You know, you could either write your question down or you can come up and ask. I will say that we did have a couple of questions last time that it would have been helpful if we had been able to talk with the person because I wasn't entirely sure that we got to really what the person, the questioner was intending. So if you have a question like that where you're like, well, I just don't know that I could, you know, write it out very clearly. you know, feel free to come up and ask your question that way. But we'll start with the written questions. It looks like we've had a number of those submitted. And so we'll let Brother Lowell give us the first question. Yeah, since we just sang songs, would it be okay if I get the first question? Just a simple one regarding a song. Sounds good. That we just sang, and that's number 491. If you want to open your hymnals to 491. And I've had this thought for a lot of years, and I've actually seen it written both ways. And George Beverly Shea wrote this song. And man, what a blessing it was to have George Beverly Shea all those years and honor God with godly singing. So this is not a rap on him. But when you come to the chorus, that first line of the chorus has always kind of bothered me. And I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. It says, than to be the king, he'd rather have Jesus and okay, than to be the king of a vast domain or be held in sin's great sway. Well, it makes it sound like being a king of a vast domain is a bad thing. And what I would say is David was a king of a domain. But he had, he was the apple of God's eye. And he was chosen to be that king. So that's, it's a little bit, I like, I sing and there when I sing it. Then to be the king of a vast domain and be held in sin's dread sway. Because we can do all kinds of things in this life, but are we, held by Jesus, and he's still the pastor of our life. Now I'm preaching a sermon here, but do you have any thoughts on that, Pastor? I don't know that I had ever looked at it the way you're looking at it. So that's interesting that sometimes when we look at words of hymns, what occurs to one person might not occur to another. So I guess I had never considered it that way. The way I had understood it was just that the songwriter is valuing Jesus above anything else. Even if you think of the line in Mark 8, that if you gain the whole world and lose your own soul, what's it going to profit you? So that's the way I always took this. I didn't take that as a reference to the fact that being a king of a vast domain was something that was inherently sinful, but just simply that it would be far more valuable to have Jesus than even to have all the fame and power that this world affords. So, but I could see how that could be misunderstood. So there might be a valid point there. All right. First question here. Why do some people believe in gods, but know there is the creator God? So I'm thinking what the question is, and if that person wants to clarify, even though they know there's a creator God, they still believe in gods. And we see that in the Old Testament, didn't we? Okay, so if I'm understanding the question correctly, and of course I've, you know, not 100% sure that I'm understanding it correctly, but I think what the questioner is saying is that there are people that believe that there is one ultimate creator God, but that there are also small g gods. That seems to be the question. And I suppose that would be the perspective of Mormonism, because in Mormonism you do have the father god that is regarded as creator, but you also have the possibility of even believers in the Mormon faith becoming small g gods. Really, it is inherently a contradiction, because by definition, there can only be one all-powerful being, if you think through that. You can't have multiple all-powerful beings, because they would ultimately cancel each other out. So there is a contradiction there to assert that you have a plurality of gods. So that would be my response. I would say that that's an inconsistent belief, I suppose that those that would hold to that belief – inevitably, if you have this perspective that there are other small-g gods in addition to this mighty creator god, the godness of those other gods has to be weakened somehow. because they're not going to have the same power, the same authority as the ultimate Creator God. Ultimately, I would say it results in a dramatic inconsistency in a person's worldview. I think that could be something that, if we encounter people like that, we could point out the inconsistency that those people adhere to. As to why people would hold beliefs like that, it beats me. People have all kinds of beliefs that are nonsensical that really when you apply even the powers of reason, you realize that they don't make a whole lot of sense. I would say that in our culture, we have a lot of people that They have kind of developed these piecemeal type religions. There's not really any objective source for most people's beliefs. They kind of take a little bit from the Bible, they take a little bit from modern Hollywood teaching, they take a little bit from other faiths, and they're kind of, you know, developing this, uh, you know, kind of crazy quilt of all these different worldviews that they're putting together. And it's a lot of times there's not much consistency to it. There's not a lot of coherence. And I think that that's probably what's going on in a situation like this. So when were angels created? Well I would say the angels were created when God created everything. I would refer you to Exodus chapter 20. You can look there if you want. I think Exodus 20 and verse 11 makes this pretty clear. Exodus chapter 20 and verse 11. Of course this is in the context of the Ten Commandments. And you have, of course, the