Podcasts about protestant

From the "It Matters" sermon series. Preached by Dewayne Pinkney.

https://smithfieldbaptist.org.au/sermons/eddy-mannah-phillippians-21-24/feed/ 0

Mother continues to read from The Catholic Mother and The Catholic Father, and answers questions from: Anonymous, who struggles with scrupulosity and asks if all temptations are sins;  Grace, who wonders why Our Lord seemed to rebuke His Mother;  Hannah, who wants to know the difference between a nun and a sister;  Jeanie, who has trouble with her Protestant relatives regarding conversion of the Jews;  Richard, who asks whether God answers non-Catholics' prayers;  And Kristen, who wants to encourage her husband to lead family prayers more often.

Mother continues to read from The Catholic Mother and The Catholic Father, and answers questions from: Amy, who is struggling with disabilities and discerning a late vocation;  Ernesto, who found a 1956 Hong Kong Chinese Daily Missal;  Mikayla, who loves hearing Mother's evangelization stories;  And caller Rachel, a recent Catholic revert who asks for advice on raising her three sons with a staunchly Presbyterian husband.

In this interview I talked with Dr. Vern Poythress about his new book, Mediator. In his book he tracks the concept of mediator through the whole Bible, starting in the Garden of Eden in Genesis. We also discuss the differences between the Catholic and Protestant conception of mediator and if Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Go subscribe to The Paradox Press now!Follow me on X: https://x.com/andyschmitt99

“Should Christians drink alcohol?” This question opens a discussion on the balance between moderation and faith, while also addressing related topics such as the implications of truth-telling and scandal, and the Vatican’s recent doctrinal notes on Marian titles. Other questions include the role of hope in salvation and the significance of confession for Protestants. Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 03:28 – Should Christians drink alcohol? 15:07 – Can telling the truth be considered the spreading of scandal? 22:25 – Given the doctrinal notes given by the Vatican recently on the titles Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, does it affect our understanding of Marian consecration? 29:08 – I heard Karlo and Brayden recently talk about faith and charity and their role in salvation. What is the role of hope in relation to salvation? 35:03 – Should I attend a men's event or my 35th anniversary? 40:31 – Why can't a Protestant just decide to go to confession and get absolution? 46:46 – When making the sign of the cross, is it better to say Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost? 51:05 – Why wasn't the sacrifice of Jesus done earlier? Why did God wait so many years to redeem us?

Patrick plunges into the fallout from COVID-19, dissecting shifting narratives around public health, mixed messages from authorities, and the emotional toll on listeners facing mandates, coercion, and suspicion of pharmaceutical campaigns. He moves quickly to challenge misconceptions about the Catholic Church’s history with vernacular Bible translations, offers plain answers on moral issues borrowed from movies, and fields rapid-fire questions on everything from sacramental marriage for converts to the best study Bibles for Catholics. Spirited calls and tough questions swirl together as Patrick weighs faith, fear, and the search for truth, all without missing a beat. Audio: Fauci talks to a man on his doorstep: “I’m not taking a shot that was made in 9 months” – 2min - https://x.com/IngrahamAngle/status/2082310100698431570/video/1?s=46 (04:35) Audio: Fauci montage (Masks, Herd Immunity, Schools, Lockdowns, Lab, and Gain of Function) – 5 min - https://x.com/AckerenBrenda/status/2052823529142227259/video/1?s=46 (07:40) Ernesto - (email) – When did the church stop burning people for reading the bible? (14:53) Connie (email) - I work in healthcare and was coerced into getting this shot. (19:52) Dominic - What is morally right in a situation seen in the Mission Impossible movies, where you have secret agents trying to save the world? (22:12) Jared - I am a former Protestant pastor who has become Catholic. How do I moderate my understanding of the Bible? (28:00) Prince - Is there a karaoke version of the Patrick Madrid album? (31:30) Nathaniel (12-years-old) - If Catholics translated the Bible, why did Catholics oppose William Tyndale? Theresa - I go to a Lutheran Church and they never talk about sin? Anna (email) - I have some friends who are familiar with the group, Catholic Utah, my understanding is that they no longer exist. Elizabeth – The Lutheran Church doesn’t consider homosexuality a sin. (40:03) Sam - I am Catholic and from the Eastern Church. If a family wants to be baptized, do they need to receive the sacraments of marriage? (44:02) Joe - If a Catholic disagrees with the Immaculate Conception or Papal Authority, at what point do they go to hell? (46:45)

In this week's episode, Phil EuBank sits down with Pastor Matt Summers to dive into Sunday's message, The System of Merit. Framing Roman Catholicism as our theological parent in the Christian family tree, they explore how a system built on human merit, sacraments, and tradition can subtly turn faith into a tollbooth or a self-funded spiritual insurance policy. Together, Phil and Matt discuss the core contrasts of the Protestant Reformation, specifically Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Drawing from Phil's childhood friendship with a local priest named Father Michael, they highlight the vital need to hold deep conviction without losing the humble, loving posture of Jesus. They also turn the mirror on Protestant culture, exposing the invisible performance tolls we often pay when we try to earn God's love or blame ourselves during life's hardships. Listen to the Menlo Midweek Podcast Tune into new episodes released every Wednesday as we break down Sunday's sermon, share behind-the-scenes insights, and discuss practical ways to live out our faith. Listen now at menlo.church/podcasts.

Today I'm speaking with Steven K. Green, Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of History and Religious Studies at Willamette University. We are discussing his book, American Infidelity: The Gilded Age Battle Over Freethought, Free Love, and Feminism (Oxford University Press, 2026). Since the first permanent Protestant settlement in Jamestown in 1607, Protestant Christianity has waxed and waned through a series of revivals, migrations, and challenges from alternative faiths like Catholicism and Mormonism. The Gilded Age, from roughly 1870 to 1900, was a unique period for Protestantism in American history. Most Americans still subscribed to a Protestant faith, though threats began to arise not from other confessions, but rather from philosophical and scientific challengers. The so-called freethinkers represented a broad range of beliefs and ideas, being united by a mutual skepticism of religious conservatism and traditional sexual and gender mores. American Infidelity tells the story of this tug-of-war for the soul of a nation, with Christianity on one side and the legacy of thinkers like Thomas Paine on the other. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Today I'm speaking with Steven K. Green, Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of History and Religious Studies at Willamette University. We are discussing his book, American Infidelity: The Gilded Age Battle Over Freethought, Free Love, and Feminism (Oxford University Press, 2026). Since the first permanent Protestant settlement in Jamestown in 1607, Protestant Christianity has waxed and waned through a series of revivals, migrations, and challenges from alternative faiths like Catholicism and Mormonism. The Gilded Age, from roughly 1870 to 1900, was a unique period for Protestantism in American history. Most Americans still subscribed to a Protestant faith, though threats began to arise not from other confessions, but rather from philosophical and scientific challengers. The so-called freethinkers represented a broad range of beliefs and ideas, being united by a mutual skepticism of religious conservatism and traditional sexual and gender mores. American Infidelity tells the story of this tug-of-war for the soul of a nation, with Christianity on one side and the legacy of thinkers like Thomas Paine on the other. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Today I'm speaking with Steven K. Green, Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of History and Religious Studies at Willamette University. We are discussing his book, American Infidelity: The Gilded Age Battle Over Freethought, Free Love, and Feminism (Oxford University Press, 2026). Since the first permanent Protestant settlement in Jamestown in 1607, Protestant Christianity has waxed and waned through a series of revivals, migrations, and challenges from alternative faiths like Catholicism and Mormonism. The Gilded Age, from roughly 1870 to 1900, was a unique period for Protestantism in American history. Most Americans still subscribed to a Protestant faith, though threats began to arise not from other confessions, but rather from philosophical and scientific challengers. The so-called freethinkers represented a broad range of beliefs and ideas, being united by a mutual skepticism of religious conservatism and traditional sexual and gender mores. American Infidelity tells the story of this tug-of-war for the soul of a nation, with Christianity on one side and the legacy of thinkers like Thomas Paine on the other. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Today I'm speaking with Steven K. Green, Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of History and Religious Studies at Willamette University. We are discussing his book, American Infidelity: The Gilded Age Battle Over Freethought, Free Love, and Feminism (Oxford University Press, 2026). Since the first permanent Protestant settlement in Jamestown in 1607, Protestant Christianity has waxed and waned through a series of revivals, migrations, and challenges from alternative faiths like Catholicism and Mormonism. The Gilded Age, from roughly 1870 to 1900, was a unique period for Protestantism in American history. Most Americans still subscribed to a Protestant faith, though threats began to arise not from other confessions, but rather from philosophical and scientific challengers. The so-called freethinkers represented a broad range of beliefs and ideas, being united by a mutual skepticism of religious conservatism and traditional sexual and gender mores. American Infidelity tells the story of this tug-of-war for the soul of a nation, with Christianity on one side and the legacy of thinkers like Thomas Paine on the other. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Today I'm speaking with Steven K. Green, Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Affiliated Professor of History and Religious Studies at Willamette University. We are discussing his book, American Infidelity: The Gilded Age Battle Over Freethought, Free Love, and Feminism (Oxford University Press, 2026). Since the first permanent Protestant settlement in Jamestown in 1607, Protestant Christianity has waxed and waned through a series of revivals, migrations, and challenges from alternative faiths like Catholicism and Mormonism. The Gilded Age, from roughly 1870 to 1900, was a unique period for Protestantism in American history. Most Americans still subscribed to a Protestant faith, though threats began to arise not from other confessions, but rather from philosophical and scientific challengers. The so-called freethinkers represented a broad range of beliefs and ideas, being united by a mutual skepticism of religious conservatism and traditional sexual and gender mores. American Infidelity tells the story of this tug-of-war for the soul of a nation, with Christianity on one side and the legacy of thinkers like Thomas Paine on the other. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/secularism

This lesson provides an overview of the Old Testament canon, defining it as the divinely inspired collection of scriptures recognized by the Jewish community and affirmed by Jesus and the apostles. The pastor clarifies that the canon was not determined by church councils but emerged through divine providence and historical recognition within a specific timeframe from Moses to Malachi. It addresses the status of the Apocrypha, explaining why these intertestamental writings are excluded from the Protestant canon due to lack of divine inspiration and later inclusion by the Roman Catholic Church. The discussion highlights how the early church accepted the existing Hebrew canon as authoritative, viewing the Old Testament as Christian literature that points to Christ. Ultimately, the message encourages confidence in Scripture's reliability and authority, attributing its preservation to God's sovereign care rather than human decision-making.

https://smithfieldbaptist.org.au/sermons/david-fawkes-mark-836/feed/ 0

https://smithfieldbaptist.org.au/sermons/david-freeman-james-127/feed/ 0

https://smithfieldbaptist.org.au/sermons/tom-eglinton-matthew-2728/feed/ 0

https://smithfieldbaptist.org.au/sermons/isaac-thangasamy-revelation-214/feed/ 0

https://smithfieldbaptist.org.au/sermons/steve-fawkes-2-corinthians-318-418/feed/ 0

Joe examines Protestant worries about overstating doctrine that is necessary for salvation, specifically Marian dogmas. On the surface it seems like a perfectly logical concern, but Joe takes the time to demonstrate why they are necessary. Read Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on one of the Marian Dogmas here: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11verit.htm Transcript: Joe: Welcome back to Shameless Popery. I’m Joe Heshmeyer, and today I want to look at a particular objection to the church’s teachings about Mary, what are called the Marian dogmas that we often don’t talk ...

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 215 The Nazis had an ideological mission for their own Volk in addition to those we're all more familiar with from the dark stories of history: to transform a widely Christian Germany into a fully Nazi Germany, not just in practice and politics but in belief and commitment. That is, in the language of the Nazis, German Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, had to be transformed into people who accepted the racialist worldview and Fascist organizational principles of National Socialism. In practice, that would mean devastating the real foundations for their faiths, providing them an ersatz intermediate faith called "Positive Christianity," and using it to lead them to full-blown Nazism. The key man tasked with this endeavor was Alfred Rosenberg, the Chief Ideologist of the Third Reich, who wrote the book on it in 1930. The Myth of the Twentieth Century was arguably the Third Reich's second most important book after Mein Kampf, and it presents the "myth of the blood" that all Nazis were eventually to come to believe as an article of unshakeable faith like their leaders. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay returns to the second chapter of The Myth of the Twentieth Century to outline Rosenberg's very New-Atheist-ish effort to undermine the foundations of German Christianity while retaining a mythological Aryan Jesus so that he could complete this task. Join him to see how Nazis really regarded Christianity, especially Catholicism. Join us for the Preserving Liberty Conference at Sea!: https://ndcruise.com Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2026 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #Christianity

Patrick explores pressing listener questions about Catholic practices, why posture at Mass matters, and what true unity looks like when traditions shift unexpectedly. Scriptural references and personal stories fuel a wide-ranging exchange on receiving Communion with the right preparation, the impact of Church history on faith, and facing challenges from Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons at the door. Those conversations stretch from investigating the label “Roman Catholic” to untangling misunderstandings about the sacraments, all while encouraging listeners to keep pursuing clarity and reverence in their faith journey. Kip (email) - As a cradle Catholic who has always knelt in reverence after the Lamb of God, I was so disturbed by the complete lack of kneeling and overall irreverence during the Liturgy of the Eucharist at a new parish I tried yesterday that it felt like a Protestant service and has left me convinced such practices are eroding belief in Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist and leading the flock astray. (00:46) Mark - I thought that being born again was enough. Why do I need 7 sacraments? (05:21) Dan - You gave me research to do on the early Church, and I now agree with you. Can you give me details on Linus, Cletus and Clement? (20:46) Kathy - How do I deal with Jehovah's Witnesses? Also thank you for the advice you gave me 2 months ago. (37:59) Rafael - Why are we referred to as Roman Catholics?

Patrick opens the lines to questions on everything from the nuances of calling oneself Catholic versus Roman Catholic, to the thorny spaces of marriage, conversion, and sacramental life when couples move at different speeds. He moves between callers wrestling with Protestant arguments on faith and works, personal battles with divorce, haunting memories of abortion, and even speculation about the glorified resurrected body and incorrupt saints. Unexpected candor and tension ripple beneath discussions as Patrick brings clarity and hope, offering listeners both practical steps and spiritual encouragement. Patrick continues his conversation with Rafael from the previous hour about by we are referred to as “Roman Catholics” Rick - I had a discussion with a Protestant and quoted James about faith and works. He said that the Book of James was just for the Jews and not for non-Jewish people. (06:21) Deidra - I heard your comment about the Holy Ghost. When 120 disciples were up in the upper room, they had the power to speak in tongues but didn’t have power to heal. People don’t speak in tongues anymore. (10:34) Jake - Why is a couple forced to be married in the Church if both are Catholic, but if only one is Catholic they are not required to be married in the Church? (16:56) Juan – My wife had an abortion many years ago and I still have guilt (33:52) Stuart - What are the anatomical features of the resurrected body? (40:01) Don - Encourages the last caller to not go through divorce and to stick it out (46:17)

00:32 - Sam Shamoun never escaped false religion 12:54 - Sam's convenient view of hell 24:16 - Apologists associated with Christian Answers (CAnswersTV) 30:56 - Debate clips of Rob Zins vs. Monsignor Ed Jordan & Dr Robert Fastiggi vs Larry Wessels 34:58 - Larry Wessels in studio with Dr Steve Morrison & Ex Romanist Stuart Quint 39:16 - / @canswerstv , list of many of our early church history videos 46:16 - Refuting Sam's thumbnail images of his videos 47:09 - VaticanCatholic.com/ Most Holy Family Monastery rejects Sam for his universalism & acceptance of antipopes 59:28 - Pope Leo XIV (before he was pope) participates in Pachamama Mother Earth pagan ritual in 1995 1:03:02 - All religions will be saved, even sincere atheists 1:33:53 - The Virgin Mary, Douay- Rheims, Seven Roman Steps to Godhood 1:45:56 - Apparitions of Mary, including Fatima giving secret messages to popes 1:57:56 - Sam's video of his "miracle" testimony how he became Catholic but Larry responds with his own "miracle" 1981 testimony of how he became a Bible Christian with no need of Romanism at all just the Holy Spirit (John 6:63,65) 2:13:07 - Sam says the Early Church was not Protestant but Wes Huff puts forth sound historical arguments concerning the early church 2:20:10 -Roman Priests Make Bread Into God & Take Confessions but 98% of Catholics Don't Go To Confession Anyway, Eastern Orthodox curses Protestants & use Demon Toll houses for salvation, Rosary Beads - Ignoring Isaiah 42:8, 48:11 2:28:02 - Original Bible Answer Man Walter Martin of the Christian Research Institute said Romanism is a corrupt church, a backslidden church, an apostate church," on page 39 of Walter Martin's book.

From the "It Matters" sermon series. Preached by Stephen Baker.

