Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hey YouTube theologians. Welcome to the Q and A podcast. I'm Pastor Brian Wolfmuller, pastor St. Paul and Jesus staff Lutheran churches in Austin, Texas joined by Pastor Andrew Packer, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Collinsville, Illinois. Are you jealous that I have two churches? You only have one.
Pastor Packer, I am a rumor about you and that is that you're against grass fed beef because you think that you believe in states rights and you are against that kind of federalism. Is that right?
I could say grass.
[00:00:33] Speaker B: I don't even know what you're talking about.
[00:00:34] Speaker A: So I was trying to make a.
[00:00:36] Speaker B: I mean I know what grass fed beef is. I don't know what the federalism has to do with it.
[00:00:40] Speaker A: I was trying to make a hilarious joke about fed and fed.
[00:00:46] Speaker B: Yeah, that was terrible. That's bad.
You should be ashamed.
[00:00:54] Speaker A: Let's do some questions.
[00:00:56] Speaker B: That's hard.
[00:00:57] Speaker A: People didn't come here for the jokes.
[00:01:01] Speaker B: Some people came here for the jokes. Okay, this, this is an interesting one. Are you repentant if you're hiding from the police?
So I'm not going to mention their church because they said not to mention their name and I feel like they probably don't want that included either. But they would like to know about an issue with a person they know.
He had a hard, hard life growing up and committed numerous felonies, five and numerous assaults over 60.
Anyway, he was to be sentenced to five years in prison for these issues and ended up running two states away and is still living in this other state.
I used to live in this state. That's how I know him.
Since he became a Christian to a non dominational church and is doing well now. But I told him he still has to answer to God in the legal system for his five year sentence. I told him that I know it's scary, but God will make a way for him through it.
I believe we're beholden to our laws. It seems old fashioned these days to follow the law. Am I wrong for believing this or is it just okay for him to be in hiding or on the run? He is technically a fugitive. Isn't true repentance, atoning for past sins?
[00:02:08] Speaker A: So I think the basic answer is we want to clarify that language. But the basic answer is yes, we don't atone for our sins.
Only Christ atones for our sins.
But we do, as Christians want to make amends for the wrongs that we've done and try to right all the wrongs we've done. Possibly.
So part of repentance is that desire to undo the consequences of our sins.
And I suppose in that way, it's a willingness to face the temporal punishment for our sins.
So we believe that sin has both consequences in this life and consequences before God.
The death of Christ undoes all of the negative consequences of our sin before the throne of God, but it does not undo the negative consequences of our sins here on earth. Those are still here for us to face.
So I think the answer is that repentance is going to be a willingness to endure the consequences of crimes committed.
[00:03:26] Speaker B: I thought it was interesting this came up because I don't know if you've listened to it yet.
Flame did an on the line interview. It's like, almost three hours long, but it's quite good. So if you're out there and you haven't listened to that yet, I recommend it. But he mentions a man who was kind of like a crime boss, right, that came to the faith, and it took him some time to basically face up to it because he was trying to put things in place to take care of all those people. Like, untangling himself from his life. And his mess was complicated.
And so it involved several steps.
And so in that case, it seemed like he was trying to get to that point where he could do that, but he had to take care of some things. I think that's understandable. Like, you're working towards that goal, like, you know what you need to do. In this case, it seems a little different. Like, I don't know the guy, but it does seem like they're literally just hiding, right? Like, there's no willingness to bear fruit worthy of repentance, as John the Baptist talks about. And we talk about that in private. Confession, absolution, right?
The desire to want to do better. That the idea that the pastor may counsel you for these things.
And if someone came to us and confessed these things and said, look, I did this and I'm on the run and I'm hiding, I think we'd both tell them, like, at the end of this, look like your repentance also means you gotta go. And if you need me to, like, I'll go with you. If you want me to go with you and see you through this, that's fine. But part of that repentance is going to be suffering the consequences for these past deeds. I don't see any way around that, because technically then, like, you're still really. Then, like, if you know, hey, I've done these things, I'm supposed to be there, you're violating the fourth Commandment Very clearly. Right. You're rebelling against the authorities that you know you owe this debt to, that you need to face up to these things for.
So in that sense, you're rebelling in your sinning by not. Not facing consequences for these things. It's not like this person is like, I was falsely accused of these things, and I want to get this straightened out. It seems like they know they did this and that's why they fled to this other state to begin with. And in the meantime, sounds like they were converted and doing. Doing better in life. But, yeah, I don't see how you avoid going back and facing.
Facing the judge and what you've done. Maybe there'll be some leniency for, for now, his amended life. Who knows? But seems like you would have to at least do that.
[00:05:53] Speaker A: That's. There's a practical thing there, which we don't want to be practical, at least solely practical, but it's going to be better if you turn yourself in than if you get caught. Yeah, but it. But this is right. I mean, what you. Exactly what you said that faith in Christ wants to bear fruit in accord with repentance. So what does that fruit look like in this case? And I think it looks like facing up to the. To the punishment that you're due for the crimes committed.
[00:06:30] Speaker B: All right, that was easier than I thought.
You know that. I thought it was real hard.
[00:06:35] Speaker A: But not to our poor questioner, it's not.
[00:06:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I was gonna say no.
[00:06:37] Speaker A: Okay, now what do I do? Yeah, so maybe that's the next question then to follow up with is like, what would you commend to our questioner? I mean, to encourage the guy. Would you.
How far does it go? Do you turn someone in?
