WEBVTT 00:00:03.260 --> 00:00:06.120 It is the 16th of January, 2026. 00:00:06.120 --> 00:00:07.120 I am Corey J. 00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:10.140 Mahler, and this is At Any Cost. 00:00:10.140 --> 00:00:15.100 And this is the third question and answer episode of 2026. 00:00:15.100 --> 00:00:18.280 I have quite a few questions at this point, actually, in the backlog. 00:00:18.280 --> 00:00:24.020 I don't know how many I will get to this time, but I do promise that I still have your questions. 00:00:24.020 --> 00:00:34.640 If I do happen to have missed one in a past episode in the chat or elsewhere, feel free to submit that on the forum, and that way I at least have a record of it, and I will get to it in the future. 00:00:34.640 --> 00:00:42.880 And of course, right as I went to click over to start the stream, both of my streaming lights decided to disconnect from my Wi-Fi. 00:00:42.880 --> 00:00:45.700 Curious timing that, but at any rate, they came back. 00:00:45.700 --> 00:00:52.460 So I think I will go ahead and jump into the questions here. 00:00:52.460 --> 00:00:55.960 Let me pull up my list of questions. 00:01:01.935 --> 00:01:04.195 I do see that we have a few questions in the chat already. 00:01:04.195 --> 00:01:07.155 I've copied those down for the future. 00:01:07.155 --> 00:01:11.615 I don't know that I'll get to them necessarily in this particular episode. 00:01:22.017 --> 00:01:31.177 So the first question for tonight is, not necessarily a light question, an important question, but a lighter topic. 00:01:31.177 --> 00:01:34.817 It is about dungeons and dragons, incidentally. 00:01:34.817 --> 00:01:36.617 Can you talk about dungeons and dragons? 00:01:37.557 --> 00:01:39.677 Is it witchcraft or close to it? 00:01:39.677 --> 00:01:41.897 What about players casting spells in the game? 00:01:41.897 --> 00:01:42.817 Should anyone play it? 00:01:42.817 --> 00:01:45.737 And if so, to what extent? 00:01:45.737 --> 00:01:52.437 The basic answer would be that there's no problem with playing those kinds of games. 00:01:52.437 --> 00:02:02.517 You could certainly take them overboard, and I think that certainly some of the people who get really into cosplay, for instance, and like dressing up like demons, that starts to be a little questionable. 00:02:02.517 --> 00:02:07.017 We could think of perhaps Elon Musk and his particular hobby. 00:02:07.017 --> 00:02:18.497 But I don't think there's anything wrong with those sorts of fantasy games, and typically speaking, although yes, you do often have the rogue player who's basically a murder hobo. 00:02:18.497 --> 00:02:22.737 But typically speaking, you are fighting against evil in those games. 00:02:22.737 --> 00:02:29.257 You could think of it the same as sort of like the Doom franchise, incidentally made by Mormons. 00:02:29.257 --> 00:02:38.497 But someone asked him how he felt about the fact that he made a game involving the demonic, and he said, the whole point of the game is to kill the demons. 00:02:38.497 --> 00:02:41.997 That's pretty clear anti-demon message there. 00:02:41.997 --> 00:02:45.197 So I don't think there's necessarily a problem with those kinds of games. 00:02:45.197 --> 00:02:50.697 For instance, if you play, I'll pick a game and perhaps date myself, although everyone knows how old I am anyway. 00:02:50.697 --> 00:02:54.497 But if you play StarCraft or StarCraft II, right? 00:02:54.497 --> 00:02:59.377 Because most of those in the chat probably aren't old enough to have played StarCraft I. 00:02:59.377 --> 00:03:04.417 No one playing that thinks that he's a zerg or a protoss, right? 00:03:04.417 --> 00:03:05.197 It's fantasy. 00:03:05.197 --> 00:03:08.657 You're deliberately putting yourself into a fantasy universe. 00:03:08.657 --> 00:03:14.497 And so I would say it's the same sort of as reading fantasy, which isn't inherently sinful either. 00:03:14.497 --> 00:03:16.857 Are there topics about which you shouldn't read? 00:03:16.857 --> 00:03:22.697 Certainly, there's plenty of fiction these days, particularly women's fiction, that is a moral hazard. 00:03:22.697 --> 00:03:26.557 But Dungeons and Dragons is fine. 00:03:26.557 --> 00:03:30.337 Don't make it your entire personality, if only for social reasons. 00:03:30.337 --> 00:03:34.177 But I don't think that it's sinful to play that sort of game. 00:03:35.937 --> 00:03:38.117 Let's pull up the next question here. 00:03:40.017 --> 00:03:45.997 My tab decided to disappear, which I have to say is not the most helpful thing that it could have done. 00:03:47.737 --> 00:03:54.517 But I think I will just go to the next question here. 00:03:54.517 --> 00:04:02.937 An easy question, sort of, to answer, although transitioning more to practical theology, we'll call it. 00:04:02.937 --> 00:04:25.517 A question about how I feel about the passing of the piece, and for those who aren't familiar with this, this is a practice that is common in really a lot of churches at this point, where basically in the middle of the service, you stand up and greet people and shake hands, and in some churches hug. 00:04:25.517 --> 00:04:30.457 Less so in the German and Scandinavian Lutheran churches, certainly not so much hugging there. 00:04:30.457 --> 00:04:35.177 But to read the fullness of his question, what do you think of the sharing of the piece in the divine service? 00:04:35.177 --> 00:04:36.057 Is it appropriate? 00:04:36.117 --> 00:04:38.377 It seems out of place and just modern. 00:04:38.377 --> 00:04:43.637 From what I understand, it was used in the early church, fell out of use, and then came back after Vatican II. 00:04:43.637 --> 00:04:46.337 I think that's an accurate historical summary. 