Telling the Story: Part 3 Acts 7:35-53 by William Klock “Made by hand.”  When we see that, it usually means something good, doesn't it?  Someone careful hand crafted this thing.  Carefully stitched it together.  Put care into baking it.  You can probably trust it, because it was well made.  And, of course, it was made with love. But if we went all the way back to ancient Israel, “Made by hand” had a very different meaning and connotation.  For us it (usually) signals something good; for them it signalled idolatry.  “Made by hand” said that this thing was not made by God or that God had not commanded it to be made, but wicked humans made it anyway.  And when it came to things involved in worship, it meant idolatry. This idea has come into our language too.  You'll sometimes hear Christians—usually on the Puritan end of the spectrum—talk about this or that thing in worship or this or that doctrine being “man-made”.  The Puritans called it the “Regulative Principle” and the idea was that everything Christians do in worship should either be something God explicitly commanded (like reading the Bible or singing or preaching) or something that good and necessary consequence demands. We Anglicans follow what's called the “Normative Principle”, which means that we have freedom in our worship, as long as what we do is not forbidden by scripture or goes against biblical principles.  But you'll often hear folks who follow the Regulative Principle say things like, “Your liturgy or your hymns are ‘man-made'” or “Your traditions of using musical instruments or observing Easter, Christmas, and other holy days are ‘man-made'” and by that they mean that they're unbiblical and wrong.  Some would go so far as to call these things “idolatry”. The “RP” isn't our tradition, I think more than anything else in Protestantism it has led to sinful, ungodly, and unwarranted schisms, but I do respect the fact that it grew out of a commitment to take worship very seriously.  People who follow it understand that how we worship God is serious business, not something frivolous.  I think most Christians today err in taking zero care in how they worship God.  But you can't read the New Testament and you certainly can't read the Old Testament without realising that how we worship is serious business.  God takes it seriously and so should we.  I'll come back to this, but keep it in the back of your mind as we work through the end of Stephen's speech. I want to pick up where we left off in Acts 7.  We've been making our way through Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin—the body of Jewish elders.  He's been accused of blasphemy and of speaking against torah and the temple and Moses.  And instead of defending himself, what he's done is to tell the story of Israel and Israel's God.  He's telling it in a such way that they should—hopefully—see that he's not speaking against any of those things that defined them as Jews.  He's telling the story in such a way that they'll see—hopefully—that the gospel is not a departure from Israel's story, but rather the very culmination of it—the very thing that torah and temple and Moses were pointing toward all along.  And so he began with Abraham and the call of Israel, and then Joseph, and then Moses.  And as he's telling not just the story, but their story, he's highlighting its themes of forgiveness and grace and also that when God acts, when God does new things, it's almost never what anyone expected—but afterward you can always see that, in fact, the signposts had always been pointing to that new thing.  Like I said last week, the figure of Moses towers over the story of Israel and Stephen knew that.  But he also knew, as Moses towered over the story, he did so like a signpost, with his arm outstretched, pointing the people straight to Jesus.  He knew, you can't use Moses to argue against the gospel. So let's pick up at Acts 7:35 where we left off. [Page 1087 in the pew Bibles, way down in the very bottom right corner of the page.] “So,” Stephen continued, “this same Moses—the one they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler or judge?'—this is the man God sent as ruler and redeemer, by the hand of the angel who had appeared to him in the bush.  He did signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, and led them out, through the Red Sea and for forty years in the wilderness.  This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, ‘God will raise up a prophet like me from among your brothers.'  And this is the one who was in the assembly in the desert with the angel who had spoken to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to give to us.” Stephen's continuing the story of Moses he began in last week's text.  Moses was rejected by his own people—at least at first.  And there was nothing controversial in telling this part of the story.  And there's nothing controversial in his reminding the Sanhedrin that despite that early rejection, Moses was indeed the ruler and redeemer the Lord had sent to his people.  Moses did signs and wonders in both Egypt and in the wilderness.  He's the one who parted the Red Sea.  He's the one who met God on the mountain and came down with God's living words, with the torah and with the instructions for the tabernacle.  And—Stephen makes a really important point here—Moses was also the one who told the Israelites that he was not the end-all-be-all of rulers, redeemers, or messiahs, because one day the Lord would raise up a “prophet” from amongst them—a prophet in comparison to whom Moses would pale. The Sanhedrin knew he was talking about Jesus.  The people had already suspect that Jesus was this greater prophet whom Moses had prophesied.  More than once he was asked, “Are you the prophet who is to come?”  So Stephen's making it clear, just as Moses had been rejected by the Israelites of his day, so Jesus was rejected by the Israelites of his.  We've touched on this last week. But now Stephen takes it a step further.  Look at verse 39.  It's not just that Moses was rejected by his people in the days before he was actually called by God.  The more embarrassing thing for Israel was that they'd rejected Moses after he'd been called, after they'd been through the Red Sea, after they'd seen the signs and wonders and had the torah and the tabernacle.  Stephen goes on: “This is the one whom our fathers had not wanted to obey, but instead rejected him and turned back in their hearts to Egypt, by saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go before us; for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt—we don't know what has become of him!'  They made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice to an idol. They celebrated things their own hands had made.” Remember what happened in Exodus?  Moses went up the mountain to meet God.  And he was up there for forty days and nights receiving the law.  And the people became afraid.  They thought that Moses surely must have died on the mountain, so they gave Aaron their gold and implored him to make a golden calf, an idol, so that they could have a god who would protect them.  It was a shameful moment for Israel.  They'd just received the Ten Commandments.  They'd just been told by God: You shall have no other gods.  You shall not make a carved image.  And Moses had asked them, “Will you do all these things?  Will you give yourself to the worship and service of the God of your fathers, the God who has saved you from Egypt?  The God who has decalared, ‘I will be your God and you will be my people?”  And the people had enthusiastically declared, “We will!  All this we will do!”  And just days later, they didn't. As eating the forbidden fruit was the primal sin of the human race, idolatry was the primal sin of Israel: worshipping something as if it were God when it wasn't.  Aaron had tried to explain to Moses that he'd merely thrown the gold into the fire and that the calf had formed and jumped out of its own accord, but everyone knew that's not how it works.  Idols are made by human hands and the prophets drove that point home over and over down through Israel's history.  To worship an idol was absurd.  The pagans were fools for doing so.  First, you create a god with your own hands and then you worship it.  “How stupid is that?” the prophets asked.  And yet the golden calf wasn't the last time Israel would worship an idol.  That primal sin came back over and over and over.  When Jeroboam rebelled and led ten of the tribes of Israel to form their own nation, he set up two golden calves, one at Bethel and one at Dan to discourage his people from going to the temple in Jerusalem.  No matter how devoutly Israel worshipped the Lord, idolatry was never far off.   Look at verse 42: “Then God turned and handed them over to worship the host of heaven, as it stands written in the book of the prophets: ‘Did you bring sacrifices and offerings to me in those forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?  You took up the tent of Moloch, and the star of your god Rhephan, the carved images you made to worship! I will remove you beyond Babylon!'” Stephen quotes Amos 5.  Even during Israel's honeymoon period with the Lord, Amos condemned them.  Even then, while they brought their sacrifices to the Lord, they were worshiping pagan gods like Moloch and Rhephan and all the “host of heaven”. So the Jewish priests and rulers have charged Stephen with blasphemy and now he turns the tables.  He never actually defends himself.  Instead, he retells the story of Israel from the beginning and shows how it leads straight to Jesus and now, again, he turns the tables on them.  He accuses them of the very thing they've charged him with.  Just as Israel had rejected Moses, so Israel's priests and rulers have rejected Jesus.  And—since their most significant charge seems to have been that he was speaking against the temple—and that was precisely the same charge on which Jesus was arrested and crucified—Stephen makes his second point or his second charge against them.  Verse 44: “Our ancestors had the ‘tent of meeting' in the desert. [That's another name for the tabernacle.] God had commanded Moses to make it according to the pattern which he had seen.  Our ancestors in their turn brought it in when, with Joshua, [meaning they brought it with them into Canaan, the promised land] they dispossessed the nations whom God drove out before our ancestors, and it was there until the time of David.  David found favour with God, and requested permission to establish a Tabernacle for the house of Jacob.  But it was Solomon who built him a house. [Stephen is referring to the permanent temple in Jerusalem.]  Now his key point: “The Most High, however, does not live in shrines made by human hands. The prophet put it like this: ‘Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool! What sort of house will you build me, says the Lord, Or what place will you give me to rest in?  My own hand made all these, did it not?' Yes, David planned the temple.  Solomon built it with the Lord's blessing.  But Stephen quotes Isaiah 66.  The Prophet Isaiah had rebuked the people using the very words that Solomon had prayed at the dedication of the temple.  It is God who has made all things.  The idea that human beings can make anything—even the temple—that can contain God, well, that's the real blasphemy.  Solomon knew that with this glorious temple on the mountain top, that with God's presence manifest in a cloud of glory, that Israel—always prone to idolatry—would start to think that they had God in a box—to put as we might put it.  Solomon warned them.  Isaiah warned them.  And now Stephen is pointing his finger at the Sanhedrin and is saying, “When Jesus said he'd tear this building down and rebuild it in three days, he wasn't blaspheming it.  When I said that this is precisely what Jesus has done and when I say that Jesus has, indeed, built a new temple by purifying a new people and filling them with God's own Spirit, I'm not the one blaspheming the temple.  No!  You're the one's blaspheming God!  You think you've got God in a box.  You're thinking like the pagans.  You've gone back to our people's primal sin!  Heaven is God's throne and earth his footstool.  The entire cosmos he's made cannot contain him.  What fools you are to think your puny temple can contain him!  The temple was the signpost pointing the way to what God's done in Jesus and the Spirit.  It was the signpost telling us all along that God's plan was one day to enter this world as one of us, as the Righteous One, so that he could rescue us—from sin, from death, from the idolatry that has plagued us from the beginning—by filling us with his Spirit and turning our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh.  By filling his people, not so we can guard it a box of stone, but so we can carry his presence to the ends of the earth.  But just like our ancestors, you refused God's redeemer because you couldn't let go of your building, your box made by hands.” You can almost imagine Stephen standing there in front of the Sanhedrin and with him stand Moses and Isaiah and Amos and all the other prophets nodding at his words.  He closes his speech in verses 51-53: “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are uncircumcised! You always resist the holy spirit, just as your ancestors did before you!  Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? And you killed those who announced in advance the coming of the Righteous One—and now you have betrayed him and murdered him.  You received the law at the command of angels, but you didn't keep it!” They were the people God had chosen to steward his glory.  They were the keepers of the great story of God and his redemptive plan.  They, of all people, should have known better, but when the story came to its climax, they refused to listen.  They'd stried to slam the book shut.  It's not just that they rejected the Messiah and handed him over to the pagan Romans to be crucified.  Stephen's point is that they were doing what idolatrous Isreal had always done.  Even though the kind of obvious idolatry that had got them exiled to Babylon had been rooted out since their return to Judaea, they were still at heart idolators.  As Stephen recounts the story of Israel, what we find is that it's not just a story of redemption.  It's also a story of rebellion that reminds us how desperately humanity needs God's redemption.  Even the people with the law and the temple, even the people with Moses and the Prophets suffered from the same rebellious attitude that infects the human race.  As Calvin once put it, the rebellious human heart is a factory of idols.  We can take even the good things of God and turn them into idols as the Jews had done. Stephen takes the high ground.  He stands with Abraham and  Moses, with Solomon and David, with Isaiah and Amos.  The Sanhedrin, for all their moral posturing and charges of blasphemy, Stephen opens the book they'd slammed shut and shows that in reality they stand with Joseph's wicked brothers, with the Israelites who rejected Moses, with the Israelites who had given their gold to Aaron to cast a golden calf, with Jeroboam and all the others who had set up idols throughout the land.  The temple was good, but it was made with hands.  God had promised through the Prophets that one day he would make another, a better temple—and it would be better precisely because it wasn't made by human hands. Brothers and Sisters, that's us.  And as I was thinking and meditating on this over the last few weeks, I was wondering what this means for us.  I think the biggest takeaway from Stephen's speech—at least this part of it—is simply to hear him proclaim the glory of the God who has become present with us in Jesus, the Righteous One.  Jesus has, like a greater Moses, delivered us from our bondage to sin and death.  I don't think it's likely that we're going to end up like the Sanhedrin, rejecting Jesus and the Spirit in favour of the temple and the torah. But, I do think there's a warning here, even if it's a little oblique.  Brothers and Sisters, it can be very easy for us to make idols out of otherwise good—and even essential—things.  In an age of apostasy—and especially for those of us who came out of the battles for orthodoxy within Anglicanism, it can be very easy to make an idol of our theology and of our orthodoxy.  We can make idols of the traditional Prayer Book, of the old hymnals, of our classical Protestant worship.  Good things.  Orthodoxy—right doctrine, right theology, right understanding of God and of ourselves—is absolutely essential.  But Brothers and Sisters, none of these things stand in place of Jesus; none of them stands in the place of the Spirit; none of them stands in place of the Triune God.  None of them ought to undermine the unity that Jesus and the Spirit have given us with other believers.  Bp. Cummins understood this and it's why the Reformed Episcopal Church exists: because Bp. Cummins knew that Christian unity is rooted not in bishops or in sacraments, but in Jesus the Messiah.  It's good to be right in our doctrine and practise.  We should take theology and worship seriously, but we should also be humble about them.  We should acknowledge that despite our best efforts, none of us will ever—at least not this side of eternity—have a perfect theology or perfect worship.  And we ought always to guard against pride, because being proud in our imperfect theologies and imperfect worship inevitably causes us to treat them as idols.  We lose our focus on Jesus.  And no matter how right we may be, we lose our witness and cease to give glory to God. So let Stephen be a reminder to us to keep Jesus at the centre of our being and of our life together, at the centre of our church.  Let our good doctrine and our good worship be the things that keep him there.  But let him always be our God, let him always be the one we worship and glorify.  And, I think, if are faithful in that, we will be faithful in giving glory, not to ourselves, not to our theology, not to our Prayer Book, not to anything made with hands, but to the God of glory. Let's pray: God of glory, as we hear your word, as we learn the story of redemption, teach us to see and to keep Jesus, the Righteous One, always at its centre.  Give us the grace and wisdom necessary for sound doctrine and worship, not that we be “right”, but that we might always keep Jesus at the centre of our life together, that we might worship you and faithfully make your glory known to the ends of the earth.  Amen.

