Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: Hey, YouTube theologians. Pastor Wolfmuller here from St. Paul and Jesus Deaf Lutheran churches in the most influential city in the world, Austin, Texas, joined by Pastor Andrew Packer of the third or fourth most influential city, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Collinsville, Illinois. Why most influential, you wonder? Pastor Packer. Wow. So I was thinking about this morning. We just had the election yesterday and. And I think that the two of the big things were Elon Musk and Joe Rogan. Austin Knights, Austin, Texas. So anyway, that's my claim now.
[00:00:34] Speaker B: Austin. Do you hang out with those guys often?
[00:00:36] Speaker A: No, I'm.
[00:00:38] Speaker B: I heard a rumor you did.
[00:00:39] Speaker A: They'll probably show up in church this Sunday. I had a rumor that you are growing your beard so that you look like J.D. vance.
[00:00:47] Speaker B: Adam Koontz is the J.D. vance.
[00:00:52] Speaker A: This is the true thing I'm talking about. Like that you pointed out that you've never seen Adam Co and J.D. vance in the same place and they talk like each other, which someone said that's the Appalachian style, which is kind of cool because it. I don't know. They both sound erudite.
Does erudite mean smart?
[00:01:12] Speaker B: Sure. I did see someone point out. Someone pointed out this online and this did offend the good reverend Dr. Co, because J.D. vance is from Ohio and he's from Pennsylvania. From Pennsylvania. So he does not appreciate the comparison.
[00:01:29] Speaker A: Oh, wow. That's a deal over there. Those guys like Ohio and Pennsylvania, they're like, hey, no, we're totally.
[00:01:34] Speaker B: Yeah, Pennsylvania is totally better where I'm from.
[00:01:38] Speaker A: Pennsylvania is what? It's a commonwealth, right? It's not even a.
Is that the deal? That Pennsylvania is like a. It's not even a. Like, I would guess it's a state, but it's the commonwealth of Pennsylvania instead of who knows.
[00:01:49] Speaker B: And it was also founded by one of my ancestors, William Penn. There you go. The more you know.
[00:01:54] Speaker A: Really?
[00:01:55] Speaker B: Yeah.
Probably why I'm from there.
[00:02:00] Speaker A: Well, what do you got for us? Ancestor of. That's not a rumor. That's a true thing.
[00:02:06] Speaker B: It's real. I didn't make that up.
[00:02:10] Speaker A: You got some theology for us? What do we got?
[00:02:13] Speaker B: Yes, the first ones question they entitled guilty and innocent.
How within normal rules of speech and grammar, can God say that? On one hand, believers are faultless and blameless. First Corinthians 1:30. And yet deficient in their sanctification. Hebrews 12, 11. It's like a judge saying a person is not guilty, then imposing a prison sentence.
[00:02:36] Speaker A: I think it's the other way around, is it not? It's like, so It's I remember Dr. Kleinig talking about this how, you know, we talk about justification as the imputation of righteousness, which, which is. And the declaring of innocence. But Dr. Kleinig says, I think it would most carefully not be the declaration of innocence, but rather the declaration of acquittal. So that are you guilty or innocent? You are guilty, but now the punishment is not given to you. You're acquitted, you don't have to go to prison.
It's true that you're guilty but acquitted, so that forgiveness is an acquittal and not getting the punishment that you deserve for your sins, for offending the wrath of God. But I think this is the case, that the righteousness that is given to us is a strange righteousness or an external righteousness or an alien righteousness. It's not our own righteousness, which is the point. It's a gift of God. It's the imputed perfection and holiness and righteousness of Christ. While we still are living half in the flesh, so that we are by God's reckoning, totally and completely forgiven and holy. And yet we are by our living only half holy and half the other half of us is. It's sinful and wretched and disobedient and rebellious and breaking God's law. And so the Lord looks at us and he says, you are covered in the righteousness of Christ and therefore innocent by the forgiveness of sins, but by your life you still are guilty and striving against sin.
