Menu
In this dynamic episode, host Steve Gregg navigates through critical theological discussions with live callers, covering topics from the very heart of Christianity. Addressing misconceptions about the gospel and Mary, the dialogue pivots to essential questions about how different denominations handle the interpretation of scripture. Through engaging conversations, discover why Jesus, not Mary, is the focal point of the gospel story, and consider Steve’s insight on biblical prophecies and private interpretations. Listeners are invited to journey through a theological landscape, examining Calvinism’s take on God’s justice and human destiny – where the contrasts are striking and enlightening. With a
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, you can bring those up and we’ll talk about them here. If you disagree with the host about something, please bring that up. We can talk about that too. And even though it is April 1st, I promise nothing I say on the program in this coming hour will be an April Fool’s joke. I’ll just tell you the truth as I understand it. If you don’t think I understand it properly, feel free to call in and tell me why. I’d be glad to talk with you about that. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, a few announcements, obligatory, always have to be given. Tomorrow night we have our monthly Zoom meeting. It’s at 7 o’clock p.m. Pacific time. An awful lot of the people who join us for these monthly Zoom calls are much further east, and it’s later for them, especially those who call from Great Britain. It’s pretty late for them, and it’s 7 o’clock on the Pacific coast. But we just want you to know about that. You can join us for it if you’d like to. The login information can be found at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. That’s just an hour and a half or two of Q&A on Zoom, and you’re welcome to join us for that tomorrow night, 7 p.m. Pacific time. The other thing is that this coming weekend, Friday, Saturday – Sunday and Monday, too, I’m going to be speaking in Northern California, a variety of places. I’ll be in San Jose Friday and Saturday nights. I will be in Santa Cruz Sunday afternoon, and I’ll be in Ukiah way up there on Monday night. And if you are in those areas, feel free to join us. We’d love to see you at these gatherings. The information about the time and place of those gatherings is also found in the same place as our Zoom meeting login information. That is at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. And I have nothing more to announce than that, so let’s go to the phones and we’ll talk to Rashad, our friend from… Brooklyn, New York. The police officer there. Hi, Rashad. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
How are you doing, Steve? Hopefully, everything is well. Yes, sir. You’re traveling a lot, so you’re probably tired.
SPEAKER 03 :
Pretty much.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. All right. So, I have two questions for you. Like you always say, to write them down, so I did. The first one would be, and the second one is kind of related to this. What do you say to someone who says that the gospel… is about Mary, you know, Mary, Jesus’ mother, and kind of related. I see online many Catholics say that they don’t read their Bible. And I say, what do you say to Catholics who say a person cannot interpret the Bible on their own, and thus you have to rely on, quote, unquote, the church to interpret it for you?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, those are good questions. I’ll be glad to answer those. Thank you for those. Well, as far as someone saying the gospel is about Mary, I didn’t know people say that. I mean, I know that Roman Catholics and Orthodox people do revere Mary very highly. And so, you know, there are some, I would not accuse all Roman Catholics of this, but especially maybe down in Latin America and some of those places, the Roman Catholics sometimes have groups that almost, almost idolized Mary, but I’ve never heard anybody say that the gospel is about Mary. But maybe, perhaps that’s what they would say. All I can say in response to that is the Bible never mentions that Mary is the subject of the gospel. There are four gospels in our Bible, and two of them mention that Mary was the mother of And so I guess she is mentioned in the gospel, but so are a lot of other people. So is Anna in the temple, and so is Simeon, and so is, of course, Joseph, and Zechariah, and Elizabeth, and a whole bunch of other important people. They are important people, but they’re not what the gospel is about. The gospel is about Jesus. It’s called many times about the gospel of Jesus Christ, or the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It has other names, too, like gospel of God, gospel of the kingdom, gospel of peace. All of these, but we never find it called the gospel of Mary, and so I don’t really think that she’s central to the gospel message. Now, someone might say, well, certainly it’s important in part of the gospel marriage to say that Jesus was born of a virgin. Well, I do believe that’s an important doctrine, but I don’t know that that has to be presented every time we present the gospel. After all, only two of the gospels mention that Jesus was born of a virgin. The other two don’t mention that. Of course, I’m talking about Matthew and Luke do. Mark and John do not. So, obviously, the gospel can be presented without mentioning that. But that doesn’t mean it’s unimportant. It’s just that there’s difference between doctrines that are important on the one hand and doctrines that are so central to the gospel that you really haven’t presented the gospel if you’ve omitted them. And I don’t think that there’s any evidence in the Bible that… Mary, as a person, is the focal point of the gospel in any place in Scripture, nor should it necessarily be in our preaching. Now, the Catholics say that they are safer in their theology because they have a centralized authority that interprets it for them. And one of the things they like to say is that the Bible forbids us to interpret the Scripture independently for ourselves. Now, where would it say that? It’s funny, I was listening to a YouTube video today by some Reformed people, not Catholics, and they said the same thing, that you’re not supposed to interpret the Scripture for yourself. They were saying that you shouldn’t come up with interpretations of Scripture that disagree with historic Christianity. which they would identify as Reformation theology. Catholics use the same argument to say that the Reformers shouldn’t have interpreted the Scripture independently. So, you know, each group, I guess, feels like their members are required to interpret the Scripture the way that their group does and not to think for themselves. Where do they get that idea? Well, they get it. The only verse they know to quote about it is 2 Peter 1, verse 20, where in 2 Peter 1, verse 20, Peter says, knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So they say, see, no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. Okay, well, what about the other