In Episode 499 of the Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb conclude their extended study of Matthew 25 with a close examination of the Sheep and Goats passage (vv. 31–46). The conversation tackles one of the most frequently misread sections in the Gospels — a text often weaponized for works-righteousness or social-justice reductionism — and recovers its deeply Reformed, gospel-saturated meaning. The hosts argue that the works displayed at the final judgment are not meritorious currency but the spontaneous, unselfconscious fruit of transformed hearts. They explore the significance of the sheep's surprise, the inheritance language of the kingdom, unconditional election, and the precise meaning of "the least of these." The result is a theologically rich, pastorally grounding episode that offers genuine assurance to believers while calling the church to practical, ordinary mercy toward its own members. Key Takeaways Works at the final judgment reveal identity, not merit. The sheep are on the right because they are sheep — not because their accumulated deeds earned them a place. Their works flow from a renewed nature, not toward a threshold they must clear. The righteous are surprised — and that surprise is theologically decisive. If the sheep were consciously stacking up merit for judgment, they would have kept careful ledgers. Their inability to recall their own works demolishes any works-righteousness reading of the passage. Inheritance is not wages. Jesus' use of the word "inherit" signals that the kingdom is received by virtue of relationship, not performance — a point reinforced by Paul in Romans 8 and Galatians 4. Election precedes and grounds the works. The kingdom was prepared "before the foundation of the world," meaning the deepest cause of the sheep's blessedness long predates any of their deeds. Works are downstream of grace, never upstream. "The least of these" refers primarily to fellow believers, not to the poor in general. The phrase "my brothers" in verse 40 narrows the referent to members of Christ's body — those who belong to him by adoption, faith, and union with Christ. There is no two-stage justification. The final judgment is not a second review of whether one has done enough. It is a reassertion of the righteousness of Christ already imputed to believers — a public vindication, not a fresh assessment. Practical, ordinary mercy toward the church is the mark of kingdom membership. The six works listed — feeding, giving drink, hospitality, clothing, visiting the sick, visiting the imprisoned — are not heroic or extraordinary. They are the unglamorous, costly, consistent kindness that flows naturally from those who have been made new. Key Concepts The Surprise of the Righteous: A Devastation of Works-Righteousness One of the most theologically loaded moments in Matthew 25:31–46 is the reaction of the righteous at the judgment: "Lord, when did we see you?" They are not feigning humility. They genuinely do not remember. As Jesse Schwamb notes in this episode, this surprise is "devastating to a works-righteousness reading of the passage" — because anyone consciously building a merit ledger would have kept meticulous records. The sheep kept none. Their works flowed so naturally and unselfconsciously from hearts already made new by the Spirit that those works barely registered as remarkable. This is precisely what the Reformed doctrine of sanctification predicts: truly gracious affections issue in Christian practice as the spontaneous fruit of a transformed nature — as natural as a good tree producing good fruit. The works are real, the works matter, but they are not calculated. They are evidence, not currency. Inheritance, Election, and the Order of Grace Jesus does not tell the sheep they earned the kingdom. He tells them to inherit it — and he specifies that it was prepared for them "from the foundation of the world." These two details together form a nearly complete statement of Reformed soteriology embedded in the judgment scene itself. Inheritance, as both Paul and Jesus make clear, is received through relationship and not through performance. An heir does not negotiate terms; an heir receives by virtue of who they are in relation to the testator. Layered on top of this is the language of eternal, unconditional election: the kingdom's preparation predates all human works, good or bad. There is no "looking down the corridor of foreseen merit" here. The sheep's blessedness has its deepest root in the sovereign grace of God exercised in eternity past — which means their works, however real and meaningful, can never be the ground of their standing before the King. "The Least of These": The Church as the Primary Referent A significant and often overlooked interpretive question in Matthew 25 is the identity of "the least of these my brothers" (v. 40). The episode argues, in line with the dominant Reformed and historical reading, that this phrase refers primarily to fellow believers — members of Christ's body who are suffering, vulnerable, or marginalized within the community of faith. The word "brothers" is not incidental. It places the referent in a specific covenantal and familial relationship with Christ. This does not exclude broader applications of mercy — the hosts acknowledge that the principle may extend centrifugally outward — but the center of the text is the church's care for its own. This reading is consistent with Galatians 6:10 ("do good to all people, especially the household of faith"), with Acts 9 (where persecuting the church is persecuting Christ), and with the overall logic of the passage, in which belonging to the King is the decisive category. Memorable Quotes Their works flowed so naturally and unselfconsciously from a renewed heart that they scarcely remembered them, let alone regarded them as currency for salvation. — Jesse Schwamb Sheep are put on the right side because they are sheep, and goats are put on the left side because they are goats — not because they act like sheep or because they act like goats. Those characteristics flow from what they are. They don't make them what they are. — Tony Arsenal God provides grace. Now do all that you can do. That's the Christian way to look at things. He has prepared good works in advance for us to walk in. This is not some sort of measurement of whether or not you're in the kingdom. It's a description of what those who are in the kingdom look like and how they behave. — Tony Arsenal Full Transcript [00:00:08] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 499 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:13] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. Well, we're back. We're back in Matthew 25, and if you haven't been tracking with us for a little while, we've, we've talked about all the parables hanging out in Matthew 25. But what we've been talking about recently is this kind of surprise pop quiz, that's redundant, that Jesus kind of gives at the final judgment, and he talks about separating these groups into sheep, into goats, and the sheep aren't shocked that they get into heaven. They're shocked that their quiet, kind of unglamorous kindness apparently got tallied at all. And because all of these good works apparently are done from a heart already made new, have a way of sneaking past even their own doers' notice. But then there's this other group, the goats, and they learn the hard way that they never really did anything for anybody. And it's not a great look when your deeds are just faith's paper trail. And so Jesus has a lot to say to us in this, what we're calling, like, parable adjacent kind of message that he gives. Summarizing these three- Yeah ... great teachings, here comes all of this really direct and explicit instruction about, uh, the final judgment, which by the way is impossible for me now to hear or say without thinking of the final countdown. [00:02:30] Tony Arsenal: The final judgment.  [00:02:32] Jesse Schwamb: I was hope- I was hoping you would sing us into that, and it was beautiful. Yeah. It was fantastic.  I  [00:02:36] Tony Arsenal: try. I  try.  [00:02:37] Jesse Schwamb: So I think on this episode we got a lot to say in our ongoing conversation about this judgment, about these deeds, these works. What are they? What is their purpose, especially for these different groups of sheeps and goats? What's the deal?  [00:02:52] Affirm Deny Segment [00:02:52] Jesse Schwamb: So we'll get to all of that in just a second, but first, it's that blessed and glorious time in every Reformed Brotherhood conversation where we either affirm with something that is something that we really like, think is understated, that's really is not getting the attention, people are sleeping on, or conversely, we deny against something that just isn't that cool, just is not that great. So Tony, are you affirming with something or are you gonna deny against something today?  [00:03:17] Tony Arsenal: I'm affirming with something. I'm not sure how long this has been a thing. I stumbled upon it, uh, a little while ago, and it's been in my affirmations list for a couple weeks. Um, and I'm also not 100% sure that this is available to every Logos Bible user. So those are the caveats.  [00:03:33] Logos Minutes Reading Plans [00:03:33] Tony Arsenal: Um, what I stumbled upon is if you create a reading plan now, instead of saying, "I wanna finish this book by this date or in this number of sessions," uh, you can say, "I wanna finish this book by reading X minutes a day," which is great. Um, it's a, it's a feature that I've, I thought, like, why didn't they have this a long time ago? Because a lot of times you want to sort of set aside a certain amount of time a day. Maybe it's 15, 20 minutes of Bible reading. Maybe it's five minutes of Bible reading. Maybe it's 30 minutes of- Bavinck or Calvin or whatever you're reading. So what you can do now is you tell it the page range or you tell it, "I wanna read the whole book." Uh, you could do, you know, passages or verse ranges or sections of the Bible. And then where you normally in the next screen where it would ask you, uh, how many days you wanna read, how many sessions, or whether you wanna read until a certain date, there's a new option. And so it just divides that up based on the amount of time. What's really slick is it will actually break pages in half. Nice. So, like, if you have a short, um, either a short amount of pages that you wanna read, and it's kinda like I wanna read for two or three minutes a day, and two minutes is not a whole page. I run into this when I'm reading Matthew Henry when I'm preparing for sermons, because for whatever reason, uh, maybe it's just the Logos page pagination, but the pages are really long. Like, a one page of Matthew Henry's commentary will sometimes take, like, 10 or 15 minutes to read, which is obnoxious. Um, I think it's just that the pages are just, like... I don't know, I think it's just long pages. Um, but if you say I wanna read this one page and I wanna read for five minutes a day, it'll actually split the page up, um, into chunks based on the word count and whatnot. And obviously, that five minutes is, it's not calculating how quickly you read, like, uh, Kindle does sometimes when you're doing that.  [00:05:25] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:05:25] Tony Arsenal: Um, so it's basing that on an average reading speed. So if you're a little faster, uh, of a reader, then it'll be, you know, you'll get done a little quicker, and it might take you a little longer if you're slower. But it's a really slick feature, and I think it's, like I said, I think most of us If we wanna be diligent to read whatever it is we're reading, whether it's the Bible or other theological works, um, we want to set aside time, and we wanna sorta time block. We've talked a lot about productivity, um, in this podcast. We wanna, like, time block our time so it's protected and it's, it's set aside for that task or for that purpose, and this is a great way to do it. So you just put it on your calendar. You say, "I've got 15 minutes that's set aside to read the Bible in the morning, and I know that it's gonna be a digestible chunk." And then it's a, you know, it's no longer a, a date-bound reading plan, so there's no falling behind. If you miss a day, it just means you pick up the next day. Right. So it's a great way to do it. Again, not that there's anything wrong with time-bound reading plans or deadlines, but it's a little bit of a different way to make sure that you're getting into the Word or whatever book you're reading, uh, consistently. [00:06:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's definitely a feature that I think people are sleeping on in Logos. I have that too, so I don't know if, like you said, it is d- coupled with some kind of particular package or dependent on that.  [00:06:40] Stress Free Reading Habits [00:06:40] Jesse Schwamb: But generally, I think maybe we haven't spoken enough about, like, just making what- whatever it looks like, stress-free reading plans, because I was also reading some stuff by Ryan Holiday recently, and just the reminder of how there really is a fair amount of time to read, to actually consume, like- Yeah good written material. And really, it's maybe a little bit more about how, like, we understand walking and the benefits of walking now. You don't need to, like, set aside 20 or 30 minutes to go for a walk. Even going for, like, a quick burst of three to five minutes is so happy and healthful for you. And so I think- Yeah that in the same way, we actually do have more time to read than we think, and if you wanna, like, consume material and learn more things or just become more meditative in your thoughts spiritually, I think if you create the plan, that's just another thing to, like, help you on the way. But it's gotta be one that's, like, stress-free, like you're saying, and that's what I like about the Logos. You just set it up, and every time you go back into it, it's kinda asynchronous, and so, like, it just starts you off with wherever you're at. It's never gonna, like, pop up and be like, "You missed a day, and now you owe me 60 pages." Yeah. "Get on the ground and give it to me." Like, it's, it's not gonna be like that. So I love the joy of having the plan before you, and then that means that when the time comes, you're like, "Oh, I got a couple minutes," you can just go there. It can guide you into that reading, like, easily, succinctly, with low barriers, and make you feel happy and feel, like, that joy of reading again.  [00:08:04] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I, I think it's great. And, you know, I think sometimes we fall into this trap, and you kind of alluded to it. Like, you fall into this trap that if you don't, uh, if you don't have, like, 20, 30 minutes to sit and read, that it's not worth it. Right. Right. And I know I used to fall into that trap, where I felt like if I didn't sit down and read an entire chapter, that I somehow was not actually, like, getting the material. But I think most of us have some sort of regular, uh, like, waste time. Uh, and what I mean is, like, for me, I ride the bus home every, like, every day. Most days I ride the bus home, and I know that's about a 25, 30-minute period of time that, um, I can choose to, like, scroll Twitter, and that's fine. Like, it's fine to do that. I can listen to podcasts. Um, I can do all sorts of stuff. I play video games on my tablet. Um, or I could set aside 15 of those minutes and have a p- sort of a preset reading. And you will be surprised, or maybe you won't. Maybe I'm the only one who's been surprised at this, but I think you'll be surprised uh, to find how quickly you actually move through material, even at- Right something like five minutes a day. So just for example, Joel Beeke's, uh, Systematic Theology Volume 1 is about 28 hours worth of reading, at least according to Logos. If you set aside 15 minutes per day, you will finish that reading in approximately 114 sessions. So that's not that long. That's not bad. That's like a third of a year. That's not bad, yeah. So you could, you could read through all of Joel Beeke, which is thousands of pages. I mean, we're talking, we're talking four, four different five or 600 page volumes. Um, and this, this actually is counting, like, the table of contents and the index, so, like, not all of it is what you're gonna read. You could read through that whole thing in under a year and a half if you just set aside 10 or 15 minutes. Um, and obviously if you have more time, maybe you have a 45 minute, um, bus ride home or, you know, you, you regularly have doctor's appointments and you know you're gonna be in the waiting room two days a week every week or something like that, this is a great way to just make sure you've got something set aside. Like your dad always says, you always say, like, "Bring a book." Well- That's right ... this is not only bring a book, but it's bring a book with like a s- like a set chunk of that book set aside for that time period. So maybe it's your lunch break, maybe it's the walk in from the bus stop, whatever it is. Um, I think it's, it's pretty straightforward. And all the old features, like all the old ways of setting up reading plans are still there. They're not eliminating those. Um, and this is just a great way, I think, to get, kind of get your reps in. Like, sometimes you just have to do the work and- Right ... get your reps in.  [00:10:45] Jesse Schwamb: Get it.  [00:10:45] Tony Arsenal: And this is a low pressure, this is a low pressure way to do it. It's not, um, it's not setting aside specific amounts of, uh, dates or anything like that. So yeah, check it out. It's, it's super easy to access, it's the same way you would always make a reading, um, like a reading goal. Um, and you actually can still set a regular reading schedule even with this feature. You could still say, "I wanna read Monday, Wednesday, Friday." You could say, "I don't wanna have a schedule at all," which means you just, when you click on it, it just brings you to the next section, but there's never any reminders. So they actually really are, like, expanding the way that, uh, you're able to generate these reading plans. The one thing I wish they had that I'm not sure why they don't, I wish they had a dynamic catch-up feature where, like, if you were... You know, let's say I wanted to finish this book and I wanted to finish it by, I don't know, the end of the year, and I missed a couple days or I missed a week, I wish there was a way to push a button and have it just redistribute the remaining readings out across- Right ... what's left of the reading plan. That's not there. That's a... If you're listening, Logos, or someone who works at Logos, that's what we need. I've told you that before. Why haven't you listened to me? But, um, uh, yeah, we need that. But th- this is a good start too, because again, it's, it's not, um- It's not making you do a deadline. Right. So it's much more relaxed paced. [00:11:59] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly. Exactly. That's one of the things I love about it.  [00:12:03] Burst Reading Benefits [00:12:03] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, let me make, like, one more plea if you're, like, like you're listening and you're unconvinced about this burst style reading, and that is I've been so convinced that that kind of consumption can be really helpful to processing reading. Because especially if it's like, say you're reading something of the Puritans or something relatively deep, there is something to be said of course for, like, being able to sit down if you have all this time and just kind of read to get the flow. But what I think even there I struggle with is some things are worth stopping and thinking about, and this forces- Yeah ... some kind of meditation that happens in the background anyway, and I've found that to be so helpful. Like, it kind of just creates a little bit of attentional space by way of making you walk away from the thing that you just read. And also, if you know that you've only got this short little time span available, I think I'm prone to read kind of in a different way with a little bit more focus.  [00:12:52] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:12:53] Jesse Schwamb: And then I find myself really thinking about some of those things. And some of the things that you and I talk about, the things that we love to read, are worth stopping and considering. And so it's too easy to be like, "Well, I just, I need to hit the page number. I gotta get the count in. I wanna get this volume finished." Yeah. And that's great, but at the same time, like presumably, like we read to comprehend, we read to put into practice, we read to, like, help us build wisdom and to process the world and to understand things in a more robust and profound way, and that can really only happen with that kind of spacing. So this builds in some spacing, so embrace that as I think a feature and not a bug maybe of some good reading.  [00:13:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, it's funny you, you mentioned Ryan Holiday earlier. One of the things I appreciate about his, um, at least most of his books, I've only read the sort of the Stoic Wisdom series, but, um, he keeps his chapters super short. [00:13:40] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:13:40] Tony Arsenal: So, like, part of that is sort of the self-help grocery store format that he's, he's going for. Um, not that it's... It's not empty calories, that's not what I'm saying. I think sometimes that is implied there. But he keeps his chapters short, so it's very easy, like, to just pick up. I'm working through Discipline Is Destiny right now. It's the one I'm reading now. It's very easy to just pick it up and be like, "I'm gonna read one chapter," and it's, like, five, 10 minutes long. Um, and the chapters are... They're not identical, but they repeat enough themes that, like, y- you don't need to really, like, sit down and really, like, cram through it to get the concept. Right. But you'll read through and you'll get the concept over and over again. And I actually think the Puritans can... Some of the Puritans can be that same way, where they say the same thing- Right ... slightly differently over and over again. Um, another book that reminds me of that is, um, Knowing Christ by Mark Jones, which we talked, but that's a, it's weird that that's actually kind of an old book now. Um- Right ... I think it's coming up on close to a decade now since it came out. Um, but those chapters are super short, 10, 15 minutes. So this kind of at a burst reading, session reading, rap reading, whatever you wanna call it, it's actually super productive and it's, it is, you're right, it's very good for meditation because you are taking time to do it. You're doing it consistently, so it's kind of, it's kind of like hammering itself into your head. Um, but it's not, it's not so much time that it, you get, like, reading fatigue.  [00:15:01] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Right. Exactly. That's a beautiful thing.  [00:15:04] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:15:05] Jesse Schwamb: I, I agree. Like, it's reading all kinds of ways, but one of the things that Ryan Holiday was recently convicted me of is, like, he talks about how many things he's able to consume. People are always like, "How are you able to read all those books with all the traveling, all the different things, engagements that you have?" And he's like, "Because I just read all the time. I read when I'm-" Right ... waiting at the post office. I read when I have, like, literally three minutes between doing something or picking up a kid, that, that I read." And I don't know, I kinda like that idea. I, I... he's not ashamed to be like, "If that's... If I have 30 seconds, I probably just pull up a book," because I think that that's even- Yeah ... valuable space in which to consume good writing. So, and when I r- I, I, like, subscribe to all, maybe like you, like all these different feeds, all these lists. There are just- Yeah ... so many things I wanna read. My to-read list is so stacked, pun intended, and it's like books of- I know ... all kinds. And then I'm in this space now where I find that as I'm getting older, again, one, like suddenly birds continue to be interesting to me in new ways that I never anticipated, and the second thing is, like, suddenly I wanna read all this history. And so, like, now there's like this whole, where it never really appealed to me before, now there's like this, all this new, like, vistas opened up, and I'm like, "Who has time for this?" So- Yeah ... maybe the idea is to just, again, consume it in bites. And I'm beginning to really appreciate that as an effective strategy for not, like, re- necessarily reading more, but learning more, and learning it better. [00:16:26] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And I actually think it is probably an effective strategy for reading more for most people. I know it has been for me- True ... to just sit down and do, do a few minutes at a time. Um- Just get it ... I've got kids, there's work to do. Like, it's, y- you're not gonna be able to... Most, I think most of our listeners are probably not in a- stage of life anymore where you can really devote hours to study like you maybe you could when you were in your 20s, where you just- Right you had a job and you didn't have much else responsibility. You, you just, you know, you just had things to do. Uh, it's not like that for most of us anymore. So being able to take five, 10 minutes and, and read a book is probably a luxury, but it's probably a luxury that we could, we could probably structure our lives and make that more of a reality. Right. And this feature in Logos will help you do that with really any theological book you can practically think you wanna get your hands on that's available on Logos. So Jesse- Right ... we could talk about reading all night every night, and we- ... love to read, but that's not what this podcast is about today. So why don't you tell us what you're affirming or denying?  [00:17:27] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:17:27] Jesse Book Pick Perkins [00:17:27] Jesse Schwamb: Well, now, now I'm gonna switch it up because I had a book, and so, like, it just seems like people are gonna be like, "Oh, of course," and you just rolled right into that. So the quick affirmation is more Puritan stuff, A Perfect Redeemer by William Perkins. That's this week's book, so you should do that. I don't know if it's available on Logos. I presume that it is, and you can set up your own reading plan, and it's beautiful and amazing, and Perkins makes a case that true satisfaction isn't found in things, but in Christ. He tears down all these illusions of self-sufficiency and points us to rest fully in God's grace. It's beautiful. It's glorious. It's practical. It's like 27, to your point, Tony, 27, I think, like, really brief chapters. Perfect for the bus. Like, it's prime bus reading.  [00:18:05] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:18:06] Jesse Schwamb: So yeah, that's affirmation. Okay.  [00:18:07] Denial Dying Guitar Batteries [00:18:07] Jesse Schwamb: Here's a denial, 'cause I've rarely do denials, but as you were speaking I was reminded of one that came up this morning that maybe is only going to really resonate with a small group, but I think if you know, you know. I was actually, this denial was constructed out of a conversation I had with a dear brother this morning, who I think was sharing the denial with me, uh, but might have been suspicious entirely of what I was going after. But it's this. A lot of, I'm trying to think how to set this up properly so it's, like, explained to a wider audience. So a lot of guitar instruments, that's a weird way to say this, but, like, I'm talking about guitars that have to be plugged in, have some kind of, like, onboard electronics. But principally, like, electric instruments. I'm talking about, like, electric bass, electric guitar. They usually have what's called, like, a preamp in them, which means that the signal is essentially being set up before it goes to the board, and that process requires some power. And so generally those instruments have, like, a little, you know, battery that goes in them, uh, uh, different kinds. Here's my denial. I don't know why so many of these instruments, including the- most of the ones that I own, have no nothing, no indicator to tell you how close that battery is to dying. And so what happens is- Yeah you, I think every musician, everybody who plays an instrument of, of this nature has had this happen to them, where they need to play it in a critical environment, and then the battery dies. And why I'm denying this is because this came up for me yesterday, where I was, had the benefit of playing at a church event, but it was with my acoustic electric guitar. It, it's a Martin D-16. It's a beautiful guitar. But even the Martin, it doesn't have an indicator on it. And so, like, I always swap out the battery, which I think is probably pretty wasteful, because I knew I had to leave this guitar plugged in on stage for, like, almost two and a half hours before it was gonna be used, and whenever it's plugged in, it's drawing the power. And so, so many times you get halfway through, you're playing, you're in a worship set or you're making music with people, and it just goes out on you, and when it goes out, there's no way to get the sound back except for, at least in my instrument, you have to unplug it, you have to pop out the battery, you have to put it back in. There's no, nothing discreet about this. There's nothing convenient about this. And there's certainly nothing- ... like, noiseless about that, especially if the person running sound is not being- Doesn't know ... very, like, adept with how they're handling the instrument so that you don't, like, blow people's ears out as you try to replace the battery. So I'm just wondering about this. Like, come on, instrument manufacturers. I know it's probably not pretty to put this somewhere, but you could put it somewhere discreet. Here's what I just wanna say, though, finally. Um, please don't at me. I know that there are some, especially like acoustic electric guitars, Fender's a good example, like onboard Fishman pickups that have, like, the EQ box. Some of them do have this indicator, but not enough. And if it's, like, an electric guitar- Yeah ... I rarely see this on a pure electric guitar. So please, for the love, just put, like, a little light. Maybe, maybe it turns orange or yellow or red when, like, the battery's about to go. I just, I need to know, because it's, it's so nerve-wracking when you're playing and you're like, "Oh, no. When did I last change this battery? How much longer is this thing going to last?"  [00:21:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. You know, I'm, I'm wondering, um, maybe I don't know enough about electrical engineering, but I actually feel like being able to determine when a random battery is starting to lose charge is probably a fairly intricate process, so that might be why, like, there's not as many. It's funny, my Ibanez guitar, which I haven't, I haven't even taken out of its case in years, I just don't, don't have a, a, a real occasion for it anymore, um, it has an indicator on it. So it's funny that you say that 'cause, like-  [00:21:59] Jesse Schwamb: Some do  [00:22:00] Tony Arsenal: Not a cheap guitar, but it's, um- Right ... it's not, yeah, it's not like a super expensive guitar. Uh, and it does have a little indicator. It's just like a little blinking light when the battery- Yes ... starts to go, it just blinks. Um, but yeah, even then, it still... It's funny, I, um, when I was in like high school and, and first couple years of college, I helped out with youth ministry at my church quite a bit, and I would often be on the team that would go, like, down to the camp the day before to set up all the equipment and to, like, get everything ready. And I remember I was always, I was always being told like, "Make sure you change the batteries. Make sure you change the batteries." Right. And like- Right ... it was always my job first thing in the morning to go around to all the microphones and all the guitars and, like, change out all the batteries. And I remember thinking, "This is so wasteful." Right. But then I remember, like, the one time we didn't do it, and it, like, crashed in the middle of, like, the big... And again, like, I don't even know if I would support this model of camp ministry anymore, but it crashed in the middle of, like, the big worship set on, like, the, like, the emotional decision- Yeah for Jesus night. Your altar call- It crashed in the middle of it ... totally blown  [00:23:01] Jesse Schwamb: up.  [00:23:01] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and it, it, and it did. Like, it affected everything. We had to, like, stop and... So yeah, always, always change your batteries. Um, you know, like, I, you, I, when I was doing musical worship on a regular basis, I just had a couple, like, inexpensive rechargeable batteries that I would swap out at the beginning of each session. I would put the battery that was in my guitar into the charger and the battery that was in the charger into my guitar. Um, and those, those wear out over time too, so that- Right ... you know, that, that's not a healthy charging habit for those batteries, and you go through them faster. But it's better than throwing away a nine-volt battery every couple of, you know, couple of days, so. [00:23:37] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:23:37] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. That's annoying. It's, it's obnoxious when that happens. Um,  [00:23:40] Jesse Schwamb: that's, that's why I'm just straight denying against it. I suspect that this is a matter of aesthetics, and that many of these manufacturers don't wanna put something as ugly as a light somewhere on this beautiful instrument, even if it's in, like, a discreet place. That's my guess. Yeah,  [00:23:53] Tony Arsenal: maybe.  [00:23:54] Jesse Schwamb: I also theorize, like, why can't there be an intermediary pedal that would help us with this? So, like, many people, including myself, have a tuning pedal which you can essentially bypass, and you, you engage it when you wanna tune. Why can't that draw... I, I think it should be relatively straightforward, but who knows? But either way, all I need is just a heads-up. I don't need like a, "You have, you know, 16% left," or, "You have 2.67 hours left." I just need to know that it's not gonna fail me at this most critical time. Like, just tell me to swap it. That's all, that's all, that's all you have to say. Yeah. Just tell me to swap it. So I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but I think it might be a matter of, of beauty over function and purpose- Maybe ... because-  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's probably- Many, many are particular about that kind of thing Yeah. So anyway- Yeah ... yeah, I, that's maybe... I like what you said, Tony. It's maybe a good PSA. Like, change your batteries often and frequently. Don't be like me. Don't be in that position where all of a sudden, I remember I was leading some very acoustic worship on an evening service. It was a very full congregation, probably, like, 200 people. And, uh, we finished up, and somebody had to yell out, uh, "We can't hear your guitar at all." And I'm just up there playing. [00:25:01] Tony Arsenal: Ugh.  [00:25:01] Jesse Schwamb: And yeah. You know, it's distracting. It's one of those things. But-  [00:25:04] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...  [00:25:05] Jesse Schwamb: um, in the end... Uh, ironically, some people at the end of that were like, "Well, that was really great. It was much better than usual. We heard a lot less guitar." And I was like- ... "Okay."  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: My, um, my Ibanez, I never used it, but my Ibanez has an XLR cable in addition to the quarter-inch- Oh and the XLR provides power to the preamp. So that's- See, there you go ... the real solution is just to have a direct XLR, uh, XLR mic cable that goes in, uh, and then you bypass the direct box. Although then you can't, then you can't go into a tuner or pedal. Yes. So-  [00:25:33] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly ...  [00:25:34] Tony Arsenal: pros and cons. Yeah. But-  [00:25:35] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. It go- it, it, it's all over the place. But let, let's talk about- Yes ... judgment, shall we? Like, what, what-  [00:25:41] Tony Arsenal: Welcome, welcome to the Reformed Guitar Cast for the  [00:25:43] Jesse Schwamb: night. Yes. E- exactly. We could talk all day about books, reading, reading plans, study plans, productivity, and guitars. These are all beautiful things. And  [00:25:51] Tony Arsenal: batteries and  [00:25:52] Jesse Schwamb: electrics. And batteries. Of which, uh, allegedly you can ha- never have enough of any of those things in that group.  [00:25:57] Tony Arsenal: It's true.  [00:25:58] Back To Matthew 25 Reading [00:25:58] Jesse Schwamb: But let's talk about, uh, judgment. And I suppose we should go back to Matthew 25, which we've been hanging out in quite a bit. And someday we'll move out of this passage. Pro- probably not today, but someday- we will actually get beyond it. And I, I know, I know we're 25 minutes in, but I am gonna read again for all of us because Tony and I, you have been resolute in saying that the best parts of our conversations really are the scripture, hearing them and going through them with great depth and a deliberate kind of measured slowness, which we're unapologetic for. And so let's just go to Matthew 25. I'm gonna read verses 31 through 46 with a f- a fair amount of speed, but enough to get us to the place where again, I just want this to be familiar as we speak about it. "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brethren of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." Then he will also say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they themselves also will answer saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these, least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous unto eternal life  [00:28:27] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:28:29] Heavy Passage Rightly Used [00:28:29] Tony Arsenal: Like we said last week, this is a really kinda heavy passage. Um, and it can be, uh... Let me put it this way. It can be used to make, uh, believers fearful in the wrong way. I, I do think the, the passage is to instill fear of God and is inst- to drive us to good works. But it can be used in a way to sort of, as I mentioned last week, it can be used in a way to sort of say, "If you don't do all these good things and you don't measure up, then Jesus never knew you." Um, and, and it implies, or sometimes even fully says that, uh, Jesus comes to know us because of the good works that we do. Right. Right? And that's just not, um, that's just not Christian theology. That's not Reformed theology certainly. Um, it's, it's not Protestant theology, and it's not even really Roman Catholic theology down. Um, but this passage really is more about understanding what marks the life of a person who has already come to faith in Christ. That's right.  [00:29:30] Justification Not Two Stage [00:29:37] Tony Arsenal: What marks the life of someone who has been changed and transformed, uh, to be like their master, like their king. Um, so, so this passage doesn't try to teach us what we have to do to merit eternal life. Um, this isn't... A- and maybe we'll get into some of this, I don't know if we will or not, but this isn't sort of John Piper future justification, um, you know, on the basis of works, or future sa- salvation on the basis of works. Um, there's no two stages to justification, right? If we're justified, it's because Christ has imputed his righteousness to us. That's right. And what happens in the, in the final judgment, there's a real thing that happens, but it's not an assessment of whether or not we have done enough or been enough. It's the reassertion of the righteousness of Christ over us. So we'll, we'll get into that, we'll talk about it, but I wanted to make sure we set the frame for that, um, before we get into it. 'Cause sometimes when you talk about these passages, it's hard to talk about future judgment according to works, which is a genuine Christian reality, right? There's a future judgment according to works. But it's hard to talk about that without starting to sound a little bit like we're, we're earning our salvation or, like, our, our justification's in, like, sort of a second stage of review or something like that. So we'll, we'll get into that, but this is not, this is not works righteousness, this is not future justification, this is two stages of justification. [00:30:52] Jesse Schwamb: And that seems, like, very clear from the way that Jesus sets this whole up. The language is so beautifully gospelly centered and oriented.  [00:31:00] Inheritance Not Wages [00:31:00] Jesse Schwamb: Even behind the judgment, like, this curtain of judgment, when you, when you open it up, is the gospel in all of its fullness, and that begins with th- this idea of inheriting the kingdom. And inheritance, of course, is not wages. In fact, like, Paul makes this kind of, like, identical move in Romans 8 and in Galatians 4 where he basically emphasizes what Jesus is talking about here. That is, sons and daughters inherit, inherit. They don't earn a paycheck. An heir receives by virtue of relationship and not performance. And that single word is, I think in the judgment of, like, most of the Reformed understanding here, decisive for, like, reading this whole passage correctly. That whatever role these works mention in verses 35 and 36 play, they cannot be meritorious works. It's not the ground of the inheritance, because inheritances by definition are not earned. Yeah.  [00:31:51] Election Before Works [00:31:51] Jesse Schwamb: And then, like, right into the same kind of train of thought, the same line of reasoning, is this idea that, well, not only are you inheriting the kingdom, but all this was prepared for you before the foundation of the world. And here again is, like, the beautiful gospel in the form of this un- you know, eternal, like, unconditional election stated, like, very plainly. Now the kingdom isn't pr- w- was not prepared in response to, like, some kind of foreseen works. I think we talked about that last week, right? Did we talk about the cor- looking down the corridor, all that kind of weird stuff? Yeah.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yep.  [00:32:23] Jesse Schwamb: It was prepared in eternity past before any works, like good or bad, had been performed by anyone. And so that's, like, the true answer, in my opinion, to, like, any Pelagian or semi-Pelagian reading of this passage. The deepest cause of the sheep's blessedness long predates their deeds of mercy, and so their works are downstream of election and grace, not upstream of it. That's really good news. Like, that again is the Gospel, that all things are entrusted to, belong to God. God does all the verbs. However you want to say it, what we have here is true grace, and that their works are flowing out of that grace. And so because of that, there's no... It's, like, it would be insanity to boast in them, because that boasting would mean absolutely nothing. And so Jesus sidesteps that altogether by talking about inheriting the kingdom and having this all prepared for us before the foundation of the world. [00:33:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:33:15] Kingdom Language Clues [00:33:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and there's some interesting, um, I think some interesting text feature that I just noticed here that, um, I don't wanna read too much into it, but one of the things that's striking about this is the, the language around the sheep or around those on the, um, on the right of the king here. Um, there's much more of a communal, um, kingdom-type language, right? Uh, in the first section where it's talking about those on the right, uh, the word king is used repeatedly.  [00:33:45] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:33:45] Tony Arsenal: Right? And then when you get to the second section on those on the left, the ones that the, the, the righteous son of man does not know, um, it doesn't use the word king. And that's not, of course, not to say that he's not the king of those who are, you know, condemned. He's the king of all. But there is this, this, uh, obviously intentional, uh, choice to use the word king, and what, what is a king if not someone who has a kingdom and a people? Exactly. So there, there even baked into that simple linguistic feature is already this idea that the people he's speaking to are his people. And so, like I said, we've talked about parables and parable-adjacent teaching as kind of being sort of systematic language in story form, systematic theology in story form. Even here, we're seeing election, we're seeing definite atonement, right? The people are his people because he prepared this kingdom for them before the foundation of the world. [00:34:42] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:34:42] Tony Arsenal: Um, and then the, the people who aren't his, they don't even get to be associated with him as king. They don't even beg- get to, get to be associated with his kingdom. They're so far outside of the kingdom of heaven, outside of this kingdom, that even to say that the king is speaking to them is almost like, uh, it's almost like a contradiction, right? So, um- In sort of like common parlance, we might refer to another nation's king as King Charles or, you know, K- King whatever, um, or President so-and-so. But that person is not my king. Right. And so although, like, maybe there's some decorum just in general, and, like, politically it's wise, I'd have no obligation to call King Charles King Charles. Like, I can ... I ... He's not my king. I don't owe any obligation of, of fidelity to him or to his title or to his crown. Another funny example, um, recently, um, you know, I work, uh, at a hospital. We have a spiritual health or chaplaincy department, and there's some Catholic priests who are on staff there. And, um, the, the spiritual health department is part of the care experience group, which is the same group that my patient relations team is part of. And some- someone noticed that at, like, broader team group meetings, I don't refer to them as Father. I'm one of the only people in the room who just says Joakim or, you know, or Sam. Like, I don't ... And they don't mind. It doesn't bother them at all.  [00:36:03] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:36:04] Tony Arsenal: Um, and it's funny because someone asked me that, and I'm like, "Well, they're not my priest, and I, like, I don't acknowledge- Right their status as the Father. Like, there's actually some biblical reasons why I wouldn't do that." I think this is kind of sort of almost like, in a third person perspective, kind of the same thing. Like, the k- king, i- the, the Gospel writer here, Matt, is refusing to use the word king in relation to this Son of Man in relation to these people to say something about them, to say something about those people- Yes who are outside of the kingdom  [00:36:34] Jesse Schwamb: Yes, that's right on. It's a bit like, I suppose, in a, a lesser way, like there was a time... So you're married to my sister. There was a time where you weren't, we weren't Yeah ... uh, and during that time, like I, I was not in your family, nor were you in mine.  [00:36:48] Tony Arsenal: Right.  [00:36:48] Jesse Schwamb: And then at, when you married her, I am part of your family. Like you can't kick me out. As long as you're married to Ashley, I will be part of your family and you part of mine. Right. That's how it works. And so that identity proceeds, like it c- this is like confusion between identity sometimes and I think like harmony, and so many people wanna read this as like some kind of like harmonic reflection of the state of obedience of these persons, and therefore, if they had harmony, then they were in the kingdom, and that's getting it backwards. That they were part of God's kingdom by his family by definition of identity.  [00:37:20] Surprised Righteous Hearts [00:37:20] Jesse Schwamb: So that by the time like we get to verse 37 when Jesus is saying the, the righteous are gonna answer him and they're gonna say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?" I think that's one of the most like theologically important verses in this passage, which proves the point you just made. And I think it's often under-read because the righteous, they don't remember doing any of these things for Christ. They are surprised. They have like no self-conscious ledger of merit that they can point to, and that surprise I think is devastating to works righteousness reading of the passage because- Yes if these people were consciously stacking up merit to present at the judgment, then they would've kept a very careful account. But instead, their works flowed so naturally and unselfconsciously from a renewed heart that they scarcely remembered them, let alone like regarded them as currency for salvation. And so I think, I know there's been a lot written, you and I have talked about a lot about how people wanna parse this idea of works, understanding that it has some place, but what is that proper place? This I think does lead us into like the right focus in that kind of discussion because it's precisely what like the Reformed doctrine of sanctification would predict, and that is, you know, truly gracious affections I think issue in Christian practice as a reliable sign, hear me out here, but crucially that practice is not calculated or like self-res- referential. It's like the spontaneous fruit of transformed nature, as natural it is for a good tree to bring forth good fruit. And so the righteous in this passage, they're not the legalists that some would, I think, portray them to be or get worried that they are. They're not tallying good deeds. They're simply people who, having been made new, and who makes them new? God in Christ, right, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Because they've been made new, they just could not help but love their neighbor.  [00:39:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:13] Sheep And Goats Identity [00:39:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and, and you know, I think it's sometimes hard... We, we made the point last week that, um, the, the language in verse 32 where it says, uh, "He," He being the Son of Man, "He will separate one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats," that, that comparative as is the same language that introduces other parables. Right. And so the, the parable, parabolic element of this is a comparison to a shepherd separating two different kinds of animals in his, his bigger flock. Mm-hmm. I made the point that like we should be careful to overread sort of like what sheep are like into the behavior of those who are righteous on the right of Christ here. Um, because sheep are dumb, sheep do stupid things, sheep are disobedient. There, there's no use for like sheep to do good things and goats are not. And productive goats are also productive. Um, so what we should see though is that sheep are put on the right side because they are sheep, and goats are put on the, the left side because they are goats. Um, not because they act like sheep or because they act like goats, right? And so I think, yes, goats and sheep may have thinked behavioral, recognizable behavioral characteristics, but those characteristics flow from what they are. They don't make them what they are.  [00:40:35] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:40:35] Tony Arsenal: And so I think that's kind of what we see here in the parable, is the people on the, the right, the righteous on the right hand of the, the Son here, of the King as He sits on His glorious throne, the righteous simply do what righteous people do, right? They, they don't ... So much so, and again I think the shock of this is, is sort of the, the path of the teaching. The shock of this, the surprise of this on the part of the righteous are, uh, like it's palpable. And I think that when you actually talk to someone who is ... Think of the most sanctified, holy, righteous Christian you know, right? And I'm not gonna try to tell you who that is, but think of that person and think of a time that you have paid them a compliment or thanked them for doing the right thing.  [00:41:24] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:41:24] Tony Arsenal: They're like, "Oh, I didn't even think about that." Like, it's just not even on, not even on their radar. How many times have you, um, have you done a kind thing for someone at work and they like make a big deal out of it and you're like, "Oh, this is just I thought this is just what we do to each other. I thought we were just kind to each other." Um, and, and f- the flip side of this too is the, uh, the righteous in this parable or in this teaching, they're actually sort of like questioning the Lord's judgment in that they're saying like, "Wait a second, like w- why am I on the right here?" And He's like, "Well, uh, you were h- I was hungry and you fed me, and I, you know, I was thirsty and you gave me drink." And they're like, "When did we do that?" The flip side- Right ... of that is that those on the left, they're trying to justify themselves, right? They're trying to justify themselves, 'cause He's like, "Well, you didn't do these things. You're not my people." And they're like, "Well, when did we see you? When did we see you, when did you have these things happen and we didn't take care of it?" So the, the righteous are like surprised that this happened, and are almost questioning the fact that it's true, and the unrighteous are trying to justify themselves, basically blaming God. Bad judgment. It's not altogether, um... I forget which pro- I wanna say Micah or Malachi, one of those two, um, um, where the, the, um, God basically says, like, "Y- you, you're sinful people." And they're like, "When? When were we sinful people? Like, you tell me." Yeah. And then of course he does, 'cause it's the prophets. Right. But it's the same kind of thing. He comes to the, to the unrighteous in judgment. He says, "Depart from me, y- you cursed people." And then he says, "These are the, these are the things that have marked your life." And then they're like, "Where, when did that mark my life? Like, what are you talking about?" And he, he, the funny part is he doesn't give them an answer. He doesn't explain to them really. Right. He, he just like, "No, you can go, you can go away from me 'cause you." He does say like, "Well, you never, you did not do this to the least of these," and we, we need to unpack that phrase a little bit. But he doesn't give a long explanation to them justifying his judgment. He just makes the statement, basically makes the statement again, "You just didn't do it, so that's the consequence of eternal punishment." Um, again, not in like, "You didn't feed the poor, therefore you're going to hell" kind of a statement. It's more like, "You are not the kind of person that is a, a part of my kingdom." [00:43:48] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:43:49] Tony Arsenal: Without necessarily a firm statement about w- how that came to be, just a statement, "You are not the kind of person that is part of my kingdom." That's  [00:43:56] Jesse Schwamb: right. That's right. I think that's actually very evident in these, like, six concrete works of mercy which are listed, feeding, giving drink, hospitality to strangers, clothing, visiting the sick, uh, visiting the imprisoned. And as we've said before, those are not extraordinary feats. I mean, there's no mention- Right ... of miracles or doctrinal precision or heroic martyrdom. Yeah. It's just these ordinary, super unglamorous ministry of practical love, and I think that is significant, like you're saying, because it is a mark of true faith, this idea that it's found frequently not in spectacular religious performance, which is what some of the audience is probably after, honestly, but in this quiet but costly unnoticed compassion. And I think that is critical to understanding that those who have been identified and marked by Christ undertake these things with a seriousness, under being willing to bear the c- the cross and the curses and the cost of all those things, uh, because it is born out of a transformed life, one that has been re-identified almost as it were a new creation. And so that- Yeah ... created man does these things without putting the notches on the belts, so to speak, to tally them up because I think to that person that would be insane. What is the purpose of doing that? If I can't earn my salvation, I'm doing these things anyway. It, it wouldn't even matter. It's like trying to pay a bill that you have no money for anyway. Why would you then try to count the dollars that you have in your pocket to see if for some reason you could cover the cost? It's impossible. Yeah. And so everything changes to such a degree that I know we keep saying, like, surprised, and that is what is kind of manifested in the passage. But it's, it's not kind of like the shock of like, "I don't know what you're talking about." It's more, it's more this idea of, again, I think those being brought forward at the final judgment, and it's almost as if Jesus is saying, "You are coming into this kingdom- Because, or you are being, uh, allowed, so to speak, to come into my presence in the fullness because you did all those things. And their surprise is almost as to say, "Well, why would those things bring me into the fullness if I've, in fact, have inherited it because you've called me your own?" Does that make sense? Like, I think it's- Yeah ... there's a little bit gone there- Yeah ... that's not just they're kind of like, "Oh, this slipped my mind," or, uh, "It came so easy to me that I didn't even know I was doing it." I think it was more about the g- we should just get to the least of these then, right? Like, what does it mean- Yeah that they did these to the least of these, and how does that surprise fit into that?  [00:46:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:46:20] Least Of These Explained [00:46:20] Tony Arsenal: The other element of this that I think is super important for us to cover in the 10 minutes or so we have left. Um, this phrase, "the least of these," right? Yes. And, and this, this can really cause this passage to be misunderstood  Um, I wanna s- loud and clear, uh, taking care of the poor in our society, you know, mercy ministries outside of the church, those things are all good, and I think scripture makes an argument that we should be engaged in those, both individually and also that the church has an obligation to, um, to meet some practical needs of those who are destitute around it. Um, but that's not what this passage is saying, right? Right. So when we look at the phrase "the least" first, first thing that, that comes off here, right, in verse 40 where this phrase first appears, "Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me." Right? This is not a general statement. The least of these are not, like, the lowest and meekest and poorest of the world. The least of these my brothers referring to those who belong to Christ. Right. Those who are related to me. And, and I actually think that that, that is probably, like, the hallmark of passage. Beyond, um, what we've talked about already of just sort of like not being about works righteousness, this is really about being a part of the church, right? They're marked by the fact that they have inherited this kingdom which was prepared for them before the foundation of the world. They're marked by the fact that, uh, they are the people of this king, so much so that the other people aren't e- the word king can't even appear in association with these other people. And this last part, they're marked by the way they have treated those in whom they are with c- in, in community with, right? They're marked by the way they have treated those who are related to the king by blood, who are adopted, who are married to the king, who are in, in the family of the king, his brothers. [00:48:17] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. Okay.  [00:48:18] Tony Arsenal: So this is painting a picture of kind of what we see, right? W- we see in, uh, Galatians, right? Um, "Do, do good to all people, especially the household of faith." Mm-hmm. Right? Uh, our own tagline, "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood," right? That's, that's a statement of like, yes, you're supposed to be kind to all people, but you're especially supposed to be kind and be committed to and taking care of those who are in the household of faith, who are in the church. That is what this passage is about. That is what marks those people who belong to the king. The sheep are part of the sh- part of the sheep because they're in that same flock, because they- Right ... are ontologically, they've been made new and they've been renewed into this new creation as sheep. Um, that's what this passage is getting at. And then the people who, uh, who are not a part of that, they, they have not done anything with the church. They're not associated with the church. They didn't take care of the church. They didn't, they didn't feed the church. They didn't do anything with that. And this, this again, like, think about, like, Acts chapter, you know, when, when, um, when Paul is, when Saul is called by Christ, right? "When did I persecute you?" "Well, you, why are you persecuting me, Saul? Well, you persecuted my people." So this, this passage ties a lot of those same s- same threads together- Yeah ... in a way that I think presents this really cohesive picture of what it is that's going on. This is not works righteousness. Right. [00:49:37] Serving Christ In Church [00:49:37] Tony Arsenal: This is an assessment of the fact that you are, in fact, a m- a member of the people of God, that you have been engrafted into Christ and have become a part of his body. And just as he is our head, we are his body. The people who are cast out, the reason he never knew them is 'cause they've never been engrafted into him. [00:49:55] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Sometimes this does, I think, get read and defined as, like, the all the poor and suffering writ large, which is helpful, but I don't think, like, the dominant view here, at least in my perspective. And you, and you tell me otherwise. Yeah. Because, uh, on this view, of course, like, Christ does identify with all who suffer, and that maybe mercy to any sufferer is mercy to him. I think that could be partly correct, part reflection and application here. However, the stronger view, I think, e- like, even historically, is that- Really we're talking about, especially when we get to, like, visiting those in prison, the, the persecuted or itinerant Christian missionary. When we're talking about the imprisonment and persecution language is, that especially suits believers suffering for the gospel's sake, not merely the poor in general. Now, is, are there ways for us as Christians to embody the gospel and to be a witness for Christ by going out and performing acts of social justice? I would say yes, if you connect those items explicitly to the gospel. That is, that you make it clear your emphasis, genesis, your volition comes through this message of who Christ is. Otherwise, there's plenty of institutions doing very good things, and I don't necessarily, what's in view here i

