in headship, right?
00:43:34.304 → 00:43:39.204
You’re dealing in men exercising authority over other men, over society.
00:43:40.184 → 00:43:43.104
Certain men are fit for that task, and certain men are not.
00:43:43.424 → 00:43:47.724
So ultimately, what you’re doing is creating an aristocracy.
00:43:48.444 → 00:43:53.284
You’re just creating an aristocracy that happens to vote for certain things.
00:43:53.864 → 00:43:57.364
The Holy Roman Empire had a system of voting for the emperor.
00:43:57.584 → 00:43:58.824
There were electors.
00:43:59.544 → 00:44:04.704
So these things are not opposite ends of the spectrum, wildly incompatible.
00:44:04.944 → 00:44:17.304
You can have elements of voting representation, so called, in a system that is not itself a democracy or anything derivative from democracy, like a republic.
00:44:17.724 → 00:44:18.584
So can it work?
00:44:18.584 → 00:44:19.604
Can it be Christian?
00:44:19.604 → 00:44:20.284
Certainly.
00:44:20.964 → 00:44:27.464
I just don’t think it’s wise because I think inevitably it’s going to go the same way as every other one has in history.
00:44:28.384 → 00:44:32.924
We have not yet managed to construct an exception and I don’t think that we ever will.
00:44:38.600 → 00:44:44.860
Going to copy a few questions from the chat here so that I can get to them in the future.
00:44:51.490 → 00:44:56.970
Hopefully, the video has frozen on my side, so I assume that it’s still working since no one mentioned it in the chat, but…
00:44:58.870 → 00:45:01.570
Tech issues are just a lovely thing.
00:45:23.772 → 00:45:26.872
I have a question here that’s in German.
00:45:26.872 → 00:45:31.772
I will translate it, because I suspect most of the audience does not in fact speak German.
00:45:32.952 → 00:45:48.552
A friend of mine argues that the Old Testament does not show people being saved by looking forward to the cross, and therefore finds Christian doctrine not truly convincing.
00:45:49.192 → 00:45:53.112
This is question eight.
00:45:54.852 → 00:46:06.472
So, the answer for your friend here would be, it’s going to depend really on how he’s approaching this.
00:46:06.472 → 00:46:14.972
If he’s approaching it as someone who is just truly skeptical of Christianity, hostile to Christianity might potentially be the case here.
00:46:15.772 → 00:46:18.332
You’re going to have more of a challenge.
00:46:18.592 → 00:46:22.432
You have to probably address that in some other way.
00:46:22.432 → 00:46:34.832
You may want to focus on the New Testament and Christ and what the New Testament teaches, and then you can get him to believe the Old Testament after he has already believed in the New Testament, right?
00:46:35.792 → 00:46:56.132
But to answer sort of the core objection, which you can decide if it’s going to be effective in your case or not with this particular individual, those who were saved in the Old Testament were saved because they were looking forward to the Christ who was to come.
00:46:56.372 → 00:46:58.372
They had faith in the Christ to come.
00:46:58.372 → 00:46:59.232
Look at Job.
00:46:59.712 → 00:47:06.472
I know that my redeemer lives, and at the end he shall stand upon the earth, and my eyes shall see him and not an other, right?
00:47:07.132 → 00:47:12.072
Obviously, I know primarily the Masoretic text, but it’s quite similar in the Septuagint.
00:47:13.712 → 00:47:17.832
So Job is looking forward to a redeemer who will come.
00:47:18.152 → 00:47:19.692
He’s looking forward to the Christ.
00:47:20.752 → 00:47:26.452
That is the case with every single one of the Old Testament men who is called righteous.
00:47:26.452 → 00:47:30.192
They are called righteous because they are looking forward to the Christ who is to come.
00:47:31.112 → 00:47:34.612
For us now, we can look at the Christ who has come.
00:47:34.612 → 00:47:35.732
We have that advantage.
00:47:35.732 → 00:47:37.472
We know the history.
00:47:37.792 → 00:47:39.872
They were looking forward in expectation.
00:47:40.172 → 00:47:44.852
We can look back and see that it happened, and then look forward in hope of the resurrection.