And that will be the case until the Lord brings us to the perfection of everything in the new heaven and new earth in the resurrection, so that we walk. And maybe the answer is, how can the Lord say these things? Because we walk by faith and not by sight. So according to faith we are righteous and justified. According to sight, we are sinful and unclean. And so.
And that's going to be the mix that we have. That is the Christian life. And that's going to be the mix that we have until the Lord brings us into life eternal.
[00:04:50] Speaker B: Yeah, that's usually the way. I just went over this, I guess a couple weeks ago in adult instruction class, right? Under the law, the law says we're guilty, but in Christ we are innocent. So for us, we're always living in that tension. So I don't see it as contradictory. But I mean, there's. For saint and sinner, then there's going to be a tension there until we die when we realize fully, as we talked about maybe last week or the week before, I can't remember now, that we'll cast off that sin altogether and we won't have to worry about these problems anymore.
[00:05:20] Speaker A: Yeah, that's right. God be praised for that day. Can you imagine?
[00:05:28] Speaker B: I was talking to one of my classes the other day, I think my eighth grade class, about this, that so many of these things are just hard for us to fathom because we have no experience with it, like, to be free from sin. Like, it's hard to. Hard to wrap your head around that one when you. You've never experienced like that for, like, really, you know, a moment without it. Without it bugging you and pestering you and trying to take over.
All right, let's look at the next one.
[00:05:54] Speaker A: Is this is a lightning round now? Okay, good.
[00:05:56] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm moving on to the next one. Well, I'm trying to get you to do a lightning round, I guess. All right.
Hi, Pastor Brian. I really enjoy watching your stuff on YouTube. Thank you for taking your time to do it. So to the question. I am Lutheran now. However, I grew up in a dominational Pentecostal church, which my extended family still attends. When I told them I was going to the Lutheran church, they got really bothered by baptism, of course. But then there was also this big concern about the difference in the way the Lutheran doctrine teaches law and gospel. I cannot figure out what the difference is exactly. Perhaps I just can't remember this was several years ago, but it's been on my mind recently, and I was wondering if perhaps you could shed some light on it.
[00:06:37] Speaker A: Yeah, it's great. What's the background? Pentecostal.
[00:06:40] Speaker B: Pentecostal, yeah.
[00:06:41] Speaker A: So this distinction between law and gospel is uniquely Lutheran. Some of the Reformed kind of edge up next to it, and they even like it and they appreciate it, but most everyone else has never heard of it. So when people ask me, hey, you know, I've got Catholic friends, I got Baptist friends, I got Pentecostal friends, I got whatever friends. And I want to start talking about theology and talking about our Lutheran stuff. What do I talk about? And I think the answer is long gospel. That's the thing to talk about.
And the reason why is because most people, they don't have it in their theological construct. They don't have the distinction between law and gospel. They don't have this clarity of what God requires and what God gives. That's just not part of what they're doing. And so.
And they're not ready for it. Like, if you start talking about baptizing babies or whatever right out of the box, they're ready. They have the, like, Theological defenses up there. But if you start talking about the distinction between law and gospel, then I think you can sneak under the radar, but really bring out some differences. Now with the.
The reason why it's so important is because the distinction between law and gospel keeps the gospel, keeps the law from getting mixed into the gospel.
It keeps the gospel clear as God's work of salvation. And it peels. It's like the alone in faith alone and grace alone. It excludes our works, our efforts, our merit, our decision, our activity. It excludes all of these things from the Lord saving us. And so it's a. So the distinction between law and gospel is a repudiation of any sort of synergistic understanding, which is what Pentecostal has. It's a synergism that says that salvation is a cooperation between God's work and our will.
It also. The other thing that. And maybe this is the Pentecostal tension, is that law and gospel puts the power on the outside.
So it's the efficacy of the word of God that is at play here.