parts of Scripture that aren’t prophecy? I mean, it’s obviously a statement about prophecy. Are we not allowed to interpret prophecy for ourselves? And if not, then how does that apply to any other part of the Bible that’s not prophecy? Certainly, the whole Bible isn’t necessarily prophecy. But they’re missing the whole point of the passage. Peter is talking about prophecy. He’s talking about how the prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, and that these prophecies did not originate from the prophet’s own imagination or their own interpretation of events. We know he’s not talking about how we are or are not to personally interpret Scripture, although it seems like everyone who quotes it takes it that way, whether they’re Catholics or Protestants. They say, yeah, we’re not supposed to… It’s not for any private interpretation. No, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t say it’s not for any private interpretation. It says it’s not of. The word of means originated from, just like Jesus of Nazareth means that he originated in Nazareth. The scriptures are not of, that is, they did not arise from anyone’s private interpretation, meaning the prophets themselves originated did not have their own opinions about these things and write them down. And he makes that clear in the verse that continues the same sentence. For prophecy never came by the will of man. So he’s talking about where it came from and where it didn’t come from. He’s not talking about how to read it or interpret it. He says for, and for means because. It’s a defense of what he’s just said. Prophecy is not from anyone’s private interpretation. Prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So he’s making it very clear that the prophecies that we appeal to that point to Christ were not something that the prophets came up with on their own. It wasn’t from anyone’s private interpretation of things. It was, in fact, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. So the statement has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of personally reading the Bible and interpreting it, if you aren’t allowed to interpret it, you certainly can’t read it. You can’t read anything without interpreting it. When you look at a page with writing on it, you’re looking at ink marks on a white page. You’re not looking at actual words. You have to interpret those ink marks into words, and then those words and the string of them into a thought, a sentence, And the idea is you’re hoping to take the thought that was written down and access it into your own mind. But that’s a process of interpreting. If indeed you don’t interpret it at all, then you are not going to understand anything about it. And, of course, Roman Catholics for a long time… I know when I was young, my friends who were Roman Catholic actually… they were discouraged by the church from reading the bible for themselves because they might get some ideas like martin luther did when he started reading it and boy did he cause them some problems you know so they say well we don’t want anyone reading the bible or if they do that they better stick very closely to the standard interpretations and whoever’s saying that whether it’s the robin catholic or the reformed person or uh you know the dispensationalist or the or the Jehovah’s Witness, it doesn’t matter, you’re not allowed to think for yourself about these things. You’re not allowed to see what it says and see if the authorities who’ve taught it to you are telling the truth or not. But the interesting thing is that Augustine, whom the Roman Catholic Church follows very closely in theology, and who is considered to be the father of Roman Catholicism in terms of his theology, Augustine was presenting interpretation of Scripture that none of the church fathers agreed with before him. So was he not presenting a private interpretation contrary to the traditions of all the church fathers before him? He certainly was. But maybe he’s the last one who’s allowed to do that, maybe. Around the year 400, maybe after that, you’re not allowed to do it. Now, Reformed people would say, well, but Luther certainly had the right to do that. Okay, so the two people in history have had the right to do that, Augustine and Luther. How do they get over the barrier that belongs to the rest of us? I believe that if we say that nobody is allowed to read the Bible and understand it for themselves, I mean, prayerfully, as they feel the Holy Spirit leads them, and hopefully intelligently and in context and so forth, if no one’s allowed to do that, if it happens to bring up conclusions that don’t agree with the Christians of their group before them, then Augustine was way out of line. And yet he’s the father, actually, of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. And then, of course, Luther and Calvin and those guys, they had no right to do that because they were going against the traditions of the church at the time. So, you know, I just simply, I think it’s a very dangerous thing to tell people, Don’t you dare get any ideas of your own from reading the scriptures. Well, I would say if you read the scriptures faithfully, you exegete them responsibly, you’re not going to come up with anything dangerous. And you might even see something that your pastor didn’t see or your pastor’s professors at seminary didn’t see. It’s always possible. So anyway… If someone says, well, you’re not supposed to interpret the Scripture for yourself, well, what are you supposed to do with it? Just leave it on the shelf? Not read it at all? You see, interpretation can be, let’s say, literal or figurative. I mean, there’s different rules of hermeneutics, which is the science of interpretation. And anyone who reads the Bible and just takes it literally, that’s an interpretation. That’s a literal interpretation they’re applying. If you read the Bible… and find something metaphorical or parabolic or something that’s not quite literal, well, that’s an interpretation also. So hermeneutics is the study of valid interpretation, but you can’t read anything and get any ideas from it at all unless you’re applying some kind of interpretive faculties on it. And Peter, this verse in 2 Peter 1, is the only verse that I’ve ever heard anyone quote to try to support such a strange notion that we’re not supposed to read the Bible and understand it for ourselves. And it doesn’t say that. They think that Peter is saying, God didn’t give the prophecies for us to interpret on our own. Well, Peter could have said that if he wanted to. I suppose he knew how to speak the language, how to write in Greek well enough to make that point. But he doesn’t make that point at all. He’s not even close to it. He’s saying the scriptures that we believe were not, did not originate from any man’s private interpretation. The holy men of God wrote it. They were moved by the Holy Spirit, so they’re not giving their own ideas. That’s what he’s saying.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, thank you so much, Steve. I always appreciate your answers.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, Rashad.
