Menu
Join Steve Gregg in this enlightening episode of The Narrow Path as he addresses various questions from listeners about the Bible and Christian faith. From unpacking the controversial legacy of mid-20th-century evangelist A.A. Allen to interpreting biblical parables and passages like Colossians 3:1, Steve offers insights that are both investigative and thought-provoking. The discussion also delves into the concept of revival in the modern church, providing a historical and spiritual context to this frequently discussed topic.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for an hour, taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you see things differently from the host and want to balance, comment, or bring some correction, feel free to give me a call. Not at this moment, because our lines are full, but there will be lines opening up through this hour, and if you call randomly later in the hour, a very good chance you’ll find a line available for yourself. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, beginning this weekend, I’ll be speaking in a number of places in Tennessee this weekend and the following weekend and some of the dates in between. And You know, this weekend I’ll be speaking, generally speaking, in the general part of the state where Nashville is. I think of it as near Nashville. I think it may be as much as an hour away from Nashville. I don’t know. But it’s in Pelham, Tennessee. And I’ll be speaking there this weekend, and then I’ll be speaking in the middle of the week closer to Chattanooga. and then I’ll be speaking up in the northeastern corner later in the week. And next weekend I’ll be speaking also in a – actually, I’ll be speaking in the Calvary Chapel in eastern Tennessee, not too far from Knoxville. So those are things that are happening. If you’re in Tennessee and want to attend one of those events, feel free to do so. You can find out where they are and when. by going to our website, thenarrowpath.com. At thenarrowpath.com. If you look under announcements, you’ll find all those things. Now, before we go to phones, I want to just respond to a letter I received today from a missionary evangelist named Paul, who lives in Arizona. And he apparently had written to me earlier and had not gotten a letter back from me. I apologize for that. I get lots of people requesting me to write to them and so forth, and I’m just, you know, we don’t have secretaries here. I’m being pulled lots of different ways. I don’t have time to respond to all the mail, sadly. And I wasn’t sure that I had anything that I needed to respond to this from. But he wrote to me again, and his concern is this, that apparently a few weeks ago, I said something about A.A. Allen, who is a well-known healing evangelist, with the latter rain movement back in the middle part of the 20th century. He actually died in 1970, but he began his ministry in the mid-30s. And so right in the middle part of the 20th century, he was a very well-known guy. He was on radio on many stations and traveled the country and had big revival meetings along with some of the others that were well-known in that movement. And I guess I had said that he was an alcoholic and that he was frequently drunk, but that when he would arrive to preach, he was suddenly sober. Now, this brother who wrote to me actually lives on the same property with some of A.A. Allen’s offspring, either children or grandchildren. And he said, no, that’s not true. He said I was gossiping and passing along rumors and things like that. Now, he thinks it was unkind of me to do that. Well, I’ll just tell you, I’m sorry if I was mistaken, but I didn’t know it was controversial. I think it’s generally known, or at least I shouldn’t say known, it’s all my life. It’s been generally reported that A.A. Allen was exactly as I described him, but I didn’t say anything about him out of malice. I’m not even sure what the context was, but there’d be no real occasion for me even to mention him unless I was talking about The only time I ever mention A.A. Allen is when I’m talking about the curiosity that God will sometimes mightily use people, even though they have character flaws. There’s some people who have been ministers that I’ve been close to who were really used by God, and yet they had their character flaws. And sometimes I’ll mention A.A. Allen because he was mightily used, apparently, a lot of healings, deliverances, and things like that, and yet because, you know, The reason for giving the example is he’s always struck me as an example of this phenomenon. Now, apparently his children and grandchildren have sought to rehabilitate his image, and they’ve denied that he was an alcoholic. And so I just want to go on record saying there are some denying this. Now, the reason that I think he has the reputation for having been a heavy drinker is that he was arrested in 1955 on suspicion of drunk driving. which led to him having to resign from the Assemblies of God, where he was an ordained pastor. And then he was ordained by his own ministry after that. And one of his partners, I think his principal partner in his ministry and his successor after he died there, was a man named Don Stewart. And Don Stewart, I don’t think, had any animus toward him, as far as I could tell. But Don Stewart mentions that he drank heavily and sometimes was, you know, found to be drunk. When he died, a bunch of empty liquor bottles and pills were found in his hotel