And Pentecostalism also repudiates that because it has to be the spiritual work on the inside. So that the distinction between law and gospel keeps the gospel clear and it keeps the gospel outside of us, not inside of us, primarily outside the external word. And so the person who's in kind of saturated with Pentecostal theology is going to feel those tensions. And I imagine that's where the. That's where their discomfort comes.
[00:09:20] Speaker B: I'm not going anything to that.
Good answer. Let's go to the next one. We will make this a lightning round.
[00:09:26] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:09:27] Speaker B: We'll make up for last week, this one.
[00:09:30] Speaker A: You see all the. All the Roman Catholics just busting our chops on the comments from last week.
[00:09:36] Speaker B: Yeah, I didn't respond to most of them. I wasn't in the mood.
[00:09:39] Speaker A: I got on Twitter and I was getting after him and they were getting even more agitated over there. Sheesh.
[00:09:46] Speaker B: Yeah, I.
One guy was mad. He said, I won't mention this one. This is the only one I responded to that you should stop attacking your Roman Catholic brethren. And I said that you weren't attacking the people, you're attacking the false teaching. And so of course, one of them said, but there is no false teaching. So then I left it at that because I didn't want to. I was. Didn't think we were going to get anywhere after that. So.
But that was. That was. That didn't go anywhere. So what makes a baptism valid? That's the question Here I've been tormented for a long time, wondering whether or not my baptism is valid. I was baptized as a boy by my father in the family bathtub. I do not know what he said during the baptism as I was under the water. Also, I'm unsure whether my father's character or beliefs has any role in determining the baptism's validity, seeing as he was an evil and oftentimes heretical man, as judged by everyone who knew him, including myself. Though I do not want to be his judge, I fear to this day that my baptism may not be valid, thereby rendering me unbaptized and unsaved.
[00:10:53] Speaker A: So, okay, so let's. So let's take it from that last statement backwards. So we want to have a valid baptism. We want to confess the necessity of baptism for salvation, especially in the Lord's mandate to his church, where he says, go and baptize. And so we do not want to disconnect the Lord's gift of baptism from the Lord's gift of salvation.
But if there's someone who's baptized by a heretic and never knows that they always, not to say baptized in a heretical church, thought that they had baptism but did not have a valid baptism, that will not be the cause of condemnation. So we ought not to fear if I was baptized, say, so I was baptized in the ELCA or as ALC or something like this. And who knows, maybe some visiting pastor who baptized me in the name of the mother and daughter and whatever, you know, some stupid thing. And so I don't have a valid baptism. But I wasn't. I was baby. And who knows, people, Everyone who was there died. And I don't even know the difference. And now should I be worried that I. That I don't have a true baptism and that therefore I am not saved? No. If I confess that Jesus is Lord and the forgiver of my sins, then that is by the Holy Spirit and an indication that the Holy Spirit has taught me the two things that you must know and that you cannot know, apart from the Holy Spirit's teaching that I'm a sinner that deserves God's wrath, and I am died for and forgiven by the Lord Jesus Christ to know those things as salvation. And so we should not have a fear that we will be condemned on the judgment day because against our own will, we were given invalid baptism. So I just want to put that off the table first thing. Now, what to do in a situation like this where you had something like a private baptism administered by a father who had goofy Ideas, what makes that valid? What makes baptism valid is that it is done in the name and the confession of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, according to the Lord's command, go and baptize all nations.
Normally you could have, like, a heretical pastor who say, was not Trinitarian, but if he was baptizing a baby or a person in a church that confessed the Trinity, it would be a valid baptism because the confession of the Trinity is of that. That place is of the confession of the Trinity, even though the pastor scandalously and privately has rejected it.
Now, if the pastor is out as a heretic, like, hey, I don't believe in the Trinity, then he shouldn't be a pastor in that place and should be gone, et cetera, et cetera. What becomes confusing is when it's not happening in a place of a confession, like in a church, but happening in a home where, I suppose the confession is defined by the Father. And so if the Father has heretical ideas about the doctrine of the Trinity, then I would say that that at least puts the validity of this baptism in question.