commandment to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. And then there's a rationale that is given for the commandment in verse 11, when God says, for in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, notice, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. This seems to be a very all-encompassing statement, indicating that everything that God created was created in the creation week, in that six days at the beginning of Earth's history, and the history of the universe, really. So I would say the angels would be included in this. There is, I think at least popularly speaking, and probably held by Christians that don't know any better. There's sometimes this perception that Satan and demons and angels have just been around forever. But we know that that cannot be the case because God alone is the only uncreated being. Everything else had to have a beginning. God has no beginning because God is eternal. But everything else is a creature dependent on the Creator for life. So I would say that the angels were certainly included in this six-day period that is referred to here in Exodus. Okay, was the serpent in the Garden of Eden Satan? If so, was he an angel in the form of a serpent? So there is a little bit of a dispute about this because the text of Genesis doesn't necessarily make this abundantly clear. I think probably the best way that we can interpret this is to say that probably Satan was inhabiting the serpent in some way. It might be kind of analogous to what we would think of as demon possession, maybe not exactly a one-for-one comparison, but probably something kind of in that neighborhood. You do have references in Revelation that refer to Satan as that old serpent. But I think that probably when we are introduced to the serpent in the book of Genesis, the indication seems to be that it's probably not just that this is actually the serpent equals Satan, probably it is the fact that Satan is somehow inhabiting and speaking through the serpent. Is that something that I would necessarily be burned at the stake over? Not necessarily, but I would say that's probably the most reasonable conclusion I think we could draw. Okay, how would you witness to a Jehovah's Witness? It's a challenge. I can't say that I've necessarily had any incredibly successful encounters with Jehovah's Witnesses. Especially during my undergrad training, and before that in the church that I grew up in, I did a lot of door-to-door evangelization. And what you tend to encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they, according to their religion, they are not allowed to be exposed to preaching by other groups. And so you tend to encounter, if you run into them in a door-to-door type situation, I've had it where I'll introduce myself, and then they'll immediately show me their Watchtower literature. That's indicating that I'm a Jehovah's Witness, I really can't talk to you right now, and I don't want to listen to you any further. I can't say that I've ever had a conversation in depth with a Jehovah's Witness that's ever been to my doorstep. I suppose, probably, if the Lord opened the door for me to have an extended conversation with a Jehovah's Witness, I would go to the same scriptures that we had in the series in Colossians. Probably most of you remember the series that we did on Colossians 1, 15 through 20, what is called the Christ Hymn. And we went through a number of those scriptures that defend the deity of Christ. And it's really something that I think that if you if you become exposed to this in scripture and you start paying careful attention, you realize that the deity of Christ is something that's all over the New Testament. It's not just something that's limited to a handful of proof texts, but when you see the miracles that Jesus does in the gospels, you see that these line up with things in the Old Testament that were ascribed to God. So I think that that is the direction I would take. As far as specific passages go, I think John 8, for me, probably one of the strongest chapters in the New Testament that defends the deity of Christ. You see multiple references in that chapter to Christ as the I Am, the Jehovah of the Old Testament. And that would probably be a place that I would go if I were having an in-depth conversation with the Jehovah's Witness. But I will be honest and tell you, I have not really had the opportunity to have an extended conversation with the Jehovah's Witness. It can be challenging Just because Jehovah's Witnesses tend to turn you off when they find out that you're part of a different group. Okay, got some good questions here. What is the best way to explain to someone that is concerned about losing their salvation? Okay, good question. And, of course, that's been a topic that we've dealt with extensively in the series on 1 Peter. There is a lot, of course, in 1 Peter, and I would refer you to those messages. I know that sounds a little bit self-serving to refer to my own sermons. I would also, if you want more extended discussion, there was a message that I preached some months ago entitled, let me make sure I get the title correct, Apostasy, Security, and Perseverance. And so that's one where rather than just dealing with Peter, I'm really going through a number of New Testament passages that defend the idea that the believer is secure in Christ and that that believer has a salvation that cannot be lost, that cannot be forfeited. I think probably the strongest passage in the New Testament defending the security of the believer is Romans chapter eight. Let me draw our attention there for a moment. To me, this passage is just so crystal clear that if you go here and you really work through this verse by verse, it's, I think, impossible to come away with the conclusion that a believer