00:04:46.337 --> 00:04:55.557 You can certainly see the equivalent of it and sort of an injunction for it in the scriptures when you see the greeting of others with a holy kiss. 00:04:55.557 --> 00:04:57.357 That's part of that culture, of course. 00:04:57.357 --> 00:05:03.397 Mediterranean cultures are more physical in their greetings than, say, Northern European cultures. 00:05:04.697 --> 00:05:09.337 If you run around kissing everyone in a German Lutheran church, they may have you committed. 00:05:09.337 --> 00:05:12.437 That's not something that you necessarily do there. 00:05:12.437 --> 00:05:18.957 So I don't think it really is appropriate where it is located in the divine service. 00:05:18.957 --> 00:05:21.697 And I think that for a number of reasons. 00:05:21.717 --> 00:05:31.697 One, I think that it just breaks up the flow of the service in a way that is seemingly designed to increase levity in a service that should be to some degree solemn. 00:05:32.557 --> 00:05:46.217 And so, I don't think it's appropriate in that sense, because it is sort of a break in the service, and it's a break not just in the structure of the service, but in the nature of the service and in the psychology of the thing. 00:05:46.217 --> 00:05:52.677 There's something important about coming before God and worshiping God in a serious and solemn manner. 00:05:52.677 --> 00:05:58.417 It's not that we're dour and unhappy and the other things of which we're constantly accused. 00:05:59.477 --> 00:06:10.857 Rather, it's that you recognize when you're in the presence of your king, and in this case it's your king and your god and your savior, when you're in his presence, you should behave in a certain way. 00:06:10.857 --> 00:06:14.477 So I don't think during the service it's appropriate. 00:06:14.477 --> 00:06:19.577 There's also the aspect of it where it really just kind of turns into a chat club. 00:06:19.577 --> 00:06:21.537 That's inappropriate for a number of reasons. 00:06:21.537 --> 00:06:24.177 Again, it breaks up the seriousness of the service. 00:06:24.177 --> 00:06:27.517 You're sort of behaving in an inappropriate social register. 00:06:28.397 --> 00:06:33.777 And there's also the fact women are commanded to be silent in the churches. 00:06:33.777 --> 00:06:41.897 If you have the sharing of the peace in the middle of the service, are you just going to tell all the women to sit down and not greet people? 00:06:41.897 --> 00:06:43.557 I don't think that's appropriate. 00:06:43.557 --> 00:06:45.937 Are you going to tell them to stand up and talk to each other? 00:06:45.937 --> 00:06:53.777 That's also not appropriate, because they're commanded to be silent in the churches, which is the gathered church while you have the service ongoing. 00:06:53.777 --> 00:06:57.197 So I think the solution is pretty simple. 00:06:57.377 --> 00:07:09.117 Just have that before the service or after the service, which is really what you would have seen in the early church, because generally speaking, they shared an actual meal. 00:07:09.117 --> 00:07:10.937 It wasn't just the Eucharist. 00:07:10.937 --> 00:07:12.877 It wasn't just the Lord's Supper. 00:07:12.877 --> 00:07:13.977 So it wasn't just bread and wine. 00:07:13.977 --> 00:07:18.937 Yes, bread and wine were certainly involved, but you had an actual meal. 00:07:18.937 --> 00:07:29.137 That's the natural place to stand up and greet people and talk and have the social interaction, not as part of the divine service, but yes, it should be part of your church. 00:07:29.137 --> 00:07:33.137 These days, you know, it's coffee and donuts, or maybe you have something available. 00:07:33.137 --> 00:07:40.757 It's a little healthier than donuts, I say, as someone who maybe is a little hypocritical there because I always brought donuts to my previous churches. 00:07:40.757 --> 00:07:44.617 But at any rate, that's the appropriate place for it. 00:07:44.617 --> 00:07:47.817 I don't think that it should be right in the middle of the divine service. 00:07:47.817 --> 00:07:57.037 It's just a very weird placement that seems almost deliberately designed to make the service less serious, to introduce levity where it's not appropriate. 00:08:04.837 --> 00:08:14.617 I guess now that we've gotten a little bit into the stream, and YouTube won't immediately notice, we can talk about the Third Reich, since that's the next question. 00:08:14.617 --> 00:08:21.677 Do you think they will eventually recognize the Third Reich or its leader, which is to say Adolf Hitler, as Christian to smear us? 00:08:21.717 --> 00:08:27.697 Once the Judeo-Christian narrative starts to crack, they'll need something else to keep the would-be Christians on the reservation. 00:08:27.697 --> 00:08:32.637 Do you think they might try something like Nazis bad, Nazis are Christian, therefore Christians are bad? 00:08:34.217 --> 00:08:37.717 This has actually been done a number of times, historically. 00:08:37.717 --> 00:09:08.857 This is definitely something that has cropped up, even not just, you know, decades ago, although at this point I guess that would include my lifetime, but even within the past ten years, say, this was something that every so often it would cycle in, particularly on social media, you would get, it was sort of the new atheists and some others like that who would try to use that argument against Christianity because they would say, well, the Third Rite claimed to be Christian, they did all these evil things, and therefore Christians are evil. 00:09:08.857 --> 00:09:15.177 The argument, even if you formalize it a little better, is of course not logically sound, but that hardly matters for rhetoric. 00:09:15.177 --> 00:09:19.477 So the question is, will they try it again and will it be effective? 