And I would go to my pastor and say, hey, I have questions about the legitimacy, the validity of my baptism because of the heretical views of my Father, who gave me this baptism in private. And I wonder if it might be possible to receive the gift of holy Baptism because I desire that gift from the Lord Jesus, and I want to know that I have it. And I think that that's fine.
And if you have a valid baptism, then whatever you do becomes almost like a kind of recognition of that particular thing. And I think that I've done this a few times in times when there was questions of if a person was really and truly baptized.
I've just said that before the baptism and also in the prayers, you know, confessed it before God and man.
We are unsure if, you know, Andrew is baptized and desiring the Lord's gifts of the Spirit and life and salvation in baptism, we now will baptize him, trusting that you, Lord, will continue to care for him and bless him and keep him. So that kind of including that in the faith so that there's an honesty about what's going on. When there's an unknown situation and you're trying to make it right, suppose the same thing is true. Like if you're trying to figure out if someone was truly married and you're like, well, let's just make sure. Let's go through the rite and make sure it's there because the Lord wants us to have the confidence of Baptism. And the situation here is that the circumstances around baptism are destroying confidence rather than creating it. That's my advice. But you have thoughts on that?
[00:15:55] Speaker B: Yeah.
Your whole first part, your answer just reminded of St. Augustine's quote, right. It's not the lack of baptism that damn. Is the despising of it. There's a difference between someone not being baptized who believes but maybe hasn't had the opportunity to be baptized, or in this case, as you're mentioning, maybe didn't know that their baptism was, you know, wasn't done right. Wasn't valid or whatever. So I always usually give the example, like, what if they're staying in my adult instruction class and they're believing everything I've said and taught them so far and they believe the gospel and they want to be baptized. And so we say, hey, let's. Let's baptize you this Sunday, right? And they leave my class and they go and they die in a car accident. We wouldn't be like, well, you know, that's too bad for them. They believe the gospel, but they weren't baptized. We'd be like, no, they. The gospel is the word of God and the baptism is the word plus the water. So they believed. And so, yes, we can be confident they died a Christian. They weren't despising baptism. They just hadn't had the opportunity to be baptized. And so that's distinction. I think those that St. Augustine brings up is helpful because sometimes I do hear even some Lutherans talk as if they. I think some people would tell them, well, no, you're. You're damned if that was messed up. You know what I mean? Like, yeah, you believe, but if that got wrong, then you're not saved. So I think that's. His quote has always helped me think through that, I think properly. And that's Mark 16:16. Right.
He who believes in his baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned. Right. The emphasis on one who does not believe. So, yep.
All right, next one. Are you ready?
[00:17:37] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:17:38] Speaker B: We're flying. Okay.
I've recently heard LCMS pastors refer to Protestant hymns. I'm wondering what is the difference between Lutheran hymns and Protestant hymns?
[00:17:50] Speaker A: You. Why don't you take your first shot at this one? You haven't.
[00:17:55] Speaker B: For sure. I think generally by Protestant hymns, they're referring to non Lutheran hymns. I think that's all they're saying. Right. It's hard to know because it depends on who said this. But my guess is they're referring to hymns that were not written by Lutherans. And I know that in our circles there's a pretty big divide on this issue that some would say we can't ever sing any hymns that weren't written by Lutherans.
Whereas then we have the other side, which I would, I would put myself on that. If they confess the truth and they're in line with Scripture, then whether they were Lutheran or not doesn't matter. Like, you know, it's just like I think anything if truth is taken from even a pagan, if they speak something true, it's still true. Whether they know why it's true or not, or whether they get everything else right. If they said that thing and that's true, it's true. So I don't have a problem singing hymns by people who are not Lutheran. These Protestant hymns, if they confess the truth, right? If they're confessing the truth. And so my guess is they mean hymns that are not written by Lutherans specifically.