SPEAKER 05 :
God bless you and have a good week.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, stay safe, brother. God bless you.
SPEAKER 05 :
God bless you, too. Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 03 :
Ned from Ohio is next. I mean, Idaho. Excuse me. Ned, welcome. Hi.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thanks, Tony. I’m going to a Calvary chapel now, and the pastor’s going chapter by chapter, and he just did Matthew 25 last Sunday. He got to the point where, you know, the Lord is separating the sheep and the goats, and he says to the goats, depart from me, you cursed in the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And the pastor said, you know, hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, not for people. And people put themselves in hell, which I believe that. I think he was right on there. My question for you is I have a sister that’s a staunch Calvinist. You know, one of their favorite verses is, and I don’t know what it is you would, but, you know, even the wicked have a purpose, and that’s for the day of destruction. So I guess my question to you would be what could be some – kind of high-level talking points that I could talk to her that would kind of help show her that, you know, hell isn’t a place made for us. Because they’re big on, you know, that God is just. You know, God is just, and he has to, you know, do this justice thing, which I believe God is just. But anyway, I think you know where I’m going.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, well, yeah, well, the Calvinists… The Calvinists do have some verses in their favor. I’m not a Calvinist, but I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction against Calvinism that makes me dash to the opposite end of the spectrum on everything. I just want to take the verses of the Bible for what they actually say. I end up not being a Calvinist when I do that, but I also end up affirming some of the things Calvinists affirm. One of them is the verse you mentioned in Proverbs 16, for the Lord has made all things for himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. I think that the literal reading of that in Hebrew goes, the Lord has made everything for its answer, which either means its purpose or its counterpart. So everything has its proper counterpart or its purpose. Now, the counterpart of righteousness is to be blessed by God. The counterpart… wickedness is the day of doom and so I guess what I think what Proverbs is saying is we shouldn’t assume that God is you know kind of not in control of things just because people do things that he doesn’t approve of he allows it but he’s still in charge he’s there’s still the day of doom there that he’s got in mind for them if they don’t repent and I think you don’t have to be a Calvinist to believe that I mean certainly Arminians which is, I guess, what my views would be considered to be by most Calvinists. Or they might even think I’m semi-plagian. Maybe worse. But the point is that we agree that God is in control of things. We just don’t believe that he decides what we will decide for us. He certainly doesn’t decide who will be wicked, but he has decided what will happen to the wicked. And that’s what this seems to be saying. You know, God… The wicked are not said to be made wicked by him. It just speaks of them as existing. And he says they are made to receive the proper counterpart to their choices, which is the day of doom. You know, Isaiah said something like that in Isaiah chapter 66. It says in Isaiah 66, the latter part of verse 3 and going into verse 4, it says, just as they have chosen their own ways. And their soul delights in their abominations. So, God says, I will choose their delusions and bring their fears upon them. Because when I called, no one answered. When I spoke, they did not hear. But they did evil before my eyes and chose that in which I do not delight. Now, God’s making it very clear. I didn’t choose what they would do. I didn’t choose that they’d be evil. They have chosen their own ways. However, he says, because they have chosen the ways they did, I will choose their delusions. I will bring their fears on them. In other words, people choose their own ways. God chooses what will come upon them as a result of those ways. And so that’s because he is sovereign. A sovereign doesn’t necessarily control the minds of everybody in his domain. Kings are regarded as sovereign, but they don’t control all the thoughts of their subjects. But they do… enforce the laws that they make. And so if people’s thoughts are evil and they do evil, then the king’s armies or police or whatever arrest them and punish them for it. So that’s what a sovereign does. A sovereign doesn’t insert everybody’s decisions into their own minds, but he does have control over things. Now, as far as hell being prepared for the devil and his angels, that’s what Jesus says there in Matthew 25, 41. It sounds to me like he is saying, hell was not prepared for human beings. Not initially. I mean, the devil was made for hell, which may raise questions about whether he was always bad and God made him to be in hell. Ultimately, or whether he was a good angel who fell. This is a more common view. But in any case, hell exists because the devil exists. Not because the devil has anything to do with hell. Sometimes people picture the devil and demons walking around with pitchforks and hell poking at people, tormenting people. Now, the devil himself will be tormented in hell. He’s not going around tormenting people. He’s not the lord of hell. He’s simply going to be thrown to hell. That’s his punishment. Now, People weren’t initially made to go there, but they choose to go with their master. That is to say, if you choose to follow Satan, well, you’re going to end up where he is. That’s what happens when you follow somebody. They’re going somewhere. You follow them, you follow them there. You get there. So these goats in this parable are said to end up in the eternal fire that was prepared not for them, but for the devil and his angels. But, yeah, you follow them, you get there. And that’s where they’ll go.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, I appreciate that. It helps me.