00:47:46.232 → 00:47:50.622
So, my question really would be, I don’t…
00:47:50.622 → 00:47:54.612
what would he say is the religion, then, of the Old Testament?
00:47:54.612 → 00:47:56.912
What is it that they were actually doing?
00:47:56.912 → 00:48:06.772
Because the sacrifice of the animals and all that stuff was pointing forward, as the New Testament is very clear, the blood of bulls and goats does not wash away sin.
00:48:06.772 → 00:48:09.832
It’s only the blood of the Lamb of God that washes away sin.
00:48:10.172 → 00:48:15.392
So, the ceremonial stuff in the Old Testament is all pointing forward to Christ.
00:48:15.392 → 00:48:16.692
It didn’t actually…
00:48:17.072 → 00:48:18.852
That doesn’t forgive your sins.
00:48:19.152 → 00:48:28.272
That makes you right with God with regard to your social standing in the Old Testament, in Old Testament Israel, but it is only the blood of Christ that can wash away sins.
00:48:28.612 → 00:48:31.192
And you can see this, for instance, with David.
00:48:31.192 → 00:48:39.092
When David does what he does with Bathsheba and Uriah, there’s no sacrifice for that.
00:48:40.092 → 00:48:47.572
God doesn’t provide any sort of system for when you get a man’s wife pregnant and then murder him, right?
00:48:47.632 → 00:48:50.732
God doesn’t say that that costs X number of goats.
00:48:51.812 → 00:48:56.912
But the prophet, Nathan, going to David, says, God has put your sin away.
00:48:56.912 → 00:48:58.212
Well, what is the only way you can do that?
00:48:58.212 → 00:49:00.252
Well, look at what David says in the psalm.
00:49:00.252 → 00:49:03.972
David is looking forward to the Christ, right?
00:49:04.292 → 00:49:05.892
And David calls him Lord.
00:49:06.312 → 00:49:08.112
Jesus himself brings up this point.
00:49:08.372 → 00:49:16.972
How can David call Christ Lord when Christ is, modulo, some number of generations, a son of David, right?
00:49:18.112 → 00:49:28.952
It’s very clear from the Old Testament, and certainly once you get the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, that the religion all throughout scripture is the Christ.
00:49:29.672 → 00:49:36.132
It is the forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ, by His blood, His perfect life, His perfect sacrifice.
00:49:36.652 → 00:49:47.412
And you can see this all the way at the beginning with the Proto-Evangelion, when God speaks the gospel, incidentally, to Satan, but also to Adam and Eve standing there.
00:49:48.552 → 00:49:53.512
That is the gospel all the way back in the garden, in the beginning.
00:49:53.652 → 00:49:58.332
It is the Christ who will come, who will crush the head of the serpent, who will destroy death and the devil.
00:49:59.272 → 00:50:02.992
It is the same religion all the way from the first to the last page of scripture.
00:50:03.612 → 00:50:13.992
So, if you have a follow-up question or your friend has maybe a clarification of what exactly his objection is, I’ll be happy to answer that in greater depth in some future episode.
00:50:13.992 → 00:50:27.012
But I think that’s probably the starting place, is to point out the clear places in the Old Testament where you have men who are relying on faith in a Savior as opposed to works.
00:50:27.312 → 00:50:34.692
Because David is probably one of the best examples, because there was no possible work he could have done to absolve himself of that sin.
00:50:35.052 → 00:50:37.012
His only hope was the Christ.
00:50:58.032 → 00:51:05.592
Having to scroll through the chat in the web interface because OBS decided I shouldn’t have the chat load.
00:51:17.518 → 00:51:22.278
I think I pulled out most of the new questions from chat.
00:51:22.278 → 00:51:30.278
I don’t know that I will get to all of them this week, but I think I’ll answer a couple more questions here, maybe pull some from the backlog, try to get through a little bit of that.
00:51:31.798 → 00:51:34.898
I know that someone asked about baptism and infants.
00:51:34.898 → 00:51:36.778
That was last week.
00:51:36.778 → 00:51:44.338
I’m not going to get to that one this week, but I will make sure to prioritize that one for next week, just because baptism comes up all the time.
00:51:44.978 → 00:51:49.698
Obviously, I would recommend listening to the episode on baptism from Stone Choir.