But that doesn't mean that they're necessarily bad hymns. They can be a really good hymn written by a non Lutheran. So that'd be my, my quick take on that, if that's what they mean. But without context, they could mean something else. But that'd be my guess.
[00:19:13] Speaker A: And it's pro. It's probably those. Nor those like old hymns that everyone likes, like the Old Rugged Cross or In the Garden or, you know, some of these old kind of famous gospel hymns that are not part of our Lutheran corpus and maybe not even helpful. But Elvis, I, you know, I wish we could go back and. And Elvis could have sung like the Luther hymns. And then everyone would be like, hey, why don't you sing. Sing these? Because you know that they just listen to them all the time. But it's also a kind of interesting language thing that most people think Lutherans are Protestant. The Lutherans, especially the kind of real Lutherans are always about, hey, we're Lutheran, not not Protestant. Which confuses people because they hear a Protestant and they think Lutheran and other non Catholics. And when a Lutheran says, oh, the Protestants, we're talking about something else. So it is interesting because the Lutherans are in the middle. Like the Protestants think the Lutherans are Catholic and the Catholics think the Lutherans are Protestant. And we're like, well, we're just, we're just Lutheran. But the Protestants start. That word Protestant started 1526. No, 1529. Second died Aspire when Charles was back from his honeymoon. And he's like, hey, you can't be Lutheran anymore. And they protested and so it was the Lutheran princess that started that Protestant idea, but then it just sort of became an umbrella for all non Catholics. But I'm guessing that when it's used this way, it's being used as not Catholic, not Lutheran. And that's where the confusion's coming from.
[00:20:51] Speaker B: All right, for our last question, I'm gonna bring us full circle since you mentioned him at the beginning. So we have a question that references Elon Musk. So here we go.
It's. It's a different question. I think you've. I don't think we've had one like this before. So here we go.
My questions began as I followed Elon Musk and others in the latest chapter of the space race. As Mr. Musk states, we're becoming an interplanetary species. I believe this would be true perhaps not in my lifetime, but in the future as we go. How does God's word travel with us? There seems to be very historical and terrestrial view of our faith here on Earth. Do we worship our Father the same throughout the heavens as we do on Earth? What will our faith look like in other worlds? Understand that astronauts have taken their faith into space. That is prayers before and during such missions and celebrating communion on the moon. Will someone. Will some oppose taking a Bible to another world? If so, if so, why? Will we practice our faith the same way as we have tried to for the past 2000 years? So if. Which is probably a big if. If we end up on other planets. Since we talked about Musk at the beginning, can you imagine what I'm at the end?
[00:21:56] Speaker A: You go to the seminary and you're like, hey, are you interested in being in a missionary? You're like, sure. And like, on planet Mars?
[00:22:03] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:22:04] Speaker A: Whoa.
[00:22:05] Speaker B: Terrestrial or extraterrestrial?
[00:22:08] Speaker A: That's right.
I. I don't know where I was sometime. I don't know, 10 years ago. I was sitting some group of pastors or whatever, and I think there was a conversation I wasn't even paying attention to. It wasn't a conversation I was in. And some pastor said just kind of offhandedly, I wonder if the universe is so big because we need something to do for eternity.
I was like, whoa.
It was just an offhanded comment. And you wonder if, like, the intent was there was a subduing of the Earth, and then there was even more that all these other things are given for us now. I don't think we have any sort of way to speak about these things. Biblically. We are given the Earth and dominion over the Earth. What's beyond that is now, I don't think we can come with a biblical prohibition. Like there's no. There's no command from God to not leave the planet, but I don't think there's also a command to leave the planet. And so I think Elon Musk has this kind of, I don't know, super Hegelian view where mankind is progressing towards some sort of enlightenment through space travel, which I think is a pagan idea. This is not a Christian idea.
It doesn't mean that, like, jumping off the planet to go over to Mars isn't exciting. It's like, wowzers.
