If you have a PDF document that contains sensitive or confidential information, the most effective way to prevent unauthorized access is by password protecting your PDF. Thankfully, there are several software options available that allow you to easily encrypt your PDFs with a password. Once the software is a Sustake PDF Editor, open your PDF file in the Sustake PDF Editor, select the secure option from the menu, click on Protect and set your desired password. Save the document. Once you have set a password for your PDF, every time you attempt to open it, you will be prompted to enter the password for access. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Also, like, share and subscribe for more such useful content.


Okay, we're back. We're live here. It is on a given Monday morning. We have Richard Walsgrove but his friends refer to him as professor. He's a professor, professor of law at the William H. Richardson School of Law and UH Minoa. Good morning, Richard. Welcome to the show. Good morning, Jay. Thanks for having me. Nice to have you. Well, let me let me frame this by saying, you know, there are three things in our public world today. One is climate change and environment and that has a lot to do with energy, which is your specialty. And the second thing, of course, is COVID, which, you know, it seems to occupy all of our attention and rightly, rightly so. And the third thing is what I'm going to call it social trouble, such as we've seen over the weekend in the George Floyd protests in this country and in other countries as well. So what we have here is three things that tug tug at the social order, if you will, at the future of the planet. And I would like to explore with you the connection between the three. You know, we started out and I mentioned this to a couple months ago when I saw you. What was it? The HECO Town Hall meeting. I make that Hawaiian Electric Town Hall meeting that there's a connection, an interaction even between climate change and COVID. And the other way is also between COVID and climate change argument. But what's come up since is, you know, we have COVID has stopped economic activity in most places. And lo and behold, we now have less carbon emissions. And I was saying the revelation for me is that this is proof, or at least it's a pretty good argument that carbon emissions and climate change are a function of human experience. If you reduce the human experience, you reduce the carbon. Is it clear or not? Well, I think there may be two ways to look at that. The first would be, is it true that we can correlate economic activity in our modern world with greenhouse gas emissions? And the answer is absolutely yes. We didn't need COVID to know that. We saw it in 2008 and 2009 and we've seen it repeatedly. I guess the question looking forward, which is more interesting to me and I suspect also to you, is does that correlation hold no matter what? Do we need to decrease economic activity in the future? You know, do we need this manmade reduction, economic activity to have a manmade reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions? I'm not so convinced that that necessarily holds. It's really a question of the system we build, the system we build amidst greenhouse gas emissions and how much it emits as a function of economic activity. If something is up to us, we can make that decision. Well, you know, we used to, I'm thinking back to COP 21, we used to have a kind of world focus on this and that has been fragmented during the Trump administration. And now I think it's hard to find world focus on climate change and you know, there's not a lot of things happening that attempt to reduce climate change these days. What's your thought about that? Have we reduced our effort? I mean, not necessarily voluntarily, but just as a human experience, the political experience, the social experience, you know, and this, I'm looking at this as a snapshot before COVID, you know, reduced economic activity. Have we declined in our interest and our action points in the last few years? You know, I think that's a question everybody was hoping we could answer at the upcoming COP that was supposed to be in November in Glasgow. It's now been pushed back by a year. And that was the year where the only thing anybody expected from that particular conference of the party was the whole world would come together and decide, are we are we advancing the ball or not on reducing emissions? My perspective about whether or not it was happening already is as fragmented as the globe that you just described. As I walked around those COP meetings in the past few years and took students there so they could also reflect on it. And I listened to what they had to say. You see a mixture, you see a mixture of the status quo, which is, I think, resistant to making the systemic changes that are needed to reduce emissions. And those pop up in lots of expected and unexpected ways. And then you'd pop in and talk to the next person, you know, you talk to Norway, whose economic basis for generations has been oil or for at least a generation has been oil exploration. And the folks from Norway are talking about how they can transform to a net negative emissions scenario. In other words, that's their new plan, the new target, which is moving, I think, radically from where we were a year ago. Nobody was talking net negative a while back. So whether or not we were acting appropriately or not is something we probably can't know for another decade or two. But I see movement in both directions. It's almost like a horse race. And I just wish I could give you a better answer about whether or not things were looking rosy or not. It depends on whether you call me on a Tuesday or a Thursday. And I'm feeling good about things one day and not so good at things about the other day. And we see that locally, too. We see lots of progress in the local greenhouse gas emissions landscape, the energy landscape. And we also see a disappointing retrenchment in some places. I'm thinking of Build 25, the city council, which could have been a really drastic step in how we are built environment and how we design homes and businesses. And there was a lot of pushback to that idea. So I see the good and the bad, Jay. You tell me which one we should talk about today. Well, you know, back how many years ago, 20 years ago, there was the movie, Al Gore's movie, Inconvenient Truth. And I was with my wife and some friends having dinner. And my friends had just seen the movie that day. And I skipped dessert. I actually left them in the restaurant so I could go see the movie because I realized right at that instant moment that this was critical and that we really had to move with all dispatch. And I've never changed my mind about that.  And are we moving fast? Do people recognize? Do governments recognize? Does the world recognize? I mean, if they put off Glasgow for a year, in many ways, we will have lost a year again. Are we moving fast enough or is this just going to tear at the fabric of our civilization, ultimately, because we haven't done enough? So I can give you a less wishy-washy answer than the last question. And say, no, we're certainly not moving fast enough. You just look at the data. Let's look at the numbers and look at that curve that everybody says we have to bend. That's a great analogy we can use for climate change. We all know what bending the curve or flattening the curve means now. And the curve was not bending as fast as it had to. It's not pre-COVID and probably not post-COVID either. But I don't know if that means we've failed, right? That's the question. Have we already failed? Are we looking? There's almost no question in my mind that climate change just tear at the fabric of society, particularly for the most vulnerable of the global population. And so have we failed avoiding that outcome? I don't think we know that answer yet. And I think things like saying, you know what, net negative emissions, an atmospheric repair program is our agenda. That's a terrific thing to see. Then you've got the White House who calls climate change a hoax. That's a really dangerous thing to see. I really don't know who it is, but communication. You talked about sort of your moment of realization on this topic was a movie. That's a brilliant move, right? There's a medium that people can relate to in ways that they don't relate to going and looking at numbers on a page and seeing bending the curve that way. And I think communication is probably going to be the tool that wins or loses the battle, how we talk about these things and what we say. It's incredibly important and stressful for lawyers. I can tell you that much because we think a lot about how we frame things and how we say things and what we, you know, what we want to focus on. And I feel like I have imperfect information about what the right words are to capture the momentum in the right direction. Well, that actually is a great segue to a core point here.  And so it seems to me that if you want to achieve any meaningful, you know, progress on this, any meaningful achievement, you've got to change the laws or you've got to enforce laws in such a way so that it changes human conduct on a grand scale. You know, a village here and a town there doesn't really help. You've got to change human conduct around the world to deal with a global problem. So what have we got going in terms of the laws? I mean, even COP 21 is so much voluntary. You can opt in, you can opt out. Some countries do, some countries don't. Some countries can afford to implement new rules and some can't. From a legal point of view, how important is changing the law to recognize, you know, a need for alacrity? I think the law does exactly what you described, that it sort of, it sets the norm. It sets what is our baseline expectation. And of course, we don't want, I don't think any of us really want a legal system that dictates every move of every individual. That dooms to failure and probably gets it wrong anyway because we will forecast the wrong action. But we do want law that says, you know, we understand what the baseline expectation is for ourselves as a society. We want to thrive. We want to survive. Pick either one. Either one is relevant to climate change. And so the law, the law's role in setting that norm I think is fantastically important. But you mentioned some frustration or what I interpreted as frustration was the voluntary nature of some of the international laws, the Paris Agreement and voluntary nature. If I think of the law's role as just setting a norm, you know, a voluntary law is actually okay. If we, if we design a global system where 95% of countries or forget that, what if I said 190 countries out of roughly 200 all decide that net negative emissions is necessary. That's okay. The five countries who opted out, they can be wrong. Now, you've got a question about whether or not we should punish those countries. And I think that's also a role for the law, a role of the law to figure out how we internalize some of the externalized costs from decisions. And if the US ultimately doesn't want to, you know, at the federal level, doesn't want to reduce emissions, I would expect a global legal norm that makes the US pay for that decision one way or another. And ultimately, it's probably not the best choice