SPEAKER 03 :
I can say a couple things to her. Okay, Ned, thanks for your call, brother. George from Scottsdale, Arizona, where I was just. And I did meet a George there. Hi, George.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s the same one. It’s the same one. And it was nice to meet you again. Yesterday you responded to a gentleman asking about or asserting a predestination. And, you know, I appreciate your answer. And, you know, it not only agrees with what I believe, but it certainly clarifies and reinforces and expands on that. However, I have always struggled with Revelation 13.8 to simplify it. It says, “…all will worship him,” and then it says, “…whose name is not in the book of the Lamb.” I have read that and I thought, okay, that means that people’s names are written in the Book of Life prior to. But in rereading that and diving into the Blue Letter Bible Greek, I see that translators either insert everyone after him or they say – uh, names plural, um, you know, which makes it go back to all will worship as opposed to him. So you were just talking about private interpretation and I guess I have a private interpretation. Um, but I want your input on it. Um, I’m saying that the, whose name, uh, is not in the book of the lamb refers to him, the object that is being worshiped. Um, And again, you know, it’s George against the world. Every translator seems to say those names refer to all who dwell on the earth as opposed to him.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, let me jump in because we’re going to run out of time here. I’m not sure exactly the difference you’re making, but there is a possible distinction in reading this verse one way or the other. It says, all who dwell on the earth will worship him whose names have not been written in the book of life of the Lamb. slain from the foundation of the world. Now, it could be saying their names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of the Lamb who was slain. In which case, it’s saying that the names are written there from the foundation of the world. Or it’s saying the book of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world. In other words, it’s not referring to when their names were written, but when the Lamb was slain. When was Christ slain? Well, in history, he was slain about 2,000 years ago, but In the purposes of God, the prediction of his death is as far back as Genesis chapter 3. From the foundation of the world, God has foreordained that Christ would be slain for the sins of people. And so it’s not clear whether it’s saying their names from the foundation of the world were written in the book of life, or whether it just means these people’s names are not in the book of life of the Lamb, the Lamb, that is, who was slain from the foundation of the world, that Lamb. So, it’s just saying that people whose names are not in the book of life will perish and will be judged and will be led astray by the beast without saying how or when their names were placed in there. Now, we’re not told as much as we’d like to about the book of life. There’s more to be said about it in Revelation, in chapter 3 and in chapter 20 and so forth. And it’s a rather mysterious subject, but it would be very difficult to form a complete doctrine of predestination or election from the statements in Revelation, and especially from this one, since it’s not clear what the phrase from the foundation of the world is actually referring to. Anyway, yeah, I don’t know that that verse is going to be a problem to you for your views, but it is a bit confusing, I will admit that. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming up, so don’t go away. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I will be back in 30 seconds. Stay tuned.
SPEAKER 01 :
Tell your family, tell your friends, tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. And that’s The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. When today’s radio show is over, go to your social media and send a link to thenarrowpath.com where everyone can find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing listener-supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. Our lines are not all open, but some of our lines are open. And if you want to call right now with your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or maybe your disagreements with the host, you’re welcome to call this number, 844-484-5700. 37. And it may be easier to remember if it says 84, 44, 84.