But we will be Christians there. And I think an interesting kind of thought experiment on this is done by CS Lewis and his space trilogy, where he talks about how there's creatures on Mars and creatures on Venus, and they're innocent and holy, and that there's a blockade, a heavenly blockade to avoid people from Earth getting out to come and infect them. And it's such an interesting idea because we normally think, well, whatever's out there is certainly going to be dangerous to us and a risk to us.
But CS Lewis kind of flips it on its head and says, why would we want to take the contamination of our sin into these other places? So that's also kind of maybe a thing to think through.
The other, you know, people say, well, what happens if we do find intelligence on other planets?
And I think the answer to that is, well, it doesn't contradict the scriptures, because again, the Bible doesn't say anything. Yes or no. We know there are extraterrestrial beings. We call them angels or spirits. So we know that those exist and we maybe should think about those. But I heard at some point, some argument. I wonder if I'll be able to articulate it. It's in the back of my mind that it must be that there will not be life on other planets. And it kind of sorted it out this way, because if the technology existed to travel from one place to another, then the technology would exist to either destroy or to basically perfect what was in those other places. And so because we are neither destroyed nor perfected, then it must not exist. Do you know that argument? Have you heard that thing?
[00:25:34] Speaker B: I have not ever heard that, no.
[00:25:36] Speaker A: So. And they were talking about how this is the flaw in every single space movie, because to have the technology to get from, like, one star to another, the warp drive that. That warp drive is also. If you have a warp drive, then you're not shooting a laser, you know, like your weapons become so profound that they are irresistible. So there is no such, there's no such thing as war, conflict, or anything else like this. It's everything is either destroyed or perfected or whatever, utopianized. So the, so the very fact that that is not the case is a proof that that technology does not, does not exist. Now, I don't know. Again, this is me articulating all these kind of things that are way outside of my own expertise. But I think it's an interesting thing that humanity is always driven to the edges of our knowledge, to the edges, to the horizons of our experience. And I think on purpose. I mean, the Lord built us to be, to have dominion. And part of that dominion is that creative exploration. And so to that end, I don't know, it's exciting times coming up.
[00:26:47] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm not sure how likely it is, but I don't see why a word in sacrament ministry would have to look different in any way. Like, doesn't matter. It's same question that we had right when missionaries went to foreign countries. Like, what is it going to look like? It's going to look like word and sacrament ministry just in a different location now. The buildings, I guess, if it happened, would look different.
But other than that, I don't see why it would have to be that different in any way. It's still the word of God. It's still his sacraments. It can be administered on Mars as it is on Earth. It wouldn't have to be completely strange or unique in that setting. But I want to go back to what you said about Elon Musk, because I do think it is somewhat concerning to me. Like, he's a brilliant guy, like, no doubt about it. But he's also said things like, even the robots, he's inventing other things. It's because he's trying to solve the question, what is the meaning of the universe? And he thinks the more technology we have, the more space exploration, as you mentioned, the more robots, the smarter computers are, that that can help us answer the question, what is the meaning of the universe? Since I already know the answer to that question, I don't feel driven to like, have to try to do some, some of these things to, to find those answers. So that, that should be noted, that that's part of his reason for wanting to do some of these things is because he does not feel like. In the interview I saw, he flat out said when he was a teenager, he read all of the religious texts and found them, like, lacking, which, whatever, like, okay, I was Wondering though, if he talked to anyone. I mean, he's a really smart guy. He probably need to talk to someone like what's Dr. John Lennox or somebody, you know, like the mathematician who is brilliant or Dr. Stephen Meyer or somebody like that. Maybe he sat down with them, they could discuss things on his level. But I thought it was interesting that a lot of that is what drives him, is that he wants to find the answer to the universe. What is the meaning of the universe? That's his goal. So right there is that we, we already have.
[00:28:39] Speaker A: So there's a funny thing here. I don't know what category to put this in, because there are.