Fr. Carlos Martins opens the mailbag. In one sitting he takes on venerating relics, praying holy curses, biblically laying off people who feel like family, staying hopeful while single at 40, and how to tell God's voice from your own. Blunt, funny, and unsparing, the exorcist without a script.Thanks to our SponsorsGet 25% Off Cowboy Colostrum with code EXFILES at https://www.cowboycolostrum.com/EXFILES.Go to wildalaskan.com/EXFILES for $35 off your first order of premium, wild-caught seafood.Live Better Longer with BUBS Naturals. For A limited time get 20% Off your entire order with code EXFILES20 at Bubsnaturals.comHead to Exodus90.com/exfiles and start your 14 day free trial. Seek the Lord...see what happens!Timestamps:0:00 | Cold open, “ask any demon”0:24 | Welcome to the Q&A1:08 | Closest calls in the exorcism room2:30 | Relic cards down the sleeves4:33 | Alessandro: murderer turned saint5:07 | Father's perfect Sabbath6:18 | A Protestant's honest question about relics8:52 | What a demon reveals about a relic10:24 | The object itself is holy11:21 | St. Anthony's incorrupt tongue12:12 | Cowboy Collostrum and Wild Alaskan15:55 | Laying off people who feel like family18:27 | Holy curses vs. praying for enemies22:30 | The clinic that never turned a profit24:13 | “I'm 40 and single”27:58 | The three ugliest qualities29:17 | Exodus90 and Bubs Naturals31:10 | Does God grant the desire or remove it?34:29 | Inside Catholic premarital prep39:59 | “I heard the Lord say”42:26 | The echo test46:42 | How to deliver a hard word56:10 | What makes a great exorcist59:26 | No fear of the Prince of Darkness1:00:31 | Reconciliation after a friendship ends1:08:40 | Close: “stay demon free”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Was the Protestant Reformation ever truly global? How did radical theology, empire, slavery and missionary ambition collide across the early modern world?The global spread of Christianity was marked by failure, compromise and moral evasion.Professor Suzannah Lipscomb is joined by Dr. Alec Ryrie to uncover the forgotten history of Protestant missions beyond Europe: from Lapland to Chile, from Barbados to Taiwan.MOREWhat did Henry VIII Believe?Listen on AppleListen on SpotifyDissolution of the MonasteriesListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb. The researcher is Max Wintle, audio editor is Amy Haddow and the producer is Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Not Just the Tudors is a History Hit podcastSign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week PLUS early access, ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this special episode, I'm sharing the prologue to my forthcoming book, American Caesar: How Theocrats and Tech Lords Are Turning America into a Monarchy, which will be published on September 15, 2026. The story begins with my own experience as a teenager in evangelical Christianity—and with the way my understanding of Jesus, America, and the role of Christians in public life has changed over the past three decades. From the “missional” church movement of the 1990s to the rise of Christian nationalism, civilizational supremacy, and the growing embrace of authoritarian power, this prologue explores how “Jesus is King” has become not only a statement of faith, but a political demand. This is a sneak peek at American Caesar, a book about the religious and ideological movements reshaping American democracy—and the future of the country I call home. American Caesar: ⁠https://static.macmillan.com/static/essentials/american-caesar-9781250427922/⁠ From Silicon Valley boardrooms to rural pulpits, from Catholic monasteries to Beltway think tanks and Project 2025, a convergence is underway. Reactionary Catholics dream of a new Christendom. Protestant pastors invoke divine right over democratic rule. Tech billionaires, led by the likes of Peter Thiel, argue that freedom and democracy are incompatible. Their solution? A singular ruler to bring “order” out of what they see as liberal chaos.With a theologian's sensibility, a journalist's touch, and a historian's eye for how movements evolve and adapt, Dr. Bradley B. Onishi traces the strange alliance between spiritual warfare and Silicon Valley libertarianism. At the center of it all is the desire for an unbound executive—one man, beyond checks, beyond balance, beyond democracy. This isn't nostalgia for the 1950s. It's an organized attempt to abandon the American experiment altogether. A former insider turned academic expert, Onishi brings unmatched depth to this investigation—tracing his own path from evangelical pastor to co-host of Straight White American Jesus, the nation's leading religion and politics podcast.As the 2024 election fades into history and a new political order takes shape, American Caesar is not just a warning. It's a map of how we got here—and a call to act before the Republic as we know it becomes just another chapter in a forgotten history book. American Caesar: https://static.macmillan.com/static/essentials/american-caesar-9781250427922/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is religious pluralism a blessing to society, or does false worship harm the commonwealth? In this episode of The Magistrate, Josh Howard and James Baird examine the limits of religious pluralism, the difference between denominational diversity and false worship, and why religious neutrality in civil government is impossible. Drawing from Scripture, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Charles Hodge, and the historic Protestant tradition, they argue that false worship is never morally neutral and that civil government must ultimately be ordered according to God's moral law for the good of society. Topics include: Religious pluralism Christian nationalism False worship Church and state Protestant political theology Civil magistrates Religious liberty George Gillespie Samuel Rutherford