00:09:20.637 --> 00:09:36.257 I don't think so because it's not a very good tactic for them, particularly because all it does is drive those who would never look at the Third Reich and what they actually believed and would simply mindlessly believe the propaganda. 00:09:36.257 --> 00:09:51.017 So whatever they were told in fifth grade, basically, and whatever video they saw, probably Schindler's List or read the diary of Anne Frank or whatever it happens to be, both admitted pieces of fiction, incidentally. 00:09:51.017 --> 00:09:56.717 One more proved in a court of law, one admitted, because of course Schindler's List is admittedly fiction. 00:09:56.717 --> 00:10:02.997 It's not even contended it's real, much like Knight is also a work of fiction, admitted by the author. 00:10:02.997 --> 00:10:06.817 So you would have people who would believe those things. 00:10:06.817 --> 00:10:18.417 But if you start pushing the Third Reich was Christian, some percentage of those men are going to say, okay, why are they saying that? 00:10:18.417 --> 00:10:22.077 Of course, they're going to think initially, oh, they're just attacking Christianity, I don't care. 00:10:22.077 --> 00:10:26.197 It's just crazy leftist atheist attacking Christianity, whatever. 00:10:27.337 --> 00:10:34.217 The problem is that that percentage of them will go, hang on a minute, I want to look at this now. 00:10:34.217 --> 00:10:37.497 If they say they were Christian, is there any evidence? 00:10:37.497 --> 00:10:39.797 There's never that many people who will do it. 00:10:39.797 --> 00:10:49.857 But if you lose 2%, 3%, 5%, that's a big deal for them when they're already losing people day by day who are looking at the truth. 00:10:49.857 --> 00:10:54.417 So I don't know they're dumb enough to pursue that. 00:10:54.417 --> 00:10:59.177 But it doesn't mean that they aren't, because quite frankly, they sometimes do things that are particularly stupid. 00:10:59.177 --> 00:11:03.917 And there's also the fact that Satan just drives them to do dumb things. 00:11:03.917 --> 00:11:11.797 They are compelled to be evil, and so sometimes they just do things that don't benefit them, but they do them anyway. 00:11:11.797 --> 00:11:14.497 So it could happen. 00:11:14.497 --> 00:11:16.397 I don't think it's likely. 00:11:16.397 --> 00:11:24.517 And I think what's more likely is that our side continues to push the truth and continues to push back against the false narrative. 00:11:25.257 --> 00:11:27.337 And that is what starts to bring people over. 00:11:27.337 --> 00:11:39.657 And I think they're going to try to double down on the post-war consensus, the new global religion, and try to conflate that with Christianity and say that you are not a Christian unless you believe X, Y, and Z. 00:11:39.657 --> 00:11:45.117 Never mind the fact that no one pre-1965 believed any of this stuff, right? 00:11:45.117 --> 00:11:49.677 In particular, the one that's blowing up now, because of course it is interracial marriage. 00:11:49.677 --> 00:11:53.177 Well, until very recently in this country, Loving v. 00:11:53.177 --> 00:11:57.857 Virginia, it was a crime, a punishable crime. 00:11:57.857 --> 00:12:00.757 It was a crime in many historical countries. 00:12:00.757 --> 00:12:06.897 It was a crime in most of the Western world until not that long ago, in this country until very recently. 00:12:06.897 --> 00:12:13.957 And so you have people who are saying that you can't possibly be a Christian and believe that should be banned or think that it's wrong in any way. 00:12:13.957 --> 00:12:15.197 Well, what are they actually saying? 00:12:15.197 --> 00:12:19.337 They're saying that no one born before Loving v. 00:12:19.337 --> 00:12:29.817 Virginia, or at least no one born and not changing his views, so no one who died before it could possibly be saved, because, well, you're not a Christian if you believe these things. 00:12:29.817 --> 00:12:47.457 It's completely ludicrous, the same as the slavery issue and so many other things, because we see all of these men down through the centuries of Christendom, who believe these things firmly and were much better Christians than the men we see arguing you can't believe these things and be Christian. 00:12:48.617 --> 00:12:55.297 I think they'll keep trying to double down on that, because that's sort of, they back themselves into a corner, it's all they can do. 00:12:55.297 --> 00:13:01.477 If they give up any of those positions, the entire edifice crumbles, which is of course their great weakness. 00:13:01.477 --> 00:13:06.497 They can't lose anything in their little edifice, because it is so weak. 00:13:06.497 --> 00:13:08.317 It's a house of cards. 00:13:08.317 --> 00:13:14.517 And any link in that chain, if you can break it, you can get people to question the next one. 00:13:14.557 --> 00:13:49.337 It's one of the reasons why they have to defend interracial marriage so vehemently, because they recognize that that's a link pretty far back in their chain, because all of the civil rights stuff, and the tolerance so-called for homosexuality, and the legalization of homosexual so-called marriage, all of that flows logically, and legally incidentally, the legal cases are also a chain, from loving the Virginia, from the Civil Rights Act, from all of these arguments about MLK and all that stuff. 