You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers

[Download MP3]
Dr. Brown takes your calls and questions as the phones are wide open today. Go ahead and ask! Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Think of it! When He appears, we’re going to be like Him! So how should we be living today?

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Let God be God and do what He does in His sovereignty, and let us be responsible for our part.


For a limited time, when you stand with us as a new monthly Torchbearer we’ll sent you a copy of the Modern English Version [MEV] Thin-line Bible along with 2 of Dr. Brown’s most popular sermons on CD as our gift to you! Find out more HERE.

Other Resources:

The Sabbath Debate Continues

Does God Care About Sports? Jesus and the Culture Wars

Should Persecuted Christians Fight Back? And, What the Current Race Riots Tell Us

  1. re: Church as Salt
    Salt is a vital component in preparing fermented foods.

    With sauerkraut, for example, brine inhibits the growth of harmful bacteria while still allowing the helpful (gut-health-strengthening) bacteria to thrive.

  2. re: Illuminati
    I do not consider myself knowledgeable on the subject (I do not invest my resources in looking into the matter) but I can share a “solid fact” (you advised the caller challenge her acquaintance with providing her with some) that I have happened upon.

    According to the Library of Congress ( – photo at, President George Washington was thoroughly convinced that the Illuminati had not only existed but even that their teachings had already made their way into the United States.

    “Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.
    It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism [the doctrine of Jacob Frank – i.e., that sin should be promoted and practiced wherever possible to speed the arrival of the Messiah – who, in time, taught that he was himself the Messiah] had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
    The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
    My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.”

    Additionally, though I’m not sure how “solid” it is (I haven’t checked the sources), CARM has also published an article on the Illuminati (

    “During the time of the late 1700’s when Britain and France were the superpowers, Adam Weishaupt, a former Jesuit priest, and professor of canon law at the university of Ingolstadt founded the Illuminati group on May 1st, 1776 in Upper Bavaria, Germany. He was a mystic and Kabbalist who was able to obtain followers. He finished his master plan for the conversion of the world into a one world government along with the destruction of Christianity on May 1, 1776, a day still commemorated by communist nations. The Bavarian government discovered the activities of the group which forced the Illuminati to go underground. They regrouped and ended up, alledgedly, orchestrating the Napoleonic Wars in an attempt to ‘weaken all of the European governments.’ They then eventually succeeded in controlling European banks and helped direct ‘the creation of Karl Marx’s Communist manifesto.’ This secret society has subsidiaries which include the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, and the Bohemian Grove.(2014-06-23). Illuminati Exposed–The Truth About The Illuminati Finally Exposed (Illuminati Books, Conspiracy, Free Masons) (Kindle Location 206). Kindle Edition. The two world wars in the 1900s were orchestrated by the Illuminati and the coming Third World War is supposed to be between the Muslims and those who support Israel.”

  3. Re: the Church is Salt. Churchianity has lost it’s savor. Messiah was speaking to Israel when he made the statement. The only church that is salt to the earth is the one that is called Israel. It has the testimony of Y’shua and does the good works that were before ordained that we should walk in. These are found in the law and the prophets. If we resist these good works we have lost our savor also.

    Re 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

    Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
    11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
    12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    If we are not grafted into Israel and part of the commonwealth of Israel, we are not salt to the world. The good works that were before ordained (these are called ordinances) that we should walk in are Israels ordinances given to them by YHWH in the Tanakh…at least Paul thought so.

    2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    The only scriptures that existed when Timothy was a child was the Tanakh. It is this scripture that Paul tells us to obtain our ordinances for righteous living and good works.

    If you want to be salt you have to subject yourself to YHWH’s ordinances…the ones that were before ordained in the scriptures.


  4. When i hear people talk about the rich elites controlling the world I believe so what that’s the way it’s always been the rich guys are making all the major decisions in this world.

  5. Bo,
    On the surface, that verse can seem to prove your point well; I will have to throw it in the pile of Scriptural difficulties – ideas I need to study and pray about – along with, among many other things, the fundamental problem that Ro 3:19-4:8 and 10:3-13 have justification being by faith but Ro 2:13-16 being by works.