Welcome to Day 2911 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. Day 2911 – Theology Thursday – Heresy: Meaning, History, and Misuse Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2911 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps!   I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2911 of our Trek.   The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God's Word. John's lessons can be found on his website   theology infive.com.   Today's lesson is titled: Heresy: Meaning, History, and Misuse. The word heresy comes from the Greek hairesis, which originally meant “choice” or “faction.” In the New Testament, it began to carry the weight of theological rebellion. It referred to false teaching that breaks fellowship and corrupts the truth. Heresy is not simply error or misunderstanding. It is deviation from the foundational truths of the gospel, concerning who God is, who Christ is, and what salvation requires. The apostle Paul warned against such distortions, calling out those who pervert the message of grace and urging Titus to reject those who sow division after being warned. Heresy is not measured by how controversial an idea is, but by whether it distorts the saving message of Christ or promotes a false gospel. In that sense, heresy is deadly. It is not just wrong. It is soul-destroying. The first segment is: The Struggle for Doctrinal Clarity in the Early Church The early church faced enormous pressure to define and defend the truth. As Christianity spread across the Roman world, it encountered competing philosophies and religious systems. Some sought to harmonize the gospel with these foreign ideas, leading to teachings that retained the vocabulary of Christianity but not its meaning. This is where heresy found fertile ground. Among the earliest and most dangerous of these teachings was Gnosticism, which rejected the goodness of creation and denied the full humanity of Christ. Marcionism took a more radical path by discarding the Old Testament and portraying the God of Israel as cruel and inferior. Pelagianism undermined the doctrine of sin by teaching that humans could achieve righteousness without divine grace. Each of these required a response, not out of fear of disagreement, but out of pastoral urgency to protect the flock from destructive error. No heresy had a greater impact, both theologically and politically, than Arianism. The teaching of Arius, that the Son was a created being and not fully divine, directly challenged the very identity of Christ. Although condemned at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Arianism did not die. It took root in the outer regions of the Roman Empire and sowed seeds of division that helped bring about its collapse. The second segment is: Arianism and the Fragmentation of the Western Empire. The theological consequences of Arianism were clear. It reduced Christ to a lesser being, stripping the gospel of its divine foundation. Its political consequences were just as devastating. While the Roman Church clung to Nicene orthodoxy, many of the Germanic tribes who bordered the empire were converted to Arian Christianity. Missionaries like Ulfilas brought a version of the gospel that bore Christ's name but denied His nature. When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 AD, they did so not as pagans but as heretical Christians. The same was true of the Vandals and later the Ostrogoths, whose kings ruled Italy while holding to Arian doctrine. The theological divide between ruler and people, between Church and state, tore at the fabric of Western society. The Church could not fully unify with leaders who confessed a false Christ, and the people remained culturally alienated from their kings. This division made the Western Roman Empire vulnerable. It robbed the empire of a unifying spiritual identity at the very moment it needed cohesion to survive external threats. Though not the only factor in Rome's collapse, Arianism was a theological wedge that fractured its heart. By the time Justinian reconquered parts of the West and reimposed Nicene orthodoxy in the sixth century, the Western Empire was a shadow of what it had been. A heresy that began in theological debate had helped bring down a civilization. The third segment is: When Everything Becomes Heresy. Over time, the word heresy lost its theological precision. Instead of referring to soul-endangering errors about God, Christ, and salvation, it began to be applied to any disagreement or dissent. This shift had tragic consequences. In some periods of church history, those who merely questioned traditional practices or sought to reform corruption were branded as heretics. The term became a tool for control rather than a measure of truth. Even within Protestant traditions, theological disagreements over baptism, church polity, or spiritual gifts have sometimes been exaggerated into accusations of heresy, dividing believers unnecessarily. This misuse of the term does not protect the church. It weakens it. When every disagreement is labeled heresy, the word loses its force, and the real dangers become harder to identify. Instead of guarding the flock, the misuse of heresy becomes a way to suppress thought, enforce conformity, or settle personal disputes. Ironically, some modern cults and false teachers now invert the accusation. They call orthodox Christianity heretical because it does not conform to their reimagined doctrines. The charge of heresy has become, in some cases, a mirror for pride rather than a tool of discernment. The fourth segment is: A Modern Example: Is Pre-Tribulation Rapture Heresy? In contemporary evangelical circles, one of the most fiercely debated doctrines is the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. This is the idea that believers will be taken up to heaven before a future period of global tribulation. Popularized in the 19th and 20th centuries, this view has deeply shaped modern Christian imagination. But is it heresy? The answer is no. Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology, while likely incorrect and theologically shallow, does not deny the core tenets of the faith. It affirms the Trinity, the incarnation, the death and resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith. It is not heresy in the biblical or historical sense. That said, its influence is not neutral. When taught dogmatically, it can create a fragile form of faith, one that collapses under suffering or real-world trials. It fosters escapism and disengagement, tempting believers to wait for rescue rather than prepare for endurance. In some circles, the view has even been elevated to a test of orthodoxy, dividing churches and condemning dissenters. In these cases, the danger lies not in the doctrine itself, but in the way it is wielded. This example highlights the difference between heresy and error. Not every mistaken belief is heresy, but not every non-heresy is harmless. Pre-Tribulationism must be confronted with Scripture and pastoral clarity, not because it damns the soul, but because it distorts Christian hope and undermines discipleship. The fifth segment is: Holding the Line Without Crossing It In guarding the truth, the Church must walk a narrow path. On one side lies indifference, where everything is tolerated and nothing is contended for. On the other lies arrogance, where every disagreement is treated as a threat and the word heresy is used like a club. Both lead to ruin. The example of Arianism shows that heresy is real, and its effects are catastrophic. But the misuse of the term reveals a different kind of danger — the slow erosion of discernment and the collapse of Christian charity. We must learn again to distinguish between essential and non-essential doctrines, between errors that must be confronted and differences that can be endured. This requires returning to the Scriptures, testing every teaching, and holding fast to what is good. It also means learning from the early church, which took truth seriously without descending into tyranny. They did not shy away from calling out heresy, but they did so with care, consistency, and a clear understanding of what was at stake. In Conclusion Heresy is not a word to be thrown around lightly. It refers to spiritual poison, distortions of God's truth that lead people away from salvation. The Church has always had to fight for the gospel, and that fight continues today. But if the sword of truth is swung wildly, it wounds the innocent and weakens the body. By understanding what heresy truly is, and what it is not, we honor the truth, protect the church, and point people back to the grace of Christ. Not every error is heresy. But every misuse of the word heresy threatens to create new errors of its own. For further study, consider these...

What are the real differences between Evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism? Why do these differences matter for the gospel, authority, salvation, the church, and the Christian life?Join us for a serious, lively, and respectful conversation with Joel from The Think Institute and Andrew from DragonFistTV as we dive into one of the most important theological discussions in the Christian world today.Stay until the end if you want to hear the LIVE Q&A.Watch my whole Apologetics Answers playlist here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfSpUNYR5qo6sv8Pk8x0tmaq8lLQHHlTm&si=FlnSB-pBhZ6SSaJE

Andy BurnhamAs I conclude this column on Monday afternoon Andy Burnham is taking up his position as British Prime Minister. As I dispatch these lines he is addressing the media and supporters outside 10 Downing Street. I wish him well. I also hope he will be the last British Prime Minister to interfere in Irish affairs. Our ambition is for the people of Ireland to govern ourselves. As soon as possible. When that happens we will govern Ireland in the interests of Ireland. Mr Burnham, like every British PM governs in the interests of the English establishment. He like his predecessors is a Unionist. Let's work to ensure that he is the Prime Minister who ends the Union.‘Women's Voices, Hopes for a New Ireland'Féile an Phobail is the launch pad each year of exiting new projects, and especially new books. One such book this year is ‘Women's Voices, Hopes for a New Ireland.' The book is published by Sinn Féin's Commission on the Future of Ireland and will launched at 1pm on 4th August in Áras Uí Chonghaile by Uachtarán Shinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald TD.The book is compiled and edited by Grace McDermott and Aoife Ferguson and is an innovative collection of contributions from 62 women across Ireland and the diaspora sharing their hopes for the future and a new Ireland.The women are drawn from all sections of society. They are writers, actors, musicians, community workers, political activists, health workers. They include Protestant voices. This book is a mixture of written contributions, poetry, song lyrics and artwork. They reflect the experiences of these women to partition and a society that has often held them down, treated them as second-class citizens and pushed them to the margins of history.The book is being launched at this years' Féile an Phobail. The launch will be ion 4th August in Áras Uí Chonghaile on 4 August. You can register to attend here: Women's Voices- Hopes for a New Ireland Tickets, Tuesday, August 4  •  1 PM - 2 PM | EventbriteIt will also be launched at the Derry Féile on the 12 August in Cultúrlann Uí Chanáin, 37 Great James Street Derry BT48 7DF at 2pm and other events are being planned.It will be available from An Fhuiseog 55 Bóthar na bhFál, BT12 4PD, https://anfhuiseog.ie/And https://sinnfeinbookshop.com/Water Crisis in GazaImagine in the midst of this very hot, and dry weather you did not have access to fresh drinking water. Could not have a shower or bath. Wash clothes. Prepare food. Make tea or coffee whenever you want. Fill a water container for storage  in the fridge for a cold drink. Have a fridge?That is the reality of life for almost two million women and children and men living in the Gaza Strip. Israel's genocidal policies has resulted in the deliberate and targeted destruction of water, sanitation and hygiene systems (in Gaza. It has created a humanitarian catastrophe. This is especially true for women who are pregnant or are menstruating. According to a recent Oxfam report, women cannot get the water they need to keep clean and hydrated.It reports that the extensive damage to water networks, treatment facilities, and sewage systems “has crushed water production, so it is a fraction of pre-October 2023 levels.” In addition, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has revealed that Gaza's water production has dropped to less than a quarter of what it was three years ago and that 89% of water plants and sewage facilities “have been destroyed or partially damaged.”For a family in the west it's a simple matter to turn the water tap on to access all you need. In Gaza average daily use of water per person has dropped from the minimum humanitarian standard of 15 litres per day to around three litres.Rubber Bullet injures Marwan BarghoutiRegular readers will know that I have written recently on several occasions about the imprisonment and torture of Palestinian prisoner Marwan Barghouti. Marwan, now aged 67, has been held in Israeli prisons for 24 years after a widely criticised show trial in 2002. He is a senior leader in Fatah and is viewed by Palestinians as their Nelson Mandela.Over the years he has endured significant brutality but the most recent occurred in Ganot prison several weeks ago when a prison guard entered his cell and shot him in the leg with a rubber bullet. During the decades of conflict in the North rubber and plastic bullets were frequently used by the RUC and British Army. They were an attempt to terrorise citizens. Seventeen people were killed by rubber and plastic bullets. Eight of these were children and all but one was from nationalist areas.However, the Israeli rubber bullets are of a significantly different design to those used here. Israel's rubber bullets are “steel covered with a thin rubber coat.” They cause more fatalities and life changing injuries.Marwan's son Arab Barghouti, said the family only learned about the incident from his father's lawyer and that Barghouti had not received medical treatment for the injury. Two weeks ago the Arab League called for an international commission of inquiry into what it said were "repeated assaults" on Barghouti. So support freedom for Marwan Barghouti. Log on to https://freemarwan.org/Methodism and the Peace Process‘From Feakle to the Falls and Derry's Wall - Methodism and the Peace Process, 1985-2025 by David Gallagher is an important book and a significant contribution to the discussion on peace-making in Ireland.David has been a member of the Methodist Church in Ireland's Council on Social Responsibility since 1986. He was the Northern Executive's Lay Secretary from 1990 to 2003. His book is a detailed and critical assessment of the role of Methodism and I'm still reading it.I have a firm belief that all of us have a story to tell. My personal focus has been on republicans and working class people telling our story but the truth is the right and the need to tell our own story belongs to everyone. And the Methodists have a story worth telling. So well done David Gallagher.David will be taking part in Féile an Phobail on 1pm on the 31st July in St. Mary's University College on the Falls Road. The book is available at An Fhuiseog 55 Bóthar na bhFál, BT12 4PD, https://anfhuiseog.ie/

In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by my friend theologian, Bible scholar, and former Protestant pastor Dr. John Bergsma to dig into one of the most nefarious misconceptions about the Catholic Church versus Protestantism and, cordially, share some of his shocking conclusions. Is Protestantism really more "Biblical" than Catholicism? Dr. Bergsma says, no. On topics of how the Church is organized, what worship looks like, what Jesus taught, how authority is passed on, and how decisions and interpretations of Scripture are made Dr. Bergsma shows, over and over again, that the Catholic Church is more closely aligned to Scripture than Protestantism at its very core.This is a truly fantastic episode!For more from Dr. Bergsma visit his website. Check out this book Stunned by Scripture from Our Sunday Visitor Press and his podcast of the same name.To purchase any of John's fine books visit the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on  episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests.To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our YouTube channel.Please consider financially supporting this show!For more information visit the Patreon page.  All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me.If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page.Thank you to those already supporting the show!Theme Music: "Splendor (Intro)" by Former Ruins. Learn more at formerruins.com or listen on Spotify, Apple Music, and Bandcamp.A very special thanks to our Patreon co-producers who make this show possible: Amanda, Elli and Tom, Fr. Larry, Gina, Heather, James, Jorg, Michelle, Noah, Robert, Shelby, Susanne and Victor, and William.Beyond The BeaconJoin Bishop Kevin Sweeney for inspired interviews with Catholics living out our faith!Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showFind and follow The Cordial Catholic on social media:Instagram: @cordialcatholicTwitter: @cordialcatholicYouTube: /thecordialcatholicFacebook: The Cordial CatholicTikTok: @cordialcatholic

Lifeway, a Christian publishing organization, performs a research study called Living Unashamed. In their recent study, they asked Protestant churchgoers whether they agreed with the statement, “Many people who know me are not aware I am a Christian.”  In 2013, 14% of polled churchgoers strongly agreed that others wouldn't know them as Christians. Unfortunately, that number has now dramatically increased to 30%.   Protestant Churchgoers have more than doubled in hiding ... The post Living Unashamed appeared first on Unconventional Business Network.

Bishop Paprocki says SSPX is basically a Protestant Sect Today's Sponsors: https://iCatholicMobile.com Visit iCatholicMobile.com and switch to a faithful Catholic phone coverage or call 802-988-6588 https://www.wildalaskan.com/TAYLOR Get $35 off your first box of wild-caught, sustainable seafood—delivered right to your door. Real Estate for Life: https://realestateforlife.org/ (and select "Dr. Taylor Marshall Show") Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode Trent chats with Church of Christ minister Marco Arroyo about his visit to Trent's parish and their recent jiu-jitsu match. To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent [NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/ Be sure to keep up with our socials! https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast

Jonathan Healey, The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England, 1603–1689. The final segment covers the reign of James II, whose open Catholicism and attempts to bypass Parliament alienated his natural Tory supporters. This tension birthed England's first political parties: the Whigs and the Tories. When James had a son, raising the prospect of a perpetual Catholic dynasty, seven leaders invited William of Orange to intervene. William landed in 1688, and James II fled, resulting in the Glorious Revolution. The era concluded with William and Mary as Protestant regents, establishing a constitutional framework that profoundly influenced the founding fathers of America. (8)1655

From the "It Matters" sermon series. Preached by Ben Burlingham.