00:13:49.337 --> 00:13:58.477 They can't lose any of that and not suffer significant downstream consequences, so they'll just keep doubling down, which is of course an opportunity for us. 00:14:11.730 --> 00:14:20.230 The next question, a fairly common sort of area for question, is marriage a command of God? 00:14:20.230 --> 00:14:28.810 And I think the short answer to that is, of course, yes, but not absolutely yes. 00:14:28.810 --> 00:14:39.670 And the reason it's not absolutely yes is because, of course, there is the issue of celibacy, which is something that is granted to some men. 00:14:39.670 --> 00:14:40.330 But that's the key. 00:14:41.170 --> 00:14:43.770 It's granted to some men. 00:14:43.770 --> 00:14:44.890 It's not granted to many. 00:14:44.890 --> 00:14:48.010 In fact, you probably don't have it. 00:14:48.010 --> 00:14:57.250 And generally speaking, you should not try to exercise a gift that you don't have, because it could be sinful, depending on the gift and what it is you're trying to do. 00:14:57.250 --> 00:15:05.090 So, you know, obvious one would be, if you don't have the gift of prophecy, and you stand up and say, I'm a prophet, there are some problems here. 00:15:05.090 --> 00:15:15.050 But if you have, if you do not, rather, have the gift of celibacy, and you try to exercise it, you're going to set yourself up for failure, and you're going to fall into sexual sin. 00:15:15.050 --> 00:15:18.070 That's the reality of how that is going to go. 00:15:18.070 --> 00:15:26.250 Because at some point, biology is going to make some demands, and you're going to have a very difficult time withstanding those demands. 00:15:26.250 --> 00:15:28.870 That is the reality of being a fallen creature. 00:15:28.870 --> 00:15:36.590 It's not to say that you can't live a chaste life, even if you do not have the gift of celibacy, because of course you can live a chaste life. 00:15:36.590 --> 00:15:37.650 Being in marriage is chaste. 00:15:38.430 --> 00:15:42.390 But you could even live a chaste life as a single individual. 00:15:42.390 --> 00:15:44.170 But it's going to come with challenges. 00:15:44.170 --> 00:15:46.410 It's going to come with very real challenges. 00:15:46.410 --> 00:15:55.770 And you can spare yourself that by using the only cure for the temptation of which God speaks in scripture. 00:15:55.770 --> 00:16:00.750 Other than, of course, self-control, which, yes, you can exercise self-control to a certain degree. 00:16:00.750 --> 00:16:08.430 But when scripture speaks about the solution for sexual sin, it gives marriage as the cure. 00:16:08.430 --> 00:16:11.830 And so there are a number of verses, of course, we can look at for this. 00:16:11.830 --> 00:16:14.950 And I'll just go over a handful of them here. 00:16:14.950 --> 00:16:23.550 The first one, of course, is Matthew 19, is going to be one of the most important ones, because this is where Christ speaks about the fact that not everyone is given this. 00:16:23.550 --> 00:16:27.350 Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 00:16:27.350 --> 00:16:36.570 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. 00:16:36.570 --> 00:16:40.310 He's not speaking exclusively about physically making yourself a eunuch here. 00:16:40.310 --> 00:16:43.710 This has been dealt with to death in the ancient church. 00:16:43.710 --> 00:16:51.930 So, when neo-pagans and others say that you're supposed to emasculate yourself in order to deal with the temptation to sexual sin, that is never commanded. 00:16:51.930 --> 00:16:52.850 That is self-abuse. 00:16:52.850 --> 00:16:55.910 That is not something scripture commands anywhere. 00:16:55.910 --> 00:16:59.930 That aside, let the one who is able to receive this, receive it. 00:17:01.590 --> 00:17:02.930 Well, that's a limitation. 00:17:04.490 --> 00:17:06.550 Not everyone can receive this saying. 00:17:06.550 --> 00:17:09.830 Let the one who is able to receive it, receive it. 00:17:09.830 --> 00:17:14.570 So if you don't have the gift, don't try to exercise it. 00:17:14.570 --> 00:17:15.450 Go get married. 00:17:15.450 --> 00:17:16.970 That's the solution. 00:17:16.970 --> 00:17:20.470 Because if you don't have the gift of celibacy, the temptation will be there. 00:17:20.470 --> 00:17:25.390 So cure the temptation with the only medicine God provides. 00:17:26.670 --> 00:17:33.830 And so another passage that is related to this, to the unmarried and the widows, I say, it is good for them to remain single as I am. 00:17:33.830 --> 00:17:38.190 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. 00:17:38.190 --> 00:17:44.890 And this is one of the key verses here, this part, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 00:17:44.890 --> 00:17:53.950 This is a question of, do you have the gift of celibacy, which is that continent, that self-control? 00:17:53.950 --> 00:17:58.130 And if you don't, use the medicine God has provided. 00:17:58.670 --> 00:18:02.050 And the way that I always explain this to people is very simple. 00:18:02.050 --> 00:18:05.230 You can tell if you're celibate very simply. 00:18:05.230 --> 00:18:08.990 Have you ever had a sexual thought about a woman? 00:18:08.990 --> 00:18:14.990 If the answer is yes, you're not celibate, because celibacy in that sense is basically asexuality. 00:18:14.990 --> 00:18:18.410 You lack that temptation totally. 00:18:18.410 --> 00:18:24.590 God gives that gift to some men because he wants them to perform some task for the church. 00:18:24.590 --> 00:18:30.550 That is something that is given, seemingly exceptionally, it seems like very few men have had it. 00:18:30.550 --> 00:18:38.910 And we certainly know that men who have attempted to exercise it when they don't have it, have fallen into horrible temptations and horrible sexual sin. 00:18:38.910 --> 00:18:42.730 We all know what happens historically with monasteries. 00:18:42.730 --> 00:18:44.690 It doesn't mean that all monks are bad. 00:18:44.690 --> 00:18:46.150 I'm not condemning all monks. 00:18:46.150 --> 00:18:47.470 I would condemn monasteries. 00:18:47.470 --> 00:18:51.030 I don't think monasticism in that form is good. 00:18:51.030 --> 00:18:59.510 Now, if it's just men who live in retreat for a certain period of time to study scripture and then go back into the world, totally different thing. 