could actually forfeit his salvation. Now, I realize that there are godly Christians that have differed on this point. We think about the security of the believer. We're not thinking of a doctrine that's on par with the virgin birth of Christ, for example, or with the inerrancy of scripture. Those types of teachings are fundamental doctrines that if you abandon those, you really demonstrate that you're not a Christian at all. The security of the believer is something that there have been godly men, such as, for example, Charles Wesley, who wrote one of the hymns that we sang tonight, that have believed that a believer can lose his salvation. So we do have to admit that, but I do think that there is very strong evidence in the New Testament that points to the fact that we are secure in Christ the moment that we trust in him. So let me just work through this a little bit. When you come to Romans chapter eight verse 28. This is a verse probably many of us have committed to memory. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God to them who are the called according to his purpose. And sometimes we kind of get sloppy. and just quote the first part of that. We know that all things work together for good. Okay, but for who? And this text tells us it's for those that love God, those that are called, the called, okay, they've been called by grace, synonymous there with conversion, according to his purpose. So this is not just an open blanket statement that anybody in the world can say that all things are gonna work together for good. And there is a specific good that is envisioned here. Notice verse 29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. So the conformity to the image of Christ is really the good that is envisioned here. That he, that is the Son, might be the firstborn among many brethren. Notice verse 30. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called. Whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified. And what you have running through verses 29 and 30 is what interpreters have called a golden chain. You notice that all of these links go together. Everyone that is foreknown is predestined. Everyone that is predestinated is called. Everyone that is called is justified, and everyone that is justified is also glorified. Notice it does not say that there are some that were foreknown, but that weren't predestinated. It does not indicate that there are some that were predestinated that were not also called. What is indicated here is that all of these strands go together. Now again, I think this is very strong evidence for the security that the believer has in Christ. And when we think about God making these determinations in eternity past, that means they cannot be forfeited through things that happen in the present. This is something where if we have trusted in Christ, we have been on the heart of God from eternity past. Now I don't know if there's any greater ground of security than that. And you notice how Paul goes on here in verse 31. What shall we say then to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God. Notice, who also maketh intercession for us. That's something that we don't often think about, but even this moment, if you're trusting in Christ, Christ is interceding for you before the Father. He's praying for you. And I think that what Jesus says to Peter gives us some insight as to what he's praying. You may recall that just prior to the crucifixion, as Jesus is talking with his disciples, he says to Peter, he says, Peter, Satan has desired to have you, to sift you as wheat. But you notice what Jesus says, he says, but I have prayed for you that your faith fail not. How can your faith fail if Jesus is interceding for you before the Father? Are Jesus' prayers somehow going to fail? Is Jesus' intercessory work somehow going to be unsuccessful? God forbid. God always delights to hear the prayers of His Son. And yes, it's true, our prayers, we all have experienced unanswered prayer, right? But when you have the Son bringing our names before the Father, praying that our faith will not fail, I can assure you those prayers will be answered. Verse 35, who shall separate us from the love of Christ? And of course the understood answer is no one. He goes on, shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword, as it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. There's an acknowledgement here that believers can and do undergo persecution. They undergo difficulty. But notice in verse 37, nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come." By the way, things present, nor things to come. There's nothing excluded there. And that would include our own actions, by the way. nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. And I just, I don't find it compelling, the explanation that some have had that suggests you can lose your salvation. They'll say, well, okay, none of these things can separate us from the love of Christ, but through our own actions, we can separate ourselves from the love of Christ. So you're saying that my own actions are more powerful than the love of Christ? I think not. This, in my mind, is probably the strongest passage in the New Testament pointing to the security of the believer. So if I were to have an extended conversation with somebody that held to the belief that you can lose your salvation, I'd take them to this chapter. And I would say, hey, explain this for me. In my mind, as I've encountered those with opposing arguments, I've just never found them to be compelling. To me, this is very strong evidence that we're securing Christ. So that's what I would say. Sir, yes. Sure. Right. Right, right. Yep. Yeah, and that is the challenge sometimes that sometimes you may not have you know, 30 minutes to sit down and open a Bible