00:51:50.058 → 00:51:53.198
I’ll link that in the chat, in the show notes rather as well.
00:51:54.498 → 00:51:57.698
But I will comment on that next week.
00:51:59.098 → 00:52:10.198
In the interval, if the person who asked that question is currently listening, I would highly recommend reading from the large catechism Martin Luther’s comments on infant baptism.
00:52:10.198 → 00:52:11.358
He does an excellent job.
00:52:11.818 → 00:52:14.298
You can read it in maybe 10 minutes if that.
00:52:22.646 → 00:52:30.606
I was going to save this next one for next week, but I think I’ll just go over it now, because it’s ultimately not a particularly difficult question.
00:52:30.606 → 00:52:37.246
It’s just one that gets muddied because of certain modern Christian groups.
00:52:38.446 → 00:52:41.826
Question nine, what exactly is speaking in tongues?
00:52:41.826 → 00:52:45.166
The church I grew up in didn’t have a great teaching on this.
00:52:45.866 → 00:52:47.126
That’s true with most churches.
00:52:47.906 → 00:52:53.306
They generally don’t touch on it very well, and they really should, particularly in the American context.
00:52:53.306 → 00:52:54.646
It’s not as big of a problem in some…
00:52:54.646 → 00:52:55.246
Well, okay.
00:52:55.646 → 00:52:57.026
In Europe, it’s not as big of a problem.
00:52:57.026 → 00:53:00.866
It’s certainly an issue in Africa, South America, some degree in Asia.
00:53:00.866 → 00:53:02.206
Asia is not as bad as those two.
00:53:03.266 → 00:53:10.506
Speaking in tongues is speaking in a language you have no reason and no right, no way to know, right?
00:53:10.666 → 00:53:16.666
So if I suddenly started speaking French right now, that would be speaking in tongues.
00:53:17.146 → 00:53:19.606
Hopefully, that doesn’t happen because I doubt any of you know French.
00:53:19.726 → 00:53:29.166
But speaking in tongues is not speaking in some angelic or heavenly language that no one understands.
00:53:29.626 → 00:53:32.586
And yes, I recognize there are some verses touching on that.
00:53:32.606 → 00:53:37.046
Paul, in the most common one people bring up, is being sarcastic.
00:53:37.906 → 00:53:41.266
Paul is actually sarcastic in quite a few places in Scripture.
00:53:41.546 → 00:53:45.726
So for the people who try to condemn sarcasm, too bad, God likes it.
00:53:46.506 → 00:53:48.146
Christ himself uses sarcasm.
00:53:48.786 → 00:53:55.886
But speaking in tongues is a sign gift that God gave to certain individuals for basically two purposes.
00:53:56.286 → 00:53:57.786
The first is the sign part.
00:53:58.186 → 00:54:02.566
It’s proving this person is speaking the Word of God, chosen by God to do this thing.
00:54:03.226 → 00:54:12.526
The sign gifts were a big part of the church in the early years because God was putting his stamp of approval on this to begin the spread of Christianity.
00:54:13.406 → 00:54:14.986
He’s pulled back on that.
00:54:15.406 → 00:54:16.586
I’m not a cessationist.
00:54:16.606 → 00:54:18.266
Lutherans do not teach cessationism.
00:54:18.766 → 00:54:21.106
So the sign gifts have not totally stopped.
00:54:21.526 → 00:54:27.786
They’re just not as common these days because God already achieved what he wanted to achieve with them.
00:54:28.126 → 00:54:32.406
He does not operate in that way currently, at least not as frequently.
00:54:33.506 → 00:54:35.806
But the second part, of course, is just the practical part.
00:54:36.026 → 00:54:38.146
And you see that, right, Pentecost.
00:54:38.146 → 00:54:43.426
You see individuals speaking in a language that is the native language of those around them.
00:54:43.626 → 00:54:47.706
And they’re saying, we understand what is being said because it’s in our tongue.
00:54:47.766 → 00:54:48.786
That’s all they’re doing.
00:54:49.226 → 00:55:00.226
So if someone suddenly stands up and starts speaking in X language and there’s a group of people who understand it, okay, that’s speaking in tongues.