for the US. I don't think we've gotten there yet. We haven't gotten to that question of, you can give it whatever phrase you want. They're all loaded with particular nuances that we're talking about climate liability, or we're just talking about sort of the economic idea of internalizing costs. I think the law has not gotten there at the international level certainly. And I don't think it's gotten there at the local level either here in Hawaii. Although, in some ways, I think Hawaii is doing a great job changing the norms, you know, something like just saying we want to target 100% renewable energy. There's a norm. That's a binding law, but there are a lot of loopholes in that law. I'm not concerned by the loopholes because I've seen the norm change already. Now, there are, I don't know, count them, right? There are 10 million decisions to be made between here and that ultimate endpoint achieving that norm. And what role the law has to play in each of those is a case by case contextual question. It's really hard to answer as a general matter. I go back to communication. If everybody's, no matter what the law says, if everybody's talking about the issue in a way that progresses towards a sort of mutually and socially beneficial outcome, I'm okay with a legal regime that does that. I think we also have to recognize this isn't just energy law. I've been thinking because of your questions and thinking about the ties between COVID and energy and climate. And one of the things that strikes me is that we have a virus that has led to the Supreme Court deciding a religious liberties question in recent days. Nobody would have said that those two are related two months ago. But now we see that actually because climate and energy are so integral to the fabric of our society and our laws, we're seeing a legal decision on something as important to many people as religious liberty. That's so difficult to forecast where those twists and turns go. But if we just stick with the basic understanding that we need to reduce emissions, I think we can trust the law makes the right decision. Well, let me add a thought and be provocative for a minute. You speak of the law as a reflection of how the people in the jurisdiction feel. That's the democratic approach.  And then, of course, it goes back to communication. If everybody buys into the, you know, the Gord movie, then maybe more people be writing their representatives in Congress and demanding action and those people in turn will, you know, take action. And so, you know, what I get is it's a question of degree. If people are very concerned about this, if they think their future, the future of their children is heavily impacted, they're going to be taking more steps. But a lot of people in this country don't care.  They ignore it. I mean, and they take the lead from our president. He doesn't care. In fact, he works against it. And they don't care. They work against it, too. So what you have is a very, I want to call it less than active movement in this country.  It's happening. It's a matter of physics, science, and we certainly can't keep up that way. So if you make me king, and I would be happy to make you king, too, Richard, I would say, wait a minute, the people can sometimes be wrong. If we are going to save them, you know, despite their ignorance on this and their lack of interest in it, then I'm going to, as king, I'm going to do something. Wouldn't you do that? Wouldn't you change the law? Wouldn't you set aside the democratic process? It's provocative, I know. Nothing like telling this to a law professor. Wouldn't you set aside the democratic process and say, hey, boys and girls, we've got to do something. And if that means we don't care about consensus, we're going to do it anyway. There's a role for that provocative idea, certainly. I can think of one right off the bat, and it's timely.  No question, right? And that, I think that there are a lot of things about our federal and state law that are baked in to do that, to sort of protect, that we hear the phrase, the tyranny of the majority, right? Protect the minority in a time when the majority perhaps doesn't agree with some fundamental principle. I'm not sure whether or not that's effective for climate change. You know, let's make this, let's take this and put it in the context. I'll use a provocative context. The tension or not between agriculture for land, for agriculture, and land for renewable energy. That's a real question in individual communities. I think it's a real question as a policy matter as a whole. I have heard from other academics that one of the things that needs to be done, this is the phrasing that's used, needs to be done, is to fast track the environmental review process for renewable energy project. And I can understand that, right? Oh my goodness, renewable energy isn't happening fast enough. There's a crisis on our hands. We just don't have time to wait. But I really question whether or not that openly slows down the process. I can imagine here in Hawaii that the community pushed back to, if you said there's no more public input when we decide where to cite a renewable energy project. Does that really accelerate renewable energy or not? And I have a sense, and it's no more than a sense, that it slows it down. I also have a sense that there are probably other solutions that don't bear the same risk. And so you're, if you were king, I'm sure you'd make many sensible decisions. But whether or not you would be the best king, perhaps is something that we just can't know. And our social experiment with the law, because we're always changing the laws with imperfect information, another lesson from the COVID crisis. As we as we move through this social experiment with imperfect information, I don't think any of us should have the hubris to think that we have the right answer. I certainly don't think that I have all the right answers. But I also agree with your fundamental premise, which is sometimes many people can have a position on an issue, a reasonable position that I can understand, but I can disagree with, and ultimately that I think should be overruled. Sure, I'll bite. You know, in COVID, we have an interesting, you know, you've been touching on science. Science is a factor in all this. I mean, if I tell you that we have a zero sum game on agriculture renewable energy, well, scientific, you know, suggestions may resolve that. Maybe I can do both in the same area of land, you know, you have to refer to the sciences, right? Right there in Minoa, for example, who might be helpful on that. But what we have, though, in Washington now, is an administration that doesn't support renewable energy, that is, that has not mounted a good campaign against COVID. And at the same time, is ineffective. And there's undermining our democracy back from the days of the founders. I mean, I don't, you would have to agree with me as a law professor, that there's a concern about the future of our democracy when Congress isn't working. And the Supreme Court does not have the confidence in the people. And the president has become a sole proprietorship. So, you know, with all of that, it's hard to say that consensus and the expression of the public view in the matter to the exclusion of science is a working model, great experiment, as you put it. I'm not sure the experiments working right now. That's the reality in Washington we read about in the paper every day. So, you know, how can we make important decisions? How can we develop important priorities when our system of making decisions and our system of, you know, allocating the priorities is clearly being undermined and is not as effective as we might have hoped or that the founders might have hoped. This changes the, it changes, it changes the world, doesn't it? Yeah. And it's scary to watch. And I'm probably not the only law professor who watching Supreme Court confirmation processes in recent years or other things happening in Washington DC has lost what used to be a pretty, you know, bedrock faith that the system ultimately can work. I'm not ready to say yet it's failed because I don't know, I've been alive enough to see, you know, things change. So perhaps it can be resurrected. But that federal system, as it stands today, is completely ineffective. And so as an advocate, I would spend almost zero percent of my time working on those federal issues. That's one of the things that the most recent presidential administration has sort of prompted is a shift back to local decision making, state decision making. Interestingly enough, a shift back to federalism that is opposed by those who call themselves federalists. A lot of this just goes back to communication. We know what's happening. There are deeply entrenched, highly moneyed interests with trillions of dollars on the line in the status quo. It shouldn't surprise anybody that people with those sorts of resources would try to sort of corrupt the process at the federal level. Can they corrupt the process at our state level? I think that's a more difficult task. And there are groups who do it. There's Alex, the American legislative exchange council. They go state to state and try to undermine things like renewable standards with not quite as much success, I think, as we've seen at the federal level. I think that we have to get comfortable with the idea that with, you know, hundreds of millions of people in this big social experiment, one person sitting in an office in Washington, D.C. is important, but it's not permanent and it doesn't define the past. I think if any of us were to say, oh, the Trump administration doesn't agree with me on climate change, so the game is over, or so we need to, you know, tear the Constitution apart. That's, again, that about slows things down more than it actually speeds things up. If instead we say, that's not an effective playing field, I'm going to move and I'm going to do my work here. Also, let's not forget the power of the ballot. You know, with respect to executive administrations, the idea is it can change every four years, so that's something that I might spend my time on as an advocate. The Supreme Court turnover is slower, but it changes too. Can it change in time to address the climate crisis? Probably not. That's why creative lawyers are finding ways to make policies and find, you know, liability in ways that don't require us to use those infected systems in Washington, DC. Let's find other ways to do it. It might have read last week that one of the climate change lawsuits in California was sent back to the state court. Well, there you go. There was a lawyer's sort of strategic and tactical move to avoid the problems that you described. Fixing the problems that you described. I don't see any of any root other than the ballot box. Yeah, but the ballot box has its troubles these days and we'll have much greater trouble if the post office is dissembled here coming next month, this month. But let me go to another issue. I mean, before we do that, I just want to tell you a story. Jack Balkan was on our show. He's the Dean of Constitutional Law at Yale and it was during the W term. And I asked him, I said, you know, can we go back to the way it was before W? Because he had done a good job on so many issues. Can we just like spring back to the way it was? And he said, no, you