[00:06:55] Speaker B: That's an interesting question. I mean, there's several states away, so it doesn't seem like.
I don't even know what that would look like because that would involve multiple steps. At the very least, I think they could encourage this person to do the right thing, turn themself in, probably. It seems like you'd want to lean towards giving them as much time as possible to make the right decision here, you know, realizing that it's not going to be easy for them. So is there a point? I don't know. What do you think? Is there a point at which you'd be like, man, I've given this person a lot of time.
I know where they're at, and I'm gonna have to turn them in?
[00:07:38] Speaker A: I don't know. I can't. I cannot.
I Mean, part of it has to do with the evaluation on how dangerous they are to other people and so forth.
[00:07:51] Speaker B: Yeah. I definitely would lean towards giving them as much time as to make things right on their own. Like you said, it'll go better for. For this person if they turn themselves in versus if they're.
They're being arrested in that way.
[00:08:05] Speaker A: So it also has to do with this idea. This idea that I think is the main thing, and it was there in the question, is that the Lord will be with you. The Lord will be with you no matter what. He'll. He will.
He'll be with you in the trials. He'll be with you if there's jail time, which sounds like there. There would be, and so forth, that the Lord will be with you.
So we don't need. One of the advantages of being a Christian is that our God is omnipresent.
He's with us no matter where we go.
Our God is all powerful. And so he works our plans out. We just finished Worldwide Bible class where Luther was talking about how the Lord takes a special delight in ruining our good plans and making our really dumb plans work.
Which is.
That was how I figured out any success I had. I'm like, aha. Now it all makes sense because the Lord's like, watch this, dummy.
I can make this. This stupid idea work.
And so that's. That's my. That's my future best idea, by the way, is just come up with dumb plans so that only the Lord can possibly make it, make a go of it. But, you know, we do our best, which we should. We should be wise and industrious, but we have to trust God in His mercy. And. And he's the one who sees all these things through, so he'll be with us no matter what, no matter where.
[00:09:33] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, it is going to be an issue here of right, trusting the Lord. Like, you know, this is the right thing to do, so you need to do it and just trust that this is.
Even though it's going to be hard and difficult, that you still have to trust him, that he knows what's best for you. And in this case, that means facing those whom you've harmed and done wrong to and need to face up to your crimes.
[00:09:57] Speaker A: Talk to the grass feds.
[00:10:00] Speaker B: Yeah. You know, I just. I noticed like partway into your answer, and I was trying not to laugh, that you put corn fed and grass fed caught me off guard. I was. That. That surprised me.
[00:10:15] Speaker A: And then people can edit the subtitles on the thing there. That's nice.
[00:10:18] Speaker B: Yeah, Yeah, I noticed that too. But also, it'll be great for people who catch this. Maybe only see one of these videos and don't see the how this, how that came to be from the very first moments of the first video. So no context will be great for people. They'll be wondering if you're just.
[00:10:34] Speaker A: I think they'll be. It'll be obvious to them. Obvious that you're more organic, that I'm from the feedlot.
Grass fed, corn fed. Makes sense.
[00:10:44] Speaker B: Oh, man.
All right.
Moving on to something entirely different. All right, no cows involved here.
Maybe there's cows involved. I don't know. Saints praying to saints.
They just ordered your book about American Christianity and they were wondering, would ask an Apostle Paul or any other saint in heaven be viable to pray with us? Not the Catholic orthodox understanding, but more of an anti medieval saints prayer. For example, Apostle Paul asked you humbly to pray with inform me in this prayer in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
And they mentioned prayer starts with two or more gathered. Saints are living with God even after earthly death. The prayer of the righteous are more powerful. And saints already pray for us in heaven.
So what do you think? This isn't.
I guess the idea here is to get them to join us in praying.
Get the saints to join us in praying.
[00:11:39] Speaker A: So here's how. Okay, so all the things listed there at the end are all true. That the saints are living with God, that they pray, that they intercede for the sake of the church.
I do not think. No, it does not follow then that we should be addressing them and inviting them to join with us.
So we sometimes join in their prayers.
Like for example, when we pray the Sanctus Holy, Holy, Holy. We're praying with angels and archangels because we know that's what they pray. Because the Bible tells us, here's their prayer.
And so we join with them when we pray the Trish Hagion or the Sanctus, we, I suppose, join with David when we pray the Psalms because David prayed them first and we're joining in those things. And we join with Paul when we pray his prayers. We have 13 of Paul's prayers, no, 16 times, where Paul actually recorded what he prayed for in his thirteen epistles.
And it's pretty intense, his prayers. And we can join Paul in praying those prayers that he wrote down for us.
Just like I suppose if I wrote, if I composed a hymn and then I died and then you, Pastor Packer, were singing that hymn, you'd be like, hey, we're praying with Brian or whatever.
But that does not mean that we're having this communication past the barrier of the grave.
It seems like this is just a hard line that the scriptures give us.
So we have no example of prayers or addressing the saints who have died.
We have no promise for it. And we see that it's only mischievous.
And I think, and I'm trying to figure this out because it seems to me to just plainly fall under the scriptures prohibition of necromancy, which is addressing the dead, that's never a good thing. So here's the. Where I don't know is why the old Lutherans never accused the Catholics of necromancy in their prayers for the dead. I just, I don't know. It seems so obvious to me that I'm slightly uncomfortable in making the accusation because they never did and I don't 100% know why. So.