00:55:00.226 → 00:55:01.346
That can still happen.
00:55:01.786 → 00:55:03.706
It’s just not very common these days.
00:55:04.126 → 00:55:07.786
But it’s not the people who stand up and start speaking gibberish, right?
00:55:08.246 → 00:55:09.546
That’s a totally different thing.
00:55:10.646 → 00:55:12.286
And that’s the issue.
00:55:12.286 → 00:55:27.066
As you get these groups that go overboard on trying to exercise sign gifts that were a very common thing in the early church, and not today, not having these is not a sign you’re not a Christian, right?
00:55:28.386 → 00:55:30.186
Not all Christians speak in tongues.
00:55:30.406 → 00:55:32.526
Not all Christians have the gift of prophecy.
00:55:33.366 → 00:55:37.766
These are things that God gives to whom He wills for reasons that are His own.
00:55:38.626 → 00:55:41.806
So, don’t try to speak in tongues.
00:55:41.966 → 00:55:45.406
If God gives you that gift for some reason, you’ll know.
00:55:46.386 → 00:55:50.726
It’s not something that you start, you know, stand up and start blathering.
00:55:51.066 → 00:55:53.026
That’s on the level of, like, automatic writing.
00:55:53.026 → 00:55:55.326
That’s almost communion with demons.
00:55:55.326 → 00:55:57.366
That’s not something Christians should be doing.
00:55:57.846 → 00:56:01.386
But the short answer is that speaking in tongues is human tongues.
00:56:01.626 → 00:56:05.206
And tongues is just an older way of saying language.
00:56:05.206 → 00:56:06.526
We still use that sometimes.
00:56:06.586 → 00:56:08.146
It’s just not as common in modern English.
00:56:25.244 → 00:56:30.384
Very tempted to answer this question on the national debt, but I feel like it’s going to run 15 or 20 minutes.
00:56:30.384 → 00:56:33.284
So maybe next, maybe a future episode.
00:56:33.284 → 00:56:38.864
I won’t necessarily say next week, because I don’t know that I’ll get to it, but I will put a star next to it, as it were.
00:56:44.067 → 00:56:50.367
I think I will end with a question about concubines and surrogacy.
00:56:53.287 → 00:56:55.647
So question 10.
00:56:57.947 → 00:57:03.687
The Old Testament contains concubinage and the use of slave women as surrogate mothers.
00:57:04.267 → 00:57:07.267
Where do these concepts stand in terms of the moral law?
00:57:08.567 → 00:57:22.387
So, obviously, the clear examples, probably the two best examples of this would be Abraham and then of course, you know, Israel, right, who has two wives and two concubines.
00:57:23.107 → 00:57:26.547
Abram has a number of wives slash concubines.
00:57:26.547 → 00:57:30.387
First off, a concubine is a wife, that’s important to understand.
00:57:30.787 → 00:57:35.427
And I can’t remember the exact place now in scripture where it actually states that.
00:57:36.187 → 00:57:37.987
I would have to look for it.
00:57:37.987 → 00:57:42.407
The verse is not coming to mind, but there is a place in scripture where that’s explicitly stated.
00:57:42.727 → 00:57:51.527
A concubine is a wife, and a concubine is just a wife of lower social standing in a given context.
00:57:52.427 → 00:57:53.987
We don’t have that anymore.
00:57:54.587 → 00:57:55.567
That’s a good thing.
00:57:56.107 → 00:58:02.147
That was something that was very common in the Near East and the Middle East, still happens in those parts of the world.
00:58:02.167 → 00:58:06.767
Sometimes in Asia, it happens in imperial courts sometimes, things like that.
00:58:07.387 → 00:58:08.227
It’s not a good thing.
00:58:08.227 → 00:58:10.847
It’s not part of God’s intended design.
00:58:10.847 → 00:58:13.287
It’s not how things should generally work.
00:58:13.807 → 00:58:22.607
Now, if a man, say, a king has multiple wives, will one wife probably have higher social standing than his other wives?
00:58:22.747 → 00:58:24.847
Certainly, the one who bears the air.
00:58:25.427 → 00:58:26.147
That’s fine.
00:58:26.147 → 00:58:26.967
That’s normal.