Want more discipleship resources? Visit emetministry. orgHelp Us Reach the Lost: Support Emet Campus Ministry- https://emet-campus-ministry.churchcenter. com/giving/to/ecm-general-fundHelp Us Make More Resources: Support Emet Ministries- emetministry.churchcenter. com/givingFollow us on Instagram: @emetministry and @everytuesdayat7Christian's Reading List: goodreads.com/user/show/74696644-christian-barrettIs the Protestant Reformation over? After visiting Rome and exploring its churches, basilicas, religious art, and historic Christian sites, I came away with five important observations about Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and the state of Christianity in Rome today.In this video, I examine the continued role of indulgences in Roman Catholic theology and practice, the prominence of Mary in Catholic devotion, and the way many of Rome's churches can feel more like museums than places of Christian worship. I also consider whether Rome is truly as Christian as it appears and why the theological issues raised during the Protestant Reformation still matter for Christians today.At the same time, Rome possesses a remarkably rich Christian history. From the witness of the early church to the legacy of Christian art, architecture, martyrs, and theologians, Rome remains an important place for understanding church history. The goal of this video is not simply to criticize, but to evaluate what I observed through the lens of Scripture and the gospel. What do you think? Is the Reformation over, or do the differences between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism still matter?00:00 - Is Rome Really Christian?00:29 - Five Lessons Rome Teaches About Roman Catholicism02:40 - Is the Protestant Reformation Over?11:26 - Indulgences in Modern Roman Catholic Theology19:56 - Are Rome's Churches Becoming Museums?23:10 - Mary in Rome: Veneration or Adoration?28:47 - Rome's Rich Christian History and TraditionSubscribe to Emet Ministries for more videos on Christian theology, church history, apologetics, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and how Christians can faithfully engage the culture.Check out these sources we love and use our Amazon Affiliate Link: Knowing God - https://amzn. to/3ScwPh4The Holiness of God - https://amzn. to/4ouI7sSThe Resurrection of Jesus - https://amzn. to/4ouitVeWhat is the Gospel - https://amzn. to/4oAFqpUWhat it means to be Protestant - https://amzn. to/3Qkt8W32,000 Years of Christ's Power Vol 1 - https://amzn. to/4edGaxF#romancatholicism #protestantreformation #rome #churchhistory #catholicism #travel

Patrick offers insight on tough family situations, Catholic apologetics, forgiveness, and faith struggles, switching from serious to humorous in a heartbeat. He answers questions about estrangement, church controversies, the afterlife, and overcoming regret. Wisdom, encouragement, and relief land side by side as Patrick fields anxious callers, breaks down doctrine, and finds laughter in the ordinary. Jennifer - Please recommend a Bible for 17-year-old nephew who has had no religious formation. I’m feeling inspired but need advice. (00:42) Ben - 1 Corinthians 2:16: St. Paul says we have the mind of Christ. What does that mean? (06:18) Lee (email) – You guys think you’re so funny (12:22) Jan - Can you recommend a book or program for high school boys to teach them to become men through a Catholic lens? (16:23) Ellie (email) - You took a call this morning from a gentleman who asked if the Hindu religion is older than Christianity and you said, yes, it is, but big deal. You also frequently remind us of the chronology of Catholicism vis-a-vis the umpteen Protestant denominations and you emphasize that, look, Catholicism is older than all of those others. Why, then, don't you say that Hinduism is older than Catholicism, so maybe Hinduism is on to something? I guess what I'm asking is, how can we have it both ways? How can we dismiss everything that came after Catholicism but we don't dismiss Catholicism which came after Hinduism? (22:45) Jose - My brother drifted away from Church. He sends me daily devotionals, but they don't agree with our Faith. How should I handle this? (27:55) Lori (email) – Is it OK to go to a free clinic that is operated by a mosque? (32:03) James - A friend said if you die, you cannot be judged or go to heaven or hell because Jesus hasn't come back yet, so where do they go in the meantime? (37:47) AC (email) - How can I finally forgive myself for yelling at and spanking my oldest son too much as a young, unsupported mother with a controlling husband, despite his forgiveness, my therapy, confessions, life improvements, return to faith, and prayers that only bring temporary relief before triggers return? (43:09)