with somebody. I mean, sometimes you just have to have those verses, you know, right off the top of your head. Even so, I probably, even if I, you know, if I were with somebody in an elevator, I would probably, you know, at least go to a couple of these verses and just say, you know, this is why I believe in the security of the believer. So, yes, good thought. All right, take it away. Yes, sir. All right, Proverbs 16, 33. I'm going to read that verse. The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord. And so the question is, what does this verse mean? Well, that means that God is in control even over things that to us are seemingly random. Now, probably many of us, when we think of the idea of casting lots, that's not a practice that is familiar to most of us, but it's somewhat analogous to the rolling of dice, the spinning, if you have one of those board games and it has the little wheel you spin, that sort of thing. Something that you think, or the flipping of a coin might be another analogy that we could think of. Those of you that watch football, you think they always have the coin toss to determine who kicks and who receives. There's a sense that is had there that when we flip this coin, this is the ultimate fairness, because we're not intruding in this process. To the human perspective, it's seemingly random. But what Solomon is telling us here is that even something like that, that is random in our minds, is really overseen providentially by God. By the way, there are no accidents in this universe. Everything that happens, God is in control of. And so that is what I would suggest that Solomon is pointing us to here, that nothing happens by chance. Everything happens because of God's providential arrangement of the universe. All right. Did Baptists come from Anabaptists? Yes and no. That's kind of a complicated question. And there would be others that would be a little bit more equipped to answer that question than I am. I admit, I am not necessarily an expert in church history. But just with the training that I've had and the exposure that I've had to the discipline, there would be similarities that we would have with the Anabaptists, and there would also be dissimilarities. So of course, the Anabaptists did practice baptism by immersion. For those of you that are unaware, The name Anabaptists, it just means re-baptizers. So at the time of the Protestant Reformation, most of the reformers that we tend to think of, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, you know, kind of those big figures, continued to hold to infant baptism, even after they separated from the Catholic Church. So they, of course, came to an understanding that were justified by faith alone, and that was a critical step But really, in our thinking, the Reformation didn't go quite far enough because they still held on to some of the Catholic traditions that they would have been better off not holding to, obviously. And one of those was the practice of infant baptism. So you did have, during the time of the Protestant Reformation, there were some that recognized that actually, no, we need to have believer's baptism. There needs to be baptism by immersion that takes place subsequent to a person's profession of faith. And so the Anabaptists, they were actually called that really as a term of derision. It was not intended to be a compliment. They were called the re-baptizers with the thought that really they should have acknowledged the infant baptism that took place early in a person's life rather than going through this re-baptism process. As far as that's concerned, we do have commonality with the Anabaptists. However, it is also worth noting that when you look at the term Anabaptist, it is quite a wide ranging term in church history. There are some that really held some beliefs that were kind of way out there, kind of almost analogous to Pentecostals and Charismatics today. There were some people that were claiming to have visions and prophecies and things of that nature. There were also some that were, we would say, a little bit more evangelical. They held to more of a gospel-centered type of approach. So there is commonality there, but there is also some dissimilarity, even in the best of the Anabaptist tradition. One of the famous names that comes to mind is Menno Simons. And Menno Simons is actually the namesake for the Mennonite movement. So when you look at Menno Simons, yes, he held to believer's baptism, but there were also some beliefs where we would differ with Menno Simons. For example, he held that the Apocrypha was inspired, which is a belief that we would reject. He held to this idea of the celestial flesh of Christ, that Christ's flesh as he came to earth was actually fashioned in heaven, that it was different from any flesh that has ever existed. So there are some beliefs that were held by the Anabaptists, some in particular and some more broadly, that we would not agree with. So when you look at where Baptists came from, you really find that there are kind of some different converging streams that came together to develop that movement. So yes, there was the influence of the Anabaptists, but there was also the influence of the other Protestant reformers. Incidentally, and again, I'm not speaking necessarily as the expert on this topic, But it does, from my limited exposure to the discipline, it seems that the reformers such as Luther and Calvin were much clearer on justification by faith alone than the Anabaptist movement was. So we could say that really we trace our background, yes, to the Anabaptists, but also to the Protestant Reformation more broadly. It's kind of all these different streams that came together to form the heritage that we have. So the short answer, though, would be yes and no. OK. We're back to the