    In other words, that Scriptural difficulties exists is nothing new. That being said, what I do in such cases is hold both seemingly irreconcilable ideas – I don’t dismiss one for the other (especially when, as it is in this case – though I’m sure you’ll tell me how much you disagree – the vast majority of Scripture is on the side of one of the ideas [e.g., that we are both dead to the Law and not under It Ro 6:14, 7:1-6; 1 Co 9:20, 21; Gal 2:19 – and, no, “under the Law” can’t possibly mean “condemned by the Law”, since that would render the verse gobbledegook: “sin shall not be your master since you are not ‘condemned’ by the Law but ‘condemned’ by grace”]).

    In closing, it isn’t my fault Scripture is so extremely difficult to understand; I just have to learn the right response to the fact that that is the reality of the matter. Also, just because It is so extremely difficult for us all to understand doesn’t mean we can’t derive any benefit from Scripture what so ever; it just means we don’t yet possess the fullness of what It has to offer.

  6. Bo,
    (I was referring only to 2 Ti 3; the Rv one, together with the vast majority of the texts you could raise, are simple to satisfactorily answer and reconcile with my view – whether you’ve accepted them or not, you’ve already been provided with many of said answers.)

  7. Daniel,

    I think that there is no contradiction. James puts it well.

    Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    No one is justified by works, but those that are justified by faith do the works that were before ordained in YHWH’s Torah. Abraham was justified by faith and he also kept YHWH’s rules.

    Ge 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

    Keeping YHWH’s commandments does not justify us, it shows that we have been justified and empowered by grace to obey. It really is that easy.

    If someone does not want to obey YHWH’s law or refuses to once he knows it, he proves his carnality.

    Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    Our faith does not make the law nonapplicable to us, it is supposed to produce the impetus to obey it. We do not really have the right kind of faith in YHWH if it does not produce a zeal for obeying His every command.

    Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

    Those good works are described in YHWH’s Torah.

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    If we have read of them or heard them we are accountable and we deceive ourselves to ignore them.

    Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
    23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
    24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
    25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.


  8. Bo,
    I’ve already considered that route, but it cannot resolve the problem.

    i. Doers of the Law *will be* [future-tense] “declared to be in right standing” (“justified” – and so throughout) based on their persistence in doing good when [future-tense] God judges [Ro 2:6, 7, 13-16].
    ii. We have been [past-tense] “declared to be in right standing” by [the righteousness of] faith [Ro 5:1]; with the heart man believes [faith is counted as righteousness] and is justified [Ro 10:9, 10].
    iii. The Gospel was designed specifically with the need men have of being saved from the sin of boasting in mind (if we can’t be saved from boasting we can’t be saved from wrath on sins like ungodly boasting [Ro 1:18]) – the feature of God’s Gospel making provision for this particular need being God’s declaring men to be “in right standing” apart from a righteousness of their own established by the Law of Works [Ro 3:27, 28, 4:2, 5:1, 10:3, 9, 10; Ep 2:8, 9; Pp 3:3-9, etc.,].
    iv. Faith is *incomplete*; it, thus, cannot qualify as “righteousness” which may secure the verdict of “in right standing” – works must be added to faith in order to *complete* it so that it may qualify as “righteousness” so that it can secure the verdict of “in right standing” [Ja 2:22].

    Why are there two different *timings* (past-tense and future-tense) for being judged “in right standing”(vs “in wrong standing” / condemned)? Either man is or is not “in right standing”. Why are the two different judgments based on two different premises (even if you left James out of the picture, and dealt solely with Paul’s own words) which seem to be mutually exclusive and fundamentally at odds with one another? More to the point, is the one who “has been [past-tense] declared to be in right standing by [the righteousness of] faith” [Ro 5:1] permitted to claim he has *not yet been* “declared in right standing” – i.e., as, of necessity, he must assume and hold this if he is going to provide himself a basis for reaching forward toward a future moment wherein he is convinced the verdict “in right standing” will need to be secured [Ro 2:13-16]?

    This becomes important when one notes that, historically (i.e., as opposed to the following being a mere theory) [Gal 1:6, 3:1-5, 5:2-8], there are cases of men who had at one time been unified with Messiah finding themselves cut off from Messiah and His (saving) grace as a punitive measure for their breaking the terms and conditions of the Law of Faith – i.e., disobeying the Truth [Gal 5:7] in believing a false Gospel [Gal 1:6] that did not issue from God [Gal 5:8] which (contrary to Scripture [Ro 3:19, 20]) purported that flesh had to be declared “in right standing” by their own righteousness based on the works of the Law [Gal 3:3], and *not* that God declared the one who (in obedience to the Truth) considered himself ungodly / without any qualifying merit of his own (merit he would have secured had he satisfied the terms and conditions of the Law of Works – or would have erroneously considered that he had secured had he disobeyed the Truth and presumed that he had satisfied the terms and conditions of the Law of Works) but possessed the “righteousness of faith” [Ro 3:26, 4:5, 5:1, 10:10; Pp 3:9] to be in right standing.

    Bear in mind that the question is *not* as to whether a believer *will* / *should* work the good; rather, the question is as to what constitutes “righteousness” (so that the Judge renders the verdict “in right standing”) and as to when the Judge renders the verdict (either “in right standing” or “in wrong standing”). Is it the “righteousness of faith” that secures the verdict in the past, or is it the “works which are done after one comes to faith” that secures the verdict in the future?

    The one pseudo-legitimate response that a person might raise would be based on the NPP: “works of the Law” has nothing to do with “moral requirements” and everything to do with “markers of Jewish identity” (circumcision, dietary laws, observance of special days, etc.,) – thus, even if he believes it, Paul’s concern, and point, in Romans is not soteriological (men are declared to be in right standing with God because God is righteous and not because they are righteous / satisfy the terms and conditions for “righteousness” laid out by the Law) but ecclesiastical (Jews and Gentiles are both part of Abraham’s family – even if Gentiles don’t have the markers of Jewish identity / works of the Law). In this case, the response seems simple: I honestly can’t understand how people like Wright are getting away with defining “works of the Law” as “boundary markers like circumcision”. Is that how Paul, in Romans, defines “works of the Law”? No, for him “the works of the Law” consists which tell us what sin are [Ro 3:20] – e.g., “Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.'” [Ro 7:7]. “You shall not covet” is *not* a “boundary marker like circumcision”, it is a “good work” which the “good Law” [Ro 7:12, 13] “requires” [Ro 8:4] – a moral imperative. As such, it is one of the “good deeds” which are singled out as not qualifying for being a part of a legitimate basis for God’s saving from His wrath on the unrighteousness of men [Ro 1:18; Ep 2:8, 9].

    Again, this issue appears to be a salvific one.

    One last note: David defines “the righteousness of faith” as “being forgiven” [Ro 4:6-8]; thus “the righteousness of faith” must be wholly other than any good which may be worked – whether of one’s own prior to salvation or of God / grace after salvation.

  9. Regarding the “Illuminati,” they were a historical group, hellbent on anti-Christian activity, so that’s the first thing. This term “Illuminati,” however, is more often than not used by charlatans to sensationalize, and to thereby discredit as “wacky” and “unbelievable,” an actual phenomenon, which is what the sacred authors describe as the Gospel of Antichrist, the denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ and the setting up of the religion of gnostic naturalism, which certain elements have been pushing for several centuries in an organized effort to destroy Christian society and morality. I don’t think anyone would deny this: since the “Enlightenment,” Western civilization has been undergoing a systematized de-Christianization. But there are groups who openly admit their involvement in it, like the Freemasons, who have published treatises on their plan to set up an international republic in total opposition to Christian virtues, and these claims should be taken seriously. A Christian should look at the people who hold inordinate amounts of power and investigate their involvement in promoting vice and anti-Christian ideologies, usually modeled after Marxist principles. A Christian should not be afraid to look into the fundamentally evil agendas of population control, stateless world socialism, and the concept of relativistic universality, which are adamantly pushed by the United Nations and similar bodies. We are locked in an immortal struggle to the death with the enemies of Jesus Christ, so why should it surprise any true Christian that, if there is a Body of Christ, there is also a body of Satan existing in direct opposition? Such is the nature of the struggle in this present age. To brush it all off is naive or willfully ignorant.

  10. Lulu,
    Dr. Brown was asking for “substantial proof” not more baseless assertions.

    Sorry for the typos, but I hope you will be able to understand what I was trying to say.

  11. Daniel,

    How much proof do you want, when groups like the Freemasons admit to it themselves? Really, I don’t understand how Christians can fail to see the crisis when the enemy is closing in on them all around? Do you see what the Western world is becoming? Do you see what is happening in Europe with secularism and the cultural changes? What about the people who lobby for that kind of change, and the efforts behind it? There was a conspiracy to crucify Christ. Therefore, there is a conspiracy to crucify his church on earth. Why should this come as a surprise to any true believer? The Bible has already told us how Satan operates.

  12. Lulu,
    Unless you have accounts from trustworthy witnesses (e.g., something like former members’ testimonies) nothing you say will hold any weight. That’s just the way things work. I’m not interested in discussing the Illuminati since they can do neither good nor bad to me in terms of my standing before God.

  13. Bo,
    I have, through prayer and study, developed many other plausible answers to this conundrum, but none that are completely satisfactory (they end up answering this but not that aspect).

  14. Lulu,
    I’m not interested in discussing the Illuminati; if you have sources you thought were trustworthy (e.g., Alta Vendita) you can share them in your interactions with others (not me).

  15. Hi Benjamin,

    I just read a half dozen articles about the same thing and even though the UN Security Council had this to say when the deal was ratified:

    “Following the deal’s acceptance, a United Nations Security Council resolution on July 20 called upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology” for eight years.”

    They fired one back in Oct. of last year!

    The one article goes on to say this:

    “State Department spokesman John Kirby said Sunday that the U.S. would take “appropriate actions” at the U.N. if the tests violated Security Council resolutions.”

    Did you notice that little word, “if?” The President stated yesterday that Iran hadn’t broken the agreement!” What?!

    Sited from this article:

  16. “Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests did not violate the nuclear agreement with Tehran, the White House said on Tuesday, adding that it would review the launch to determine the appropriate response.”

    In another article:

    “U.S. and French officials said a missile test by Iran would violate U.N. Security Council resolution 2231, which calls on Iran not to conduct “any activity” related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

    “However, Washington said that a fresh missile test would not violate the Iran nuclear deal itself, under which Tehran agreed to restrict its atomic program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. The deal was endorsed in resolution 2231.

    “It is unlikely the Security Council would take action on Iranian missile tests, diplomats say.
    “While most of its 15 members would agree with the United States and France about a likely violation of resolution 2231, Russia and China, which have veto power, made clear during negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal they did not agree with continuing the U.N. restrictions on Tehran’s missile program and arms trade.”

    “Hajizadeh said sanctions would not stop Iran developing its ballistic missiles, which it regards as a cornerstone of its conventional deterrent.”

    What exactly “did” we get from the deal with them? I don’t get it, I really don’t! The whole world has “less” security now than it did before the deal!

    I think the President has been trying to live up to his “premature” Nobel Peace Prize ever since he received it. They canned the head of the committee that gave him the prize shortly after that.

    Another article:

    “Iran test fired two ballistic missiles on Wednesday with the words “Israel must be wiped out” written on their sides in the latest of a series of a provocative moves by the country’s hardliners.
    “The two Qadr-H missiles had the words written in Hebrew as they were fired from a mountain range in northern Iran, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.
    “The 2,000-kilometer range of our missiles is to confront the Zionist regime,” said Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. “Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war. It will collapse even before being hit by these missiles.”
    More missiles were tested on Tuesday in what Iran described as a show of its “deterrent power”.

    There’s a video with it. And the International Institute for Strategic Studies say their missiles have a range of 1,200 miles…

  17. Yes Sheila, haha. It’s rediculous. I read much of the same things and just had to shake my head. Amazing.

Comments are closed.