don't understand history, constitutional law. They work together and everything that happens forms the future. Every event whether you like it or don't forms the future. And I think the Republicans and Trump are fully aware of that. They're trying to have a shadow and influence on the future by the appointment of these judges, by changing the way the ballot box works, by trying to perpetuate their view of things even after he's out of office, even after Congress has returned to a better configuration. So it'll be a real struggle to achieve the same things that we had before. We'll have to fight the same battles that we had before. That's just what he said. Anyway, I'd like to cover the next few minutes anyway is the is the reverse and see what your thoughts are about that query. You know, does either factually or legally does COVID have an effect on climate change? That is, or maybe I put it the wrong way. You know, arguably what Trump said at the outset was that in the warmer weather of the summer, don't worry climate change will have an effect on COVID, COVID will go away. We all know that we were kids. The cold season was in the winter. I think that's what he was thinking. And so there's a, you know, we live in a world where all these things intermesh, virus, people and the results legally of people and governments, we're all in the same soup. And the virus is affected by what we do. The virus is affected by the effects or no effects that we have on climate change and the effects of climate change on our ecology. What are your thoughts about that? Is there an interaction between the coronavirus and climate change? On many, many, many, many, many levels. You know, public health experts have been saying for years that the climate trends we're observing lead to increases in things like vector-borne diseases. So at a very, you know, just looking sort of in the most simplistic way is what we're experiencing now, something that we should be afraid we'll see more of in the future of climate change. The experts tell us yes. But I think there are also lots of nuanced ways to think about that, the interplay between our COVID crisis and our climate crisis. Climate energy advocates have talked for years about resilience. And it's sort of a fuzzy concept, what does resilience mean? It means different things to different people at different times and different sectors. I think this COVID crisis has teaching us a little bit about what resilience actually means in our own lives, my own house. I understand what resilience means in a little bit of a better way. And I see the value of resilience. And so can we turn that into a way to advance the ball? I go back to communication again. You know, the way we talk about things, resilience was not a terribly effective thing to say six months ago. I suspect it might be a very effective word from here on out. There's history, you know, it will never go back to the way it was, but that's not necessarily a negative. We can use this to the advantage of the world if we want to. There are just so many other levels. You started on sort of science and listening to experts a little while ago. And there's another lesson that's not hard to see out of a COVID crisis.  That's not just a Trump phenomenon. That's happened here. And we've seen the same thing unquestionably in COVID, whether it's the misinformation spreading around in so many different realms is shocking in a lot of ways. Can we get smarter about that? I bet there are a lot of people who weren't terribly concerned about the misinformation age a few months ago, who now are. And of course, there's probably a large group of people who are equally unconcerned about climate misinformation as they are about COVID misinformation. So that's a sort of a problem still to tackle. But I think there are some silver linings and some things to think about, but some lessons to learn, if you will. This is a painful experience that society is going through. It would be terrible if after this was all over, and I don't know if or when or how it's all over, but let's just do a thought experiment and say at some point in the future it's all over. If we were to say let's just go back to the way things were, that would be a lost opportunity. Opportunity is maybe not the right word there, because I hate to think about these difficult times as an opportunity, but it would be a lost lesson. It would be us basically burying our heads in the sand, and we're smarter than that. Society, I think, we're smarter than that. Even the entrenched interest is smarter than that. I know there's a lot of news lately about large investment firms like BlackRock and their role in the climate crisis. And the news goes both ways, and you see some good and some bad. A decade ago, we didn't see large investment firms talking about climate change, and so there you go. There's a step in the right direction. It's not enough. It's not what the king would do. King Jay would ask for more and sooner, and he's got data to back that up. But nonetheless, there's a lesson. And so again, as advocates, I would talk to my students about how do we capitalize on that? What are the things we do in the business sector that might actually advance the ball on climate change? What are the things that you can do in the business sector that leads to a more prosperous economic society for everybody and also reduces greenhouse gas emissions? Which again, a decade ago, I don't think anybody thought was possible. And now if you were to ask a nerd like me, I think it's almost inevitable. You know, you're talking about the students, and it takes me to my last question to you, Richard. You're teaching the students and you're trying to cultivate what you want to call it. It's a Socratic method, not only of attending class, but of living and finding the right answers and collaborating and doing the best possible human experience. And it's going to be very challenging, hopefully soon at the end of COVID. But they've got to deal with repairing government, if you will, or taking government to the next level. They're going to deal with all the issues we've been talking about, including rebuilding the economy, forming a lot of corporations, doing business. This is very challenging.  Are they going to be ready? Are we going to have a generation of, because I think lawyers are extraordinarily influential in our world. Sometimes they don't take advantage of that level of influence. I mean, or at least they don't see themselves as leaders. They see themselves as practitioners and advocates rather than leaders. So my question is, are they ready to lead us or participate in the leadership of the country and more, to the next level, to a better level, when this is over, when they're graduated? I only have two frames of reference to think about that question, Jay. One is my own experience as a law student 12 years ago. And the other is the past few years, when I've been lucky enough to rub shoulders with students at the law school while I'm teaching. And one of the things I remember from almost the very first day of my own orientation was thinking, wow, this is an impressive group of people who think about issues in a way that I never did before. And you know, that's one of the things law school does, is you get to see things from a new perspective, which is incredibly important to solve these sort of unknown, unanswerable questions. You have to look at it from new perspective. And I see that same thing in the students today. I don't see any difference between my classmates and the current crop of students in terms of that ability to look at things in a new perspective. I do see in the modern crop of students, I see, especially in the past year or two, a much bigger focus on their own communities and that being the sort of motivator for why they're interested in learning about new perspectives. And I think that could be incredibly powerful. It could also mean a change in the way things used to work. You know, I think lots of times a lawyer, like you said, might be interested in practice or might be interested in moving to Washington, DC, where the movers and shakers are. And I wonder if a crop of students who say, you know, I'm going to start with my own community and define community however you want. There are lots of different ways to define it. I think they could be incredibly powerful. It'll be a new model. And it's an experiment. I don't know if that will work. I think there's some evidence that it will. I think back to people like Eleanor Ostrom, the Nobel Prize winner in economics, who did some empirical research on the sort of role of communities in changing global sustainability or in terms of changing global policy and management. And she found ways that it worked. And I don't think we had ever envisioned before she found those things. So maybe these students have just sort of cottoned onto what Eleanor Ostrom was saying. On the other hand, I can see a risk. I can see a risk that people who are, I've been accused of this myself actually. I'll just talk about myself.  I don't believe that, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I am wasting my time and I should be focused on, you know, the Permian Basin or something in my own advocacy. I think the students are they're forging their own path and they're going to do it in ways that shock us. And I'm okay with that. I think that's the role of the next generation is to take old stories like us and to shock us a little bit. And I think that's fine. And I see that in our students. And so they give me a lot of hope. I'll go back to the students walking around the cops, the climate meeting, and the questions they ask are not the questions I ask. Does that mean that the wrong questions? Absolutely not. It probably means they're the right questions.  So it's very important work you're doing. Richard Wallsgrove, Professor of Law at UH Manoa. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Thank you, Jay. It's been fun. Can't wait to hear more of the discussion as you talk with other folks. Yeah, well, I'd like to circle back with you. We'll do that soon. Yeah, take care. Take care. Bye-bye.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com coming at you with another three box break of Fanatics Underwraps Autograph Baseball. These are a lot of fun. This is break number 31. One spot gets you nine players, one person will get the any and all multi-signed baseball spot. I feel like we haven't seen one in a little bit, are we do? Big thanks to Steve, Kevin, Steven and Eugene for getting in on this one.  There should be 171 items on each list. There you go, that matches up. Let's gather your names, put them into the first list. Gather these names, get them into the other list. We'll put the randomizer results right here. Let's randomize both lists five and a five, 10 the hard way. One, two, three. And 10th and final time. There should be a lot of Steve Burch's on this list. Some others mixed in as well, good luck to all. Five and a five for the players. And 10th and final time. After 10 we got Dion, Neon Dion Sanders, down to Jock Peterson. All right, so I'm just gonna show you the list as is. And then I'll alphabetize by your first name so you can see all of your players grouped together. Steve Burch, you got the multi-signed baseball spot. All right, so there's everybody there. Now let's alphabetize by first names. So Eugene, there are your players there including your last spot Mojo players. Kevin, there's your group of players right here. Stephen Kay, your group of players right here. And Steve Burch, you have the rest. There you go. All right, we're gonna pause the video when we come back. We're gonna see if there's any trades and then we'll have the break. Stick around, BRB. All right, welcome back everybody. No deals were done. So that list remains the same. The chat's been a little quiet. Wonder if there's any players here for who am I? We'll find out. Let's get some clues for you here. Who am I? Former baseball player, currently 65 years old. Lefty, throws left, bats left. Had a lifetime, 268 batting average. 255 home runs, 870 runs batted in. Two-time World Series champion, an NL MVP, an ALCS MVP, a one-time silver slugger and a one-time NL manager of the year. Let me see, let me go to baseball reference. Let me give you his stats and his MVP winning year. This might give a little bit of way as well. He beat out, he beat out Darryl Strawberry and Kevin McRenalds and Andy Van Slik and Will Clark. Those are the five and he got the MVP. He had a 6-5 war that year, wins above replace. They didn't really use that back then. But pretty justified. He had a 290 that year, 25 home run, 76 RBIs, 31 stolen bases, scored 106 runs. 157 hits, 28 doubles and a triple. Won a silver slugger that year as well. He won a World Series with the Tigers and won a World Series with the Dodgers. Not Donnie Baseball, not Alan Trammell. I don't think he won two World Series and he didn't play for the Dodgers, played for Tigers and Dodgers. Kirk Gibson, Dodger World Series hero. There's the fanatic sticker, there's the MLB hologram sticker right there. I think it was a former football player. That goes to Steve Birch. He gave sort of a football player mentality to a talented Dodgers club that wasn't really serious enough I think in the previous years, but he really changed the vibe of that team. I think he's been, has he been battling cancer or something like that recently? Parkinson's disease, that's what he has. So he was diagnosed with in 2015. So in the personal life section of Kirk Gibson, Gibson is an avid deer hunter. He and former teammate David Wells, along with former MLB pitcher Jake Peavey own a 1300 acre hunting ranch near Millersburg, Michigan. That sounds like a fun group. Kirk Gibson, David Wells, Jake Peavey. Imagine the stories. Ooh, we got a gold baseball, gold baseball. All right, who am I? An active first baseman in Major League Baseball, a righty, played for four teams my entire career and on my fifth, haven't played a game yet. Game season, sorry yet. Lifetime 254 batting average, 95 home runs, 272 runs batted in was the MLB home run leader in 2020. Which is the COVID shortened season. Signed a one year minor league deal with this current team, with an invitation to their spring training after then he opted out of his contract and they became a free agent and then signed a one year major league contract with this team. That's right, Luke Voight. And that is for, that's also for Steve Birch. And this is the Padres edition of Luke Voight. It's got the Padres logo right there. There's his black ink auto, this is pretty cool. And got the stickers right there as well. By the way, if this was a team, a random team break, right, we would send it to the Dodgers because it specifically has that sort of year there in case you were wondering how that would work. And obviously that Luke Voight would go to the Padres. The random player break makes it a lot easier. All right, third and final. We got another gold baseball. Another gold baseball, active player. I love the look of those gold baseballs. All right, active pitcher, a starting pitcher. Righty, but bats left even though the pitchers won't bat anymore. From Simi, Simima, Georgia, is that how you say it? Simima, Georgia. I have my win-loss record, 74 and 57, a 3-4-2 ERA and 1,189 strikeouts. Played for two teams my entire career, a one-time all-star and a strikeout leader a couple of years ago, 2021. I feel like this player has kind of hit his stride a little more recently. He's got a five-pitch repertoire, four-seam fastball, sinker, curveball, slider, and change-up. Baseball, as I consider my four-seam fastball to be my best pitch, boasting a comparable release path to retired Phillies ace Cole Hamels. In 2019, his average fastball of 96.8 miles per hour was much higher than the MLB average. Sinker is also known for the velocity. As my career progressed though, I began to show a preference for pitching the fastball as batters made more contact off and against the sinker. The change is similar to that of Yankee's pitcher Garrett Cole, whose performance also improved after abandoning his sinker. Let me give you some, let me give you his last year's stats. 2022, last season has a 5.1 wins above replacement, a great season. A 282 ERA went 12 and seven over 26 starts. 163 strikeouts over 153 innings. A 1.039 WIP, that is. Great season for him. No Cy Young consideration, but maybe if he did a full 30 some odd starts, maybe he would have snuck into the corner. I don't think he would have won, but I think he would have been in the conversation. Drafted by the Giants in the first round, sixth overall in the 2009 draft out of high school. I don't think he ever made a major league appearance with the Giants. Was he traded? Must have been. Who was he traded for? Maybe someone will remember this deal. So the Giants traded me to the Mets. There's another clue. In exchange for veteran outfielder, Carlos Beltran and Cash. Giants general manager, Brian Savian, said that they chose to trade me rather than a position player because we didn't think Zach, oh, I said it. We didn't, I was just reading what's on the screen. We didn't think that I was gonna make an impact in our situation in the immediate future. It's gonna be for Steve Birch. I gave it away already. Yep, Zach Wheeler. Gold baseball. Had a really nice season last year. That's really cool. Nice, let's even keep it up this season now. Kind of wanted to try to get him on my fantasy team, but didn't work out. There you go, gang. Steve Birch, congrats to you. You bought a ton of spots and you were rewarded. You got all three baseballs. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us. I'll see you next time for another one. Bye-bye.


The title of our sermon this morning is do not be unbelieving. Do not be unbelieving. It's the command of our Lord from John chapter 20. We are in John chapter 20 verses 24 through 31, and we're looking this morning at the example from this text of Thomas. The Gospel of John could easily be described as a treatise on the content, the nature, and the character of genuine saving faith, as much to be said about faith in the Gospel of John. The subject of faith is at the very center of John's purpose for writing the Gospel in the first place. He wrote the Gospel that you may believe, that word synonymous with what we understand to be faith in the Bible, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. John writes that you may believe in the end of that belief. Faith is not an end to itself, the purpose of that belief, the end of that faith is eternal life in His name. So what does it mean then to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? What does it mean to have faith? What does it mean to trust Him? What does faith look like? John's not aiming here at mere agreement with a set of facts. John's concerned with your eternal destiny. What we're talking about when we discuss biblical faith, we're talking about heaven and hell. We're talking about life and death. These aren't trivial matters. These are eternal matters of life and death significance to every person under heaven. We don't want to preach like they're trivial matters. We don't want to listen like they're trivial matters. We don't want to live like they're trivial matters. These are weighty matters. The Spirit of God through the pen of John and through the preaching of John is soberly revealing here the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ for the purpose that you would be born again, you would put your faith and trust in Christ and be eternally saved, not eternally damned. It's often in the Gospel of John that that saving faith, that faith it saves, saving genuine repentant faith in Christ, that faith or that belief is often revealed through its negative. It's often revealed through pictures or depictions of unsaving faith, counterfeit faith, misplaced trust. Examples of saving faith depicted in the text alongside faith that does not save. We need to understand the difference. In John chapter 2, verse 11, after Jesus had performed the first of many signs at the wedding in Cana, John records that Jesus manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him. His own disciples believed in him when he manifested his glory in Cana. John chapter 2, verse 11. In John chapter 2, verse 23, just a few verses later, Jesus is in Jerusalem for Passover, and John records that many in Jerusalem believed in him when they saw the signs that he did, but John goes on to record that Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew what was in their hearts. There was no saving belief. They believed in him, but it was a counterfeit faith, a false faith, an empty faith, an unsaving faith. In other words, there is a belief. There is a faith that leads to life, and there is a counterfeit faith, a counterfeit belief that leads to hell. In John chapter 4, the woman at the well believes and is saved. In John chapter 4, many Samaritans believe through his word, and they are genuinely saved. But in John chapter 6, many who professed to be his disciples went back and followed him no more. John chapter 7, many believed in him when they saw his works and heard his word. In John chapter 8, he told many that professed to believe in him that they were of their father, the devil. In John chapter 9, the man born blind believes in him and worships the Lord Jesus Christ. In John chapter 10, some believe that he is the promised Messiah, others believe that he has a demon. In John chapter 11, many believed in him when they saw Lazarus raised from the dead. And then in John chapter 12, many said that they believed in him, but they wouldn't confess him for fear of being put out of the synagogue. These are pictures of faith. Some genuine faith, genuine saving faith that eventuates in eternal life. Other pictures of that faith and the negative, unbelief, counterfeit faith, the kind of faith that demons have, the kind of faith that will send you to hell. Some examples of saving faith, others examples of damning false faith. Some who profess to believe in Christ are deceived disciples. Some of those who profess to believe in Christ are damned believers. Others are transformed by the power of the gospel, conveyed into the kingdom of the son of his love through faith. So why is it then? Why is it that some believe to eternal life and others do not? Why do some mourn their sin while others continue in it? Why does some set out to follow him and then turn around and follow him no more? Why is it for some, why is it for some that a 20 minute service or 20 minute sermon is all they can bear and for others a two hour service is just not enough? Is it the lack of evidence? Is it an insufficiency in the word of God, in the revelation that we've been given? Is it the means through which that revelation comes? Maybe God's at fault. He won't do his part. If God would just right across the heavens that I'm here and I'm real, then everyone would believe, right? In John chapter 20 verses 24 to 31, Jesus comes again now and deals again with the unbelieving heart of man, man's natural trajectory toward unbelief. We have a bent toward unbelief. So the hymn says, right, my heart is prone to wander, Lord, how I feel it, right? He enters the narrative once again under circumstances of unbelief and here the unbelief of one of his own disciples, one of the 11, Thomas. And although this passage begins with a really disappointing look at a man's willful unbelief, this passage is brought to a close with a victorious proclamation of Thomas, a glorious proclamation of Thomas, an acknowledgement of the preeminent sign, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, one of the strongest professions or proclamations of faith in all of the New Testament, Thomas says, proclaims to Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God. As we look at the example of Thomas in our text, I've outlined our text here to include four points. The first two of those points are going to relate to faith or the lack thereof that we see in Thomas. The second two points relate to the revelation that God has given us that is to provoke or to cultivate or to encourage faith. The main point here of our text, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus Christ commands faith in response to the revealed word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ commands faith in response to the revealed word of God, faith in Christ. Remember that John is writing here that you may believe and have life in his name. Do not be unbelieving. Now point one on your notes is this. Your belief is willful. My belief is willful, my unbelief. Your unbelief is willful. My unbelief is willful, verses 24 and 25, and we see that in the example of Thomas. Let me explain what we're talking about here. Look at verse 24. Now Thomas called the twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, we have seen the Lord, and so he said to them, the other disciples, unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. On verses 24 and 25, Thomas is introduced as the subject of our text. Some of your translations refer to him as Didymus. In the New King James, he's called the twin. Didymus is simply a proper name for Thomas that means twin. And so Thomas obviously had a twin that doesn't appear in scripture. We know nothing about his twin. We see Thomas here called the twin, one of the twelve. Thomas then, one of the twelve disciples, John mentions in verse 24 now, that Thomas was not with them when Jesus came. Now if you remember from verse 19, last week, it's the first day of the week, the same day that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. The disciples are gathered together in a closed room, and they're huddled together in the closed room for fear of the Jews. Judas wasn't with them. Judas has long since committed suicide. Here, in verse 24, we find that Thomas wasn't with them either. At that time, Jesus appears to them, gives them the great commission that we discussed last Lord's Day in verse 21. And as you can well imagine, after that experience, where the Lord Jesus Christ comes to them in the room that evening, the disciples went immediately to Thomas, verse 25, and said to him, therefore said to him, we've seen the Lord. The tense of that verb there in verse 25 said means that they repeated it to him. They were constantly telling him, I'm sure they were obviously rejoicing, probably perplexed by Thomas's unbelief. Listen, we saw him. He came to us in the room. They continued saying to him, we've seen the Lord. Now, Thomas often is referred to as doubting Thomas. You've heard that before, right? However, as we'll see here, Thomas shamefully does far more here than merely express doubt. Think with me now in verse 25. In stark contrast to the glorious confession that he makes in verse 28, Thomas makes an inglorious confession in verse 25. He says, I will not believe. It's a strong negation in the Greek. Now, what we find in the text is that Thomas, his unbelieving actions coupled with unbelieving attitudes, lead to and reveal an unbelieving heart. Consider first with me as unbelieving actions. Notice in verse 24, when the disciples had gathered together, and Jesus had come to them that first Sunday, that first Lord's day, the day of his resurrection, Thomas wasn't with them. Now, piece this together with me. Mark records part of the conversation that Jesus Christ had with the other disciples. He said, I will not believe. Records part of the conversation that Jesus Christ had with the other disciples that night. In Mark chapter 16, verse 14, Mark says that later he appeared to the 11 as they sat at the table, and he rebuked their unbelief and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him after he had risen, right? Thomas now is here doing the same thing, refusing to believe, not just the testimony of the women now, but refusing to believe the testimony of the disciples. For some reason, Thomas is even refusing so much as to even gather with the disciples that night. He's isolated himself from the group. Certainly Thomas, like the others, he was heartbroken, right? His hopes were dashed, crushed after the crucifixion. Didn't process these things correctly. Didn't understand the words of the Lord prior to his death. And so Thomas is then alone when the Lord first comes to them. In Matthew chapter 28, verse seven, when the women had encountered the angel at the empty tomb, the angel said to them in Matthew 28, seven, he said, go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead and indeed catch this. He is going before you into Galilee and there you're gonna see him. There you'll see him. Behold, the angel says, I have told you. If you go to Matthew 28 and drop down to verse 10, Jesus then comes to them on the road. They're on the road back to tell the disciples all that they had seen and Jesus himself comes to them on the road. This is what Jesus tells them in verse 10. Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee and there they will see me. Certainly the women, when they got to the disciples, including Thomas, the women told the disciples exactly what Jesus had said. Jesus said, go to Galilee and I'm gonna see you in Galilee.  There we're gonna see him again and Thomas responds with, I will not believe. Now look at verse 26. Drop down to John chapter 20 verse 26. Where are we now? Like where are we now? After eight days, what did the Lord tell them to do? Go to Galilee. After eight days in verse 26, where are we? We're still in Jerusalem. We're back in the same room again, back inside. This time finally, Thomas is with them. I think it's entirely likely that the obstinate unbelief of Thomas is the cause of their delay in going to Galilee as the Lord had instructed them. He won't go with them. Thomas refuses to believe. Refuses to believe the testimony of the women. Refuses to believe the instructions that were given. Refuses to believe the disciples when they repeatedly say to him, listen, we've seen the Lord. And after Jesus clearly tells them that he's going to come to them in Galilee, he's here in our text, coming to them again in Jerusalem to deal with the unbelief of Thomas. Thomas' unbelieving actions reveal an unbelieving heart. Now this is gracious on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ, right? This is grace, this is mercy. On the part of Thomas, on the part of Thomas, we have to ask ourselves, right? Is this damning unbelief? Is this just damnable unbelief in the heart of Thomas? No, not in Thomas. If you remember, Thomas is a genuine believer. One of the 11, Jesus said in John 13 that they are clean already because of the word which was spoken to them. So Thomas is a saved man, but Thomas here is a picture of weak faith. Again, right, don't we see this? We saw this in the example of the disciples after the death of Christ and prior to his resurrection. We see pictures of their weak faith and how that faith needs to be strengthened and informed and fueled. This is a post crucifixion, pre-resurrection, weak faith. Thomas might be likely to cry out, right? With the man who had the demon-possessed child, Lord I believe, help my unbelief. But you have to understand too, don't we, from the text woven into the fabric of the text, Thomas here is doing everything wrong. Everything wrong. He is stubborn, willful in his unbelief. If it weren't for the gracious, loving, preserving intervention of the Lord, Thomas would have persisted in his unbelief, but the Lord Jesus Christ intervenes graciously, lovingly. Comes back to Jerusalem, back to the same room to deal with Thomas. Thomas is doing everything wrong here.  Put yourself in a position to exercise and to grow and to mature your faith. Put yourself in the place where the spirit of God can be at work on you to grow and to mature your faith. Be around the people of God. Don't isolate yourself.  Serve the people of God. Serve the Lord in the church amongst the people of God. Worship with God's people. Witness with God's people. Fellowship with God's people. Be stubbornly unbelieving. Put yourself in his word daily. Pray daily. Labor for him daily. Put yourself in the position of blessing, in the place of blessing. Put yourself in a place where the Lord Jesus Christ can come to you, so to speak, amen. Now the text reveals certainly the unbelieving actions of Thomas, as we've seen, but the text also reveals unbelieving attitudes in Thomas. Unbelieving attitudes. Thomas was the quintessential pessimist of the group. Thomas wouldn't only tell you that the cup was half empty. Thomas was looking for cracks, right? Poking a hole in the bottom of the cup. If Thomas was out flying kites with his kids, he would tell his kids, you're never gonna get that in the air. And then as soon as they got it in the air, look at that, I got it in the air. He's like, you're gonna lose it in the trees. Right, that's Thomas. In John 11, when Jesus makes the decision to go back to Jerusalem to wake Lazarus, after the Jews had already hatched a plot to kill him, it was Thomas who said, let us also go that we may die with, it's like Eor, right? That we may die with him. That was Thomas, that he showed courage. That was courageous, right? Thomas understood that very likely they could die going back to Jerusalem. But that was sort of Thomas's pessimism, his outlook. It was courage, but it was half empty cup courage, okay? In John 14, the Lord said that he was gonna go and prepare a place for them. Just a glorious text. Beautiful promise, right? Wonderful, glorious, soul exhilarating text. And Thomas' response to that was, we don't know where you're going and we can't know the way. You remember? So Thomas, it's Thomas again speaking here in verse 25. The other disciples therefore said to him, we have seen the Lord. So Thomas said to them, unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. And notice, there's not the expectation here that Thomas would blindly believe the disciples. Make that distinction in your mind, right? They're not saying to him, Thomas, we believe that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead and so you should believe too because we believe. Stop what the disciples are saying. You understand the distinction, right? They're saying to Thomas, I've seen him, I saw him. The same one who was on the cross who died, they pierced his side, blood and water flowed out. He was put in the tomb, he was buried there. He was dead and I saw him raised. That's what the disciples are saying to Thomas. The women, Thomas, we saw him on the road. He spoke to us. We saw the nail prints in his hands. Thomas, it's not blind faith, it's not blind belief, right? This is not them expecting Thomas to be gullible in some way. This is eyewitness testimony of the risen Christ. We've seen the Lord, there's a tremendous amount of weight, a tremendous amount of evidence that should be considered. These are credible and believable eyewitnesses. It would be like a dear brother, your wife, coming to you and saying, this is what I saw.  Right? It's through painting a picture of the absurdity of Thomas' unbelief that we see the foolishness of unbelief, right? And we are encouraged, compelled by John, not to believe that way, not to think that way. Don't be unbelieving, but be believing. This is eyewitness testimony. This is evidence of the risen Christ. If one of the disciples said that he saw him, if one of them said that he saw him, you might be able to chalk that up to delusion, right? He too much caffeine, you need to lay off the coffee. But all 10 and the women, not hardly. And that's why when you come to 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and Paul says that over 500 at once saw him, some of whom are still present to this day, you can go and talk to them. What did you see? I saw the risen Christ walking around preaching. I saw him ascending into heaven. These are not delusional lunatics. Look with me at 1 John chapter one, 1 John chapter one. Our faith is not blind faith. It's a faith based in evidence, a faith based in historical fact. If you will take the time to examine the evidence. Thomas, consider what's being said. Thomas, consider the evidence. He won't do it, he simply refuses to believe it. It's an unbelieving attitude in Thomas. Look at 1 John chapter one, look at verse one. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, our hands have handled him concerning the word of life. The life was manifested. It showed up, it was demonstrated, right? And we have seen and bear witness and declare to you that eternal life which was the Father and was manifested to us. That which we have seen and heard, how many times does John have to say it, right? That we have seen, that which we have heard, we declare to you that you also may have fellowship with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. John doesn't say you must believe because I believe. He doesn't say that. John says, God says, you must believe because these are the facts. Consider the evidence for yourself.  And we knocked on the door, really nice conversation with the lady there, lived in the house. And as we were walking away, the guy next door was coming out of his garage with his lawn mower, was preparing to mow the grass. And so I walked over, tried to hand him a track which he flatly refused. He basically said in the conversation that ensued, he basically said that all religion, chief among them Christianity, was nothing more than a fabrication to make people feel better. He would say in the conversation, I wish it were true. It would make me feel better if it were true. But it's not true. That all religion, especially Christianity, had no basis in truth. It was all false and no one, no one could prove it to be true.  Christianity is not the religion that expects you to believe the word of one man who walks into a cave, says he takes dictation from God himself, and then he says, if you don't believe me, I'm gonna kill you. That's not Christianity, that's Islam. And Muhammad is dead and buried. Christianity is not the religion that expects you to believe the word of one man who puts his face in a hat to translate some golden plates that only he can translate who taught that God used to be a man on another planet who married a goddess, wife. They had spirit children named Satan and Jesus.  That's not Christianity, that's Mormonism. And Joseph Smith is dead and buried. The Bible says evil men, imposters, will grow worse and worse and worse deceiving, being deceived, but what does he say? You must continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. I witness apostolic testimony, credible witnesses, credible evidence, historical documents.   Christian faith is based in history. Christian faith is based in historical fact, historical record. Christian faith is based in evidence and I witness testimony. It affirms God's word as God's word so that you can believe God's word, test all things, holding fast what is good. When that guy tells you that the gibberish he's speaking is a heavenly language, what does the Bible say? When someone tells you that a man is infallible when he sits in the seat and that a woman on earth was sinless like Jesus and that there's an in-between place that you can go, that in order to be saved, you have to be baptized and do good works. Don't be gullible. What does God's word say? Either it's God's word or it's not.  So back in John chapter 20 verse 25, the other disciples here don't expect Thomas to be gullible. They don't expect him to be gullible. They expect him and Jesus Christ expects him to believe the evidence, believe their eye witness testimony. Now it's interesting, isn't it? That's what we're expected to believe. That's what we're expected to believe. The disciples say to him, we've seen the Lord. He's alive, right? He's risen from the dead. Thomas's reaction is sadly like many today and sadly like that gentleman that we witnessed to yesterday morning. Thomas stopped his ears. He refused to be reasoned with. He closed himself off. There was no prayerful consideration given to their testimony. There was no humble back and forth, right? Trying to seek to understand, trying to get to the bottom of what they, you know, if Thomas thought they were crazy, what has led to all the crazy, right? There's no conversation going on, no humble back and forth, no humility on the part of Thomas at all. Not even the willingness on the part of Thomas to entertain the thoughts. This is a stubborn, hard-hearted, willful unbelief. Can't really describe it as doubt, can we? This is just hard-hearted unbelief. Unbelieving actions coupled with Thomas's unbelieving attitudes expose an unbelieving heart. Look at verse 25. So he said to them, listen, unless I see his hands, the print of the nails, put my finger into the print of the nails, put my hand into his side, I will not believe a very strongly worded refusal. He didn't say, you know, listen, I'm gonna have difficulty believing unless I see. It's not what Thomas is saying. This is a double negative, so to speak, in the Greek. It is a strong negation, and this is the condition in which Jesus Christ graciously and lovingly and patiently meets with the hard-hearted Thomas. Here's verse 26. After eight days, which would it be again on the Lord's Day, right? This would be next Sunday, the next Lord's Day. His disciples were again inside, and now Thomas with them. Verse 26, Jesus came. The doors being shut, and he stood in the midst and said to them, peace to you. I want you to see, under point two on your notes, belief is also willful. Your belief, your faith is also willful. Unbelief is willful. Belief is also willful. Now, just like the unbelieving actions, unbelieving attitudes reveal an unbelieving heart in Thomas. Here, believing actions, believing attitudes, praise the Lord, reveal a believing heart. Verse 26, eight days later, again on Sunday, the disciples are gathered together. This time, Thomas is with them, and he takes a faithful step this time, right? He's back with the Lord's disciples. He's not isolated himself. He's not closed off. He's back with the disciples now on the Lord's Day. John again emphasizes that the doors were shut. That word again, meaning locked, meaning barred. John gives us that detail to point us to the miraculous nature of the Lord's entry into the room in his resurrection body, right? He had a physical body that could be seen and touched and handled, hugged, clung to, right? But it was also a physical form that could pass through walls. This was a miraculous entry, and again, the Lord in his resurrection body. And we don't know all the details of that, but we know that when we see him, we shall be like him, but we shall see him as he is. This corruptible is gonna one day put on in corruption. Praise the Lord for that. I feel the corruption hour by hour, looking forward to that. Instead of looking at Thomas, verse 26, instead of looking at Thomas and saying, shame on you. Right? He had already rebuked them in Mark for unbelief, hardness of heart. So instead of saying to Thomas, coming into the room, shame on you, Thomas. The Lord speaks words of comfort, peace to you, peace to you. It's just a grace and mercy and love and patience of God. Now what follows, what follows is though a gentle and loving rebuke. And I want you to see this from the text. When the Lord appears in the room, Thomas is there with them. When the Lord comes, it would have been certainly enough, right? For Thomas to see him. Thomas would have laid his eyes on the Lord. Thomas would have seen, as they did, the nail prints in his hands. Thomas would have recognized the Lord Jesus Christ. And it would have been enough, like it was for the other disciples. That would have been enough for Thomas. Thomas seeing that would have been convinced. But notice how the Lord deals with the way in which Thomas expressed his unbelief. The Lord repeats Thomas' unbelieving words back to him. Now think about that for a moment. Put yourself in Thomas' shoes, right? Jesus heard every word that Thomas uttered in unbelief. Jesus heard every word. I remember with Nathaniel, I saw you under the tree in Daniel. You were indeed the Christ. Because I saw you under the tree, wait Nathaniel, you're gonna see much greater things than these. Here, he heard every word that Thomas uttered in unbelief and the Lord repeats his own words back to him, verse 27. He said to Thomas, Thomas, reach your finger here. Look at my hands. Reach your hand here. Put it into my side. These words would have broken Thomas' heart. It would have brought great conviction upon Thomas, right?  And just the conviction comes on you, like David. You're the man, David, how that must have just pierced through David's heart. I have sinned, right? That's, now praise the Lord. That's the response of a believer. I have sinned. Here, Thomas' pride just melts away, melts away in an instant, leaves behind humility. Thomas' hard-hearted rebellion gives way to a broken, a contrite heart. Obstinate, stubborn, willful unbelief gives way to faith, gives way to trust. Humble yourself with the Lord, right?  Lord here, gently, lovingly, but soberly raises up Thomas. Lord follows this with a command for Thomas. It's an imperative at the end of verse 27. He tells Thomas, do not be unbelieving, but be believing, but believing. Faithful believing action, faithful believing attitudes reveal in Thomas a faith-filled believing heart. Thomas answered, verse 28, and said to him, my Lord and my God. That confession of Thomas, my Lord and my God, is the good confession that fueled the very first verse of John's gospel. That truth is what fueled the prologue of John's gospel. That truth, my Lord and my God, is the truth that caused the Jews to charge him with blasphemy. It's the same truth that is denied by the cults. It's the same truth that is corrupted by heretics. And here, that truth is on the lips of once unbelieving Thomas. As clear as anywhere else in the pages of scripture, Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God. Now it is the conviction of Thomas' mind. It's the commitment of Thomas' heart that produces the confession on Thomas' lips, my Lord and my God. Lord would not entirely suffice. This is a Christological pronouncement of deity.  There was no other descriptive that quite fit his understanding at that time. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Jesus Christ is my God. Now similarly, to the way in which Jesus said to Peter, after his confession in Matthew 16, we know flesh and blood did not reveal that to Thomas, right? Flesh and blood did not reveal this to Thomas, but our Father who is in heaven revealed this to Thomas, my Lord and my God. Now notice with me that Jesus doesn't attempt to correct him. When pagans are attempting to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas in Lystra in Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas refuse, why are you doing that?  When John bows himself before the angel in Revelation chapter 19, the angel responds to John, see that you do not do that. I am your fellow servant and what does the angel exhort John to do? Worship God. Jesus gives no such correction to Thomas because no such correction is necessary. Jesus is worthy of Thomas' confession. Jesus is worthy of Thomas' worship. Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. The second person of the Trinity, God the Son. And this confession coming now at the end of John's gospel, this is the belief that John is aiming for in writing his gospel. Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God. Biblical scholars through the centuries have acknowledged three essential components to or aspects of genuine saving faith. Three essential components, three essential aspects to genuine saving faith. One of those they called noticia means knowledge. The second was a census or ascent. And the third is fiducia. It means fidelity, which is trust or commitment. Noticia refers to the content of our faith. Those facts that God reveals to us through his word. The Bible reveals the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. We know of him from the Bible. The Bible reveals him. We must know him, right? We have to have the content of our faith in order to put our faith in trust in Christ. We have to know these things. So noticia, we need to know what the Bible teaches. A census or ascent is our conviction that the content of our faith is true. I believe that what the Bible says is fact. Now there are many who know what the Bible says. They just believe it's a bunch of hogwash. So ascent is not only knowing what the Bible teaches and knowing what the Bible reveals about God, about Lord Jesus Christ, who he is, what he's done. But ascent is believing those facts to be true. We believe that the content of our faith is true. It is the truth from God revealed to man. Fiducia or fidelity is trust and commitment to that faith. Listen, knowing the content of the Christian faith is not enough. Even the demons believe that and they tremble according to James. The demons believe more clearly than even you and I can believe the facts. They have seen the Lord Jesus Christ. They were in heaven before they were cast out. Even the demons believe and tremble. True, genuine saving faith is characterized by knowing the truth. True, genuine saving faith is characterized by believing that truth. And then all true, genuine saving faith is characterized by trusting in, committing ourselves to and living and obeying the truth. Jesus Christ, the word of God, right? And that commitment, that trust, bears the fruit of obedience in the life. That's why John can say later, he who says I know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. That third aspect of commitment, trust, simply not there if you're not living for and obeying the Lord Jesus Christ from the heart in the power of the spirit. Knowledge, ascent, trust, knowledge, ascent, commitment. All three of those elements can be seen in the confession of Thomas in verse 28. My Lord and my God. When you understand the implications of those words, you can see knowledge, you can see ascent, can't you? And Thomas' commitment, he is my Lord. He is my God. And that trust, that commitment was certainly backed up in Thomas' life. Thomas would eventually die for his faith preaching the gospel in India. He was run through with a spear, martyred for preaching the gospel in India. Now in order to believe, we see an example of Thomas' unbelieving heart. We see an example of Thomas' believing heart, his believing actions, his faith. In order to believe, knowledge, ascent, faith, trust, commitment, we must take the Lord at his word. You and I are not in a time period where we see the Lord Jesus Christ despite someone who said, I saw him in the mirror when I was shaving and there he was in the mirror, right? You know, I went and I was romping around in the crystal sea with Jesus playing in the water.   You know, you may be completely deceived. It's not what the Bible teaches. We must take the Lord at his word, at his word. That's point three on your notes in verse 29. Jesus said to him, verse 29, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Now with this statement, the Lord is essentially announcing a transition. There's a transition going on right here, right now. A transition from eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, those who see and believe, to a transition to apostolic testimony, the word of those eyewitnesses of Christ and those who will believe in him, it's John 17, right? Those who will believe in him through their word. That's interesting to consider, isn't it? That the one who refused to believe, unless he could see, will very soon be in treating others to believe based on his own testimony, based on his own word. But that's the way that it works. That's what the Lord God has done. Now this understanding provides us with two very important facts regarding the Bible. One of those facts relates to the content of scripture. The other of those facts relates to the sufficiency of scripture. Now consider with me the content. What we know of Jesus Christ from the Bible is factual and it's based on eyewitness testimony and historical evidence. The content of our faith, again, is eyewitness testimony. It's historical narrative, historical evidence. Peter said, in 2 Peter chapter one, verse 16, Peter said we didn't follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power in coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. But Peter says we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. You and I, we're not following cunningly devised fables. Peter was an eyewitness of his majesty. John was an eyewitness of his majesty. We are following apostolic eyewitness testimony. Historical evidence. John said, that which we have seen and heard, we declare to you. So Paul, in Romans chapter 10, verse 17, so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. That's the content of our faith. It's the content of our faith. Secondly, regarding sufficiency, regarding sufficiency. That apostolic eyewitness testimony is sufficient for those who have not seen. It is sufficient for them to come to faith in Christ. It's sufficient. It's sufficient. God doesn't have to. God has chosen not to. He's not gonna cater to your selfish desires for signs and wonders, right? This wicked generation seeks after a sign. No sign's gonna be given it. The apostolic eyewitness testimony is sufficient for those who have not seen. It's sufficient for them to come to faith. Blessed are those, blessed are those, who have not seen and yet have believed. Look over with me at first Peter chapter one. First Peter chapter one. First Peter chapter one. Let's see what Peter writes with respect to this. Beginning in verse three. So this is first Peter chapter one, verse three. Peter writes, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Now he's begotten us again to this living hope, verse four, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that does not fade away reserved in heaven for you, verse five, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this, you greatly rejoice, amen, right, amen. Though now for a little while, if need be, you've been grieved by various trials. What's the purpose of those trials, Peter? So that, verse seven, the genuineness of your faith being much more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Verse eight, whom having not seen you love. Whom having not, I saw him, no, you didn't. Whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see him, yet believing you rejoice with joy inexpressible. I can't describe it sometimes. It is inexpressible.  It's a joy that is inexpressible, full of glory, receiving the end of your faith, verse nine, the salvation of your souls. You see how Peter's proclamation here mirrors that of John, that you may believe that he is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you may have life in his name, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls. So what then prohibits men from coming to faith in Christ? The content of our faith is the content that God has revealed to us. It is sufficient for faith, and we know that God is the one who saves. So God will use the means. We were talking about it yesterday. Remember that story of Spurgeon. Spurgeon is about to preach at the Crystal Cathedral, and back then they didn't have sound systems, that kind of stuff. He walks into the Crystal Cathedral, he's gonna test the acoustics of the building, so he walks up on the platform, and he's just gonna say the place is empty. He doesn't know it, but there's a guy working in the rafters. So he stands up where he's gonna preach, and he just shouts out, testing the acoustics, behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! And upon hearing that phrase, the man of the rafters says, the Lord saved him. He became convicted over his sin, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who saves sinners from their sin, who forgives sinners. He's the Lamb of God, the sacrificial Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. The Lord is the one who uses his own revelation, that which he's chosen to reveal. The Lord uses that to save sinners. There's nothing wrong with the revelation. Nothing, there's nothing wrong, nothing insufficient about the means through which that revelation comes to us. Nothing! You can't blame the revelation. You can't blame the means through which that revelation comes. Sometimes you can fault professing Christians for not being the means through which that revelation comes, right? We need to be faithful to that. It's not the fault of the revelation, not God's fault, so to speak, right? What prohibits men from coming to faith in Christ? It's not the evidence that's lacking. It's not the revelation that is somehow insufficient. It's not the means through which that revelation comes.   If someone goes to them from the dead, Abraham responded, if they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. In Revelation chapter 16, the wrath of God is being poured out in visible supernatural fury on the earth. God himself being manifest in his judgment on the earth. Angels flying around and judgments being poured out. God being manifest and it says there to the people, having this vision of God, right? To the people in Revelation 16, only blasphemed him and refused to repent. And that stubborn, hard-hearted, willful refusal. Unbelief is not the consequence of insufficient revelation. No. What prohibits men from coming to faith in Christ is the wickedness of their own rebellious and hateful hearts. They do not believe because they will not believe. Do you see? It is a willful unbelief. The Lord would exhort you.  And you can't blame anyone else but yourself. You don't believe because you will not believe. And the Lord Jesus Christ comes to you in mercy, in grace, in love, in patience, and says to you, listen, do not be unbelieving, but believing. Do not be unbelieving. That's pointful on your notes. Verse 30, look at verse 30. Truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name. In verse 30 and 31, we see both the purpose of the gospel. We also see the promise of the gospel. Not only the purpose of the gospel, the promise of the gospel. Purpose of the gospel, these things are written that you may believe. The purpose of the recorded signs in John, some isolate those to seven, others. There are signs recorded in the gospel of John. And the purpose of those signs is belief in the messiahship, the sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ. The unique mission of God's promised deliverer, prophesied in the Old Testament, fulfilled in the New Testament. Those signs are to attest to his identity as the one sent from God. And Jesus did many other signs, verse 30, but these specific signs, verse 31, again, back to that issue of the content of our faith, these specific signs specifically recorded by the Holy Spirit through the pen of John so that you may believe, so that you may savingly believe. I believe what exactly? One, that Jesus is the Christ. Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for messiah. And messiah or Christ means anointed one. Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one by God to redeem his people. In the Old Testament, you had primarily three groups that were anointed, prophets, priests, and kings. What does that sound like? That sounds like the three offices of Jesus Christ. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with oil. That anointing with oil signified that they had been set apart to God and exclusively for his use. They were set apart to God for his use. Jesus, the anointed one, the Christ, the messiah has been anointed as prophet, priest, and king to come to earth and to redeem his people. And that Jesus, that Jesus, the Christ is the Son of God. He is my Lord and my God. Remember that when he made that confession that God was his father, the Pharisees charged him with blasphemy? Why? Because he made himself equal with God. Son of God, he is God. He is eternal. He is uncreated, creator of all things. Truly man and truly God. Many people come to Christ. When they come to Christ, they think to themselves, I want my life to be better. Things aren't going so well and Jesus Christ will make it all better. I want my kids to learn. I'm coming for them. My kids need to, you know. I feel guilty. I want to feel better about myself. I'm not going to find that kind of placebo around here. Will you feel better about yourself? Yes. Lord Jesus Christ is gracious. But some people, that's their whole purpose for coming. I just want to feel better about myself. I want a better life. I want to be happy. I don't want to be happy. I need help. I need comfort. I need joy. I need my life. And the spirit of God through the gospel of John says, this is what you need.  He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him. Nothing was made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it. He is the one who became flesh and he tabernacled among us and we beheld his glory. The glory is of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. That's what you need. You need the Lord Jesus Christ. You need the knowledge of him. What should be the chief concern of the Christian life? To know him, to know what he's done, who he is so that we may put our faith and trust in him. Paul said in Philippians chapter three, verse seven, what things were gained to me. These I have counted lost for Christ. Yet indeed I count all things lost for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish that I may gain Christ. Be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith. What does Paul say, verse 10, right? That I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings being conformed to his death. If by any means I may attain the resurrection from the dead. That's John's purpose of the gospel. That's what we need. We need to know Christ. We need to know who he is, what he's done. And we need to have our faith and trust anchored in him. We need to be found in him. Do you see? That's the purpose of John's gospel. John gives us the promise of that, the promise of the gospel in verse 31. And that believing you may have life in his name that we may have in union with him all encompassing, all persevering, all everlasting life. The faith is not an end in and of itself. Eternal life to the praise of his glory is the end.  There's no other name under heaven, even among men by which we must be saved. As we consider these things, let me exhort you. You have not read correctly. You have not rightly heard. You have not adequately or correctly or biblically understood, unless you have come to the conviction that John intends in writing his gospel, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, my Lord and my God. If you can't from the heart in the power of the spirit, say that and believe it and live it and trust it. Know it, believe it to be true and commit yourself wholeheartedly entirely to it. Then you are hard-hearted, unbelieving, stubborn, self-willed. You've not rightly heard, you've not rightly responded, you've not rightly come to the conviction, you've not rightly read. You have sinned against God. And the wages of your sin is death. Jesus Christ sent from God was offered as the only acceptable, atoning sacrifice. Through him alone is the forgiveness of sins. In completion and validation of his work as the Lamb of God, he has been raised from the dead. Your response, the only response that is reasonable, the only response that is rational is my Lord and my God. Do you follow him as Lord? You believe and trust in him as the Messiah, the Son of God, God in the flesh. Brothers and sisters, this is a message for us as well that we must embrace by faith. We must not be unbelieving as Thomas was, but believing. And this is a message that must be preached. As long as that message applies to anyone on this planet, that message must be preached. The crowning glory of these disciples, the crowning joy of these disciples was that they died as martyrs for their faith in him. They gave their lives for him. So what have we done? What are we prepared to do? What are we willing to do? This world, this world is wrecked and ravaged by sin. And the message of eternal life comes through you. It comes through me. This world is ravaged by sin. And that message comes through us. Don't be unbelieving, be believing, amen. All praise, honor, and glory be to the one who gives us that glorious gospel. We have this treasure and it's our joy and blessing to preach it that unbelievers might come to believe in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God.


Gary Stein with head men's basketball coach Gary Stewart after the game against Cal Lutheran. Tough game, kind of out rebounded you a little bit. Just give me your overall thoughts. Well, out rebounded us by a lot. And that was the difference in the game, the second chance points. And I thought we fought hard. And we had some really good defensive possessions. But you've got to secure the ball in a game like that. One, two possession game. And we just gave a really good team too many opportunities. And they capitalized on them. Now, let's take us back to the beginning of the game. They jumped out to an 11-0 lead. I thought you guys kept your poise, came back with a nice run to tie it at 13. So talk about the start of the game. Well, it wasn't what we designed. They're a really good ball club. And they can go to a lot of different places to get a basket. So they got us back on our heels at the start. And nothing that we didn't expect. We knew that they would transition hard. We knew that they were physical. They put the ball in the anterior, they scored. They were able to get some space on the perimeter and capitalize on that. And then I thought we worked ourself back in the game. We were able to get some stops. And we had better ball movement, better man movement. And consequently, we were able to erase that double-figured deficit and had a brief lead in the second half. So I mean, excuse me, in the first half. Yeah, it was really like a one or two possession game for quite a while. I don't want to harp on it too much, but I do want to ask. You were out-rebounded on the offensive glass, as you know, 16-2. What happens in that situation? Is it just they want it more, or how does that go at that level? Yeah, well, that's part of their deal and their identity. They're super aggressive and assertive. And if you don't put a body on them, you pay for that. Watching the tape of the Randolph-Macon game. The Randolph-Macon kids did a great job of putting a body on all five guys. And they were able to stick them in a half-court game. We weren't able to do that tonight.  I thought he had an all-around good game. And Cooley also another 14 points and a pretty good floor game. Yeah, I thought we did some good things, Gary. That's what's so disappointing. We shot 51% for the game. You look at the second half, we had 42 points in the second half, which is good enough to win a one possession game, one or two possession game. But again, we weren't able to get a turn to get on it on the other side. How does Thanksgiving go for you guys? Well, we've got to get back and fix some things. So obviously, it's going to be a lot of work for us. And we could be a good team. But there are some things that we've got to address. It's still early in the season, so I know you're kind of figuring things out as you go. We are. Yeah, obviously, we've got some good players that are knocking on the door to play. And so we've got to figure some things out. We will. We'll get back in and look at the tape and evaluate what we're doing. Happy holiday to you. Same to you, Gary. Thank you. Gary Stewart, headman's basketball coach. Stevenson University, this is gomustanksports.tv.