serpent. And this is kind of a long question, but we'll work through it here. My grandson loves all creatures, including snakes. We need to pray for him. OK. about how God punished the snake for his part in helping Eve sin, he was very sad. I explained that the devil possessed the snake and spoke through him and used him, and he didn't think it was the snake's fault or that he should be punished. Okay, your grandson is thinking that. Did the snake have the intelligence or wisdom to refuse Satan? Did all creatures talk before the fall? If not, shouldn't Eve have been alerted that something was wrong? Also, what if Eve sinned and Adam didn't? Yeah, that's a whole other question. Wow. What do you think the results would be? Well, let's deal with the serpent. Okay, all the questions dealing with the serpent. I think the best thing we can say is we just don't know. And I know that that's an unsatisfying answer for many of us because sometimes we have these points of curiosity that we just feel like we have to know everything. God didn't give scripture to us with the intention that we would know everything there is to know. There are plenty of mysteries. A passage I would refer you to on this point is in Deuteronomy chapter 29. You can turn there if you'd like, but let me turn there so I can make sure I quote it accurately. Deuteronomy 29 and verse 29. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. The secret things. So I had a professor once that asked us, he said, what are the secret things? Now, actually, it's a trick question. If they're secret, We don't know, right? Because they're secret. And they contrast in this verse with the things that are revealed. There are things that God has chosen to reveal to us. There are other things that are secret. And I think that some of what we're dealing with in a question like this, did animals talk before the fall? Would the serpent have had the wisdom? These are things that really we just don't know because God hasn't told us. We can always speculate, but I mean, that's, it's just hunches at best. And I mean, frankly, I don't even know that I would have the knowledge to speculate on this front, because the only thing I can do is take Genesis as it's written, and we know that apparently Eve was lured in, she was deceived by the serpent. Whether that was something unusual, you know, if they were in the habit of talking to animals, we're just not told that information. All we know is that she was deceived and that, of course, she ate the fruit that she gave to her husband and he ate. There are other things that we might be curious about that the narrative just doesn't tell us. Remind me, there was the last part of that question that kind of got on to a different territory. Can I throw in an additional question on this? OK, sure. Because we were just down to the Creation Museum and going through the Garden of Eden. and finally you come in to where you start seeing the serpent. I think it was Ruth that pointed out to me and made the comment, doesn't it say in scripture that the serpent was more beautiful than anything? Wasn't it one of the most beautiful of his creation? It does say subtle in the King James and some translations say crafty or things like that. I would assume, I mean, you do have the reference of 1st Corinthians, or I'm sorry, I think it's 2nd Corinthians 11 that says that Satan appears as an angel of light. So we must assume, I think, that, I mean, as the serpent came to Eve, he wasn't coming with the horns and the pitchfork. He came in a way that would be attractive. I mean, the fact that he is crafty or that he's subtle indicates that there must have been some beauty there, I think. Something that would have enticed Eve to think that the words that are coming out of this creature's mouth are trustworthy. And they're things that I should be listening to. So, yeah, I think that there's a measure of truth there. So. Oh, yeah. This will be fun. Adam and Eve. What if Eve sinned and Adam didn't? What do you think the results would be? Yeah, and I mean, again, at this point, we're kind of getting into hypotheticals. And, you know, that's a bit difficult to analyze, you know, the what ifs. And, I mean, I think my simple answer is I don't know. And again, I know that's not a satisfying answer. I mean, it's a bit difficult for us to conceptualize what would have happened to the human race because you're dealing with a fallen woman and an unfallen man. What we do know, of course, from Romans 5 is that Adam was the representative head of the human race. You know, just like our representatives in Congress, you might wish that we had had a better representative. But what's indicated in Romans 5 is that ultimately Adam stood in the place of the rest of the human race. And really, he was the best representative that we could have had, created directly by the hand of God in a perfect environment, and he fell into sin. And it is through Adam's sin, not Eve's sin, but through Adam's sin, that sin and death have come upon the human race, because Adam is our representative head. So that's what we're told in Scripture. The hypothetical of what would have happened if Eve had sinned and Adam had sinned, Scripture just doesn't reveal that to us. And I've always wondered why, what was wrong with mixing the two? Now I know, like with the white skins, you don't sew old to new. And like when you're patching your clothes, you don't sew old to new, because they'll shrink and separate and destroy the whole thing. But what was the significance? What is wrong with wool and linen together? Because I'm making blankets right now. I'm sewing. And it's mixed material. Sure, so a couple of observations we need to make. First of all, that is part of the Old Testament law that has been done away with through