But it just seems to me like this is unwise biblically.
So we are taught in the Scriptures to pray to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That prayer is speech that's addressed to God, not to fellow creatures.
And we leave it simply at that revealed to us in the Scriptures.
[00:14:42] Speaker B: I understand that the impulse behind this, the logic makes sense. And sometimes you hear people explain this. Like I've heard some Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox explain this. Like, I'm not praying to them, you know, I'm asking them to pray for me because they're holier or whatever, and so they're closer to God. And so their prayer matters more than mine or whatever it is. But I think it's chemnant in his examination, right, that talks about part of this idea. For example, even like, so asking Mary to pray, for example, the idea is that that's Jesus mom, and so he's not gonna tell his mom no or whatever. So you kind of have to get like Mary or one of the other saints to like, get Jesus on your good side.
But like, literally Jesus died for you, so how much more does he have to be on your side, right? Like there's, there's nothing you have to do to get like Jesus, like more on your side than, than he already is. And so you don't need to get, you know, even, even you. You've experienced as a pastor, sometimes people like, ask you to pray for them only because they think like, you have an inside track to like God, right? Because you're a pastor, so God's gonna listen to you more than, more than like their friend who they could ask. But they ask you specifically because, well, you're, you're a pastor, so your prayer matters more. And it's like, no, it doesn't work that way either. Like, Jesus is already on your side. He's already given you all the treasures of heaven, right, in your baptism. Like, what else do you need him to do to show that he loves and cares for you and wants you to come to him with this stuff, right? As Luther says, like, as dear children ask their fathers, right? Like, you go boldly and confidently because you know God wants to hear from you, commands you to pray. You don't need someone else to go and get him on your sides. Like. Like, it's not. You don't need Paul to go and get God on your side so that God will help you out, because he wasn't gonna help you out. But now Paul asks. He's like, well, I really like Paul. I don't like. I don't like that Pastor Packer so much, but I like Paul, so I'm gonna. I'll help him out now. I mean, sometimes I think we feel that way, but it's a completely backwards way to think about what God has given us in prayer and what he's given us in Christ. And it just reverses all of that. And I think, like you said, it's a dangerous path and. Because then it starts putting all kinds of hurdles between you and God. Like, so, yeah, I just would avoid that altogether. I've never understood the impulse. I mean, I understand wanting to get people to pray for you. I get that. I've never understood the idea of, like, talking to them as if they could hear us.
Like, when there's no promise whatsoever about that. I just. I've never. That's never been a temptation of mine.
[00:17:22] Speaker A: It's an amazing thing how this is almost the definition of piety for Rome and Orthodoxy. I mean, they are all about it, the prayer to the saints. And they will come back and accuse us.
I don't know.
Our faith, our evangelical faith, feels lonely, I think, to them, because we don't have prayers for the saints.
Prayers to the saints.
It's a strange. It's a strange thing. But it's. Again, it's like, I suppose Rome proves herself to be Roman in this sense that, you know, that critical question, what do you require me to believe that the Scriptures do not?
And here it is. We require you to pray to the saints.
[00:18:14] Speaker B: I'm reading a great novel right now. It's called Byzantium by Stephen Lawhead.
[00:18:19] Speaker A: I thought you were reading Dracula. I was reading about how you were reading Dracula. On your.
[00:18:23] Speaker B: I finished Dracula. That's why I wrote a thing on it. Okay, so your new one is what I'm reading, Byzantium. It's by Stephen Lawhead. It's about this monk named Aiden who's trying to get from Ireland to Byzantium to Constantinople.
It's a really fantastic book. But it's really interesting because in one scene, this other guy says he's gonna pray. And he says, I prayed. I asked Elijah to ask Jesus to give me your wisdom. Right. You know, like, that was my prayer. Like, I prayed to Elijah to ask Jesus. And it's like, yes, Emmy is very historically, very accurate about what was going on at the time. Right. Ninth century or whatever.
But it's also like, why do you think you have to ask Elijah to ask Jesus?
It was interesting. I picked Elijah. I love Elijah. But it seemed like a random kind of poll to ask Jesus. But, like. Well, I asked Elijah. Like, I didn't ask him, but I asked Elijah to ask him. And the pagan guy standing next to him was like, oh, I like this. I like this idea that I can just ask for stuff through. And so the pagan prayed too.
And I thought that was interesting too. Like, the pagan prayed and the monk says, like, inside of himself, he's like, I don't know why he prayed or what he thought about that, but he seemed like to like the idea of asking for these things in this way. So it was just the Christian seemed very familiar to him.
[00:19:49] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. The pagans, like, hey, we do that all the time.
[00:19:51] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. That was a lot.
[00:19:54] Speaker A: We taught you that.
I think that's right.
[00:19:58] Speaker B: All right, next question. Why don't we follow things like Deuteronomy 15?
Oh, all right. I'm an LCMS Lutheran. I was reading my daily bread July 17th.
Looks like this may have been from a while ago.
Oh, 2026. Okay. As a Christian, I've been told that Christ has come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Yet it seems that this is our excuse to not follow God's instructions of the Old Testament.
I read the verses with. The verses are Deuteronomy 15:1 through 15, but I've never heard them discussed at the pulpits. I do not regard this as a way to salvation, but it's a command that further allows us to carry out God's command of loving our neighbor. Why does it seem like we focus on the New Testament? Treat the Bible like they're two different books instead of one? Just curious on your thoughts.
