Recently, President Trump sent troops into Venezuela to "arrest" President Maduro, an action that, according to the Constitution, certainly should require the approval of Congress. And even though President Trump did this on his own authority and, according to many reports, around 100 people were killed, most conservatives, including many who identify as Christians, have applauded this action. And this is not the first time that an American president has waged war or ordered the killing of citizens of foreign nations without due process. In 2011, President Obama ordered the killing of an American citizen by drone strike. President Clinton ordered bombings on a pharmaceutical company that killed one worker and injured others. President George H. W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama on the grounds of "self-defense". And there are many other examples. And while many will defend these actions based on the fact that the people killed were "not good people", that should not be part of the equation. The question is does the American president have the right in the eyes of God to kill those who he considers a significant enough threat? Is that where God's word draws the line? Is it where the laws of the United States draw it? There are many bad people in the world, so can the president righteously kill whoever he chooses, or is he committing murder? And if it is wrong, why does the church so overwhelmingly support these bloodthirsty policies?Timecodes00:00:00 Venezuela00:04:53 Playing God00:09:15 Lethal Force00:11:37 Legitimate President?00:15:55 Act of Undeclared War00:23:51 Need for Justice00:27:26 Bloodthirsty Nature

Kirk Cameron came out recently saying that he leaned toward a view of conditionalism which is a flavor of annihilationism. Many people started to ask, "Is Kirk Cameron a heretic?" Todd Friel described why he thinks annihilationism is not a heresy and why therefore Cameron is not a heretic. To do this, he utilized a common method that categorizes each theology as either "Essential" or "Non-Essential". In his view, to be classified as a heresy, the wrong idea must be about an essential doctrine (he also seemed to say if you hold to a heresy, then you are a heretic, but that may have just been in the context of Cameron's position as a teacher) The problem is that this method of categorization regarding heresy does not come from Scripture. So we feel that it is worth discussing what the bible actually says about heresy and what makes a man a heretic. While Friel and many others say that heresy is different than error or being wrong, the Greek word that is translated heresy means "to choose". The word also contains the idea of creating divisions. So heresy fundamentally means to choose to believe something that is not true. But does this mean that everyone who chooses to believe something that is not true is a heretic. NO. Absolutely not. According to scripture, a heretic is one who refuses to repent when corrected and who teaches their false view to others, causing division in the body of Christ.So, why is it dangerous to make heresy to hold to something essential? Because what scripture teaches us is that God loves those things that we do out of faith and he hates those who love lawlessness. And lawlessness is not limited to "essential" doctrines, but springs up

Kirk Cameron came out recently saying that he leaned toward a view of conditionalism which is a flavor of annihilationism. Many people started to ask, "Is Kirk Cameron a heretic?" Todd Friel described why he thinks annihilationism is not a heresy and why therefore Cameron is not a heretic. To do this, he utilized a common method that categorizes each theology as either "Essential" or "Non-Essential". In his view, to be classified as a heresy, the wrong idea must be about an essential doctrine (he also seemed to say if you hold to a heresy, then you are a heretic, but that may have just been in the context of Cameron's position as a teacher) The problem is that this method of categorization regarding heresy does not come from Scripture. So we feel that it is worth discussing what the bible actually says about heresy and what makes a man a heretic. While Friel and many others say that heresy is different than error or being wrong, the Greek word that is translated heresy means "to choose". The word also contains the idea of creating divisions. So heresy fundamentally means to choose to believe something that is not true. But does this mean that everyone who chooses to believe something that is not true is a heretic. NO. Absolutely not. According to scripture, a heretic is one who refuses to repent when corrected and who teaches their false view to others, causing division in the body of Christ.So, why is it dangerous to make heresy to hold to something essential? Because what scripture teaches us is that God loves those things that we do out of faith and he hates those who love lawlessness. And lawlessness is not limited to "essential" doctrines, but springs up

Paul continues to use David and the Psalms to show that there is a difference between those who God has granted the gift of faith to versus those who are dead in their sins and trespasses. Their very nature is different and that manifests itself in their works specifically in their use of the tongue. The words spoken believer are very different from that of an unbeliever. Their throat is an open tomb. Their life is about death and bringing other people to death rather than to eternal life. The poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. We will consider Psalm 5, Psalm 140 and Psalm 10 as we consider how Paul used those writings to support his argument.