the work of Christ. So we are no longer bound by that specific ordinance of the Old Testament. I am sure the shirt that I'm wearing is probably mixed of multiple kinds of material. And probably the same is true for most of the people in this audience. I found that a pure cotton shirt gets wrinkled like crazy. So I typically don't buy just a 100% cotton. Most of the shirts that I own are blends of some type. So we are not, as New Testament believers, we are not under those ceremonial types of laws any longer, thanks to the finished work of Christ. Now, the second thing I would say is that a lot of times in the Old Testament, we are given these ceremonial laws, and sometimes there's no specific explanation that's given which can be frustrating for us. For example, you have this command in the Old Testament where God says, thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. And interpreters have pulled their hair out trying to figure out why did God give this command? Because in, I believe it's in Exodus that you find that command, but there's no rationale that's given for it. There's no explanation that says, don't do it for this reason. And people have speculated, well, you know, God must have given this command because this was something that was done by the pagan nations around them. At the end of the day, we have to say we don't really know with 100% certainty. What we do know is that God gave a command not to do it. And so to disobey that command would have been violating the law of God. My best hunch in the case of the garments made of multiple kinds of material would be to say that God was probably using that as an object lesson to point to the need for Israel to be a sanctified and set apart nation from the rest of the nations of the world. pointing to their distinctiveness. So the issue there is not really an issue to say that there's something inherently wrong with mixing those fabrics together, but it is simply as an object lesson to say that Israel is set apart from these other peoples. That would be my best guess, but it is true, scripture in that case, that's another one of those cases, it does not give a specific explanation for us. I hope that helps. I mean, I would say it's related to that and I would classify that as, I mean, typically interpreters have divided the Old Testament law between the moral, the ceremonial, and the civil law. And the moral laws are those things that really are universal. They transcend Old and New Testament because those are things that are brought over in the New Testament and are binding upon us as Christ's disciples. The ceremonial laws are things that have been done away with. So you have all the laws about cleanness and uncleanness, certain types of foods. Of course, the New Testament has pronounced that all of those are clean now. So I would put that law in that category and say it's ceremonial. We're no longer bound to observe that command today. Anybody else? Okay. I got another song question. Oh, okay. Glorious Church without spot or wrinkle. You have a hymn number? Yeah, I don't know. I'm looking. Oh, okay. Somebody probably knows right off the bat. I should have looked it up ahead of time. Is it Tis a Glorious Church? A glorious church 191 And this is a favorite song in the church, it's a great song to sing Okay So In the course it seems to me I that it kind of combines truths, but it actually creates an incorrect thinking to a degree. And that is in the course, "'Tis a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, "'washed in the blood of the Lamb." "'Tis a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, "'washed in the blood of the Lamb." Well that, and maybe you know otherwise, without spot or wrinkle, that comes from Ephesians chapter five. As far as I know, I don't think it comes from another place. And in Ephesians 5, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it and sanctifies it by the washing of the water by the word that he may present to himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle. And so, but this says a glorious church washed in the blood of the Lamb. It's true the church is washed in the blood of the Lamb. and were positionally sanctified by the blood. But in our walk, I would be of the thought that we're sanctified by the word of God. Jesus said that in John 17, 17. Father, sanctify them through the truth, thy word is truth. And so is that kind of crossing wires and making a little bit of confusion because It's true the church is glorious, it's true it's washed in the blood of the lamb, but the gloriousness without spot or wrinkle has to do with when we're presented to Christ, and that spot or wrinkle business comes from his washing us and working, sanctifying us here on this earth. Thoughts, please. Or am I just ruining a good song? Ruth, send a message to Chuck, see what he says about that. Once again, that's something I probably never would have thought of. I mean, I think the theological truth there is accurate. What's being said, I mean, it is true, you're kind of, you're mixing multiple passages on this front. The image of being washed in the blood of the Lamb, if I'm not mistaken, I think that comes from Revelation 1. So they're kind of, really blending those two passages together. And you're right. I mean, it is what's being indicated there with washed in the blood of the land. This song is really pointing to something that is positionally true, that we are cleansed, totally forgiven of our sins through the blood of Christ. And I would say you're right. I mean, that really what you have in Ephesians 5 is something that really is more of an ongoing process of sanctification. that we're continually being washed with the water by the word with the thought that ultimately we will be like Christ when we see him. So