[00:20:47] Speaker A: So not two different books? But they are two different testaments. And that's a pretty important thing because the Lord gives specific instructions for his people on Mount Sinai repeated by Moses. So Deuteronomy is that second giving of the law. So it's Moses saying, all right, look, next generation, everyone that was at Sinai died in the wilderness because they didn't want to go into the land. Now, now you're going in. Here's the law by which you will govern yourselves.
That covenant that the Lord makes with his people is distinct from the New covenant or the New Testament that the Lord Jesus makes with his people. So we have something like baptism.
So you could imagine this question going the same way, like someone at Horeb getting ready to cross, or, you know, at the river getting ready to cross over would be like, hey, Moses, how come we don't do Matthew 28 and baptize?
And he would say, well, that's for those people, the New Testament. This is for you people, the Old Testament. It's the same God.
It's the same basic idea. It's justification by the forgiveness of sins, the forgiveness of sins through faith in the promise or the death of the Messiah. That's the prophets and the apostles all preach the same.
But the way that. That shows up in the regulations that are given are going to be different Old Testament and New Testament. Now, we don't just like, completely throw out the Old Testament. We've got to pay careful attention to it.
I mean, Luther, like in his how a Christian should regard Moses, says, look, insofar as Moses is a reflection of natural law, we keep him. But insofar as he's an expression of what the specifics that God was giving in the Old Covenant, we don't.
I think we can.
That's sometimes hard to hear, but we can do the basic same thing in a little easier way by pointing out that there was three basic kinds of instructions that God gave to his people at Mount Sinai. The first was universal moral injunctions, like most of the Ten Commandments, you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, etc. The second was the specific civil regulations for how those things were to be manifest. Like if your brother steals your cow, you have to reimburse them threefold or whatever. Like, those civil laws are specific to the people of Israel. And then there's the ceremonial law, which is to set the people apart as God's own people.
And those ceremonial laws have to do with all the religious instructions.
For example, the Passover meal was a part of the ceremonial law.
And when Jeremiah says I'm going to make a new covenant with my people.
Hebrews understands that that new covenant means that the old covenant, which is obsolete and is fading away, means that the old covenant is replaced by the new. So we don't celebrate the Passover. When Jesus says, this is the New Testament in my blood poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins, he's replacing the Passover meal with the Lord's Supper.
So then we have to say, okay, what part of the ceremonial law remains as obligatory for the Christian?
And the answer is none of it. All of it was fulfilled in Christ. All of it was a preaching of the death of Jesus on the way.
And when Jesus says it's finished, I mean, that applies to a lot of things. But one of those things, I mean, the whole preaching of the prophets and the picturing of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus that he had put together in the Old Testament, that's now come to its completion.
So it would now be sinful for the Christian to follow parts of the ceremonial law.
For example, if we started sacrificing animals, that would be a sinful thing because it would be preaching the incompleteness of the sacrifice of Christ.
It would be sinful for the Christian to try to rebuild a temple and set up a priesthood, and it's sinful altogether to try to find righteousness in any of these things. So even though circumcision seems to be allowable or not allowable to comparing Timothy and Titus, one who was circumcised, the other who was not, both as Christians, if we seek righteousness in that, then that becomes an incredible offense to God.
So I think when we look at the instructions, we say, was this a universal moral command that then applies to us, or is it a civic, which applies to the nation, specific nation of Israel, or is it ceremonial, which is that preaching of Christ?
So we're going to pause there because we want to up then go to Deuteronomy 15 and look at it specifically, because I think it's going to have specific civil instructions. But as far as that framework goes, Pastor Packer, do you want to. You need to dig into that or add anything to it?
[00:26:03] Speaker B: Yeah, one thing I was going to add, because I was just reading a day OR2AGO, Dr. Horace Hummel on Ezekiel, because we're doing that for our men's study. And he mentions in there, and I think it's probably why it's so confusing, is that for.
For the Israelites, the political law and the ceremonial law are moral laws for them, because if they don't keep them. They're violating what God's given them to do, and it is a sin. So I think that's why it's confusing when rereading Deuteronomy 15 here. I think that's why it's confusing for a Christian to read it, because they're like, oh, it says, the Lord commands me to do this.
Right? Because for them it would have been sinful to just blow this off and be like, well, I don't have to do that because that's political law or whatever. So I think that is helpful to remember that for them. Yeah, it would have been wrong for them to completely blow this off.
But now that crisis come, it is different. Now I think it might be helpful to work backwards through the list. Just because verses 12 through 15 deal with slaves. And this was. These kind of passages were very influential in how. How the slavery was gotten rid of in the west, right? Because people read passages like this. So the application of it for New Testament Christians who have throughout church history has generally been to do away with slavery. So, I mean, that's one area where it actually has been better because it's been, like, done away with in, like, Christian lands. I realize there's still slavery throughout the world and it's pretty bad in some places, but in Christian lands there's not. Why? Because of passages like that.
And then the next two sections, verses 7 through 11, and then also 1 through 6, like, generosity to the poor, like, everything there should be taken to heart by the Christians to be like, how can I be generous to the poor?
But the things about the seventh year and all of that has been fulfilled in Christ year of jubilee is fulfilled in Jesus himself, right? So we have the full release of imparting of all our sins, all of these things.
But, yeah, you should read this and be like, yeah, I should be way more generous to the poor than I am. God clearly cares about the poor. Like, over and over again he talks about it. And then the first part about canceling debts every seven years. I think there's a lot of things you could do with that. Like, again, having to do generosity, lending to people, all kinds of stuff.