00:58:27.547 → 00:58:31.607
And polygyny is not morally impermissible, and you can’t say that’s wrongful.
00:58:32.147 → 00:58:36.467
But as a general rule, monogamy is the best system.
00:58:36.687 → 00:58:45.767
That’s why when I have said polygyny is morally permissible, the only real exceptions I’ve said where society should permit it is where you have a very compelling reason.
00:58:45.947 → 00:58:52.627
The two most obvious, the king, who needs to produce an heir, and after a war, if a bunch of men die.
00:58:53.287 → 00:58:53.727
Right?
00:58:53.727 → 00:58:56.147
Because then you have a lot of women and not as many men.
00:58:56.627 → 00:59:00.147
God made the system so that you can recover from a war.
00:59:00.727 → 00:59:02.147
Those are basically the two exceptions.
00:59:02.147 → 00:59:04.567
There are some more than that, but those are the core ones.
00:59:05.287 → 00:59:15.607
So, as far as slave women and surrogacy and things like that, that is not part of God’s design.
00:59:15.747 → 00:59:16.107
Right?
00:59:16.147 → 00:59:16.627
That is…
00:59:17.787 → 00:59:24.507
Now, there are two sort of different aspects of this, because you do have the case of, say, Abram, right?
00:59:24.607 → 00:59:28.367
Sarah gives the slave woman to Abram, and then he has children.
00:59:28.947 → 00:59:33.147
That’s a different thing, because what that is, is he has a wife.
00:59:33.487 → 00:59:41.087
She’s a concubine in this case, so she’s lower social standing because of the reality of that time and place, but she’s still a wife.
00:59:41.607 → 00:59:46.467
You don’t get to have children with your slave women, and they’re not your wives.
00:59:47.047 → 00:59:49.227
Scripture has provisions for that as well.
00:59:49.227 → 00:59:50.687
She’s to be treated as a wife.
00:59:51.227 → 00:59:55.087
So, these are not things that we should be practicing as society.
00:59:55.087 → 01:00:00.587
Just because something is not morally impermissible does not mean it is wise.
01:00:00.987 → 01:00:04.087
There are things you’re allowed to do that are still stupid.
01:00:04.467 → 01:00:14.027
So, we should not bring back concubinage, we should not have slave women as mothers for children, things like that.
01:00:14.747 → 01:00:19.907
God’s ideal system, the way that he wants things to run, is monogamy.
01:00:20.167 → 01:00:21.767
One man, one woman.
01:00:21.807 → 01:00:22.987
That’s the ideal.
01:00:23.887 → 01:00:27.707
That is the goal for society, we should aim for that.
01:00:28.227 → 01:00:33.067
Now, again, there are those exceptions when there are extreme circumstances.
01:00:33.407 → 01:00:38.147
But just because there are exceptions does not mean we should permit those things all the time.
01:00:38.887 → 01:00:49.367
Just because you have to do certain things in a time of war does not mean you want to have them in times of peace when things are operating as they should instead of how they must.
01:00:49.667 → 01:01:07.007
So, sometime, and it’s also worth mentioning the general rule, the interpretive rule, I’ve mentioned this many times, but there are parts of scripture that are descriptive, and there are parts of scripture that are prescriptive or proscriptive, depending.
01:01:08.187 → 01:01:12.787
Just because something is contained in scripture doesn’t mean it is something you should do.
01:01:13.927 → 01:01:19.407
There are things that are statements of the moral law, they are unchanging, they’re God’s will, you must obey those.
01:01:19.767 → 01:01:24.487
But there are other times where it says, you know, what the men in Sodom and Gomorrah were doing.
01:01:25.607 → 01:01:27.187
That is descriptive.
01:01:27.187 → 01:01:31.767
It is describing something that happened, it is not telling you how you should behave.
01:01:32.087 → 01:01:38.347
So, obviously, yes, you have Abraham, right, in the case of a man who’s called righteous, and he is blessed with these things.
01:01:38.767 → 01:01:52.327
So, polygyny, again, morally permissible, not something society should desire, because it is not beneficial, and we’re not nomadic herders who need a bunch of children in order to keep their flocks, right?
01:01:53.207 → 01:01:54.787
Different social conditions.