In this episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb bring their extended series on the parables of Matthew to a powerful climax with the passage most listeners have been waiting for: the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31–46). Far from a checklist of works required for salvation, this text is unpacked as the master parable of Christ's entire parabolic ministry — a sovereign declaration of divine election, not a merit-based audit of individual performance. Tony and Jesse explore why this passage has been chronically misread as a call to works righteousness, why the language of inheritance and predestination is front and center, and how a Reformed reading liberates rather than burdens the conscience. Along the way, they weigh in on Herman Bavinck's prescient warning about media distraction, and Jesse recommends a Puritan gem on anxiety worth picking up immediately. Key Takeaways The Sheep and Goats is best understood as a parable, or at minimum parable-adjacent. The Greek construction in verse 31 mirrors the same comparative language Christ uses throughout his parabolic ministry, placing this text firmly within that tradition rather than outside it. The kingdom was prepared before any works were done — this is election language. The phrase "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (v. 34) is not a reward for performance; it is the language of sovereign predestination preceding all human action. The works of the sheep are diagnostic, not causative. What the righteous did reveals who they already were — sheep — rather than being the mechanism by which they became sheep. The beak doesn't make the bird. Both groups are surprised, and that surprise is the parabolic punchline. Neither the sheep nor the goats anticipated the verdict they received, which undermines any reading that frames this text as an encouragement to accumulate saving merit. This passage is a recapitulation of the wheat and tares parable. Sheep and goats co-mingled until the moment of final separation, just as wheat and tares grow together until the harvest — the judgment reveals what was always true. Any theology that requires a human contribution to activate or complete salvation misreads this text.Whether Roman Catholic, Arminian, or Mormon in flavor, every view that makes God's preparation of the kingdom contingent on foreseen human merit fundamentally inverts the logic of the passage. The scope of judgment — "all nations" (ta ethnos) — would have been scandalous to first-century Jewish ears. This language deliberately expands the kingdom beyond ethnic Israel, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant promise and confounding the assumptions of the religious elite. Key Concepts The Kingdom Prepared Before Your Works: Sovereign Election, Not Merit When the King says to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34), the theological weight of that single sentence is staggering. The kingdom was not prepared in response to anything the sheep did. It was prepared before time, before works, before choice — which means the works that follow in the passage cannot be the grounds of that inheritance. Only a Calvinistic understanding of election can sustain this logic without remainder. Arminian views require God to foresee a qualifying human response; Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views require some degree of meritorious participation; even certain Lutheran frameworks lean on non-resistance to grace. Reformed theology alone places the entire cause within God's sovereign, unconditional decree — and this passage, read plainly, says exactly that. Works as Evidence, Not Ground: The Diagnostic Function of This Parable The great pastoral error in preaching this passage is treating it as a performance rubric — a list of charitable acts that, if completed, qualify a person for eternal life. But Christ does not separate the sheep from the goats because of what they did or failed to do. He separates them, and then describes the activity that characterized each group. The works are revelatory. They surface what was already true of each person's nature, just as a bird's beak reveals its species rather than constituting it. This reframing is liberating precisely because it means assurance does not rest on tallying acts of charity. It rests on the sovereign act of a Father who prepared a kingdom and the regenerating work of the Spirit who produces, in those He has claimed, a life that looks like the one described here. "All Nations": The Scandal of an Ethnically Inclusive Kingdom The Greek phrase ta ethnē — translated "all nations" in most English Bibles — would have landed very differently on first-century Jewish ears, particularly those of the Pharisees and Sadducees who comprised a significant portion of Christ's audience throughout Matthew 24–25. To them, ta ethnē meant the Gentiles, the peoples out there, those outside the covenant. The implicit effect of Christ's language is to place every people group — including Israel — within a single undifferentiated mass standing before his throne, with no ethnic group receiving preferential standing at the bar of judgment. This is entirely consistent with the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all families of the earth (Genesis 12:3), the vision of Psalm 2, and the missionary thrust of the Great Commission. The scandal is not incidental — it is the point. The kingdom Christ is ushering in is not the ethnic-nationalist kingdom the religious establishment expected. Memorable Quotes The kingdom of heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did... That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you. - Tony It's not the beak that makes it the sparrow, it's the sparrow that makes it the kind of beak it is. That's the kind of classification we're talking about in this parable. - Tony The best freedom is the one that turns over all things to God and takes him at his word when he says, 'In love you were predestined to inherit this as sons and daughters of the kingdom,' so that he does all the work, because we do not want to have any of that work our own. - Jesse Full Transcript [00:01:11] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 498 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse  [00:01:19] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  [00:01:24] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. They said it couldn't be done. They said we couldn't come back. We wouldn't come back and continue in Matthew 25. But here we are, and we're ending this chapter in this whole section about sheep and goats. Everybody was clamoring for it. Everybody wanted to know, what about the sheep and the goats? And I think the last time we all chatted together, we prefaced it by saying it's parable adjacent. Or let's just say- Yes ... we just stacked up these three other parables, lots of things going on, and then Jesus resolves this or brings all these parables to a culmination by speaking about the end times, the end of all things, and the sheep and the goats. Yeah. And so we gotta go there  [00:02:06] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I'm stoked.  [00:02:07] What Counts Parable [00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: And y- you know, I, I was talking with a brother at, um, at church yesterday on the Lord's day, and he was asking how the podcast's going and what we're doing. And, you know, I was kind of thinking, like, I was talking about the parables and how we're kind of moving forward, and we were gonna do some of the I am sayings in John. And, and I was thinking, like, what is a parable anyways? And who decides what a parable is and what a parable isn't? Right. Um, some of the parables Christ calls a parable, others he doesn't. Uh, we'll probably talk a little bit about that when we get to, uh, some of the back half of Luke. But this, this episode I think is gonna be really, really the payoff and really the culmination of not just these, like, this trio of or trilogy of parables that we've talked about, but I think really, like, the payout of all of the parables in Matthew. It's really, like, the summary of all of Christ's parabolic teachings. So it's, it's a good place for us to round out Matthew, and then we'll, we'll dip into the parables in the other gospels, probably have a couple more months of, of, uh, parable talk before we move on to the next thing. But, uh, it's been great, and I'm super, super stoked for this. This is one of my favorite passages, actually, and there's so much to dig into. I, I, I'm just gonna say now, we probably won't make it through the whole thing- Right ... uh, because there's a lot there. But we'll see. We'll see how we do. Maybe Jesse and I will be super efficient tonight, uh, but we usually aren't, so. [00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's never happened. We, we take it low and slow. Not only that- ... it was reminding me as you spoke about that kind of proverb generally of if you wanna go build a wall, you assess what you need, how many stones, and then you go gather those stones. Yeah. You should double it, or if you're gonna go out and fight an army, take stock of that army. That's basically what we do, but in reverse. Anytime, like, you just... I just heard you say- ... like, "It'll probably take us a couple more months," you should double that. That's probably how long- Yeah ... it's actually gonna take us.  [00:03:50] Faith Works Assurance [00:03:50] Jesse Schwamb: Even in this- Yeah ... conversation, I think we're gonna get stuck in the best way possible speaking about things like faith, works, and assurance because there's a lot of language here- Yeah that could seem on the surface to sit in this tension with justification by faith alone. And I think the key to resolving all that tension, as I hopefully think we'll see, lies in the readings of works as the evidence of living faith rather than its ground, and I think that's what- Yes ... Christ is leading us through all of these parables, actually, whether it goes back. And you should listen to all those episodes. In fact, I gotta ask. Th- I mean, this brother you were talking to, it just strikes me as that question had already be answered for him if you were listening to the podcast. So-  [00:04:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I don't think he does. No, I don't think he does- ... listen to the podcast. Uh, he knows that I do the podcast, and he's very gracious to ask me about it. Tom. And I think he's probably listened to the podcast before. Got it. Um, and he's, he's just a very kind, gracious brother who, who is concerned and wants to know what I'm doing. And, um, he has, he has his own sort of, like, production stuff that he does that he enjoys that I'm, I'm not super keyed into. But, uh, it was just nice. But, but it did get me thinking, like, I was trying to explain to him where we were in the progress of the parables, and I was like, "I can't really... I don't really know," because, like, it's hard to even understand and fully... There's no, like, full comprehensive universal list of what is a parable- Right ... and what's not. And I think what we've found as we've been going through this is sometimes, sometimes you come up against a portion of a text that is often taught sort of separate from the, the rest of it. Parables get taught discreet from other parables. But then you have these sort of, like, intervening texts, or this one's kind of a summary text, that's so integrated to what the parable means you really can't do a series on these parables without also treating this text. Which is gonna be interesting, 'cause I've never, I've never encountered somebody who really roots this teaching here of Christ in the context of the parables, despite its proximity. So it'll be fun. We're gonna figure it out in real time, and, and it'll be good.  [00:05:47] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's gonna be fun.  [00:05:48] Deny Doomscrolling Bavinck [00:05:48] Jesse Schwamb: And speaking of fun, we're so glad that you're listening, and we know that you're waiting with bated breath to hear about affirmations or denials. It's of course that part of the conversation where we either affirm with something that we think is fantastic, maybe by way of recommendation, or conversely, we deny against something that isn't that great. So Tony, as is our custom in the liturgy of the Reformed Brotherhood podcast, I ask you once again, are you affirming with or deny against? [00:06:15] Tony Arsenal: I am denying against something, and I'm gonna do that by affirming a Herman Bavinck quote. Uh, so I'm gonna read it for you. This, uh... Some of the guys in the Facebook group have put... or the Facebook group, the Telegram chat, have put together a, uh, like, a reading group to work through Bavinck's, uh, Wonderful Works of God, which is great, and I'm loving it. I haven't been able to participate in the conversation as much as I would like to, but just being part of a reading group, uh, sort of keeps you on schedule, which is great. So I've been reading through Wonderful Works of God, and on the Kindle edition, on page 34, uh, which I think is still the, I think is still the, uh, introduction, he says, quote, "The reading of daily and weekly newspapers, of magazines and brochures, devours our every blink. There's a lack of desire and opportunity for the investigation of scripture and the study of old theological works," end quote. And when I read that, it just really struck me as like- If that was true like 70 years ago, 80 years ago when Bavinck was writing this, right? And all there was was hard, hard copy media. There was no, uh, there was no digital media. There was radio, but there wasn't a lot of programming. Uh, I don't think that there was much in the way of television broadcasting. If there was, it was, it was very, very limited and very rudimentary. Um, even then he was saying the daily news cycle and all of this extra stuff that is out there is consuming our, quote, "Every blink," which I thought was a really interesting phrase. Um, it's basically like it's so ingrained in us, we're so invested and obsessed with the news cycle. Uh, or you might translate that to like to our Twitter feed or our Facebook feed or our Instagram reels or whatever it might be, and dare I say it, the podcasts we listen to.  [00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: Um, that we don't save time for scripture and other theological works. And I think it's funny too is that the, the eternal, uh, the eternal contemporary statement of the Reformed world is like we don't read enough old theological works. Even Bavinck, who I'm reading as one of the old... I mean, not like super old, but like one of the old theological works, is saying, "Hey, we don't read enough old theological works." So I'm denying this sort of like obsession we have with the daily news cycle and with constantly being up to date and like constantly consuming all of that. Um, we've talked about how like our modern global news cycle sort of, uh, is built around the deception that we can be sort of pseudo omnipotent and know all things about everything. And, um- There's a lot of work that's been done to show that, like, the world's not really that much, not that much more of a violent place than it was 100 years ago. We just know a lot more about what's going on- Right ... in other parts of the world. And there's pros and cons to that. But I think the main con is, like, we, we feel suddenly that we have to be, you know, deeply involved in the goings on of a church on the other side of the country that we never would've even known existed otherwise. It- there's just a, there's a sense of omnipotence and omnipresence that's just not becoming for the creature that I think we try to take on. So Bavinck knew it. Uh, we've talked about it. Lots and lots of people have talked about it. This isn't new. I'm not, I'm not e- engineering anything new on this. But that quote really struck me when I was reading. I was like, "Dang, man, he, he got it right 100 years ago or, or 80 years ago, and we're still struggling with it." And I think probably, like, if you go back and you look at the, I don't know, more occasional writings of people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, um, as they're interacting with, like, people in the Reformed community or the Protestant community, I bet you would find statements like this too about how, like, we really spend a lot of time reading, like, silly things and not spending- Right our time studying the scripture or studying, um, theological works. So that's my denial. I'm sticking to it, and if that means you feel like you need to turn this podcast off and go read some John Calvin or some Herman Bavinck, then by all means. Uh, I think you're probably going to be edified by what we have to talk about. But, uh, th- the Bible's better, so if you gotta go do it, if you only got- That's true ... an hour today to study scripture or listen to this podcast, please go study scripture. Yeah. Uh, hopefully we can do a little bit of both with this podcast. But Herman Bavinck said it best. Our every blink is consumed with pamphlets and newspapers and it just is- It's true it's pretty silly.  [00:10:41] Jesse Schwamb: It's true.  [00:10:42] Meme Detour Reading Groups [00:10:42] Jesse Schwamb: I gotta take us all the way back to where you started there, and I'm going to betray, to nobody's surprise, my really strong naivete when it comes- ... to social media, and memes in particular. But this is what occurred to me, and I'm gonna try it. This is, like, what classically makes really good podcasting. Let me try to describe a meme to you that I'm not even sure I actually understand or know. So this will be great. I think, you tell me, Tony, 'cause you may have seen this. It's an old meme too, so I'm not even, like, on the cutting edge here. I think it's a meme of two panels showing, like, two pictures of Drake. In know one he's kinda, like, pushing away as if to say, like, "Get that outta here," and the other one's like, "Oh yeah, that's the stuff." Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Is that accurate?  [00:11:21] Tony Arsenal: I do. I think you're gonna use it wrong, but yeah.  [00:11:23] Jesse Schwamb: Is that Drake? Okay, all  [00:11:24] Tony Arsenal: right. Yeah, that's, that's the meme.  [00:11:25] Jesse Schwamb: Okay, okay. And usually, if I understand it correctly, it's kind of like a faux juxtaposition of two things, right? Like, okay. So like here, let me try it. Uh, uh, let me just try it on everybody. Here we go. I'm gonna describe to you how I just interpret this based on what you said, 'cause something cracked me up that you said, Tony. If I were gonna make this meme just based on how you opened that up, the first panel would be like Drake pushing away the idea or being like, "That's no good," book club. The second one would be reading group, as in like, like the reading group is like the new cool way of like just kind of... Did I use it properly? Am I close?  [00:11:59] Tony Arsenal: I think the problem with this is that there's like a, there's like an ironic way to use it, and then there's like a more direct way to use it. Mm. Yeah. The direct way would be like some- like Drake's pushing away something that's bad, and he's- Yeah ... like accepting something that's good. That'd be like the direct way. Yes. The more ironic one is where like Drake is pushing away something that's actually pretty, actually pretty good, and he's- Yeah ... accepting the one that's pretty silly. Oh, okay. Um, there's a lot of memes that have that basic format. Never mind. There's one with like Jordi LaForge. I think there's a Michael Scott one. I tried. I tried. But yeah, no, I, I think yours is valid, it's just, I think it's an older usage of the meme. That's like the, that's like the middle English version of that meme. The Shakespearean use of that meme.  [00:12:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. I'll take that. It's the old English style. I love a good book club or a reading group. A, a reading group just, it does have that sound like maybe somebody in the group has a monocle, or you guys have tea. Either way- Yeah ... I absolutely love it. And yes, what are our beautiful quotes. You kind of hear that general conception recapitulated among like theologians almost in every era. But it does make you think, what would Bavinck say about, like doom scrolling on the smartphone? Like- Yeah ... he's beside himself, right? It would just be beside himself. So I'm with you. I, it, there's gonna be a condemnation in every generation. Maybe I say this with some degree of like chronological snobbery, especially in ours, when it comes to not, like you said, I think kind of like not carving out or not prioritizing time in the scriptures. Yeah. There's not gonna be any excuse of like, "Well, I just didn't have time." Right. Or, "There were too many things to read." It's just, it's not gonna cut it. So I'm with you. I think you and I have talked about this at length, even just like the news media like you and I consume, like just s- set aside social media for a second. Just like how i- how much value is there in a lot of like what we cons- used to consider to be like well-informed reporting? How valuable is that to us? Yeah. And I'm certainly not saying like that everybody should be like unconcerned and uninterested in the world, but I think it's to what degree and what fascination we have with that, and how it fits into our priority as we consume information each day. That's the thing that's tricky, and there's no really-  [00:14:02] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...  [00:14:02] Jesse Schwamb: good answer except to weigh out with the spiritual discernment- Yeah ... how we ought to consume that stuff. But certainly I think, without question, we need to be prioritizing time in prayer, time in the scriptures. I imagine if we were all doing that with a great deal of attention, that all of the other things would kind of find their way into the right place. Or let's say they would just find their way out of our lives in a significant way- Yeah ... that would remove us from distraction and anxiety, instead bring us back into the providence of God.  [00:14:31] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I'm not, I'm not gonna be the guy that tells you you can never s- you can never scroll Instagram or TikTok or whatever. Um, I, I think that's a decision that's between you and the Holy Spirit as far as how you spend your time. But I, I do think, um, I think you're right- We are accountable for the decisions we make and how- Right ... we choose to divide up our time. And I- God, I mean, God is the inventor of fun. He's the inventor of leisure, and he is, uh, I think he's pleased and honored when we, we make good use of our time f- for things that are restful and rejuvenating. Um, he doesn't expect us to just slavishly read scripture all day, every day, like every minute. That's not, that's not the biblical expectation. Um, and so I think it's fine if you wanna sit down and watch a fun show, or if you wanna watch some YouTube videos, or listen to a silly podcast, or listen to a serious podcast. Um, but I do, I agree. Like, we, we really need to be thoughtful. And I think where, where Bavinck's quote, uh, is strong is it's not so much about, "Don't read these things." Right. He, he's talking about these things consume our every blink. Like, m- he's treating blink... He's using the word blink as sort of a fill-in for like our, our finite resource of time and attention, and these things have consumed all of them. There's a very strong use of that word consume. Uh, and I, I think that's really the, the point that I'm trying to make is we often allow, either intentionally or unintentionally, we, we just let our time get all sucked up, uh, on things that maybe are good but are not pr- properly proportioned. Um- Like I said, it's, it's fine to spend some time on Twitter and to get into a debate once in a while, or to check in on your friends on Facebook, your old high school, college buddies or whatever, but we can definitely take it too far. So I think it's a good corrective for all of us to at least make a stop and think about how we're spending our time, and whether we are affording the appropriate amount of time to things like scripture, theological study, catechesis of our children, um, family worship, all of those good things. So we don't have to go much more into that. I think the point has been made. Uh, so Jesse, what are you affirming and/or denying tonight?  [00:16:43] Affirm Puritan Anxiety Cure [00:16:43] Jesse Schwamb: Perfect segue, because speaking of reading old things, you know me, I've always got some kind of Puritan work in the rotation, and the one I just finished is the one I'm affirming, which is called Special Providence for Anxious Souls by Obadiah Sedgwick, who I think is kinda... Like, people are sleeping on Sedgwick, you know? Mm-hmm. He's, he's kinda like, he's there in the wings, but we need to take him off the bench. And I came across this book and I thought, "Who doesn't want a title like that in their lives?" Like, we got some anxiety in all of our souls. And I'm affirming this because, uh, hi- his definitions, his writing is, are on point. But here's what I thought. I was embarrassed that I picked this up expecting one thing, and then in typical puritanical fashion, was delivered something else that was far better. And I was thinking about this title as you might see it, like, in your modern bookstore today, whether it's, like, in Barnes & Nobles or at any of the periodicals we were just kind of mentioning or implying that are out there. And I was expecting to get some kind of, I don't know, six or seven things, I mean, that's Puritan style, but six or seven things that would really help you diagnose the psychology, and then going back to the scripture in ways, all, all the ways we'd expect about how God loves us and cares for us, and all those things are true. And yet the only way I could describe how this book ministered to me is, like, how you might go to a physical therapist for some kind of ailment, which I have many as I get older, and have recently been to one. And the ailment I had was, um, basically like tarsal tunnel, which is like carpal tunnel for your foot. And so there was some nerves that were inflamed and causing some pain and some weirdness in my feet. And here's what I do know about physical therapy now that I think the Puritans also do for our souls, and that is the physical therapist gave me this full workup. They prodded me and poked me and rubbed things and made things hurt- And in the course of doing that, they clearly could figure out what was wrong with my foot. And so when he gave me the diagnosis, after, again, rubbing that part and, like, doing one of those things where he's like, you know, they tap on your hard and they're like, "Does that hurt?" I'm like, "Yes, it does hurt." And I presume that's because you know anatomy. And, you know, he's, he's ta- tapping on my ankle and it's causing my foot underneath to hurt. And after all that, you know, I run on a treadmill. He d- takes all this video, and this is what he says to me. He goes, "Yeah, so this is actually pretty straightforward." And I was like, "Great, so what are we talking about? Like exercises, uh, splints, like massage?" He's like, "You have a weak butt." And I was like- "I'm sorry, let's talk about that for a second." And this is what I've learned about physical therapy, is it's rarely about the thing that's actually bothering you or the thing that's hurt, right? It's something- Yeah ... far different. It's something almost seemingly, like, disjointed or removed or divorced from the very thing, maybe even non-contiguous, if only in our minds, maybe even logically. And so what I love about this is the first half of the book is just speaking about the province of God before it even gets into this idea of anxiety. And then the treatment on anxiety and worry is, he goes through, like, six or seven things in particular, are just absolutely glorious. So good that I want you to read it. I don't even want to talk about it. Uh, that, that's my admonishment to you, is that you should just go pick it up. So I'm affirming again that the Puritans in particular do this thing where there's, there's no cheap advice here. It's not even hide advice. It's really good advice, but it's the kind that says, "You have a weak butt" when you're concerned that your ankle- is messed up. Yeah. And that's sometimes what you need to hear. And in my case, after... Let's make this super weirdly spiritual. After doing a bunch of squats, I don't know what the spiritual equivalent is of that. After doing a bunch of squats, my ankle and my foot was so much better. And it, because I had somebody who cared enough for me to go through and actually diagnose the root of it, that was the reason that inevitably there was healing. So I've, this has given me so much to think about, this tiny little treatise. So much to put into practice. It's so rich, so good, so practical, and yet I think you'll find in many ways joyfully unexpected. So I highly affirm to everybody listening, and even those who aren't, Special Providence for Anxious Souls, Obadiah Sedgwick. You'll, you'll love it  [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:49] Physical Therapy Spiritual Practice [00:20:49] Tony Arsenal: So two thoughts. Uh, one, uh, I can confirm Jesse has a weak butt, um, flat as a board. So it's probably, probably better after, after doing some squats. Wow. Uh, two- Wow. ... uh, I can say I also am in some physical therapy right now, and I've been a little bit of a slacker. And what I will contribute to the conversation is just like in physical therapy, they can give you all of the exercises- Yeah uh, that you want. If you don't do the work, you're not going to get better. Yeah. And so whether it's Jesse doing squats or me not finding time to stretch and to do some, like, arm exercises with a, with a s- uh, like a TheraBand, uh, the same holds true. And, and maybe to unify our, uh, affir- our denials/affirmations into one mega, mega recommendation, um, the same holds true in that, one, we can take a book like this from, uh, Sedgwick, and we can turn it into the same thing we do with media where we're just... it's just devouring our blinks. Right. And we're just using it as a way to sort of, like, feed our eye hole Get better. You won't improve. Um, and that's actually the same with scripture. Like y-you can- Right ... turn scripture into, uh, into a snack food that you, you don't actually use to be nutritious. Um, I think there's probably more benefit to reading scripture sort of rote and, and almost mechanically than there is to reading anything else. But, um, but at the end of the day, you can also consume your blinks with scripture and not get a lot out of it if all you're doing is passing your eyes over text. So get in there. I think that's great. I haven't read that one. I mean, I think there's... I think there are probably many, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many, many Puritan treaties that- treatises that are similar in theme and tone and have the same kind of like spiritual antidote or spiritual medicine, um, prescribed by these guys that is good and wholesome. And again, like, like you're saying, like it's not that complicated. It's not that hard. Right. It just takes- Right ... you just actually have to do the work. Um, it's funny, my physical therapy thing is my, my shoulder has been really ba- really messed up, and I went in, I expected him to give me all these, all these shoulder exercises, and he's like, "Uh Really what you need to do is you fix your neck, uh, 'cause your shoulder is, is being in- injured because you're sleeping- Okay on that side because you're trying to stay off the other side. So, like, you really gotta fix your neck so you can sleep on the other side of your body. And I was like, "So I'm just, like, sleeping wrong?" Like, it's funny, there's a joke, it's like in your 20s you can do anything you want, in your 30s, like, you gotta be a little bit careful, and in your 40s, like, you hurt yourself just sleeping. Right. Just getting out of bed is dangerous.  [00:23:46] Jesse Schwamb: It's  [00:23:46] Tony Arsenal: true.  [00:23:47] Jesse Schwamb: It's true. So. It's a tough world. But  [00:23:48] Tony Arsenal: it's true. I feel like a really old man saying that.  [00:23:51] Read Matthew 25 Aloud [00:23:51] Jesse Schwamb: You know, it strikes me that you're right, of course, that there's so much here we always have to put into practice. There's so much here that we have to trust with God. There's a faith that works. And so I think actually that is the most lovely inroad into this final passage of Matthew, because there's a lot here for us to talk about with all of those things, and to understand it in this proper context. So as you've already set us up, Tony, the best part of our podcast is the scripture, for sure, 100%. So let's go there. So we're in Matthew 25 in case you're just joining us. And for some reason I went into, like, a full radio mode, as if this, like, this is being broadcast live, and you just came into the program. We're in Matthew 25, uh, starting in verse 31, and I'm gonna read until the end of the chapter. There's so much here that of course we're not gonna get to all of it, but in the spirit of literally having the full context of the scripture in front of us, and to hear it all, I think it's important. It w- b- better yet, you should go back and read the entire chapter and then tune in right now. But let me start at verse 31. "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me.  [00:25:32] Judgment Scene Read [00:25:32] Jesse Schwamb: I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angers-- angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they will themselves also answer saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life  [00:26:47] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:26:49] Parable Not Fear [00:26:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, it's, it's, um, it's a sobering passage. And just as I think we've seen in a lot of the other parables, um These eschatological parables and these eschatological sayings of Christ, uh, as you kind of alluded to earlier, I, I think they are really, really, um... They are not prone to being misinterpreted. Right. The church has been prone to misinterpreting and misapplying these, um, in a, in a way that's used to make, make the Christian fearful and to, uh, undermine their assurance rather than to call them to action or to accountability.  [00:27:33] Why It's A Parable [00:27:33] Tony Arsenal: Um, and I think a- as I've been reading through this and I've been sort of glancing at the Greek as we're reading, I actually think I'm on... I, I stumbled on much more better ground to treat this as a parable than I even originally thought I did. You know, I, I had this whole lead-up that this isn't technically a parable, but when you read here, when it says, in verse 31, it says, "When the Son of Man comes in glory and the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates- Right ... the sheep from the goats." If you go back to verse 14, when it says, "For it will be like a man," uh, that, that first word of verse 14 in the Greek is the same word as is used when it says, um, uh, "He separates people one from another as a shepherd." That same word is used as there, it's just translated differently because of where it comes in the, um, in the text. So Christ is still making this comparison, so it would be as though he said, um, you know, like the common, most common, at least so far, most common kind of parabolic introduction is like, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like." Um, this is the same basic language he's using here to introduce what the eschaton will be like. Right? The ga- the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them. It says people in the ESV, but will separate them one from another. You could also say the, the nations or the peoples will be gathered before him. Right. He will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep. So the parable here is the s- the shepherd separating the sheep from the goats, this whole process of the separation and this, this, um, frankly, like it's, it feels and smells like a parable, right? It does. This, this, um, figure, this shepherd in the parable or the shepherd in the saying is saying these sort of like parabolic statements. He's using this language that's kind of like shocking punchline statement. Like we've talked about how in parables there's often this sort of unexpected turn of events, or there's this unexpected kind of shocking language, and this whole like twist at the end in both, sort of both s- chunks here, where like the sheep don't really understand, like they didn't really recognize that they were doing sheepy things, and the goats didn't really understand that they were being goats. That's like the parabolic twist or the parabolic punchline here. So the, the kingdom of heaven is like, basically it's like the Son of Man will come in his glory and it will be like this. It will be like a shepherd separating the sheep from the goats. That's the parabolic connection here. Mm-hmm. So I actually think that, that linguistically we're on, we're on pretty solid ground not just to treat this as a summary of all the parables, um- I think of for sure these three parables, but it, it really is like the master parable, and I think probably the master parable that kinda governs and constrains and explains all of the parabolic ministry of Christ. So I'm, I'm stoked for us to really dig into the details a little bit, but I think linguistically we're on super good ground to, to treat this as a parable. I agree. At the very least, it's stronger than just parable adjacent.  [00:30:44] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:30:44] Tony Arsenal: It- but even if we aren't saying it's a parable proper, it's stronger than that. It still is using this kinda comparative ministry, comparative language that Christ has used throughout the parabolic, um, sayings of Christ.  [00:30:57] Jesse Schwamb: The construction seems a little bit less veiled because here we have Jesus implanting himself directly into the account.  [00:31:03] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.  [00:31:04] Shepherd Imagery Stakes [00:31:04] Jesse Schwamb: At the same time, though, he's drawing on all the things you just said he does, especially with this allusion to shepherding, which would've been, of course, common throughout. So it seems to me a lovely bridge to all of the overt parables he's just told, but now he's bringing them all together and placing himself clearly as, like, the interpreter, as the identifier of all the things, as the one to seal up all of the edges, as it were. So it's clear that this is about the end times. All of these were all about the end times and about Jesus' role in them. And so of course here he identifies himself as the eschatological judge just to make it clear. He's the one who sits on his glorious throne, and that's significant, and that's why I think we sometimes feel like, well, this is not a parable because he's, he's being very, like, Christologically certain and direct here. You know, throughout scripture the final judgment is God's prerogative alone, but the Father has committed all that judgment to the Son, and here's Jesus affirming that. And so again, like Reformed theology, in all our conversations we've consistently emphasized that this text is in many ways, like, proof of Christ's full deity and his role as mediatorial king, and he's exercising his office as the judge at his return in glory. And though, like you said, at the same time, here's the cool parable kind of scent or flavor is you get all these nations, every person who has ever lived, not merely Israel or merely the church. And how does Jesus describe this? He goes back into parabolic language. And we got the shepherd imagery that- Yeah is, like, similar to Ezekiel 34 where God himself is judging between the sheep of his flock. And that separation, the shockingness of it, it's immediate, it's binary. There's no third category. There's only two eternal destinies. There's no purgatory, no middle ground, no post-mortem opportunity for repentance. So all that's at stake. And then again, the beauty of the language itself or the setup of the construction of the story as it unfolds is that both groups- Get the same speech with a change in do or do not, but they both ask the same question from, like, wildly different perspectives and standings. And that's the beautiful- Yeah thing to make reconciliation over is what does all this mean then? How is all this established and how is this final judgment come to be such that there are sheep and goats if, in fact, they're both doing the same things theoretically, or they're at least both asking the same questions of, well, when did this ever actually occur? That, that's what's for us to unpack either way.  [00:33:29] All Nations Gathered [00:33:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and b- before we jump into, um, into the parable itself and start to unpack that, the other element that I think is worth, uh, and this just came to me so hopefully I'm not on too far of a, of a limb here. But the other element that I think is worth at least commenting on, um, we've, we've remarked, especially in these last three eschatological, um, parables, how much these are directed at the religious leaders, right? Right. The, the, the people are, um, the, the- the parables are told, um, in the context and sort of following up on these, this real directed, um, assault against the religious leaders who thought they were the ones, right? They're the ones that have a claim to the Kingdom of Heaven, they're the ones that, um, are the, you know, they're the ones that think they're doing the right thing, they're the ones that are ushering in God's kingdom. This little phrase here, "gathered all the nations," would also have really stuck in the craw of the religious leaders, right? Because the word for nations that's translated here is the same word that would el- elsewhere get translated as Gentiles, right? And the word people, when it says, "He will separate the people," that, that word people doesn't actually exist in the Greek. So if you translate this very literally, it'd say, "Before him will, will be gathered all nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Now, I don't wanna go the route of saying, like, this is a parable about, like, which pe- people group will be brought into the kingdom and which won't, and I've read some that go that direction. I don't wanna go there. But this idea that, like, even in the final judgment, the people who are in view here are the Gentiles, right? Right. I think most Jewish, particularly the, the Pharisees and the Sadducees hearing this, would've, would've read this and would've read ta ethnos, and would not have thought nations the way we do. Certainly would not have thought of, like, modern nation states. They might have been thinking maybe, like, people groups in general, but they would be thinking more along the lines of, like, Psalm, Psalm 2, like, "Why do the nations rage?" kind of nations. Why do the Gentiles rage? Why do the peoples plot in vain? They would've been thinking th- this, this, uh, judgment almost, at least on the face of it, almost excludes the Jews entirely when you think about it this way. It's really now sort of, like, zooming out where at the very least, at the minimal least, the Jews are just another people group within this broader judgment of the people group. Right. So again, like, we've seen this theme that Christ is continually expanding the scope of what is considered to be the Kingdom of Heaven to include not just the Jewish people, um, but all nations, all people groups, all Gentiles and Jews alike. And in a very real sense, um, and I wanna be careful how I've said this, I know I've commented this in the past, there's a very real sense of anti-Semitism that is prominent in- reform, quote-unquote reformed circles right now that is just vile and disgusting and sinful, and has no place in any sort of Biblical Christianity. But there is a reality that the Jewish people, broadly speaking, um, rejected the Messiah, at least while he was here on Earth. Um, relatively speaking, very few Jewish people, especially in the Jewish elite, like the leadership class, accepted Christ for who he was while he was here. Many Jews came to faith through the ministry of Peter, uh, and, and even through the ministry of Paul, even though he was an apostle to the Gentiles. So it's not as though it remained the case, but at this point in Christ's ministry, the Jewish people were by and large were rejecting him as Messiah. And so this idea and, and sort of this like final culmination now saying like he gathered all the, all the Gentiles, all of the peoples, all of the nations. In Jewish, in Jewish language and, and when you look in the Old Testament, and even in some of the New Testament literature, the nations were those people out there. So even if we don't translate this as Gentiles, we don't, we don't take that more like restrictive sense, even then it still implies that Christ is talking about people out there, the non-Jewish nations- Right are being gathered before his throne. And so that's not to say, absolutely not to say that the Jewish people, that, that the Jewish people of his day or the, the... This is where it gets tricky too, 'cause like we think about modern Israel and we, we import our understandings of like nation states. That's not what was in view here. The, the idea of a modern nation state was not a concept that existed in the first century. Um, you might have something like city states, but even that is kind of like a little bit ethereal. The idea here is that all people groups, and maybe, maybe we conceptualize Israel now as one of these people groups, the Israeli Jewish people as one of these people groups. All of those people groups, Jews, Gentiles, Scythians, Athenians, Spartans, like, uh, Ethiopians, you know, all of these different people- Right ... groups that are mentioned in the, the New Testament, all of those peoples, all of those nations are gathered before the throne, and then he will separate them one from another in the same way that a shepherd sep- separates the goats. [00:38:35] Group Judgment Assurance [00:38:35] Tony Arsenal: And yes, I think there is an individualistic, um, judgment element, and this is where I think, um... And, and then I'll, I'll pause for a second. This is where I think we can go wrong reading this as a parable about the individual judgment of individuals in the future That's not really what the language here is supporting. This is supporting sort of a broader group-based judgment, and the grouping is there are those who are sheep and there are those who are goats. But it doesn't appear as though Christ is saying like, "I'm evaluating each individual person, and this person is a sheep, this person is a goat." It's, it's a broader picture that, yes, has some implications for individual personal judgment, but when we read too much of that individual personal judgment into this parable that doesn't seem to be there, that's where we start to, like, rob individual Christians of their assurance. We start to say, like, "Did you do enough? Did you feed enough poor people or did you not?" That's not really, not really what's at stake here, I don't think.  [00:39:40] Jesse Schwamb: No, it's definitely not. It's, it's important to remember just the beauty of, like, the consistent theological thread that runs all the way through the Old Testament, and then that we might expect, of course, to be manifest in Christ's teachings, which happen exactly here. So he is going all the way back to that covenantal promise seed through Abraham, single seed, many people groups, many ethnicities. In this way, the gospel is ethnic inclusive. And so it is, why wouldn't he say that in this way to express that this is exactly from all time what God wanted to do is gather all people groups to himself? Which means then by the time we get to the end of this chapter in verse 46, and there is this righteousness that... or the righteous that lead or go into eternal life, then of course we're led to believe here either directly or implicitly that that means that there would be some for whom the Pharisees would find it's, like, anathema to receive that kind of righteousness and eternal life are the ones in fact who are getting it. And so even that is scandalous. So the, the whole thing is very much a setup, and I think it's the confusion again of this is Jesus saying again to the Sadducees, like, "You are confused. You do not know the power of God. You, you search for it everywhere else but do not find it in front of you. It, it's he who speak to you. I am he. You think you search the scriptures, but you do not know." Everywhere it feels like he's saying that, and here also he's saying that again, but it's in the setup. And I'm with you. I think that there would've been a lot here that would've, like, just come right off his lips that would've been like, "Say what?" Uh, that would've been, like, offensive right off- Yeah ... the top.  [00:41:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:41:17] Sovereign Separation [00:41:17] Tony Arsenal: And the other, the other theme that plays out really loud and clear here, um, as we start to dig into this is, um, there's a sovereignty to this separation that is baked into, um, the king's right to decide who to keep and who to cast away. Right. So I think we, we, um, understandably read into this an assessment of the productivity or the profitability or somehow the, like, merit or worth of the sheep as contrasted to the worth of the goats. Um, and we read into it like the sheep have utility and the goats don't, so the goats get cast into the- Right outer darkness. That's not really, that's not really what's going on here, right? In a, in an agrarian society, like sheep and goats both have utility. It's not as though, like, sheep are worthless and goats aren't. There's a reason people have goats. Um, th- the, the issue here is that the king has decided that there are those on his right and there are those on his left, and the ones on his right he's gonna keep, and the ones on his left he's gonna cast away. And, and so, um, there's this sovereign election and determination that precedes the rest of this, right? It's not as though he's ... And this is where the personal, sort of personal assessment part comes in. He doesn't look at a person and go, "All right, you did a g- enough good works to qualify as a sheep, so you go ahead and go over-" Right and be a sheep. And you didn't do quite enough, so you're actually a goat, so you go over and you be a goat." He looks at, he says, "Y- sheep, goat. Goat, sheep." You know, he, he's separating them out, and then he describes what sheep do versus what goats do. And I, I, like I'm even drawing some of this language out. The sheep goats part of this is actually only, like, a verse and a half. He then flips out of this parabolic language to now go back to the sort of strictly predictive eschatological ex- like explanatory language. So this is what it's like when the Son of Man is on, on his kingdom. He separates sheep and goats. We read into, and maybe with some good reason, but we read into Uh, we read into the fact that the sheeps go to one side, the goats go to another. Then we sort of like attribute the characteristics of those who go to his right to sheep, and we attribute the characteristics... And I think we do this the wrong way. How many sermons have you heard where the whole sermon is about how sheep are obedient, and they're, they're affable, and they listen, and they, they, they are sweet and kind, and goats are stubborn, and they, they just wreck everything, and they don't listen, right? And how many s- how many sermons have you heard where they talk about, like, well, sheep and goats really look the same in the Middle Eastern context, and the only way you can tell them apart is what, by what they do? I think there's probably some, uh, benefit to thinking through those elements, but Christ does not make that point in this parable- Mm ... at least not directly, right? He said, "This is the activity. Imagine a man who has sheep and he has goats. He takes the sheep, he puts them on one side. He takes the goats on another side." That's what the separation at the end of the time, at the end of time will be like. Then he goes straight back out of the parable language into saying, "This is how the king will actually make the distinction.  [00:44:29] Predestination Before Works [00:44:29] Tony Arsenal: The ones on his left, or on his right, he will say, 'Come, you're blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'" Right? This is predestination language, not eschatological judgment language. The sheep were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Before they did anything bad or didn't do anything good, they were guaranteed a kingdom from before the foundation of the world. Then he says, he explains to them, like the context that, as you said before, that reveals that they were sheep all along. [00:45:02] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:02] Tony Arsenal: It shows them that they were already... Man, I just, just made this connection in my head. This is the parable of the wheat and of the tares- Yep ... coming to fruition- Exactly ... at the end of time. Right. Right? The sheep and the goats were allowed to mingle until the time came when they would be separated, just as the wheat and the tares were allowed to grow up until the time when they would be reaped and separated. This is what's going on. The sheep did things that sheep do. Those on the right did the things that the people on the right would do because they were part of God's blessed kingdom all along.  [00:45:34] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:45:35] Tony Arsenal: And then he goes on to explain what the people on the left did not do, not because now they've been put on the left because they didn't do it, but they were shown to have always been a part of that, part of that population. They were always goats because of these things. This shows that they were goats all along, and they did these things or failed to do these things because they were goats all along.  [00:45:58] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:45:59] Works Righteousness Trap [00:45:59] Jesse Schwamb: Let me read another verse. "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children and also our brethren to believe in Christ and to be reconciled to God. For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do." My guess is everybody was with me- ... sounded kind of okay until that last part. And if you had that, like, as we say, like, that theological muscle memory that just made you flex or bristle there, or you had the Spidey Sense, as you say, Tony, good, because that's from 2 Nephi 25:23 from the Book of Mormon. And here's what I wanna say that's shocking, is if we read this passage of scripture that we're talking about as if there's something there that we need to do that proves that we've done enough and that somehow God will be pleased with that, even at the end of time in some small way, some modicum, then we're actually acting way more like Mormons than we are like Christians. That's just the bottom line. Yeah. Because Mormons, if you ask about this verse, rather than try to qualify that last statement by saying, "Well, that's misunderstood," or, "It's really not after all you can do," because of course it begs the question how do you know that you've done enough? How you don't- you've done all the things and that you're, you're exhausted. Their explanation of this is to double down on it and say, "Well, the context of that verse is following verse 23 actually does emphasize salvation only coming through Christ, but it also encourages continued observance of the law of Moses in order to be reconciled to God." Because that's all they could do until Christ fulfilled the law through his atonement. Even that is nonsense. So all of this to say, we have to be careful with this because I, I think you're right. We're aligning, we're running right up on this, and that is I would submit to you that we just get distracted because we always, of course, want to bring something to the party here. The, the salvation cake. We wanna, I don't know, we wanna make it, we wanna do. But God is doing all the things on our behalf. And so as a result of that, I think this parable is actually, it's about the divine prerogative and the agency of Christ in judgment at the end which belongs to him and him alone, and not about these actions. But we get caught up in the actions and we're missing this thri- divine prerogative. I also think that Christ gives this to us to reverse it on us and to show us that he sets about all things. It is in fact his foreordination and his providence. By grace we have been saved through faith, and that in providence being predestined is an act of his great love. And so this shows the extent of that love because those whom he has chosen himself are asking in disbelief as if to say, "When did I do the good works that you required?" And he said, "Well, you didn't because you could never do them apart from me."  [00:48:38] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:48:38] Jesse Schwamb: And so really that's the whole point. It's just so easy for us to get it twisted and say, "Well, doesn't it make sense that there are two groups?" Well, certainly there are in this passage. And doesn't it make good sense that because he said they did things or they didn't do things, then I just need to be about doing those things. And I think that is unfortunately the adventure in missing the point in this passage.  [00:48:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I, I agree 100%. And it's funny 'cause you were reading that and I was like What translation of J- of First John is it? It sound, I mean, it sounds like, it sounds like something you'd read in First John It sounds okay  [00:49:09] Jesse Schwamb: until  [00:49:10] Tony Arsenal: the end. Yeah. No, I mean, like, it literally sounds like First John until- Yeah ... you get to that last part.  [00:49:14] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:49:15] Tony Arsenal: And, and I think you're right that, um, we'll, we'll explore this more next week, but what has always struck me about this passage is that the, the p- the, the people on His right, I've gotta stop saying sheep, because that's... I just made the point that that's not really what's going on. The people on His right who are called into the kingdom because it was prepared for them before the foundation, because they were elected unto that kingdom. The people on His right, they're surprised at the fact that they did these things. And it, I, I think the works righteousness way of reading this is like, "You better earn your salvation. You better get at it because if you haven't fed Jesus in disguise, then you just aren't gonna make it. At the end of the day- Mm ... He's gonna say, 'I never knew you.'" And it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, sometimes I think intentionally, it implies that we, uh, that Jesus comes to know us because we've done good works, right? When we say, "If you don't do these things, then Jesus will say, 'I never knew you,'" then what you're saying is Jesus doesn't know you apart from your good works. Right. And what the Bible says, what this passage says, just right on the face of it, is that the Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for those whom Christ has elected before the foundation of the world, or who the Father has elected, who are blessed by the Father before the foundation of the world. Now, obviously the Father had to know those people in some sense-  [00:50:43] Jesse Schwamb: That's  [00:50:43] Tony Arsenal: right ... before the foundation of the world in order for them to be blessed by Him and for Him to prepare a kingdom. So then to come back to the end of it and say, "Well, there are some of those, uh, who the Father never knew because they didn't do enough work," well, the problem is that those who did the good work, the Father knew before they did the good works. They didn't merit the good works. I mean- Right ... it's funny you, you bring up the, the Mormons, and that's certainly true, but, like, you could substitute in, at least on this regard, right? There are meaningful, important differences between the groups I'm about to say and Mormons, that would be the dividing line between those who are possibly saved and those who are y- definitely not saved, right? You could substitute Arminians, who wanna say God looks down the corridor of time, and the reason He prepared a kingdom in advance for them from the foundation of the world is 'cause He saw that they would do these things that would merit salvation, or He saw that they would make the proper decision to receive His grace, right? Or Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes in a different sense, but similarly who would say like, "Well, yeah, God knows in advance that you're gonna merit salvation, so He prepared- Right ... this kingdom anticipating your merit that you would contribute or your participation or, or whatever." I think in a certain sense, um, you could even apply this to some Lutheran theology, right? Which would say, like, "Well, God prepared this kingdom for you from the foundation of the world because he looked down the corridor of time and he understood that you were not going to resist the grace he gave," right? You were not gonna reject his grace. Um, it really truly only is Reformed theology that can say, "No, God prepared this kingdom in advance for you, and it was the preparation of that kingdom that brought you through this such that you did the good works that you did, such that you made the wise decision to follow Christ that you did. That is caused by the fact that God prepared a kingdom for you in advance, not that you somehow caused this kingdom to be prepared for you." A- and aga- again, again, like, this is dicey. It gets into, like, logical ordering, but fundamentally, a- as far as I can understand it, every competing view besides sort of a Calvinistic understanding of predestination election has to say that in some sense God prepares the kingdom for you as a response to something you have done, or chose- Right to do or chose not to do. The reality is that this passage is saying, "No To those who are on the right. He didn't separate them based on the fact that they did these things. He just said, "You are on the right, and now to those who are on the right, I say to you, come into the kingdom that is blessed. You're blessed by my Father. Come into this kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world." So I think, you know, we're c