But it doesn't mean you have to wait till seven years to release their debts. You could actually, you could be even more generous. You could release their debt sooner if someone has debts that they owe you.
So there's a lot we can take away from this. But to think we're bound by every last thing of it. I mean, because if you read Deuteronomy there's also, there's a lot there that. How would you even begin to fulfill it?
You know, as a Christian living In America in 2026, I think Jesus quotes
[00:28:42] Speaker A: this verse 11, the poor will never cease from the land. So Jesus says, and this is he.
[00:28:48] Speaker B: He.
[00:28:49] Speaker A: He uses that text when he's responding to Judas, who's upset that Mary is anointing Jesus feet with the expensive oils.
And he says, it would have been better to sell it and to give the money to the poor. And Jesus says, you'll always have the poor, but you're not always going to have my feet to anoint, which is an amazing thing.
So in that case, Jesus is what, he is rebuking Judas for his plans for charity.
Now, of course, his plans for charity were hypocritical because he wanted to sell it because he was stealing and Judas was. Was driven by greed.
[00:29:29] Speaker B: But how much.
[00:29:30] Speaker A: How. I mean, how deep is that insight? Is that like all. I mean, this is one of the things that is constantly being exposed is that all these organizations set up for charity are really set up to enrich the people who are running them rather than to do real charity. But anyway, maybe that's a side point.
[00:29:49] Speaker B: Well, another side point I think related to that though is I covered this Saturday at our men's breakfast, which is people will say, why are you wasting money? Like, you know, building a beautiful church, right? You should be giving that money to the poor. But the people who say that never actually give money to the poor and don't really care. It's like, well, why can't we do both? Why can't we build a beautiful church and give money to the poor? They never think about that, but they just want to tell you how to spend your money.
And while they're actually not helping the poor, because I could also tell them, well, why did you go on that vacation and not give all that money to the poor? Right? Like it's a.
Or I could ask all kinds of questions about why are you driving that car? You could have driven a cheaper car and given the money to the poor. But it's just always whenever Christians spend money in a way they don't like, then they bring that up, which is interesting that they're quoting basically Judas, right? I mean, it's a little ironic.
[00:30:39] Speaker A: That's right. So, but I think what you did with the text here is, say, look, like this specific law that you can only sell the land for seven years, or you can.
The specific instructions for how to care for the poor, that is not binding to the Christian. But the idea here is that there's a lot of wisdom that's behind this. And that part of our, what Christian thinking, our reflection on what does it look like to live in this world is shaped by these biblical passages.
So when Luther, for example, will take a look at this, he'll say, we have a lot to learn from the wisdom that Moses gives to the people that we've forgotten about in Germany. Not that we should follow this exactly, but that we should say, what does this look like today for us?
What would it look like if people were really generous and caring for the poor? And there's need for deep Christian reflection on this because we think like the poor means the people that present themselves to us in need.
Like the people standing on the corner, which I don't actually know if that person is poor or not.
All I know is that they're begging for money and illegally so. Right. And breaking the law to be there on the corner to be begging for money.
Well, I don't know if it's illegal everywhere. I think it's illegal in Austin.
So this is the immediate thing we think of with charity.
But there is a way that charity is connected to knowing people. One of the weird things about our culture is, is that because people kind of cluster according to affluence or lack thereof, that it's possible to not know anybody who's in desperate financial need.
And one of the things that the church gives us is because it cuts through all the economic strata, then we have people that we know and that we love who are also in need and we have opportunity to care for them, for the people that we know who need our help.
And so we have this sense of community and charity, that it belongs to the church and to the home.
And maybe one I say explicitly, it doesn't belong to the state, because whenever the state takes on the duty of doing charity, well, it just can't.
The state cannot give, it can only take.
And so any sort of charity that begins with that belongs to the state is not at all charity.
So we see this and we say, oh, look how the state was organized to care for people who are poor. But no, the state was there.
The law was there by God through Moses commending this charity to the individual, not through some sort of system of redistribution.
Anyway, we need wisdom when it comes to caring for the poor. I guess that's what I'm getting at.
[00:34:01] Speaker B: Alright, next one is from a pastor and actually looks like they've also invited you to visit Their church up in Northern California.
I've watched several of your interviews and presentations on your book. Has American Christianity failed? Wonderful clarification of the weaknesses of what most call non denominational worship.
Could you clarify the distinction between pietism and the third use of the law?
Is it simply why the good work is done?
[00:34:32] Speaker A: So the third use of the law, remember God's law has these three functions that are discussed in our book of Concord. The first is to order society and culture. Kind of what we were just talking about, that there's a sense of God's ordering of the world. And in this way the law serves as a curb or a hedge to keep our sinful nature from just destroying absolutely everything.
So that's the first use of the law. It's for all people because we're sinners puts a curb to sin. The second use of the law is the chief use. Where the law shows us our own sin. It serves as a mirror to help us diagnose our own condition which we can't get to otherwise. That's why Jesus says, I'll send the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin. Because I couldn't even know how deep and profound my sin is unless the Lord were to teach me. This came up in Worldwide Bible class this morning where Luther says original sin thinks it's righteous.
So our sinful flesh thinks that it is holy apart from the work of the law. So the law has to come and show that I am unholy, unfit for God's grace, the that I deserve his wrath, and so forth. The third use of the law is the specific use for the Christian which orders our love for God and for the neighbor.