And I, I'm going to say this and it's going to sound wrong. It probably is. I don't know how to say it right. So just, so let me, let me say it and then like don't clip this and make it into a meme, you know. But there are, there are benefits to heresy.
And so let me give you an example.
[00:29:08] Speaker B: I'm putting that on X right now.
Go ahead.
[00:29:11] Speaker A: If, if, if I'm a Roman Catholic priest, so if I'm a Lutheran, I am a Lutheran pastor. So people come and they confess their sins to me and you know what I do? I forgive them their sins. I don't have to sit there and think about, huh, I wonder what that all means and everything like this. Now the Catholic priest, on the other hand, has to sit there and listen to a sin and think, I wonder what level of damage this has caused internally and externally so that I can apply the right spiritual antidote to this sickness and give them the right penance to make up for the particular crime. In other words, the Catholic priest is spending all this time thinking about what are the temporal effects of sin.
And the result of their heretical view of the absolution is that they have a little bit more insight into these things that we don't talk about.
Do you see what I'm saying now? We should talk about and think about them. But because we have the absolution to give, we're not spending all our time thinking about this. I noticed the same thing with a guy like, oh, oh, for heaven's sakes. Peterson, Eugene Peterson, who translated the message. And he, his doctrine of the word is he completely lacks the doctrine of the efficacy of the word. The result is he invested his whole life into being able to speak poetically so that the words that he was writing would move people so that his heresy of the non efficacy of the word gave him the benefit of becoming more poetic. Whereas the Lutheran pastor is not leaning towards the poetic expression of the word of God, but rather the clear expression of the word of God. So our right doctrine means we're not as good as at being poets, I think.
So that there's these. When you're missing something, you're trying to fill in the void and you become something like this. So that. So that Elon Musk has the heresy. I mean, lots of different heresies. One of them is that the Bible's not true, so that we don't know the mind of God. So you're trying to, by your own efforts, find these things. The result is now you gotta build rockets to go out into space. So it's like the genius of the Tower of Babel is what it probably is. Like, those guys had to figure out how to hold up this building to get it so tall. So they had to become expert engineers to accomp. Because they did not believe that God came down to us, but that rather we had to climb up to him or that we would be safe from a flood because of the promise of God. Rather, we're going to build our own tower to be safe from the flood or whatever. So their heresy made them brilliant in some ways.
It's probably the Babel conundrum. And so we get all this kind of exploratory stuff growing out of that heresy.
I don't know. What do you think about that?
[00:32:05] Speaker B: No, I think that makes a lot of sense. Like, it's. He's driven to know these things, so he's. He's doing probably things, one, because he's very smart and brilliant, but two, because he has a desire to have answers that he doesn't think we already have. And so it's pushing him to do things no one else has done, which could be. We don't know some of these things, for better or for worse. Right? It's like some of that can end up being a huge.
And he admitted as much. Like, even when he introduced his robots, he made a quip about like 80% chance they're going to be good, right?
[00:32:39] Speaker A: 20.
[00:32:40] Speaker B: 20% chance they could. I know he was saying it jokingly, but I've heard him on other interviews talking about the dangers of AI and various things. So I know he also has a little fear and trepidation with some of the things he does, but he also is willing to push the boundaries and see what good can come out of it. So.
[00:32:55] Speaker A: All right. I had a guy visiting church. It kind of looked like Elon Musk at first glance, and I'm like, oh, so I'm ready. I'm ready for.
[00:33:04] Speaker B: You're ready for him. Well, I think that's it for today.
[00:33:06] Speaker A: Thanks for sending your questions more at Wolfme Co Contact is where you can send those questions. And then they go to my junk mail, and then I find them once a month and forward them to Pastor Packer. It's great system, very efficient. We need a system for Q and A efficiency over here.
[00:33:22] Speaker B: I'll. We'll get Elon Musk on it.
[00:33:25] Speaker A: That'll be great. Send those questions. You can put comments below. It's always great. God's peace be with.