SPEAKER 1 :
57, 37.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t know if that helps or not. I’m always trying. There’s so many fours and eights, it’s hard to, it’s confusing. But anyway, even I get confused sometimes, even though I’ve been giving that number for years and years and years over the years. Anyway, we’re going to go to the lines and talk to Kevin from River Rouge, Michigan. And by the way, I’m going to be in Michigan tomorrow. teaching in August, I think, if I’m not mistaken, and some other places, too. All right. So, Kevin, welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Yeah, I talked to you earlier, I mean, at your show. It was in the last month. I’m one of 12 children, raised Catholic, 12 years, 8 years in elementary, 4 years in high school. I am an amateur musician. I’ve been playing guitar until I really… Anyway, my question that has to do, I saw an interview today with R.C. Sproul before he died with his best friend, John MacArthur, and being raised Catholic and the whole idea of infused righteousness and works along with faith, salvation by faith alone. Now, I want to say that I was born again in 73, but I am beginning to have a… a disagreement and nothing really violent with a family member and some people that I fellowship with that are Christian are still kind of, I believe God is doing the sanctifying in as much as I’m not a complete Calvinist and I’m not an Arminianist. I believe that the transformation is God’s doing and that it’s not to say we’re not a part of it and we have a choice. So what’s your question? Yeah, what’s your question? My question is, is there a balance between the two? And if so, I know that, you know, my body is the temple of Christ, but I’m wondering where works and where the fact that God gives us the faith and what you believe about that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I don’t believe that God gives us the faith in the sense of imposing it upon unregenerate people. That would be what the Calvinists believe. They would never use the word impose. But they do teach that before a person is a believer, when they are unregenerate, well, they can’t and don’t want to come to Christ. That’s part of the doctrine of total depravity. They’re dead in trespasses and sins. They’ve got no desire whatsoever to be holy, to be in fellowship with God. Many Calvinists will go so far as to say everyone who isn’t born again, they hate God. I haven’t found that to be necessarily true, and I’m not sure why Calvinists think that to be true, because the Bible doesn’t say that either. But the thing is, Calvinists would say a person has such antipathy toward God before they’re converted, that there’s no possibility that they themselves would choose to believe. In fact, given a choice without God changing them, they would always refuse it. But then they believe that there are a certain number of people in that category who are what we call elect. And then, so God… directly gives faith and repentance to the ones that he has elected. Now these people would not be able to do this, in fact would not even want to do this, unless God did this to them. That’s what Calvinism actually teaches. And if that is true, then of course God has chosen to give faith to people who’ve got no interest in it. At least the moment before he did it, they didn’t want it. So it’s a little bit And I know Calvinists probably find this offensive. I don’t mean to be offensive, but I don’t see how to see it otherwise. It’s a little bit like if somebody won’t be warm towards you, and then you drug them or get them drunk or something like that, and suddenly they’re a lot more friendly. You’ve kind of done something to them that they didn’t want done. You’ve kind of manipulated them. And therefore, if God really finds a bunch of people who are elect… But before he regenerates them, they hate him. They don’t want him. They don’t want to believe in him. But he zaps them with faith and repentance. That seems to me like it’s imposing something on them that they didn’t want. Now, the Calvinists say, well, God changes them to want to do it. Of course, he’s not doing anything against their will. He’s changing their will. But wait, he’s changing their will against their will because they didn’t want that. So, no matter how you say it, If somebody has no capacity to want God, and God just comes in and forces them to want him, that’s an imposition on them. That’s not the same thing as a gift. When someone offers me a gift, I will walk away from it if I don’t want it, or I’ll accept it if I want it. But it’s me that makes the decision to accept or not accept a gift. So I don’t believe that faith is a gift in that sense, in the sense that Calvinists say. They say, well, faith is a gift that God gives to people. Well, okay, the Bible says that a person can’t believe unless they hear the gospel. It is a great gift to have been revealed the gospel, to have the gospel preached to us and so forth. That’s a gift. I have faith because of the generosity of God in putting me in a position that I would have heard the word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So I can thank God for that, but I don’t see it as something that he forced upon me. you know, when I was unregenerate and didn’t want it. So that’s my position. Now, as far as works are concerned, God has made us for good works. He has redeemed us for good works, it says in Titus 2.14. So, good works are important. It says in Ephesians chapter 2 that we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has foreordained that we should walk in. So, Good works are a necessary thing. If someone says, well, are we justified by works or by faith? My understanding is people are justified by faith, properly understood, but faith needs to be properly understood because an awful lot of people have different ideas about what faith is, and some of what they believe is not good enough, as far as I’m concerned. The devil believes and trembles, but his faith is not of the type that saves him. He’s not saved. And there are people who believe similarly to the devil. That is, they don’t reject the factual nature of statements about God and Jesus. They know it’s true, but they don’t have the faith that the Bible speaks of. The faith that the Bible speaks of is a surrender of trust and submission to God. and faith, the word pistis in the Greek, means both faith and faithfulness. Any lexicon will point that out, that the word pistis, which is usually used in our Bible when it’s talking about faith, like justification by faith, the word means faith, and it means faithfulness, both. And so when we come to Christ, it’s not just we believe certain things that we’ve been told about Christ, and because we believe those things, we’re saved. No, once I believe it, I have to respond to it in a surrender or else I’m still at war with him. If I’m at war with him, I’m not his friend. I have to stop being at war with him. I have to