This is because of the fact that apart from faith in the Holy Spirit, there are simply some things that I cannot do. For example, I cannot believe God in God. Apart from the Holy Spirit, that means that I cannot pray.
Apart from the Holy Spirit, that means that I cannot trust the Lord to carry me through afflictions and even through death and bring me into his presence with patience. I mean, apart from faith, I can't do any of those things. But by faith now I can begin to keep those parts of the law. Also to love the Lord with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and to love my neighbor as myself. Even being willing to lay down my life for the neighbor. Now that work has only begun, never finished, never complete, because we're always stained with sin until the Lord rescues us by death. But that third use of the law is really, I would maybe classify it this way that There are works that are unavailable to the non Christian.
And just to say, as a good example, prayer. The Bible commands us to pray, but apart from faith, I don't even believe that there's a God who's worth praying to, or I believe in a false God and so my prayer is idolatry. So that's the third use of the law, pietism.
And maybe to just say this. So the third use of the law to draw the connection, the third use of the law gives shape to our sanctification. So here we have the. Let's introduce these two categories. Justification.
And that is the forgiveness of sins that comes to us freely by God's grace and mercy that I have by faith, by believing the promise, I am declared righteous by God in heaven.
That justification is apart from works, but there are works that follow faith, and that's sanctification. So that life of good works that follows faith is, is shaped by God's law. And generally that's third use of the law. Okay, maybe so to compare that to pietism, but I'm going to pause there, Pastor Packer, because you look like you've wanted to jump in and correct three things or four things that I've said
[00:38:14] Speaker B: already, like five or six at least. No, I was just, I was thinking it might be helpful to call that piety, because I think what happens is, I think we've both seen this.
It seems like it's getting less, but for a while there it seemed like anytime anyone talks about being pious or doing, practicing piety, then someone would accuse them of pietism.
Right. So like to live the Christian life, to strive to live as God has called you to live, to strive to keep the commandments, to strive for holiness and the way God is called in the Bible.
Someone will look at that and say, oh, you're being a pietist because you think those things matter. Like you shouldn't care about that or whatever, whatever the reasoning is given. Like, you don't have to worry about that stuff because that's all just pietism. It's like, no, that's piety and that's different.
Like we're literally supposed to be striving for these things and designed to do them in faith. The faith we have, like desires to do them. So it should be like something that's just part of the Christian life. Like, yes, I want to live as a Christian. And that has a certain shape and form which as you mentioned, the third use of the law gives structure to that and shape to that. Like if I want to know how do I love my neighbor best? Like, where do I look? Well, the Bible has all kinds of things to say about how to love your neighbor, for example, or how to pray or whatever it is. So I think using, maybe categorizing that as piety, so that when people throw out pietism, we'd be like, wait a minute, is it actually pietism or not? Which you can define now?
[00:39:40] Speaker A: So we have to define pietism, which there's a number of ways to do it. So I think in the book, I think my definition of pietism is that growth in good works takes precedent over all things, including correct doctrine.
So pietism in that way wants to always lift up love over faith.
And it comes out in extreme forms, like with Rick Warren, who will say, love unites, doctrine divides.
This shows up also in practical things where, like, you'll get this question, well, you're a Christian, but are you a born again Christian, or are you a committed Christian? Or you've made Jesus your Savior, but have you made him your Lord?
In other words, the chief thing in my Christian life is my obedience rather than my faith, to set the two against each other. Pastor Flammy, our mutual friend, defined pietism in this unique way. Well, maybe he got it from Dr. Masaki or someone.
But I always thought, I was always intrigued by his definition. He said that pietism makes the order of salvation a chronological picture of someone's life.
In other words, I have to have a time where I'm convicted and then a time where I have faith. I make a decision, I'm saved. And now a time where I'm growing in good works. So that rather than it being this big mix of repentance and faith and love, it's a particular ordering of things. And I think that's a really interesting definition.
The practical thing for thinking about pietism is that it's going to. And so here's maybe my thumbnail that I'll use now.
It uses growth in good works as the chief assurance of salvation.
And so in that way, the pietism is always looking for fruit in my life and in other people's lives as proof of the Lord's saving work.
Now we can do that. In fact, even like Luther in the Large Catechism says that when I'm forgiving someone who sins against me, that actually gives me confidence that the Holy Spirit's at work in my own heart, because I couldn't do that apart from the Holy Spirit.
But it's not our chief place of assurance. It's a supplemental assurance.
Our Chief assurance comes from the forgiveness of sins, which comes to us in baptism and the supper and the absolution, that external word.
But then that is followed up by a life of beginning to keep these commands of God. And so I think that's the difference is where do we.
To go back to this question, I would say in the simplest way, the distinction between pietism and the third use of the law, or pietism and piety is where do I look for assurance?
Am I looking for assurance that I'm a Christian and that you're a Christian in a growth of good works, or am I looking for assurance?
Do I lean for assurance on the promise of the gospel? And that's going to be, I think, a simple and helpful way to consider the difference between the two.
[00:43:16] Speaker B: Do you think that pietism leads to Pharisaism pretty fast, then? If you're. If your whole definition of the Christian life is set that way, then it seems like it becomes really easy to judge yourself against others by how much you do versus how much they do, which quickly devolves into some kind of Phariseeism, where clearly I'm a better Christian because I'm doing this much more than you. Right? Like, if I'm always comparing, if that's my only focus, and it seems like really, really fast, you're just going to be judging everybody else based on what they don't do versus what you do. And I, I feel like I've. That's something coming out of that kind of, you know, background that I saw a lot of.