00:18:59.510 --> 00:19:01.450 That happened at some points in history. 00:19:01.450 --> 00:19:03.150 That's fine. 00:19:03.150 --> 00:19:17.390 If you simply unilaterally declare, I am going to attempt to be celibate despite the fact God didn't give me the gift, you are going to fall into the sorts of sins that plagued the monasteries for centuries. 00:19:17.390 --> 00:19:24.030 Not necessarily the worst kind, but there were certainly problems between monks and nuns down through history. 00:19:24.990 --> 00:19:26.670 That was often what happened. 00:19:26.670 --> 00:19:34.390 And that leads to additional sins in some cases, particularly egregious sins in some cases historically. 00:19:34.390 --> 00:19:38.710 Don't try to create your own medicine when God has provided a cure. 00:19:40.990 --> 00:19:51.070 And of course, we can go to passages of scripture dealing with marriage as being a blessing from God, marriage as being something that God wants you to enjoy. 00:19:51.070 --> 00:19:55.470 And I'll just go ahead and use the ESV instead of switching over to the Septuagint for this. 00:19:55.470 --> 00:19:56.710 It is close enough in this case. 00:19:56.710 --> 00:20:02.710 So, let your fountain be blessed and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. 00:20:02.710 --> 00:20:08.370 Let her breast fill you at all times with the light, be intoxicated always in her love. 00:20:08.370 --> 00:20:11.810 It's hard to say that God doesn't praise marriage highly. 00:20:11.810 --> 00:20:16.290 To say nothing of the fact that the Song of Solomon exists in scripture. 00:20:16.290 --> 00:20:19.310 Incidentally, one of the books that I do skip during... 00:20:19.310 --> 00:20:24.110 The only book actually that I skip during the Through the Bible in a Year podcast. 00:20:24.110 --> 00:20:25.670 If you want to read that, you can read it for yourself. 00:20:25.670 --> 00:20:28.250 I'm not going to read it to you. 00:20:28.250 --> 00:20:33.870 Later on in Proverbs, he who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord. 00:20:33.870 --> 00:20:36.190 Marriage is praised very highly in scripture. 00:20:36.190 --> 00:20:38.310 Marriage is never something Christians should denigrate. 00:20:38.310 --> 00:20:40.610 It is not something that should be uncommon. 00:20:40.610 --> 00:20:43.630 It is something that should be held in high regard. 00:20:43.630 --> 00:20:45.950 It is something that should be recommended. 00:20:45.950 --> 00:21:05.470 In fact, the Book of Concord goes so far, and this is something by which Lutherans are, of course, bound, it goes so far as to say one of the duties of the sovereign, of the state, of the government, is to ensure that marriages are contracted among the populace and that those who are not given the gift of celibacy, marry. 00:21:05.470 --> 00:21:09.450 That's assigned as a duty of the state according to Lutheran doctrine. 00:21:09.450 --> 00:21:12.590 And I would say also according to the scriptures. 00:21:12.590 --> 00:21:20.210 And one of the marks of false teachers here in 1 Timothy, those who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods, right? 00:21:20.210 --> 00:21:25.290 We can think of churches that have done that historically, some who do it today. 00:21:25.290 --> 00:21:29.690 If you forbid marriage, that is one of the signs of a false teacher. 00:21:29.690 --> 00:21:32.470 You cannot condemn marriage. 00:21:34.550 --> 00:21:42.390 And I think I'll end the commentary on marriage with probably one of the most important ones that people often don't think of, when they really should. 00:21:42.390 --> 00:21:45.210 And this is the penultimate one. 00:21:45.210 --> 00:21:45.970 I'll go to that one next. 00:21:46.370 --> 00:21:51.890 And God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. 00:21:53.450 --> 00:22:00.970 You cannot, in God's scheme, so to say, without sinning, fill the earth without marriage. 00:22:01.990 --> 00:22:06.870 And the last comment I would make is that Adam walked with God in the garden. 00:22:06.870 --> 00:22:09.950 Adam spoke with God face to face. 00:22:09.950 --> 00:22:15.270 That's, of course, Christ, the pre-incarnate Christ, if you want to deal with the timeline issues. 00:22:16.290 --> 00:22:19.990 And yet God said, it is not good for man to be alone. 00:22:21.730 --> 00:22:34.170 Man who saw God face to face, walked with him in the garden, God called alone, and said, of all the things in creation, that was not good. 00:22:34.170 --> 00:22:37.850 That is how highly God prizes marriage and wives. 00:22:37.850 --> 00:22:49.990 We should never speak of them in any other terms, because that is how highly God praises it, and the only, again, only medicine God gives for the temptation to sexual sin. 00:22:49.990 --> 00:22:52.610 So the short answer is, is marriage commanded? 00:22:52.610 --> 00:22:54.710 In almost all cases, yes. 00:22:54.710 --> 00:22:57.930 Unless you have the gift of celibacy, which you probably don't. 00:23:16.043 --> 00:23:24.423 I think I will just go with the next one that also is exegesis, go over a few more passages of scripture here. 00:23:24.423 --> 00:23:28.763 To what extent can a woman be a deaconess today? 00:23:28.763 --> 00:23:30.723 What is the purpose of one today? 00:23:30.723 --> 00:23:37.183 To me, it seems as a way to subvert authority, short answer is yes, and slowly get women to be pastors and have authority. 