surrender to him. He’s not going to surrender to me, by the way. So the only way this war is going to end is if I surrender. And then I’ll be on his side and he absolves me of my sin and my guilt when I make that decision. And so that’s how I understand it. Now, once I’ve done that, of course, I’m living a different way. I’m living, as the Bible says, in good works. I’m zealous for good works. I want to do what’s right. So my behavior changes. If I say I have faith, and James says this, obviously, if a man says he has faith but he doesn’t have works, there’s not the slightest reason to be convinced that he’s got the faith that saves a man. The faith is exhibited in works. Because, again, faith also includes the idea of faithfulness. When you think of a couple making promises at the wedding altar of faithfulness and so forth, if they mean it, they will live differently than they did before they got married. They will live with some loyalty to each other. They will live with each other. They will live mutually supporting each other. They will do things that they didn’t do before they made those vows because those vows, if they’re faithful to them, will change everything about their lives. And so it is when you make such vows to Christ and are faithful to him, it shows up in the way you live. You live obediently to him. That’s why Jesus said, why do you call me Lord, Lord, and you don’t do what I say? that doesn’t make any sense so a person with the saving faith will also be obedient to Christ at least that will be their commitment they won’t be perfect in this life but they will have made a solid decision to go another direction from where they were going before and that direction is in favor of Christ of obedience to Christ alright let’s talk to Zach from Fort Worth Texas Zach welcome hey Steve how’s it going good
SPEAKER 02 :
I have a question, Mark 14, verse 38. It’s really the whole chunk is Jesus praying in Gethsemane. But verse 38, I can read it. Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. I just had a question about that word temptation. Okay. It feels like he’s in the passage talking about the war between the flesh and the spirit, and that’s how I’ve always heard it taught. But then the use of the word temptation kind of is throwing me off. So we’d love to hear your thoughts.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, the temptation he’s talking about there is the temptation to abandon him because he’s in the garden. He’s going to be arrested a few minutes after this. And we know that they do succumb to temptation, the temptation to run away instead of standing with Christ. Of course, all Christians face temptation in one form or another at some point in the Christian life. Will I stay faithful to Christ or will I take the easy route? And, you know, so we should all watch and pray that we don’t succumb to that temptation. But the disciples, especially at that moment, were facing the temptation, life-threatening temptation. You know, if they stayed with Christ, they felt they might very well end up being crucified along him. And that would be a strong temptation to abandon him, which they succumbed to because they didn’t watch and pray for an hour. They fell asleep every time he told them to stay awake and pray. He warned them, hey, watch and pray. This will help you. This will keep you from succumbing to the temptation. You fall into temptation or enter into temptation apparently refers to, you know, not succumbing to it. So, That’s what that’s about. And that particular thing wasn’t, I don’t know if we could say that’s a very classic example of the flesh and the spirit striving. It is in a sense. They wanted to save their skin. That’s their flesh’s desire. And probably they wanted to be faithful to Jesus, which was the spirit. So they succumbed to the flesh instead of the spirit. But what I think when Jesus said in this context, the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. There’s two possible ways to see it, and he may be speaking of both. One of them is that they were willing in their hearts to obey, but the Bible says they fell asleep because they were so tired. Their flesh was literally weak. He’s saying, stay awake and pray. And they tried, but maybe not hard enough, and they succumbed to the flesh, the weakness of the flesh. So he’s saying, couldn’t you stay awake for one hour? Well, the Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. meaning he’s speaking sympathetically toward them. I realize that you really want to do the right thing, but you’ve got weak flesh in this matter. So it could have been a way of saying something kind to them or understanding and sympathetic toward them in a way. But it also is the case that he may be talking about his own case because he’s been praying and struggling, knowing he’s going to be arrested and crucified, and his faith is really on the line here. And he’s struggling against sin, it says in Hebrews chapter 12. He’s struggling against it to the point where he’s shedding drops of blood from his pores, it looks like. So, I mean, his flesh was definitely under a strain, though his spirit was willing, because he kept saying, Father, if it’s possible, let this cup pass me, but not my will, but yours be done. He’s submitting. Spiritually, he’s willing, but he’s sensing how weak his flesh is, because he’s kind of You know, blood vessels are breaking in his forehead and blood’s coming through his skin. I mean, that’s part of the weakness of his physical flesh under stress. So there’s a sense in which it’s not entirely clear if he’s referring to himself or to them, or I suspect both. That because he is going through this, he’s aware how, even though you’re well-intentioned, your flesh sometimes… is very, very demanding and in conflict with your intentions. And seeing that is also true in their case, that they’ve no doubt wished to stay awake, but because the flesh was weak, they didn’t. So in my opinion, he’s probably making both those statements because it’s true of both him and them in that moment.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thanks, Steve.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, Zach. Thanks for your call. Beverly in Arlington, Washington. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thank you very much. It’s so good to talk to you. My question is in regards to the previous caller. a good old topic of Reformed Calvinism and all of that, we find ourselves in a lovely church that happens to be Reformed. And we love the teaching, we love the people. It’s wonderful, but they can be, I don’t want to use the word sneaky, but it feels that way at times with their Reformed theology. And I use the New American Standard Bible, but I’m looking for, as I do study theology, into the whole topic and trying to educate myself so I understand it better and better. We use, the church uses, what is it? It’s the one that most Reformed people use, the Bible that they use.