01:01:55.507 → 01:02:06.287
It’s not that social conditions change the morality, it’s that social conditions change what, where we fall on the spectrum, as it were, of things that are morally permissible.
01:02:06.747 → 01:02:15.307
So, again, just because polygyny is something that God permits does not mean it is ideal, does not mean we have to permit it.
01:02:15.667 → 01:02:21.507
Sort of like, we don’t have to have the exact same punishments for crimes as Old Testament Israel.
01:02:22.267 → 01:02:23.887
We can, in some cases.
01:02:23.907 → 01:02:28.247
We don’t need to in all cases, except, of course, murder because Genesis 9, 6.
01:02:29.887 → 01:02:32.927
So the general rule is no, don’t bring these things back.
01:02:34.087 → 01:02:40.927
Don’t try to make the political right wing into some weird little cult of guys who are all arguing we should each have 10 wives, right?
01:02:41.607 → 01:02:43.267
We’re not fundamentalist Mormons.
01:02:43.267 → 01:02:44.407
That’s not the goal.
01:02:45.667 → 01:02:46.547
That’s not good.
01:02:46.727 → 01:02:48.547
That would be destructive for society.
01:02:49.107 → 01:02:51.527
And it’s just not how we should do things.
01:02:51.587 → 01:02:58.867
So, I think that pretty much sums it up for this week.
01:03:00.127 → 01:03:06.747
Got to more questions than I thought it would actually, since the Enlightenment one ran a little long, but the others were not as long.
01:03:06.747 → 01:03:13.327
So I think I will call that here and go see how Gizmo is handling the storm.
01:03:13.947 → 01:03:16.767
At any rate, thank you for those who submitted questions.
01:03:16.767 → 01:03:18.927
I always enjoy doing this every week.
01:03:18.927 → 01:03:21.467
So thank you for those who participate in the chat.
01:03:21.827 → 01:03:26.527
If I missed your question, I did see some questions that went past.
01:03:26.527 → 01:03:30.087
Some were repeats from previous questions.
01:03:30.567 → 01:03:36.867
There is a future topics list on the forum, and you don’t have to sign up to see that.
01:03:36.867 → 01:03:41.307
If your question is not on there, then I do not have it.
01:03:41.307 → 01:03:41.947
I missed it.
01:03:41.947 → 01:03:42.587
It went past.
01:03:42.587 → 01:03:43.127
I didn’t get it.
01:03:43.127 → 01:03:43.967
Whatever happened.
01:03:44.987 → 01:03:52.307
In that case, please submit it via the forum, preferably because that’s the easiest way for me to keep things organized.
01:03:52.527 → 01:04:01.447
But certainly in the chat, Telegram, X, wherever else, I try to aggregate those, put them into the topic list so you can see if your question is there.
01:04:01.647 → 01:04:04.007
Again, if it’s not, submit it to me in some way.
01:04:04.787 → 01:04:06.467
I’m not intentionally ignoring your question.
01:04:06.467 → 01:04:09.727
Just sometimes it goes by in the chat and I don’t see it.
01:04:10.107 → 01:04:11.867
Or OBS just doesn’t show it to me.
01:04:11.987 → 01:04:12.927
That’s happened too.
01:04:13.327 → 01:04:29.647
I, for instance, went to look earlier for a couple questions that were posted via X previously, and I actually had to go to re-stream the platform I used to stream to multiple platforms because X just sent them into the void.
01:04:29.747 → 01:04:32.227
They’re nowhere to be found on the platform.
01:04:32.487 → 01:04:33.687
So that kind of stuff happens.
01:04:34.227 → 01:04:38.547
At any rate, thank you for your time and the questions and for your participation.
01:04:38.907 → 01:04:41.427
And I look forward to doing this next week.
01:04:41.447 → 01:04:45.227
Until then, it is, of course, Friday, so enjoy the rest of your weekend.
01:04:45.227 → 01:04:46.487
Go to church on Sunday.
01:04:46.927 → 01:04:48.147
And God bless you.
01:04:48.147 → 01:04:52.327
I will see you all on Thursday or Friday, depending on which one.
01:04:53.587 → 01:04:54.507
Have a nice evening.