00:23:37.183 --> 00:23:39.023 Again, short answer is yes. 00:23:39.023 --> 00:23:48.323 I remember Woe possibly saying that deaconesses in the early church would help young women in the community and not be or try to be a pastor in all but name. 00:23:48.323 --> 00:23:49.983 That is certainly true. 00:23:49.983 --> 00:24:02.003 That is their role, because you can think of the only times where it speaks of the role of women specifically in the church in scripture, and I will get into the scripture passages as well. 00:24:02.003 --> 00:24:10.923 But when it speaks of that, it speaks of women in a service role, in a support role, which is the natural role for women. 00:24:10.963 --> 00:24:13.583 What is woman a helper fit for man? 00:24:13.583 --> 00:24:16.263 That is what woman is to be in the church as well. 00:24:16.263 --> 00:24:17.383 She is not to teach. 00:24:17.383 --> 00:24:23.003 We know that, of course, because what does scripture say about women teaching? 00:24:23.003 --> 00:24:28.663 Well, it says, I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. 00:24:28.663 --> 00:24:31.303 Rather, she is to remain silent. 00:24:31.303 --> 00:24:34.403 That pretty much precludes her taking on a teaching role. 00:24:34.403 --> 00:24:38.483 And so a deaconess, so called, cannot be a teacher. 00:24:40.203 --> 00:24:43.223 One of the first problems, of course, is deaconess here. 00:24:43.223 --> 00:24:46.063 And let me see if I can, there it is. 00:24:46.063 --> 00:24:47.563 So, actually, I've already got it typed in. 00:24:47.563 --> 00:24:49.023 That's convenient. 00:24:49.023 --> 00:25:01.263 The word here is deaconess, which is a masculine term, incidentally, but it does appear one time in scripture, only once, in the feminine. 00:25:01.263 --> 00:25:03.923 And I can say in the feminine because of the context. 00:25:03.923 --> 00:25:11.803 And I'll explain that for those who are less familiar with how grammar works in languages that aren't English, because English is a little loose. 00:25:11.803 --> 00:25:18.483 But in this case, we're dealing with a second declension noun, deaconess, here. 00:25:18.483 --> 00:25:22.383 It is masculine, but it can be feminine. 00:25:22.383 --> 00:25:24.703 All you have to do is change the article. 00:25:24.703 --> 00:25:28.083 If you change the article, that's the little omicron here. 00:25:28.083 --> 00:25:38.083 If you change the article and make it a feminine noun instead, then you have the feminine version, deaconess, as we would call it in English. 00:25:38.083 --> 00:25:40.283 It appears once. 00:25:40.283 --> 00:25:51.683 However, the problem is, you don't have to have the article in Greek, and so in this case, all you have is diakonos, or diakonon, actually, because it's in the accusative. 00:25:51.683 --> 00:26:05.563 It's in the accusative, but the accusative in the second declension has the same ending in masculine and feminine, which is sort of a long grammatical way of saying, it's the same word, masculine or feminine. 00:26:05.563 --> 00:26:12.143 But you can tell by the context, because of course, I'm speaking of the Book of Romans, the end of Romans. 00:26:12.143 --> 00:26:15.763 And so probably helps if I type the title not in Greek. 00:26:16.863 --> 00:26:21.443 So let's go to Romans 16, and of course, we're talking about Phoebe. 00:26:21.443 --> 00:26:25.083 They love to bring up Phoebe, because Phoebe is... 00:26:25.083 --> 00:26:34.063 I see that OBS has decided it would like to make part of Logos disappear, so I'll fix that real quick here. 00:26:34.063 --> 00:26:35.743 There we go. 00:26:35.743 --> 00:26:40.783 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at San Crea. 00:26:40.783 --> 00:26:42.463 And then it goes on. 00:26:42.463 --> 00:26:46.323 Notably, it doesn't say that she's teaching. 00:26:46.323 --> 00:26:50.243 It doesn't say that she's doing pastoral anything. 00:26:50.243 --> 00:26:55.223 In fact, really all it says of her is that she is a servant of the church and that she is a patron of many. 00:26:55.223 --> 00:26:57.843 That's later on in the same verse. 00:26:57.843 --> 00:27:00.343 Servant there is diakonos. 00:27:00.343 --> 00:27:03.803 And we know it is feminine because of two things in Greek. 00:27:03.823 --> 00:27:09.963 One, it has to agree with Phoebe, of course, sister here is the feminine, because this isn't a positive. 00:27:09.963 --> 00:27:12.463 This is describing this person. 00:27:12.463 --> 00:27:19.403 And then there's also the fact Greek participles, just a verb form, agree with the thing about which they, the thing they're referencing. 00:27:19.943 --> 00:27:23.123 And so, you have that here as well. 00:27:23.123 --> 00:27:26.123 So we know this is a feminine use of this word. 00:27:26.123 --> 00:27:33.123 Only time it appears in the feminine doesn't say anything about teaching or authority. 00:27:33.123 --> 00:27:42.083 It just means servant, because if we go and look up the word here, I'll look it up in two, just the two standard dictionaries, which is BDAG and LSJ. 00:27:42.083 --> 00:27:46.863 Diakonos, one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, so that would be an agent. 00:27:47.483 --> 00:27:49.743 You have some uses in scripture. 00:27:49.743 --> 00:27:54.643 One who gets something done at the behest of a superior, an assistant. 00:27:54.643 --> 00:27:55.643 That's all a servant means. 00:27:55.643 --> 00:27:59.543 And so you can think of the men who were serving as deacons. 00:27:59.543 --> 00:28:02.643 You have waiting tables and things like that as part of their duties. 00:28:02.643 --> 00:28:04.603 They are servants of the church. 00:28:04.603 --> 00:28:07.383 They are not in a position of leadership. 00:28:07.383 --> 00:28:17.343 It's not what you think of today when we think of deacon, because the way we've transformed it in English, the way we use it, is sort of an elder, a ruling elder in the church. 00:28:17.343 --> 00:28:20.383 It depends on your polity and how your church is organized. 00:28:20.383 --> 00:28:22.663 Of course, different churches are different. 