SPEAKER 03 :
English Standard Version? Yeah, ESV.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, they use the ESV. I use the NASV. But I recently heard about Malcolm Lavender’s New Testament, which is a translation from Greek. And I wondered if you had thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 03 :
I’ve never seen his translation. I have a few of his books. He’s anti-Calvinist, right? Yeah. So I’ve never seen his translation. But I don’t really know that very many verses would have to be translated one way or the other to get the meaning out of them. There are some cases where a word might have one or another meaning and a Calvinist would favor one meaning and a non-Calvinist another meaning in this situation. But I wouldn’t say that the the validity of either system hangs on the use of any one translation at all. You’re right, the ESV does seem to be a favorite among Reformed people. I’m not sure why, except I know it was translated by Reformed people. Right, exactly. There must be something about it they did to help support their view. Right. Yeah, I don’t know of any translation that would not yield the same theology. I mean, that is to say, if you’re going to, If you’re going to interpret the Bible through a Calvinistic lens or you’re going to interpret through an Arminian lens or any other kind of lens, you can do that no matter which translation you use, really.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right, right. And along with that, if you go to Google, which I know Google is not the best place to search. Scripture is the best place to search. But if you do anything trying to educate yourself in the specific topic of reform versus non-reforms, You know, Gospel Coalition is what always comes up. Gospel Coalition, Gospel Coalition, and things like that. There isn’t much to counter it, at least on the web.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, have you seen my series on the subject?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, no, I’ve listened to your series many times and poured over it. Well, there shouldn’t be anything more to say.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think I cover all the verses that they use and all the verses against them.
SPEAKER 06 :
I don’t know if there’s anything like that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, you do. It’s just because they don’t use that. They’re going somewhere else. And it would be nice to have a place, kind of a… If they’re using Gospel Coalition, well, I guess I could just say I use Neuropath. Well, there you go.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, have you ever looked at Leighton Flowers stuff?
SPEAKER 06 :
No, I haven’t.
SPEAKER 03 :
Leighton Flowers. And flowers is spelled just like the flowers in your garden. Leighton Flowers. I believe it’s Soteriology 101. I think that’s his website. I think it’s Soteriology 101. I just.
SPEAKER 06 :
I think I just saw that on Facebook, of all places.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay. Well, he’s a good guy.
SPEAKER 06 :
Is that the same place?
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, that’s good. And then one last question, if I may. Like I said, we have found ourselves in this wonderful, lovely church that we delight in. And they have a membership, which we were like, are we going to be members? Are we not? We told them up front, hey, we’re not reformed. So we’re happy to be a member because we love all of you. as long as you know that we’re not. And then they just announced recently that they’re going to start, they’re looking into the possibility of making it a mandate for anybody who would be considered to be an elder to adhere to Reformed theology. That’s not surprising. Yeah, and so we met with them. We shared our heart. We said, that just seems strange.
SPEAKER 03 :
off that you we could be a member and not be that but oh we’re members but we could never be considered for that because we’re not well there’s there’s there’s something commendable about that i mean for someone who believes that reformed theology is true uh they pretty much want their teachers to be teaching what they count to be sound doctrine you can’t blame someone for that And yet, if they’ll let you be members in good standing without you being Calvinist, then they’re showing a certain amount of grace and broadness of mind. However, it’s very possible that at a certain stage in your involvement, they’re happy to have you as a member, whether you hold their views or not. But a lot of churches eventually want to lock it down a little more and kind of put you on the spot. I personally am not sure that church membership is agreeable with biblical teaching. Every church wants people to be members because what it means is if you’re a member of our church, you owe something of your allegiance to our church more than, say, the church a block away or down the street or across town. Whereas in the Bible… A Christian is a member of the local body, which is all Christians in the town. So, you know, I’m a member of every church that is part of the body of Christ, because I’m part of the body of Christ. There’s not division. So the whole idea of being a member of one church sounds an awful lot to me like what Paul was criticizing when he said, some say I’m of Paul, some say I’m of Apollos, some say I’m of Cephas. He says, no, you’re all of Christ, so why would you talk that way?