[00:44:00] Speaker A: Yeah, 100%. Well, because. And it's your only choice, right? Because.
So if I'm looking at myself, my only two options are, well, I'm doing pretty good or I'm not.
Like, those are the. So it's the wrong question because both of the answers are bad. Like, well, if I'm doing pretty good, that's pride, and if I'm not, that's despair.
But those are the only two options. If the, I mean, the only two. Like if you're asking a true false question.
And then, and then I have to. I have to apply that to you, too. So here comes the question for the, for the. I mean, this is how quick pietism turns into Phariseeism is, okay, I'm looking for the assurance of my salvation by my own good works. And then I sin, either by something I say or something I do or something I think I sin.
Now what am I going to do with that sin?
Either lose my salvation or begin to defend it.
And that step to begin to defend my own sin is just.
That's the first step towards Phariseeism. Because now I'm interested in self justification rather than the justification that comes through the forgiveness of sins.
And it has to go that way.
There's no other way for it to go.
So we have to. I mean, when Paul says, let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, that's our only way out of this miserable mess.
Like, am I good or bad? Answer, I belong to Jesus.
I mean, that's the only.
The conscience can only accuse or excuse until Jesus takes up the pulpit of the conscience and says, you belong to me. And now the excusing is done, the accusing is done.
Now we have baptism. Now we have the. Now we have the gift of Christ. But apart from that, it's only pride and despair. Phariseeism or Judy or Judas.
[00:46:07] Speaker B: All right, this next one's very, very different from we've been talking about today so far.
What are your thoughts on first Enoch and other potentially inspired books?
So I've been curious for a while about the book of first Enoch and if it should be considered canonical.
I know the common answer is that the early church didn't really use it, so it's not canonical. But I do know the Ethiopian church uses it. So I'm just curious, based on the text itself, if there are some things that would disqualify it. I'm especially curious as apparently copies were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't see many Lutherans talk about for Enoch and I couldn't find anything on your channel, so I wanted to ask here.
And then the next one's related to this other inspired books. Hypothetically, if it was canonical, should I be concerned that I'm not following it or would it be okay since God knew this book would be lost to time mostly.
Another example would be what if they found Third Corinthians, right? Or one of the books that Paul mentions that we don't currently have.
How should I feel regarding extra books if someone comes with credible evidence that they're written by an apostle or prophet like the other books? Could they still be true, but I don't treat them as scripture.
What are your thoughts?
[00:47:20] Speaker A: The reason why you don't hear anything on this, on my thoughts on this is because I don't have any thoughts on this. I don't know. I mean, it's on my list to, like, I don't know. Somewhere it says RD first Enoch. So I have to research this but so this. So I'm 100% on you on this. Patrick Packer, what are your thoughts? I pulled out my Rome examine, by the way, to see if he has specific comments on first Enoch. I'll look for that.
[00:47:46] Speaker B: Well, well, do you want to answer before we go back first? You know, do you want to answer that, the general question, like, what if we, what if they say they found Paul's. We just found a sermon of St. Augustine, right. That was like 1600 years old.
[00:47:57] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty cool.
[00:47:58] Speaker B: What if, what if we found a book and they. They have credible evidence that it's by Paul and they present it. Where does something like that fall?
[00:48:09] Speaker A: I think, and I, I can be corrected on this.
I think that our Lutheran view of the canon would, would allow room for other prophetic or apostolic texts to be discovered.
What we would have to say about them, though, is that they would not be necessary. I mean, they would certainly be anti ligomena, because they are. Right now they're just anti. You know, they've never been spoken of at all, except for like, what Paul mentions, his other letters and things like this.
And we do have the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture which tells us not only did the Holy Spirit inspire the prophets and the apostles to write what they wrote, but that the Holy Spirit preserved those writings in the church so that we would know the mind of God, we would know what we are supposed to know.
So there would be some really.
There'd be some really interesting theological questions about why did the Lord inspire this text to be written, but then not preserve it in the collection of texts until it is discovered at this point?
So there would be a lot of very interesting theological questions about this. And certainly you would never be able to establish any new doctrine or new teaching that would go against our doctrine of the sufficiency of the scriptural text.
But I do think there would be a way for us to say, hey, the writings of the prophets and the apostles are the inspired writings. And so we would be able to receive something like that as a gift.
Although, again, it would bring up a ton of questions. But I suppose any hypothetical would bring up a ton of questions like that.
[00:50:12] Speaker B: What hypotheticals are fun for.
[00:50:16] Speaker A: Do you think I'm right about that? So that some of the old Lutherans would say that our. I mean, this has to do with the question of the closed canon, right? Or open canon.
Can you find a diversity of opinions of that in the Lutherans?
[00:50:30] Speaker B: I don't know if I've ever come across that Exact question in that way. I mean, I think what you said is correct. Like, we've never had.
We've never said that you couldn't. This couldn't happen, right? Like, we've never been like, this is. This is it. Although it does seem like we're at like, what, 2,000 plus years now or whatever for like the New Testament canon, for example, or not quite 2000 years.
But you would think at that point, like, if the Lord wanted us to have other books, he would have done so by now. It seems like he preserved the Bible, what we have, very faithfully over the years, to make sure we had it right.