00:28:22.663 --> 00:28:27.363 But that's not what we're dealing with in the case of the Greek. 00:28:27.363 --> 00:28:30.103 We're dealing with something completely different. 00:28:30.103 --> 00:28:39.583 And for some reason, it decided not to pull that up for all of you, because it pulled it up in the wrong window. 00:28:41.343 --> 00:28:43.663 I love when things cooperate. 00:28:46.883 --> 00:28:49.263 So, that's what I want. 00:28:49.263 --> 00:28:50.223 Except for it disappeared again. 00:28:58.160 --> 00:28:59.840 Minor technical difficulties. 00:29:03.780 --> 00:29:08.140 At any rate, there's Deacon. 00:29:08.140 --> 00:29:11.200 I read the definition for you, so quite frankly, I don't need to have it on the screen. 00:29:11.200 --> 00:29:13.680 But the other one will just be LSJ. 00:29:13.680 --> 00:29:16.080 See if I can get it to cooperate with this one. 00:29:17.400 --> 00:29:20.840 Logos seemingly opens in whatever window it feels like. 00:29:20.840 --> 00:29:22.100 The same thing. 00:29:22.100 --> 00:29:25.480 Attendant, you can't have an official of the Templar Religious Guild, that's an ancient Greek. 00:29:25.480 --> 00:29:28.300 We're dealing with Koine Greek here, so it's different. 00:29:28.300 --> 00:29:31.580 But servile, menial servant. 00:29:31.580 --> 00:29:33.580 You're dealing with a servant of the church. 00:29:33.580 --> 00:29:44.660 And so, no, a deaconess is not a way for them to sort of bring women in via the back door to make them into pastors in all but name, which is what is often done in the churches. 00:29:45.960 --> 00:29:50.300 It's very clear what women are permitted to do in the churches, what women are not permitted to do. 00:29:50.300 --> 00:30:03.960 If it tells women they have to be silent in the churches, not teach except children or other women, and not exercise authority over men, well, a deaconess can't be anything, can't possibly be an office that can do those things. 00:30:03.960 --> 00:30:05.100 That would be a violation. 00:30:05.100 --> 00:30:14.220 And so that would be eisegesis instead of exegesis, which is an improper interpretation of scripture instead of proper interpretation. 00:30:14.220 --> 00:30:16.320 And it also speaks of... 00:30:16.320 --> 00:30:17.580 typing in Greek again. 00:30:17.580 --> 00:30:21.760 It also speaks of what older women are supposed to do with regard to younger women, right? 00:30:21.860 --> 00:30:25.740 When it speaks of the older women, what are they supposed to do? 00:30:25.740 --> 00:30:33.300 Older women, likewise, are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. 00:30:33.300 --> 00:30:49.780 They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women, here's the list for young women, to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind and submissive to their own husbands. 00:30:51.360 --> 00:30:53.980 That's the list of what women are supposed to do. 00:30:53.980 --> 00:30:58.720 Anything incompatible with that list is not something women are supposed to be doing. 00:30:58.720 --> 00:31:00.980 It's very clear what scripture teaches. 00:31:00.980 --> 00:31:17.240 Those who want to make deaconesses into a lesser office under pastor in the church and permit them to teach and exegete, and even just read scripture in front of the congregation, things like that, they are simply defying scripture in order to shoehorn feminism into the church. 00:31:19.440 --> 00:31:21.200 God is not a feminist. 00:31:21.200 --> 00:31:24.820 Scripture has feminism absolutely nowhere in it. 00:31:24.820 --> 00:31:31.780 You cannot possibly faithfully exegete scripture and turn it into a feminist text. 00:31:31.780 --> 00:31:40.680 Again, it tells women to be silent in the church, not just not to teach, not just not to exercise authority, but not to speak. 00:31:42.120 --> 00:31:45.380 If we just obey that command, a lot of these problems would go away. 00:31:46.340 --> 00:31:50.640 Add to that the head coverings and you pretty much get the right picture. 00:31:50.640 --> 00:31:57.460 So obviously, yes, the answer to deaconesses is they should not be a thing. 00:31:57.460 --> 00:31:59.580 They're just not a thing. 00:31:59.580 --> 00:32:07.920 You can have women who are serving in certain roles in the church, taking care of children, visiting the sick, the elderly, things like that. 00:32:07.920 --> 00:32:09.420 That's perfectly fine. 00:32:09.420 --> 00:32:17.260 That's a servant, which is the core sense of diakonos, not a leadership role, not exercising authority, because that's improper. 00:32:17.260 --> 00:32:18.540 A woman is not her own head. 00:32:18.540 --> 00:32:19.960 She does not exercise authority. 00:32:37.231 --> 00:32:43.491 Go to, I think this is the only other potentially exegetically heavy question. 00:32:43.491 --> 00:32:46.791 I don't think I'll go into the exegesis as much on this one. 00:32:46.791 --> 00:32:56.311 I've gone into it before, and we've touched on it on Stone Choir, so I don't think I have to go into as much of the exegesis here, so much as just explaining the doctrine. 00:32:56.311 --> 00:33:04.431 This is about atonement, basically limited atonement, the reformed conception versus the Lutheran conception of how these things work. 00:33:04.431 --> 00:33:13.551 In the 10th chapter of John, Jesus says the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep, and to the unbelievers, Jesus says that they are not from his sheep. 00:33:13.551 --> 00:33:14.631 True. 00:33:14.631 --> 00:33:25.071 How do Lutherans understand those passages where Christ mentions that he gives his life specifically for the sheep or for the church, of which not all are part of? 00:33:25.071 --> 00:33:45.911 So basically, the question is, the difference between the Lutheran conception, which is the universal justification, is the term we would typically use, unlimited atonement is a fine way of describing it as well, versus the reformed conception of limited atonement, being the L in tulip, right? 