SPEAKER 06 :
And we processed all of that. We had to think about that, and is this something we really want to do? And we ultimately came to the decision, you know what, we don’t really care. We understand that our membership is greater than just this body. Right. They’re not requiring us to espouse to this. They just want to. It was a way for them to foster relationships and accountability and all of that. And so we were like, well, we could do that. We could do that.
SPEAKER 03 :
We’re running low on time here, and I’ve got some people lined up behind you. But I just want to say you’re fortunate to have found a church that’s loving and that’s got some community dynamics. I think those things are more important than the specific theology of the church. Now, if they start pushing Calvinism and you just feel like, wow, every time we come here, all we hear is this, it might bug you a little bit. Or if they start treating you like second-class Christians because you’re not on board, that could foul things a little bit, too. But as long as they – if they hold to Calvinism and you don’t, and they don’t mind that you don’t, then I’d say you’ve got a good situation with a bunch of Christians that you love and who love you.
SPEAKER 06 :
And I will – I will just end with this, that when we met with them over our concerns, they were truly tender, and they were touched by our concerns. I mean, visibly touched by it. So we don’t feel a hard-heartedness, but it’s still just a quandary. So thank you so much. God bless you.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. God bless you. Thanks for your call, Beverly. Brad from South Orange County, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, do you hear me okay?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, sir. Go ahead. We have very little time.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, a little quick statement. I just wanted to add clarity to the question the lady, the Catholic woman who called yesterday and was concerned about how it was flippantly kind of dismissed. How can somebody possibly believe transubstantiation? And I’m an idealist, so I don’t have a problem when Jesus said, this is my body and this is my blood. And, you know, the Catholic fathers took that seriously and attempted to rationally account for how can that be. And so in the doctrine, the Catholic doctrine, the elements are not changed on the external, what they call the accidental properties, but there is this… The essence. Yeah, the essence has changed, right. The essence has changed. And that’s an arithmetic metaphysic that The whole Western world is under the West Aristotle’s kind of metaphysics, and it’s really trapped everybody in materialism, even Christians. And my quick kind of input to that is, how can anybody believe that? Well, people who believe in miracles can believe that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, you could say that, except… People who believe in miracles can be superstitious and believe in everything that claims to be a miracle, or they can be discerning and recognize there’s true miracles, false miracles, and there’s claimed miracles that aren’t. And, you know, if you’re kind of being discerning and saying, okay, somebody told me that God works a miracle with this wafer when it’s blessed and with the cup when it’s blessed, God works a miracle and changes that into human flesh and and human blood, namely Christ’s. Well, okay, but where is there any miracle in the Bible that once God did it, you couldn’t confirm that it was done? The purpose of miracles isn’t just to be miraculous. The purpose of miracles in the Bible is to be signs that confirm the word. That’s what the Bible says miracles are for. They confirm the word of God’s messengers. That means if it’s going to confirm anything, you have to be able to see that it happened. And every miracle in the Bible I’ve ever read about is something that when it happens, you can see it happen. You know, when a leper is cured, he doesn’t have leprosy. When a dead person is raised, he’s not dead anymore. You know, when Jesus walks on the water, he can be seen doing that. Every miracle in the Bible, and as far as I know, every miracle that God has done has some kind of evidence that visibly that it is done so that it might serve its purpose as a sign. Now, if God works an invisible miracle that no one can confirm, then that would certainly be out of character for his general miracle-working behavior. So, you know, not everyone who believes in miracles can necessarily believe in transubstantiation. I believe in miracles. I believe not only in the other miracles in the Bible, I believe in miracles that sometimes God does today, but I don’t see the claims of transubstantiation as conforming to any of the categories of miracles in the Bible. It’s something that is said to be true by priests and bishops and so forth, but it’s not anything that can be confirmed to be true. Now, unless, of course, Jesus said it, but Jesus didn’t. He didn’t just say, this is my blood. He said, this is the blood of the covenant, my blood, which is shed, which is shed. Well, Jesus’ blood wasn’t shed when he’s sitting there in the upper room. He shed it later, next day, but he claims it was shed for their sins. And yet all the blood he had was in his veins still, not a drop had come out yet. So I don’t think he meant to be taken literally. I’m out of time. I’m sorry to say, you’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Let’s talk again tomorrow. God bless.