yeah, I suppose there's a valid point. So we shall never sing this song again. I think the intent is right here. I suppose that if you really analyzed it, yeah, maybe you could come to some wrong conclusions. What I have done, I've kind of compromised on the song. I don't want to banish the song, and we sing it, and people love to sing it, and I love to sing it. We sing the chorus twice, or that phrase is sung twice, and the first time I sing Washed in the Blood of Lamb, or maybe, I don't know which way I do it, but the second time I'll say, washed in the word of the Lamb. So both things are true, but they do different things. But maybe I'm a snoop. But it's a good song. I see it looks like Brother Les has a question there. Right Yeah, and I you do have the language in Ephesians 2 which says that we are with Christ in heavenly places Which is a pretty astounding reality. Yeah So there is, yeah, I mean, I think there definitely is a positional truth here that is precious, but there is also a practical truth that we're continuing to be washed, we're continuing to be conformed to the image of Christ. So I think both of those are certainly worthy of our consideration. Yep. Yes, sir. I have a comment about that. Sure. maybe that was a poor choice of words because it takes your mind to that place of sanctification when I believe, of course, I can't speak for the author. I don't know what thoughts were in his mind at the time, but it seems to me that he's indicating that we are presentable to the Lord because of his blood. And to throw the word washed in there probably could confuse some people. But I think his intent really was to say that he could present us before the Lord because of his blood, not because of anything else, not because of our even following our sanctification. Our sanctification does not make us perfect. And that is not what allows us to be presented. It is his blood. There is with you know in the New Testament you do have I mean there is a little bit of tension that's going on with some of this these metaphors in the passage that we read in first John this morning about you know walking in the light and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleansing us from all sin that is not just speaking about something positional there because that's a You know, the present tense is used. It's something that's ongoing in the Christian life that the blood of Christ as we are fellowshipping with him as we're walking in the light, there is this continual process where we're being cleansed. again and again, by the blood of Christ. So there's something there that is beyond just our standing, which is true enough, that the moment that we are saved, we are righteous, we're declared righteous before God. We have the righteousness of Christ. So positionally, we stand before God, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, so that God looks at us as if we lived the life that Jesus lived. But in our practice, of course, there's that process of sanctification. And there is that need to be cleansed over and over again through Christ's sacrificial work on the cross. So I think both of those are probably worthy of thinking about. And I don't know, Mr. Hudson here that wrote this hymn is no longer with us to ask what his intent was when he wrote these words. Anyone else before we wrap it up? I see Mr. Gilbert there. Right. Yeah. Yep. Right. Maybe this is a good note to close on, as we're wrapping up here, but I think that's a good point. There's a theological truth here that kind of undergirds that first question about the difference between the creator God and those that say that there are other gods. It's the thought of what we call the noetic effects of the fall. And that sounds like a complicated term, but the idea there is that the fall has affected man's thinking so that we don't think straight. That's what you see in Romans 1. when you look at that description there of how God gave them over to all these unclean passions. But it ultimately is evidence there that the fall has corrupted how we think. If you look at these ungodly pagan religions and you expect them to have a consistent, coherent worldview, you might be sorely disappointed. They're not supposed to because this is man's sinful thinking. Because sin has affected our thinking, we don't think straight. We don't think about the world rightly as God intended for us to think. So there's no guarantee that a pagan worldview is going to make sense. People don't necessarily accept things because they make sense. They, in many cases, accept them just because they provide some comfort for them. They feel better about themselves. They feel better about the world, to believe certain things. But if you actually apply a little bit of critical thinking, you recognize that there's tremendous inconsistency. So I think it's a valid point to say that when you have these worldviews that are holding these kinds of beliefs, that really it's just evidence of man's fallen thinking and the fact that we don't think straight thanks to Adam's fall into sin. Well, good questions. Thank you for all of you that participated. Appreciate your participation. We'll look forward to doing this again sometime. So thank you all for the good questions. And we'll let Brother Lowell take it away. By the way, don't forget, before we have our little fellowship, we will have our brief meeting, our business meeting. We'll try to wrap that up in short order so that you can all devour the food. Brother Lowell. Well, thank you, Pastor, for doing that again. It's a blessing. Okay, our final song before the meeting and before the food and fellowship, number 469, Ron Hamilton's song, Not My Will. Would you please stand? We'll sing it together. Not my will but thine, Lord, should be the cry of our heart.