00:33:45.911 --> 00:33:52.271 And so, the Lutheran breakdown, I'll go over the Lutheran view first. 00:33:52.271 --> 00:34:06.111 The Lutheran view is that there is the objective, also called the universal justification, and the subjective, also called the personal, which subjective and personal are basically the same word, but slight nuance there. 00:34:06.111 --> 00:34:09.371 The subjective or personal justification. 00:34:09.371 --> 00:34:17.091 And so, the objective justification is Christ's work in redeeming creation. 00:34:17.091 --> 00:34:23.091 That's ton cosmon in the words of John 3.16, because it says he redeemed all things, right? 00:34:23.091 --> 00:34:25.671 For God so loved the world, ton cosmon. 00:34:25.751 --> 00:34:33.371 And incidentally, the same word for universe, which is all things that exist in the Greek mind, in the original Greek. 00:34:33.371 --> 00:34:34.571 That's what it means. 00:34:34.571 --> 00:34:43.371 So, he redeemed the world, because it is creation that is groaning together for the coming Messiah, for the restoration, for the renewal of all things. 00:34:43.371 --> 00:34:46.491 It's not just mankind, it's literally everything. 00:34:46.491 --> 00:34:52.171 It's the mountains, it's rivers, it's trees, it's all of creation is awaiting the renewal of all things. 00:34:53.351 --> 00:34:57.171 And so, that of course is what Christ redeemed in his perfect work. 00:34:57.171 --> 00:35:02.771 He made satisfaction for all sins, he redeemed all things. 00:35:02.771 --> 00:35:10.771 The issue for human beings, because of course, we are made in the image of God, we're moral agents, we're the most relevant thing in this. 00:35:10.771 --> 00:35:20.471 We are, of course, descendants of Adam, Adam being the pinnacle of creation, the head of creation, which is why all of creation fell in Adam, because it fell in its head. 00:35:21.031 --> 00:35:23.031 Not in Eve, but in Adam. 00:35:24.131 --> 00:35:30.351 The issue of how justification is applied is the distinction here. 00:35:30.351 --> 00:35:42.851 All things are redeemed in Christ, but only those who are in Christ by faith are themselves redeemed in the sense of going to paradise instead of hell. 00:35:42.851 --> 00:36:00.971 That is the subjective justification which takes place by the means of grace, which bestow faith, which is the means by which, the instrumental means, by which God applies salvation, the atonement, to you, by which you personally, subjectively are justified. 00:36:00.971 --> 00:36:07.711 That is the, I would say, the teaching of scripture, and it is the Lutheran position on the justification. 00:36:07.711 --> 00:36:11.331 Someone brought up a hymn, of course, which is always good to see. 00:36:11.331 --> 00:36:14.931 So, all things are redeemed in Christ. 00:36:15.311 --> 00:36:21.511 The scope of the atonement is unlimited, because it is universal in the fullest sense. 00:36:21.511 --> 00:36:27.951 All sins are erased in Christ, because, of course, Christ's payment was of infinite value. 00:36:27.951 --> 00:36:32.011 So, it atoned for all things, being infinite. 00:36:32.011 --> 00:36:38.871 But it has to be applied to you by faith, for you to be saved by it. 00:36:38.871 --> 00:36:45.291 Which is to say, all of those in hell, their sins have been forgiven. 00:36:45.291 --> 00:36:49.531 They do not benefit from it, because they are not in Christ. 00:36:49.531 --> 00:37:07.311 The reformed understanding, on the other hand, what they do, and I won't necessarily get deep into Zwingli and aliocis and all that stuff, because it's not really the point of the question, kind of is, but at the same time, their view is called limited atonement. 00:37:07.311 --> 00:37:15.431 So, they believe that Christ died for the elect, and for no one else, not for those who were in hell. 00:37:15.431 --> 00:37:46.631 The reason they argue for this, and I'll sort of steel man their position, and then tear it down, but the reason they argue for that is because they think, or at least they advance, that it is an insult to Christ, in the sense that his work was not effective for some of those who would be included in it, in the Lutheran and the view of others as well, because if they are not saved, then it seems like Christ failed, right? 00:37:46.631 --> 00:37:50.231 We Lutherans don't view it as Christ having failed. 00:37:50.231 --> 00:37:53.451 It's rather some reject the free gift of faith. 00:37:53.451 --> 00:37:55.811 It's a different thing. 00:37:55.811 --> 00:38:02.271 Christ achieved the atonement perfectly in his life, in his work, in his death. 00:38:02.271 --> 00:38:05.791 Christ achieved the atonement, the redemption of all things. 00:38:07.211 --> 00:38:16.271 Just because some people elect not to benefit from it, because some people reject the free gift of faith, does not mean that Christ failed. 00:38:16.271 --> 00:38:18.231 It means those people are wicked. 00:38:18.231 --> 00:38:20.951 That's what that actually means. 00:38:20.951 --> 00:38:32.251 We think the other problem with what the Reformed contend is that it does not address all of the verses that speak of Christ having renewed and restored and redeemed all things. 00:38:32.891 --> 00:38:36.891 It doesn't say he redeemed the elect alone. 00:38:36.891 --> 00:38:40.531 Like I said, in John 3.16, we're dealing with the ton cosmon. 00:38:40.531 --> 00:38:46.431 We're dealing with the universe, which is again, all things that exist. 00:38:46.431 --> 00:38:48.331 I don't think they can deal with those verses. 00:38:48.331 --> 00:38:55.431