Not that he couldn't give us something later, but it would just seem to me, it seems highly unlikely. I guess I should say I just don't see it as much a possibility. Now, the First Enoch, I do have a copy of it around here somewhere. I don't know where. I've only read, like, parts of it, but it's kind of like the Apocrypha, right? Like, there's interesting stuff in it, but it's clearly very different than the rest of the Old Testament.
If you read it, it just, you know, if you like, when you compare the Apocrypha with the Old Testament, it's just different. It has a very different feel to it.
And so I could see calling some things, like, beneficial to read.
I'm not even sure if First Enoch's all that beneficial to read. The main reason people are interested in it right now is because of the chapters on the angels that tie in with right thoughts on the Nephilim thing like that. That's. That's why it's gained a lot of traction right now. That's because what it says about the fallen angels and what they've done. And so because of that, it's gotten a lot of traction. And it is quoted in the New Testament, which is also why I think it's gotten some traction. But just because it's quoting the New Testament, it can be right in some things, right? And be just like Paul can quote pagan poets and we have that in our text, Paul quoting them. It doesn't mean that Paul is saying everything in that pagan poetry reflects this truth that he's reflecting on there. So I think there's things maybe you could get from First Enoch. I mean, I. If you read it, it's a very odd book. So I don't know, hey, what they ask about following.
I don't know what you would be following in there, except for maybe the view of the angels rebelling, which is very controversial, and there's no agreement on that. So you'd have to be super careful with it. So all that to say, compare it to the Old Testament. It's very different.
I don't think you have to worry about it being something you're bound to or considering it canonical. If you want to look at it for fun, have at it. I only read a couple of chapters out of it, and that was.
That was efficient for me.
I feel like I'm losing anything by not. Not reading the rest. I'll probably never pick it up again.
[00:53:11] Speaker A: So I. I think so. I was looking. So Chemnus doesn't say anything because it's not in the Western canon. So the Rome doesn't have it in there. Who does?
[00:53:23] Speaker B: I'm not Ethiopians.
[00:53:25] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:53:25] Speaker B: I'm not 100% sure about that. I mean, I know others have looked at it or.
I mean, it was very influential at the time of Christ, like in various Jewish circles. I know that. But it wasn't even then. I'm not, from what I've read, and I could be wrong here. I'm not an expert on first Enoch or anything.
I don't think anyone considered it necessarily canonical. But it definitely influenced the way people thought. Right. It was. It was a book that had a lot of influence, I think, in the way people thought about certain topics, especially, again, the angels being the big one. So
[00:53:59] Speaker A: I think, you know, the interesting question for us is we. I mean, where we do have something to say is like the canonical status of the books that are there.
And it's interesting to think how these broke in two different directions, because, I mean, for the history of the Church, you had.
In the Old Testament, you had the prophets and the apocrypha, and then in the New Testament you had the homologumina and the anti Ligomena. So in some, you know, everywhere attested and then not everywhere attested.
And it broke in this way that in the Old Testament, we're like, nah, apocrypha.
It's not of the prophets. So we're not going to put that as prophetic. In the New Testament, the antagomena. Yeah, you're in. So we kind of flattened those distinctions, which is just an interesting phenomenon to me, that it went the two different directions, not that it was wrong.
I do think there's some damage in the fact that we've lost that distinction of homologomena and antilagomena in the New Testament.
And anytime you talk about it, people get real nervous Right. Like that Hebrews wasn't in all the collections of the New Testament early on.
So that we have to, I mean, what the Old Lutheran said is that we just want to make sure that these books that weren't in every place attested, that were not, they're not the only source of a particular doctrine. They, they're supplemental to the things that are taught throughout the whole New Testament. So that's true also of James of 2 and 3 John, of Jude and of the Revelation.
We're not deriving doctrine from these antithegomena. But I don't know, maybe bringing it up brings up more questions than answers.
[00:55:57] Speaker B: My main takeaway, and I always tell people this about the last thing, should I read the Apocrypha? Should I read verse Enoch? My usual answer is, once you know your Bible forwards and backwards, like, sure, like those, those are fine to read and I think they can be beneficial. But if you're not, if you don't know that, if you don't know the text of like the actual Bible we have and are agreed upon, then why, why worry about books that don't quite attain to that level? Like, yeah, you can read them and just like you read other, other books, but if you're worried about theology and you're trying to know the text of the Bible, then read the Bible and get to know it really well. And then once you feel like you have that down, then sure, check those things out.
CPH is a great version of the Apocrypha with Lutheran study notes that help you out with some of the more confusing parts. So those things are available.
And that's it for today. We're done with questions.
[00:56:49] Speaker A: That's it. That's all we're gonna do.
If you wrote questions and we didn't answer them, that's too bad.
[00:56:55] Speaker B: We're done
[00:56:57] Speaker A: checking on them off five at a time. So that means five of you need to go send us questions so we
[00:57:01] Speaker B: can keep the level.
[00:57:02] Speaker A: You know, we don't empty the, we don't empty the lake. Thanks for those of you who did send the questions and thanks for watching all of you who are watching these videos when you like and subscribe. That's. That's really helpful. Pastor packers taking a trip to Israel. Whoa.
Summer 2027. If you're interested in that, let him know. That'll be, that'll be really exciting and otherwise keep in touch. Wolfmuller. Co Wednesday is the way to sign up for the newsletter that I potentially send out once a year now.
Maybe I'll get to it today. We'll see. But thanks again for the questions, for your theological curiosity.
God's peace be with you.