It can be counter intuitive to think that feminists hate women, but when they insist that men and women are equal in every way, what they are really doing is saying women need to become men to be valuable. But God's word teaches that both women and men are made in the image of God and that the differences He created between them glorify Him and reveal aspects of His nature. When feminists want to diminish the role of women in the world, it is because they look on women as being inferior and their roles as being unimportant. And it should be self-evident that over the past hundred years this viewpoint has impacted every aspect of life and culture. It has changed the structure and order of the home, impacted education at every level, restructured work and the workplace, and has shaped the framework of politics and even the laws of most nations. But if we are going to make the claim that feminists hate women, we should ask what does it look like to love women or even more accurately what does it look like to hold women in biblical esteem?Timecodes00:00:00 Intro00:01:18 Biblical Esteem00:13:17 Reject the Natural Blessings00:31:32 The Curse of Barrenness00:40:16 Rejection of Physical Differences00:52:42 Deceiving Like Satan01:00:53 Rebellion Against Roles01:07:49 Take on the Curse of Men01:13:11 The Idolatry of MoneyProduction of Reformation Baptist Church of Youngsville, NCPermanent Hosts - Dan Horn, Charles Churchill and Joshua HornTechnical Director - Timothy KaiserTheme Music - Gabriel Hudelson

Paul continues his argument how the gospel is about making the righteousness of God to be revealed by comparing God to men. In the previous verses, he used David as a example of how God used David's unrighteousness to cause His righteousness to be seen. The example was not because David was a special case. All men are born under sin and there is no way for them to escape it. There are none righteous. There are none who seek God, so Paul quotes from Psalm 14. Psalm 14 explains the picture of the creation of Eve. God looked through the whole world and could find none comparable to Him, so He had to create His bride. That is the same argument that Paul is making in this passage. No one desires the righteousness of God, so God has to do the work to create those who do.

Again Paul answers the obvious question based on what he had just said. He said that God used the unrighteousness of man, specifically in the case of David, to show He is the one who changes the heart so that He is just when He declares a man innocent. The obvious question for those who love sin is why don't we just sin more, if God uses the sin of man to prove His faithfulness and righteousness? Should we not just pursue sin? The answer is obviously of course not. Increasing sin in the world is not a blessing, otherwise how could God judge the world. Just because our sin results in the glory of God doesn't mean that it is unjust for God to judge the sin. Because people don't understand (or don't want to understand) what Paul is saying, they pretend that he is pointing them to be greater sinners since God will use their great sin for His glory. Armenians continue to use this argument against Calvinists. If God is going to save who He is going to save, our sin doesn't matter. That is as much a lie now as it was at the time of David.

Do the New Testament writers ever use the Old Testaments verses that they quote out of context? It's an important concept to consider because many people use proof texting to make theological arguments. They will quote a verse divorced from its context and declare that it means what they want it to mean. So if the writers of the NT, who were inspired by God, used those same techniques, then proof texting must be approved. But of course that is ridiculous, because the heart of proof texting is to put your words in God's mouth rather than putting His words in your mouth which is the purpose of the Word of God. In this episode, we examine how the New Testament writers handled the Old Testament and how often comprehending the meaning of a passage in the New Testament requires knowing and understanding the fuller context of the Old Testament passage that was referenced. New Testament writers would often just quote a single line from the Old Testament, expecting that those who love God and His Word would be willing to study the Bible and spend the time to understand. But today, most people in the pews, and even most pastors know very little about the Old Testament. So here's the question: If it is wrong to proof text, how does that change how we should look at the Word of God when it quotes from an earlier writer?Thumbnail image by Arran Bee under CC BY 2.0Timecodes00:00 Intro05:22 God Inspired Everything14:30 Under the New Covenant22:29 Muzzling the Ox29:57 The Just Shall Live By Faith38:59 Den of Thieves50:08 The Virgin With Child52:20 Out of Egypt I Called My SonProduction of Reformation Bapt

Paul is making the argument that the things in the Old Covenant were only shadows of things in the New. The Jews were not those who were circumcised in the flesh because it never produced obedience to the law. The true circumcision was of the heart which did produce different behavior. Judah means praise and the man Judah who caused Leah to praise God was only a shadow of those who had faith. Those who have faith receive praise not from men, but from God because of the good works produced by their circumcised hearts.