Host Jonathan Morrow, author and Director of Cultural Engagement at Impact 360 Institute, examines the state of discipleship in the American church and offers a clear, biblical framework for what it means to follow Jesus.Topics Discussed Why "disciple" is used often in Scripture but rarely clearly defined or practiced Recent Lifeway Research findings: only 11% of U.S. Protestant pastors strongly agree discipleship is their church's strongest function The need for both clarity and a plan in disciple-making (Colossians 4 — gospel clarity + wisdom toward outsiders) Impact 360's definition of a disciple — a faithful follower of Jesus who: Thinks like Jesus (Romans 12:2, Colossians 2:3 — biblical worldview) Is transformed by Jesus (spiritual transformation, fruit of the Spirit) Shares Jesus (verbally sharing the gospel, not just "living it out") Lives out their calling with Jesus (everyday influence, starting where you are) Multiplies disciples like Jesus (the Great Commission, generational faithfulness) Why "attendance-only" faith and a Sunday-morning-only Christianity fail to form true disciples The Ministry Leader Collective — a 9-month cohort through Impact 360's Center for Student Discipleship, helping pastors and youth leaders build a clear, confident disciple-making plan for Gen Z and Gen Alpha (new cohort launching early fall; space limited) A summer challenge to listeners: pick one of the five discipleship marks and ask God where to grow Mention of the Realign Conference (September 10, Atlanta area) featuring Jonathan Morrow, Rosaria Butterfield, Alisa Childers, and Jeff Myers Episode Notes & Links Learn more / apply for the Ministry Leader Collective: impact360.org → Coaching, or impact360institute.org/collective Realign Conference (Sept 10, Atlanta area): impact360.org → Realign Conference Online courses (Explore Truth, Explore the Resurrection) and on-campus programs: impact360.org Connect with Impact 360 Institute Website: impact360.org

Who was Jacobus Arminius? What impact did Jacobus Arminius have on the Protestant church? What was his primary disagreement with Calvinism?

What can Protestants learn from the Catholic tradition? Host Curtis Chang and The Atlantic writer and former White House staffer Pete Wehner explore how Catholic social teaching—from subsidiarity and solidarity to the preferential option for the poor—offers a rich framework for Christian public life. They consider the limits of sola scriptura, unpack the importance of intellectual rigor, and define Christian humanism. Curtis and Pete also contrast the public faith of Pope Leo XIV and Vice President JD Vance, asking why faithful Christian witness should shape how believers respond to artificial intelligence and other challenges of our time. 02:31 - Does Catholic Theology Meet a Protestant Need? 04:41 - Tradition Is Powerful 08:43 - Does Sola Scriptura Have Limits? 10:19 - Protestant Traditions and Discernment 13:54 - Catholicism's Robust Frameworks  17:08 - Reclaiming Tradition for Protestants 21:36 - Embracing the Life of the Mind 27:22 - Christian Humanism fand 21st Century Questions 30:08 - A Protestant-Catholic Convergence 37:42 - Comparing Visions: JD Vance and Pope Leo 41:16 - The Power of a Faithful Witness   Sign up for The After Party Sign up for The Good List   Referenced in the Episode: Pete Wehner's article American Christians Face a Choice Learn about the seven themes of Catholic social teaching Carl F. H. Henry's The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism Alan Jacobs's The Year of Our Lord 1943: Christian Humanism in an Age of Crisis Christian Wiman's My Bright Abyss John F. Kennedy's 1960 address to Protestant ministers in Houston (video) Pope Leo XIV's encyclical on artificial intelligence, Magnifica Humanitas Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on capital and labor, Rerum Novarum Daniel K. Williams on J.D. Vances' Communion What Type of Christian is J. D. Vance? Miroslav Volf on Forgiveness, Justice, and Reconciliation (video) Miroslav Volf & Christian Wiman's Glimmerings   Scriptures Referenced: Psalm 127:3–5 (ESV) Acts 2:42–47 (ESV) Luke 4:1–13 (ESV)   More from Pete Wehner: Pete Wehner's articles at The Atlantic Pete Wehner's opinion pieces at The New York Times   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Good Faith.

Fr Calvin Robinson on Catholic vs Protestant Wars & the Greater BattleDownload our App for Android and Apple here: https://onelink.to/8d3fhuChrist Is King: America After Trump — November 12–14, 2026 in Dallas, Texas. Tickets are limited. Register now to secure your seat! Use code CALVIN for 20% off your ticket.https://newchristianright.com/conference/

Christina Hello, everyone, I'm Christina Darnell, the managing editor of MinistryWatch. Welcome to the MinistryWatch podcast. In today's extra episode, I talk with Warren Smith about some news items that are slightly (even significantly) outside of our normal charity and philanthropy “beat.” So, Warren, what's up first? Warren The San Francisco Chronicle has yet another article about the so-called Great Wealth Transfer. According to the article, the “term [was] popularized by a 2024 report from market research firm Cerulli Associates. The broad idea is that, over the next two decades, as baby boomers journey to the great postwar subdivision in the sky, they will bequeath $124 trillion in assets — leaving $105 trillion to their children and $18 trillion to charities.” Christina You said this was “yet” another article. Do you think this story is overblown? Warren If you detect a bit of weariness in my tone, it is not because I don't believe in the Great Wealth Transfer. It is coming, but it is always coming. It is not an event. It's a process. A generation doesn't die in a day, or a year. It dies over the course of a generation, and as long as the population and the economy keep growing, EVERY generation's wealth will be greater than the previous generation. That's the simple logic of the situation, but journalists breathlessly try to turn the Great Wealth Transfer into news every few months. Christina That said, you are here promoting the story and the idea yourself. Warren Touche! The Chronicle article is interesting, and I recommend it. And to all our readers: make sure you take our Philanthropy Assessment. It will give you some simple, actionable steps to make sure that your wealth ends up where you want it to go. Christina Warren, you've said that one of the most persistent myths in Christian world is the myth that the ranks of the Catholic Church is swelling with ex-evangelicals. Warren It's not happening. Data guru Ryan Burge has pointed out that when there's movement, it's more often from Catholic to evangelical. Burge this week published a treasure trove of data from Detroit Catholics that further documents the decline of Catholicism in the U.S. Among his observations: “In 2011, the average weekend Mass attendance in the archdiocese was about 231,000 people. That dropped below 200,000 by 2015, it declined to 163,000 by 2019. The most recent data that these workbooks provide is from 2024, when Mass attendance was just under 140,000. According to their own reports, the Catholic Church in Detroit is recording an attendance decline of 4% per year.” Christina A lot of folks might say that Detroit is an anomaly. It's been a city in decline. Warren That's a myth, too. And if you are thinking, “Yeah, well, that's Detroit. The city is dying.” Burge says that's an old narrative. The population of Detroit rose during that same period. Christina A headline in The Jerusalem Post grabbed your attention this week. Warren It did. That headline is: “Why 800 million Evangelical Christians stand with Israel in an age of rising antisemitism.” It grabbed me because there are nowhere near 800 million evangelicals in the world. The most respected source for global Christian demographics is the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. It puts the number at around 400 million. Christina Well, maybe that headline was the product of an over-zealous headline writer. Warren I thought that too. Then I read the first line of the editorial, by Greg Denham, pastor of Rise Church in San Marcos, California and the founder of the Pastors Alliance for Israel. The headline merely echoed the first sentence in his essay: “At a time of rising anti-Israel sentiment, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism, it is worth asking why nearly 800 million Evangelical Christians continue to stand firmly with the nation of Israel.” It is a good question. It would be a better question if he got his facts right. That might cause readers to care more about his answer. Christina While we're on the subject, a new survey indicates Americans are souring on Israel. Warren The most recent of Pew Research survey, unveiled on Thursday, July 9, found that most U.S. adults – 62 percent — now view the Israeli government unfavorably, a nearly 20-point shift from 2022, when only 43 percent said the same. By the way, I'm a big supporter of Israel. I've visited there twice. But if you don't think recent events in the Middle East aren't having a major impact on the world's opinion of Israel, you're not paying attention. Christina Warren, I know you're a history buff, and you noted in your “Signs and Wonders” column this week that last week was John Calvin's birthday. He was born on July 9, 1509. Warren He wrote the first draft of his book Institutes of the Christian Religion when he was 26 years old. Many people marvel that he wrote a book that helped change the course of history at such a young age. But he revised it regularly over the years, and the version we read today is a version he published at age 50. This work was significant in shaping Protestant theology and was initially published in Latin while he was in exile in Basel, Switzerland. Christina Warren, let's close today with a recent column by Aaron Renn about the Boy Scouts of America. Warren The Boy Scouts of America, one of the great institutions of civil society in the history of this country, is now a shell of its former self, and its prospects are not bright. For an up-to-date assessment of what is happening with what is now called Scouting America, I recommend Aaron Renn's recent column, which you can find here. A preview: “The Scouts have responded by doing basically what mainline Protestantism and any number of other institutions did. It evacuated its traditional religious core, adopted standard issue liberal positions du jour, and started allowing girls to join (in the way the mainlines allowed female clergy). This isn't likely to work out any better for them than it did for the mainline churches.” Christina Any closing thoughts before we go? Warren If you have not discovered our YouTube channel, check it out here. We now have 200 videos there, and they have attracted tens of thousands of views. Subscribe, like, and share to spread the word about our work. Christina The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. I'm Christina Darnell, along with Warren Smith. Until next time, may God bless you.

Tucker is here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGttrUON87gWfU6dMWm1fcASuperchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/join Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY60LIFE for 60% off now https://choq.com Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Music by Dr Evo the Producer, Jay Dyer and Amid the Ruins 1453 https://www.youtube.com/@amidtheruinsOVERHAUL Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/joinBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

Welcome back to Aquarium Drunkard Transmissions with Jason P. Woodbury. Near the end of his latest LP Indigo Park, our guest this week, Bruce Hornsby, sings something of a conclusion. Or perhaps, a belated introduction: "I've been seeking magical thinking/I think I detect a trend/This could be the start of something/Or this could be an end." The lyric isn't cited to suggest the 71-year-old songwriter is going anywhere. If anything, Indigo Park speaks to the hot streak Hornsby's been on since 2019's Absolute Zero. With that album, he began mining his vast bank of musical cues created for various projects with his longtime collaborator Spike Lee, crafting them into full songs. To his surprise, these late period albums caught the attention of fans of adventurous music, his reputation bolstered by artists like Bon Iver, Vampire Weekend, Haim, and others citing Hornsby as an elder statesman. Recorded with co-producers Tony Berg and Will Maclellan at Sound City Studios in Los Angeles and The Large Cloth-Eared Collider in Williamsburg, Virginia, Indigo Park demonstrates just how unexpectedly Hornsby operates.  From the chiming folk rock of the title track to the Bonnie Raitt-assisted art pop of "Ecstatic" to "Might As Well Be Me, Florinda," a woozy duet with the late Bob Weir aided by the sparking guitar of Blake Mills and Pino Palladino's liquid metal bass, the album showcases Hornsby's vast—ahem—range. At once funny, poignant, and audacious, it's a gem, one of my favorite records of 2026.   Earlier this year, Aquarium Drunkard caught up with him to discuss the album, basketball chants, his work with The Grateful Dead and the Dead's legacy, his taste in literary fiction, and much more. We published a condensed and edited version of this interview in print on Aquarium Drunkard back in April, but now, we're pleased to present the full chat in the podcast feed—complete with an exclusive piano performance that sonically illustrates Hornsby's Protestant hymn-soaked youth in Christian Science congregation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices