Menu
Join host Steve Gregg as he navigates complex biblical questions, addressing common misconceptions about the Eucharist and providing a thorough examination of its scriptural foundations. Along the way, Steve also delves into the roles of women in the church, their responsibility in guiding others, and the broader implications of observing certain commandments like the Sabbath within the New Covenant. This episode is a thought-provoking exploration of faith’s practical and doctrinal aspects.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
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 so that we can talk to you in real time if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith. Or if you see things differently than the host and you want to balance a comment, feel free to give me a call. I’d be glad to hear from you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. That’s 484-5737. And the only announcement I think I have to make is that coming up next, not this weekend, but the following two weekends, I’m going to be in Texas. I’ll be speaking in a variety of cities, including the Dallas-Fort Worth area and the Houston area. And some other areas, if you live in Texas and want to know if I’m speaking somewhere close enough for you to attend, just go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. And my first speaking there will be on the 18th, I think it is. Yeah, on the 18th of this month. and that will be in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but I’m going to be speaking to some other places far, far away from there in Texas. So check it out at thenarrowpath.com under announcements. Okay. And unfortunately, our once-a-month meetings that we usually have in Temecula and in Boyna Park, will be canceled this month because of my travels. I’m sorry to say. All right. So we’re going to now go to the phones and talk first of all to Craig in Santa Rosa, California, whom I assume is the Craig I met on my visit this last weekend. Hi, Craig. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Good afternoon, Steve. Yes, it’s the same guy, and I hope you had a good, safe drive home. The question I have today is, I got a belated birthday reading from a good friend of mine, and he was as much excited about wishing me happy birthday as he was about a men’s Bible study that he’s just started at his church, and it comes from Mac Lucado’s new book, What Happens Next? A Traveler’s Guide Through the End of the Age. I’d love to hear a debate between you and Max Lucado. you coming from premillennial dispensational into amillennial, then coming from amillennial to now premillennial dispensation. My question is, where on your webpage is the definitive revelation of dispensationalism? I want to be able to find that and send it to my friend.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, first of all, I didn’t know that Max Lucado had made that change. In fact… He’s the first I’ve ever heard of in 50 years of someone who was an amillennialist who moved over to a dispensational primalism. I think the only people I could imagine who had done that previously were people who were amillennial by default, like they were in maybe a denomination that was amillennial, but they never really were quite sure why and never studied it out. And then someone got to them and gave them some of the talking points for dispensationalism, but almost everybody I know has made the transition the other direction. Anyway, you want to send him my lectures on the subject?
SPEAKER 09 :
What I found, Steve, it was called the Stetzler Church Leaders Podcast, and it was a face-to-face interview that Max Lucado gave. And what he said was the thing that just put him over the top. was the miraculous formation of restoration of Israel in 1948. Okay. That’s the key.
SPEAKER 02 :
I actually have lectures on that. Yeah. Well, first of all, my lectures on end times, on eschatology, that deal with things like the tribulation, the rapture, the millennium, that kind of stuff, that series is at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under topical lectures, and it’s called When Shall These Things Be? That’s 14 lectures. The series is called When Shall These Things Be? Under the topical lectures on the same page, you will find another series of mine, I think it’s about 12 lectures, called What Are We to Do or What Are We to Make of Israel? What Are We to Make of Israel? And a couple of those lectures are about the modern state of Israel and how it was founded and so forth. And I actually deal with those who say, you know, oh, it’s so miraculous. Well, it was perhaps unusual, but it was not It can certainly be understood in non-miraculous terms given the geopolitical pressures that were put on various parties, especially by the dispensationalists in America. But anyway, it’s an interesting story. So I would say if you go to thenarrowpaths.com, there’s a tab that says Topical Lectures. And one series is called When Shall These Things Be? That’s about eschatology in general. The other series I would recommend for this is What Are We to Make of Israel? Is there any books?
SPEAKER 09 :
Is there anyone specific which really gets into John Nelson Darby? Is there anyone that hits that harder?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I don’t attack Darby directly in any of my lectures, but I do debunk dispensationalism in both those series. I mentioned Darby in both of them, but For example, I’m not one of these guys who wrote a tell-all about what an ornery guy Darby was or whatever. I’m not interested in doing that. But anyway, there is also another individual lecture at our website under topical lectures called Deconstructing Dispensationalism. So that’s another lecture. And I do talk more about Darby there, but I don’t focus too much on him.
SPEAKER 09 :
And where was that one, Steve?
SPEAKER 02 :
When you go to our website, there’s individual lectures. It’s under the topical lectures, but it’s down below where the lecture series are located. Yeah, there’s like 100 and something of them, individual lectures called Deconstructing Dispensationalism. All right? Well, thank you so much, Steve, and it’s a pleasure to meet you. Bye-bye. Okay, great. Yeah, thank you very much. It was. All right, Barbara in Roseville, Michigan. Hi. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Barbara.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to comment on yesterday that first caller who asked for someone to pray for him to keep his job, and he was quoting that scripture, God doesn’t hear a sinner’s prayer. But there’s something that everyone seems to be missing. The scripture doesn’t say God doesn’t hear the prayers of a sinner. It says he doesn’t hear a sinner’s prayer. The difference is when I ask the Lord to help me rob a bank or Have me have a good time with somebody’s husband in the hotel and things like that. That’s a sinner’s prayer, and he doesn’t hear it. But if the man is saying, help me be a better person, get off drugs, keep my job, that’s the prayers of a sinner. And that’s not what the Scripture is saying. So that’s something people are missing is pray without ceasing. Ask the Lord to save you. Yes, he’s hearing that.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, that’s fine. Yeah. You’re making a distinction in terminology that the Bible doesn’t make, but I hear you. What you’re saying is if you’re a sinful person and you’re calling out to God for good purposes, like to repent and ask God’s forgiveness, the fact that you’re a sinful person would not prevent him from hearing you. Whereas David said in the Psalms, if I regard sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. regarding sin in his heart, I think suggests that he’s maintaining a sinful orientation with reference to his life and God. And you’re talking about something even more specific, like praying that God will help you sin. Of course, no one in the Bible, as far as I know, ever did that, and I’m not sure how many people may do that. I don’t think there are many, if any. But one thing is that if you’re a rebel against God and not repentant, That’s what I think David means when he says, if I regard sin in my heart, the Lord won’t hear me. But clearly, if a sinner calls out to God for forgiveness and help, that’s definitely something the Bible indicates can happen. Thank you for your call. Kevin in River Rouge, Michigan. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
How are you again, Steve? Talked to our mutual friend, Don Schaefer, for a couple of days in a row. He straightened me out on amillennial because as a partial preterist, which I realize that I am, I guess I am in the camp with you and him regarding that amillennialism and what that means. But I have two questions real quick. By the way, you wouldn’t have to be.
SPEAKER 02 :
You wouldn’t have to be because some partial preterists are postmillennialists. In fact, a lot of them are. So both postmillennialism and amillennialism are compatible with partial preterism. But go ahead. What’s your question?
SPEAKER 05 :
I had two real quick. One is concerning universal fatherhood of God, universal brotherhood of man. And what I see, my question really regarding that is when the charismatic movement started. The other question was on whether or not you believe that a Christian has one nature and based on Galatians 2.20 and many other verses, and the finality of the cross in the individual new believer’s life.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, now you’ve been all over the place with this. Can you give me one question at a time? Just state it as a question. State a question as a question. Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
I know what you think about the universal father of God and all that, but the other thing is when the charismatic movement started, And the other question was really whether you believe a Christian. You know, we hear the black dog, the white dog. I know we have flesh, but that’s not synonymous with our old man because Romans 6 says our old man has been crucified. And that I believe now that I have one nature spiritually, although I still have my flesh. So I was wondering what your take is on Christians who say they have two natures.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, well, yeah, so now we have three questions unrelated to each other. That’s an awful lot to give you when our lines are full, but let me just be quick about this. Do I believe God is universally the Father of all people? Well, Paul said that that was so, because when he’s preaching in Athens, in Acts chapter 17, he’s talking to pagans, and trying to introduce them to the whole idea of the true God. And he said in verse 828, this is Acts 1728, as some of your own poets have said, quote, for we are all his offspring, end quote. Now Paul then says, therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature is gold and silver and so forth. So he is saying that we are the offspring of God, which maybe in Paul’s mind simply means we’re the creation of God. God has created us. But we are his offspring. The prodigal son and his brother were differently oriented toward their father. His brother was loyal to his father, and the prodigal was rebellious against his father. And by the way, the parable was told in order to contrast the Pharisees, who were like the older son, who were obedient but not very loving toward the father, or toward their brother, on the one hand, and the prostitutes and the sinners and the tax collectors that were coming to Christ were like the prodigal. Now, the prodigal comes home, and his father says, My son was dead, but now he’s alive. My son was lost, but now he’s found. So what he’s saying is these people who are not with God… who are sinners, are his sons, but they’re lost and they’re dead. So they’re basically alienated from God and share in none of the benefits of being God’s children. And that would be true of anyone who’s not with Christ. Now, Christians often like to say, well, no, everyone’s either a child of God or a child of the devil. Well, it’s true. Child of God or son of God is a term that’s used more than one way in Scripture. And that’s why if someone says, well, do you believe in the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of men? I’d say, well, how are you using the word father and brother? The truth is that the Bible does say that we’re all brothers. The Bible does say that God is the creator of us all and we’re all his offspring. The Bible does tell us that we all came from one stock. And Adam, in Luke chapter 3, at the end of that chapter, it says that Adam was the son of God. which means, of course, he was created by God. In that sense, we’re all sons of God. But in another sense, we’re not. Because in the Bible, the word son of, and this is not just the Bible, it’s just an ancient Middle Eastern culture. If somebody is said to be a son of someone else, it may simply mean that they’re like a protege of them or somebody who’s following the trade or following the the model of somebody else. So that we read in Genesis 4 that one of the descendants of Cain was the father of everyone who lives in tents and herds cattle. Another one of the sons was the father of everyone who works in metal. and one’s the father of those who play musical instruments. So obviously it’s not saying that every musician all descended from this particular son of Cain, since obviously there are musicians of all races and all different families, likewise metal workers and tent dwellers. So to say that he was the father of all those, it means he was the prototype. He was the one that all others who do this are, as it were, following his example because he was the founder of that trade. We talk about George Washington as the founder of this country, though probably very few in this country have ever been descended from him. So the word father in the Bible isn’t always used the same way. Sometimes it is used the way we do, and sometimes otherwise. So you have to take things in context. It is true that in one sense, all people are children of God, like Adam was created by God. And Paul said we’re all his offspring, agreeing with the Greek poet. On the other hand, the Bible does indicate that not all that Not all who are created by God have imitated God. In fact, in John chapter 8, Jesus said to the Jews who were opposing him, he says, I know you are descended from Abraham. But if you were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. In other words, you are biologically Abraham’s children, but you’re not really his children because you’re not following his ways. So, he’s using the word children two different ways. One is biological. One is someone who imitates and follows the example of somebody else. And, of course, in Galatians chapter 3, Paul says that those who have the faith of Abraham are the children of Abraham. So, Likewise with God. I mean, Jesus said that the Pharisees were the children of the devil. That doesn’t mean, and that’s John 8, 44, that doesn’t mean that they weren’t children of God in the same sense that the pagan Athenians were, or children of God as the lost son was. They are lost children of God. But to say they are of their father, the devil, is using the term father a different way. They’re not biologically related to Satan. They are simply following Satan’s ways. He says, you know, the devil is a murderer from the beginning, and you want to do what he wants to do, kill me. So you’re imitating him, so he’s your father in terms of affinity. You have more affinity with the devil as if he’s your mentor, whereas children of God, you know, in another sense than just created beings of God, are people who have an affinity for God and who follow his ways, follow Christ. So there’s, you know, yes, God is the father of all in one sense. He’s not the father of all in another sense. You just have to find out which way someone is speaking of. Because you can be a child of God in the generic sense that all people are and still have no benefit from it, just like the prodigal son was his father’s son, but he was dead. He was lost, his father said. And so, though he had come from his father’s loins, he was nonetheless receiving no benefit at all from that relationship. And that’s true of people who are creations of God, but not surrendered to God and obedient to God and seeking to be, as Paul said in Ephesians 5.1, imitators of God as dear children. Now, you also asked about charismatic movement when it started. It started in the 60s, it’s generally assumed. I mean, in certain mainstream churches like Episcopal churches and Lutheran churches, it started before the Jesus movement, which was also initially in charismatic circles. The charismatic movement, therefore, is a reference to Christians who embrace and affirm the gifts of the Holy Spirit the baptism of the Spirit, you know, speaking in tongues and those kind of things, but who are not of the Pentecostal denominations. The Pentecostal revival took place around 1901 to 1906, beginning in Los Angeles at Azusa Street. That’s thought to be the beginning of the Pentecostal revival, and many denominations from that revival are called Pentecostal denominations. And speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Spirit are features of that revival. But in the 1960s, these phenomena began to manifest in certain denominations that were not Pentecostal denominations, and they didn’t become Pentecostal denominations. They became charismatic Episcopalians and charismatic Lutherans and charismatic Baptists and charismatic other things. And so the charismatic movement, like the Pentecostal movement, affirms baptism in the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit for the present time. But charismatics are those who affirm these things without being part of the Pentecostal churches. So that’s what happened in the late 60s. As far as a black dog, white dog fighting it out inside of us, You know, biblical anthropology, what’s going on inside of us, is not something I can get into in detail right now. It would be maybe a topic for a whole lecture sometime. But suffice it to say, you know, Paul said in Galatians 5.17, the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. These two are contrary to one another so that you don’t do what you want to do. Paul said in Romans 7 that in his mind… He approved of the law of God, but he found another force in his members that brought him into bondage to sin and death. So whether we see that as two natures at war or whether we see it as one nature that is divided, there’s different ways people have described that. I don’t know that there’s any practical value. in settling that wording, which one’s the best wording. But there certainly is a conflict that Christians have, especially because they’re seeking to overcome sin in their lives, which non-Christians are not trying to do. And so the Christians have the struggle, and the non-Christians just surrender to evil. All right. Christina Caldwell, excuse me, Christina from Caldwell in Idaho. Sorry about that. Christina, how are you doing?
SPEAKER 03 :
I’m good. Go ahead. So I was wondering, this seems to have a lot of knowledge and it might be a silly question, but how important is doctrine to Jesus? And is the reason why he said all those things as a Pharisee because of their doctrines?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, how important is doctrine to Jesus? We need to make sure we understand what we mean by doctrine because the word doctrine is a word that is hardly used in our modern language except in religious circles. The doctrines of different denominations are discussed. Although there are doctrines that are secular doctrines, too, we don’t use the term as widely as they obviously did in 1611 when the King James was used. And the word doctrine… is translating a Greek word that simply means teaching. So the word doctrine just means the teaching. How important was teaching to Jesus? Well, he did a lot of teaching. And he told the disciples before he ascended, you know, make disciples teaching them to observe all things that I’ve commanded you. And in Acts chapter 2, after 3,000 people were converted on the day of Pentecost, it says that the converts… spent their time sitting under the teaching of the apostles. So teaching is very important. But I think maybe when you say doctrine, you might be thinking of, and many people do in modern times, theology, theological viewpoints. So if someone says, well, we have a different doctrine than you, They’re usually meaning we have a different theology. We see the end times differently. We see the means of salvation differently. We see the private counsel of God secretly. We see the Trinity differently or whatever. These are all theological doctrines. And I think that most people, when they use the word doctrine these days, most Christians anyway, are thinking of those kinds of things, abstract theological concepts about which Christians have historically had disagreements. And yet, teachings, I believe that when the apostles were teaching on a daily basis in Acts chapter 2, they were probably teaching what Jesus told them to teach. which in Matthew 28, verse 19 and 20, Jesus said, make disciples teaching them what? To observe everything I have commanded you. So they are to be taught, people are supposed to be taught to do what Jesus said to do. Now this is different than theological abstracts. Jesus taught us what to do. He taught us how to live. Most of what you find in the Sermon on the Mount, it may presuppose a certain amount of theology, but it’s mostly practical about how to live in a way pleasing to God. And that teaching is what Jesus mostly taught. I’m not saying there was no theology in his teaching. There was at times. But he spent most of his time, as near as we can tell, telling his disciples how to live to please God. Now, that kind of teaching was very important to Jesus. That’s what he told the apostles to teach as they made disciples. And that would be called doctrine, too, but it’s not usually what we think of when we think of doctrine. Again, religions in general, and Christ, who I don’t believe started a religion, but Christianity is usually compared with religions, they have two kinds of things they teach, a certain worldview or theology, and then, of course, their practical things, the rituals or whatever that the religions teach. what to do. And so Christ also had, obviously, a theology, although as near as we can tell, he just most of the time assumed that the Jewish theology was pretty close to correct. He did modify some things, obviously, saying he was the son of God, which is a new thing. But most of his teaching was about how to live. And that kind of teaching was I believe is very important. I think churches should give attention to that since Jesus said that’s how we make disciples of all nations. Right?
SPEAKER 03 :
We just left like a Pentecostal church because they emphasize in speaking in tongues without interpretation. Yeah. And I’m just, I guess I’m wondering, how do we know we’re in the right church? Like, I don’t know if it’s a salvation issue or… Right.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I will say this. There isn’t one institutional church that is the right church. You’re in the right church if you’re in the body of Christ. And you can visit most churches or even regularly attend a certain church and be part of the body of Christ, though not everyone in that church will be part of the body of Christ because the body of Christ is comprised of those who are actually born again, following the leading of the Spirit and obeying Christ. So you’ll find some of those in every church and some in every church that aren’t in that category. Hey, I’m sorry, I’ve got to quit at this point. I have another half hour coming, but right now I need to take a break. If you’re listening to The Narrow Path, we are listener supported. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Check it out. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Again, we have another half hour coming up.
SPEAKER 04 :
In the series, When Shall These Things Be?, you’ll learn that the biblical teaching concerning the rapture, the tribulation, Armageddon, the Antichrist, and the millennium are not necessarily in agreement with the wild sensationalist versions of these doctrines found in popular prophecy teaching and Christian fiction. The lecture series entitled, When Shall These Things Be?, can be downloaded without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour. Take in your calls if you have questions you’d like to ask about the Bible or about the Christian faith. or if you have a difference of opinion with the host, feel free to call about that as well. The number to call is 844-484-5737. And our next caller today is Cornelius from Folsom, California. Hi, Cornelius. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I appreciate your ministry. I’m calling about John chapter 10, verse 34. Jesus is speaking with him. Jewish folks, and he references your law. And then in 35, he brings it back to the word of God. So he seems to be juxtaposing your law and the word of God. Yes, he definitely is. Okay. Now, in 34, the your law part… He’s quoting from, or he appears to be quoting from Psalm 82, verse 6. Okay. So help me with your law. You know, you got your law, and he’s kind of casting some skepticism on your law, whereas the word of God cannot be broken. But your law part is Psalm 82. So that’s in my Bible. So why is he… Kind of calling that out.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, first of all, he says it is written in your law. Or is it not written in your law? By saying your law, he’s not saying this is something you guys made up. It’s not real. It’s not from God. That’s not what he’s suggesting. He’s saying you guys should know your Bible. This is yours. After all, God gave it to Israel. You guys are Israel, are you not? He’s not denying that this is the word of God. In fact, he makes it very clear he does see that. as the Word of God. As you said, you know, he quotes the Psalm 82.6, and then he said, now, he called them gods, and this is the ones, the people to whom the Word of God came, meaning the very statement itself, he’s saying is the Word of God. So he’s clearly saying, Not disparaging your law. Just talk about the law in New Testament times. And we see this frequently in the New Testament. The law would be in Hebrew, the Torah. And the Torah… usually means, but not always, the five books of Moses. You know, the Torah, that’s the normal name the Jews have for the five books of Moses. They call it the Torah, the law. But there are times when the term the law refers not to the whole five books, but to the legal code found mostly in Exodus or Leviticus. And so sometimes the word the law doesn’t mean the whole five books of Moses, but sometimes it does, then sometimes it actually refers to the whole Old Testament. Now, technically, the Jews divided the Old Testament into the law, the prophets, and the writings, and so the law would be distinct from the writings and from the prophets, but not always. Sometimes the whole of Scripture, of the Old Testament, is called the law. For example, in Romans chapter 3, Paul says let’s see as it is written verse 10 there’s none righteous no not one there’s none who understands there’s none who seeks after God and he quotes several more passages and at the end of it he summarizes saying in verse 19 now we know that whatever the law says it says to those who are under the law now when he says we know that whatever the law says he’s referring to those passages he’s just quoted and yet there were about five passages all of them were in the Psalms except one that was in Isaiah Now, neither the Psalms nor Isaiah are in the Torah, but he’s referring to the whole Tanakh, what we call the Old Testament, as the law. But that’s not always used that way. Now, Jesus clearly is speaking of Psalm 82.6 as your law. It’s in your law. So we’d have to say that Jesus is doing the same thing here that Paul did in Romans 3, that is, using the word law to speak of the broader revelation of the whole Tanakh. And that’s not always done. But he is also saying it’s the word of God and that they should have paid attention to it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, great. That helps me a lot. Thank you very much. I have a follow-up. If you don’t have time for it, that’s fine. But on this very passage, he seems to be, you know, why are you going to stone me? Well, it’s because you’re making yourself out to be God. And then he follows it up with this discussion we were just talking about. Well, hey, you know, Psalm 82 says ye are God’s. So it seems like he’s using that in two different ways. Like when he makes himself out to be God, that’s the actual creator of the universe, the Trinity, the second person of the Trinity. Whereas here he’s shifting to Psalm 82 where it’s, you know, ye are God in a very different sense. You’re not part of the Trinity.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. Jesus never really taught about the Trinity in any of his teaching, but what they said, it was they who said that he was making himself to be God. We read it back just a few chapters earlier in John 5. Jesus said in verse 17, John 5, 17, Jesus answered, My father has been working until now, and I’ve been working. And it says in verse 18, Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his father, making himself equal with God. Now, he actually never spoke to him and said, I am God. And he didn’t even say, I’m equal with God. I mean, he didn’t use those terms. I’m not saying that that wasn’t a true thing he could have said, but that would have been extremely offensive to all the Jews, and we don’t find him ever saying it. The closest we have is also in this particular passage in verse 30. That is John 10, 30. Jesus said, I and my Father are one. But he didn’t say in what sense they are one. I mean, I could say my wife and I are one. But we’re actually two different people. So he doesn’t really explain the Trinity. He doesn’t explain anything. But he avoided ever saying, God, I am God. I’m not saying he couldn’t have said that truthfully. He just didn’t do that anywhere. So what he did say is, God is my Father. I’m the son of God. And they always said, well, you’re making yourself equal with God then. They took up stones and stoned him when he said, I am my father. I do my father’s will or whatever. They tried to kill him because he was making himself, in their understanding, equal to God. So what he’s saying is… Okay, so I said I’m the Son of God, and that’s actually how he ends verse 36. Do you say of him who the Father sanctified and sent into the world, you are blaspheming because I said I’m the Son of God? See, he didn’t say I’m God. He said I’m the Son of God. Now, here’s the thing. He’s saying the Son of God, I’ve said I’m the Son of God, but isn’t the term Son of God used a lot of different ways? You know, of course Jesus is uniquely the Son of God, but there were sons of God who made it with daughters of women back in, you know, Genesis 6, sons of God. And also angels appear to be called sons of God in Job. And Israel seems to be called sons of God when they’re obedient in Hosea chapters 1 and 2. So, you know, the word son of God is rather broad. And even in the passage in Psalms that he’s quoting, The psalm actually said, I said you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High. So, again, the people that are being addressed in Psalm 82, which I believe are the rulers of Israel, had been referred to as gods, as it were, with a small g, because they were his representatives, and they were sons of the Most High, which is yet like a fifth way that the Bible uses the term sons of God. So I think what he’s saying is your own scriptures speak to human beings in those terms. So why would you want to kill me? Because I use those terms, speaking of me. This is basically just saying you’re mighty inconsistent. You’re willing to kill a man for saying he’s the son of God, and yet your own scriptures refer to people as sons of God at times. That’s what he’s saying.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you very much. You’ve given me a different way of looking at it. I get your points. That’s very helpful, real helpful. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 02 :
Great, Cornelius. Good to hear from you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, like it. Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thanks for joining us. Okay, we’re going to talk next to Larry in Joshua, Texas. Hi, Larry. Welcome. Hey, thanks for taking my call.
SPEAKER 07 :
Mm-hmm. This is about the Catholic Church. My daughter married a Catholic, and this was several years back, and she took on the Catholic religion and went through the catechism and, you know, a whole ball of cheese. Okay. And his family, my son-in-law, his family is all Catholic, and and they go regularly, specifically the Eucharist. I noticed one time when I went for an event and sat in there that it was indicated that I did not go take the Eucharist, the bread and the wine, because I’m not a Catholic. So over the last few years, I’ve studied and studied, How important, question, how important and how can I prove the veracity of that being a yes or no, you’re going to hell or heaven?
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, I hear you. How do you prove that not taking the Eucharist with them is a damning neglect, and that you have to take it in order to be saved. And I think they would bring up, of course, John chapter 6 and verses 53 and 54, where Jesus said, Assuredly I save you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. So he’s saying, if you do eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have life, and you’ll be raised up at the last day. But if you don’t, you don’t have life in you, which would be a way of saying you’re not saved. And this would be what they would argue. The problem they would have in convincing me of their doctrine about this is that Jesus wasn’t talking about the Eucharist. I mean, if Jesus was talking about the Eucharist and said, well, if you don’t do this, you’re going to go to hell. You don’t have any life in you. I’d say, okay, let me join. Where do I sign up? But Jesus was not discussing the Eucharist. First of all, the Eucharist. as they call it, was established at the Last Supper. Now, Jesus, in John chapter 6, was speaking at Passover season a year before the Last Supper. Jesus also died at Passover season the following year. So a year before anyone was taking the Eucharist in any sense, with any meaning at all attached to it, Jesus was talking about people who were eating his flesh and drinking his blood. And he does use the present tense. You know, he says there in verse 15, whoever eats in the present tense, that is whoever’s eating my flesh and drinking my blood, has, present tense, eternal life. He’s not saying whoever will, after I establish the Eucharist a year from now, whoever will practice the eating of the Eucharist will have eternal life. No, he says whoever is eating my flesh, whoever is drinking my blood, already has eternal life. And yet no one was taking the Eucharist. Jesus hadn’t taken it, the apostles hadn’t taken it, and so obviously he’s talking about something that some people in the crowd were already doing, and that they had eternal life, and it was not the Eucharist. What was it? Well, if we look at the parallel between verse 54, we’re talking about John 6 here, verse 54 and verse 40, notice in verse 54 it says, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them at the last day. So he’s talking about people who are engaged in something that has conferred to them eternal life, and the promise is they’ll be raised up on the last day. If you look a little earlier in the same conversation, verse 40, this is the will of him who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life, and I will raise them up at the last day. Now both of these verses talk about people who will have eternal life and be raised up, or who do have eternal life, and will be raised up at the last day. In verse 40, he describes these people as those who see the Son and believe in him. That is, those in the crowd were already seeing him. All that remained now is for them to believe in him. And he figuratively talks about this in verse 54 as drinking his blood and eating his flesh. Now, before we say we should take that literally, that people are supposed to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, we need to remember that in chapter 4, He was talking to the woman at the well, and he said, whoever drinks the water that I will give them will have everlasting life. Sort of the same thing as if you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you’ll have eternal life. And the woman took him literally, oh, give me this water so I won’t have to come and draw water at this well anymore. Well, that’s not really what he was talking about. She took him literally about drinking water when he was really talking about, obviously, following him and believing in him. That’s here too. These people take him literally about eating flesh and drinking blood when he’s really talking about just believing. And this is something you find throughout the book of John. Right from the very beginning, at least in chapter 2 and on, Jesus is continually saying things that are not literal, and people are continually thinking he’s being literal. And they’re always wrong when they think that. So in John chapter 2, Jesus said, destroy this temple, and in three days I’ll raise it up again. And they think he’s talking about, you know, the literal temple in Jerusalem. And they say, well, you know, it’s taken 46 years to build this temple. How will you raise it up in three days? So it’s taken literally, but he wasn’t talking literally. It says in verse, in John 2, 21, he was speaking of the temple of his body. He’s talking about his death and resurrection. They took him literally, and that was a mistake on their part. In chapter 3 of John, the very next chapter, He tells Nicodemus, you need to be born again. And what does Nicodemus say? Obviously, he’s taken him literally and says, can a man go into his mother’s womb again and be born over again? And Jesus went on to say, no, I’m talking about being born of the spirit, not another physical birth, but a spiritual birth. So the man took him literally, but mistook him. Both places, Jesus is speaking spiritually, and people take him literally. Later in chapter 4, when Jesus is at the well in Samaria, the disciples come back from town with food for him, and they offer him food, and he says, I have food that you don’t know about. And they took him literally. They said, has somebody brought him something to eat? And then he explained, no, my food is to do the will of my Father in heaven and to finish his work. Okay, so he’s talking about eating food, which isn’t literal food at all. It’s obeying God. Now, you see, In the same chapter later, he tells the woman, if you drink the water I give you, it’ll be a well of life, springing up to eternal life. So he’s talking about eating food. He’s talking about drinking water. Later on in chapter 6, he’s talking about eating flesh and drinking blood. And all these cases, some people are taking him literally, even his disciples, and he has to correct them. But he doesn’t always correct them. I mean, even on the destroy this temple in the three days, he didn’t correct their mistake. John is the one who tells us what he was talking about. He didn’t tell them. So when his enemies misunderstood him, he didn’t tell them they were making a mistake. When his disciples or somebody he’s evangelizing misunderstands him, he does tell them what he meant by it. Now, John 6 is, therefore, such a case. Even after John 6, in John 10, when Lazarus died, Jesus said to his disciples, Our friend Lazarus is asleep, and I’m going to wake him up. And the disciples said, well, if he’s asleep, he’ll get better, right? And Jesus said, no, he’s dead. I’m going to raise him up. So throughout the Gospel of John, people are taking things Jesus says literally when he’s talking figuratively or spiritually. And in the cases of unbelievers, he doesn’t correct what he’s saying to them because they’re not his disciples. But he does explain things to his disciples. And by the way, In verse John 6, after he says all these things about eating my flesh and drinking my blood, he says in verse 36, it is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. In other words, eating flesh is literally flesh doesn’t give you life. It’s the spirit who gives life. We’re talking about spiritual life here. We’re not talking about eating flesh and drinking blood. Literally, the flesh profits nothing. No profit in that. He said, the words that I speak to you, Our spirit and their life. That’s John 6, 63, where he clearly says, I’m not talking about eating flesh literally. I’m speaking spiritually, just like he was so many other times in John when people thought he was talking literally. So, you know, if you’re a Bible scholar or student, you’re going to see that he’s not talking about literally eating flesh and blood. And so there’s no reference to the Eucharist here. And therefore, you say, well, how can I prove that taking the Eucharist isn’t a matter of salvation? Well, this is a place that I would suggest it’s evident here. All right, bro. Thank you for your call. Let’s see here. Timothy from Baltimore, Maryland. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call.
SPEAKER 10 :
Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER 09 :
I was wondering, I’ll try to make this as quick as I can, is there any biblical guidance or any scriptures in reference to Christian women in the church who are charged to admonish another Christian woman who’s practicing sin? I don’t want to get into all the details. Okay. I confronted my wife’s best friend who knows everything, and she said that’s not her job as a Christian.
SPEAKER 02 :
To confront a woman.
SPEAKER 09 :
I was wondering if there’s any biblical… Well… To confront another Christian woman in the church who’s sinning.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. We don’t read very often of women correcting people, but we do sometimes. In fact, Priscilla, the wife of Aquila, along with her husband, confronted and corrected a man, a preacher, named Apollos. And that was at the end of Acts chapter 18. Apollos came preaching, and he was a good guy, but he was mistaken about some things. And so Priscilla and Aquila together, and Priscilla is mentioned first, which makes most commentators believe that she probably was the more outspoken of the two. They took him aside and corrected his doctrine. In chapter 2 of Titus, it says, verse 3, Titus 2, 3, it says, The older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderous, not giving them much wine, teachers of good things, so they’re teachers of good things, that they may admonish the young women to love their husbands, etc., etc., etc. Now, admonish is a Greek word that means to warn. So the older women should warn the young women. And he goes on to tell what kinds of things they should warn them about, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands. that the word of God may not be blasphemed. So, yeah, I’d say Titus chapter 2, verse 3 through 5, would be a place where it says that the older women should admonish the younger women. Of course, it’s talking about older Christian women admonishing and teaching the Christian younger women. You know, I don’t know that women are supposed to go chasing down non-Christian women to tell them what they need to do.
SPEAKER 09 :
Right. Yeah, her response was it’s basically, it’s not her job to judge, it’s God’s job. And she said, you know, take the plank out of my own eye. Well, who said that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Your wife’s friend said that? My wife’s best friend. Okay. She may in fact have a plank in her eye, in which case she should remove it. Whether she plans to remove the speck from another woman’s eye or not, She shouldn’t be walking around with a plank in her eye. So Jesus said you don’t correct somebody until you correct yourself. And he compared it with having a plank in your eye. But he said, first, get the plank out of your own eye. Then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. So Jesus is saying, if you’ve got a plank in your eye, get it out. Because you can’t help remove the speck from your brother’s eye if you’ve got a plank in your eye. So get it out so you can. The idea is we are supposed to help others. We are supposed to admonish others. And if someone says, I can’t do that because I’m more guilty than she is, well, shame on you. I guess you have to find somebody who isn’t as guilty, unfortunately. Sorry to hear about that situation, brother. I’ll take this up.
SPEAKER 09 :
No, that’s okay. I appreciate it, and I value your guidance, and I thank you very much for your time.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right.
SPEAKER 09 :
God bless you, man. Bye now.
SPEAKER 02 :
We’re going to talk to Brad in Playstone, New Hampshire. I’m not sure how to pronounce the town, but hi, Brad. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I’ll try to make this brief. First question I have for you is would you consider coming out to the East Coast, to the Boston area?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, I’ve done it before, but I haven’t done it for quite a while. Yeah, it takes basically an invitation from somebody who thinks they can credibly get some people to show up. I don’t want to fly out there and talk to one person necessarily because I can talk to them on the phone or Skype or something. Sure, sure.
SPEAKER 06 :
I hear you. Okay. Hey, my next question is about the Ten Commandments and to the Twenty. Okay. Hey, it appears to me that the majority of the commandments are mostly covered when Jesus set up the new covenant of his body, except for the fourth one, the Sabbath. Right. I was just wondering if you could expand upon that and just give me some thoughts.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, sure.
SPEAKER 06 :
What?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well… The Ten Commandments were not given to anyone except Israel. When they came out of Egypt, they came to Mount Sinai, God made special promises to them. If you obey me, if you keep my covenant, you’ll be my special people, unique, holy nation, not like anyone else. And the Ten Commandments were the first words of that covenant. I mean, the first stipulations. Now, the Sabbath was part of that. Later on in Exodus chapter 30 or 31, God said that their keeping the Sabbath would be the sign of their covenant with him. So, you know, Israel, under the old covenant, was commanded to keep the Sabbath. They were commanded to do a lot of other things, too. Some of the things they were commanded to do are just religious things, like Sabbath. You know, lots of holy days on their calendar, you know, festivals and things like that. Every new moon, the first day of every month was to be special also. I mean, they had dozens of holy days in their calendar. and especially scores if you include the Sabbath days. Now, that’s something that was part of their religion. It was as much part of their religion as going to the tabernacle and offering lambs and bulls as sacrifices or bringing a tithe of their crops to help feed the Levites. I mean, these were all just parts of the temple life. religious order that they were part of. And the Sabbath was part of their religious calendar. Now, Jesus didn’t come and repeat the old covenant. He came to bring a new covenant. He said he came to fulfill the old. That’s what he said, of course, in Matthew chapter 5, verse 17 and 18. He came to fulfill the old. But we know he also made a new covenant. And the new covenant doesn’t Include any of these holy days or sacrifices or restrictions on what you eat. Those are all, Paul said, those are all shadows. He said that in Colossians 2, 16 and 17. Don’t let anyone judge you about what you eat or whether you keep festivals or new moons or Sabbath days. He said those things were a shadow. for the time being, but the body is of Christ. So he’s saying Christ’s coming is fulfilling those laws that foreshadowed him. But now that he’s come, of course, we have the real thing. We don’t need the shadows anymore. So that’s why Sabbath is not mentioned. Now, murder and adultery and honoring parents, those things are always necessary, but they were necessary before the law was given, and they’re still necessary today. I’m out of time, sorry to say, but thanks for calling. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