room. I think it was his hotel room where he was found. And the coroner certainly gave the impression that he had died of complications of alcohol abuse because he had liver damage. And according to the coroner, He died with a blood alcohol content of 0.36, which is fairly high. And the coroner said that he died from liver failure brought on by acute alcoholism. So we’ve got his ministry partner and successor. We’ve got an arrest record and we’ve got a coroner’s record that sounds like they support the general story about A.L. and that that is universally accepted. you know, passed along. Now, again, I don’t claim personal knowledge of this. I was not claiming to be an expert on this. I’m just, it’s where I learned about Alan. I haven’t even heard recordings of him or anything, but I learned about him from books that write about the history of revivals. And they always, I don’t know if they always do, but they frequently mention this about him. So I don’t know who to believe, and I’m not trying to promote one idea or the other. I’d be glad if he wasn’t an alcoholic. So anything I said about that was not thought, I didn’t think I was passing on a rumor. It sounded like something that was fairly well established and universally held. So I wasn’t attempting to take sides in some controversy. If his children say he never was an alcoholic, I’m not sure what we do with the other claims about it that sound like they were close to the situation. and I could see why children and grandchildren might want to rehabilitate the image of their famous father or grandfather, but I’ve got nothing against the guy. I have no stake in it, but I will go on record saying that there are those who were near to him, family members in particular, who say he wasn’t an alcoholic, and then there were others close to him, including doctors and so forth, that said he was. So I’m just, I’m an outsider on this. I’m not trying to besmirch the reputation of a good man. I’m just passing along information that almost all historians of revivals have said is true. So it’s possible, like I think one of his granddaughters says that the coroner’s report was falsified. Okay, well that’s possible. It’s possible that it was. Not sure what the motive would be for a coroner falsifying the report, but I’m just not going to go to the mat taking one side or the other because I’m an outsider. Like anyone who reads the stories, that’s exactly what my level of expertise is, just someone who’s read about it. So anyway, if A.A. Allen was not an alcoholic, then almost everybody who’s ever written about him seems to have been wrong. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be guilty of passing along an untrue rumor about the man. So that’s all I can say because I don’t know anything more than that. All right. Let’s talk first of all here to David from Andover, Kansas. David, welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hello. I’ve got a question for you on Colossians 3.1. Okay. It talks about seeking those things which are above where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. And I’m trying to picture one of the things that Paul is saying we should be seeking. What is that? And I’d love to get your thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, I’ve wondered that myself. Paul actually says, if then you were raised with Christ, which he assumes to be the case, seek those things which are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on things of the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Now, seek the things, or set your mind on the things above, sounds kind of similar to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6, where he said, lay up treasures on earth where moth and rust corrupt, and thieves break through and steal, but lay up treasures in heaven. Which sounds like he’s saying, put your values first. direct your values toward things that are eternal, toward things that are related to God and related to the holiness and the culture of heaven and all that, rather than placing your values on things that are earthly and tentative and temporal and things that really don’t have that much value, but which people in the world do value. I suspect he’s simply saying we need to… calibrate or recalibrate our values to want those things that have eternal value, that are good forever. Paul said in 2 Corinthians chapter 4 that our outward man is perishing, but our inward man is being renewed day by day while we look not at the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen, he said. The things that are seen are temporal. The things that are not seen are eternal. So I think it’s more or less just a statement to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that our values align with those of heaven. Now, as far as to seek the things that are in heaven, I’m not sure what particular things they are. But again, he may be simply speaking of set your sights on things that are heavenly where Christ is, things that are related to God and Christ. I can’t give you a list of things that are in heaven that we should be thinking about, but certainly Christ is, and God is, and our reward is, and maybe those are the kinds of things that Paul has in mind. He doesn’t tell us what kinds of things are in heaven that we need to set our minds on, but he does mention Christ is there. He said where Christ sits. So I’m going to just not commit myself to too long a list here, but maybe Paul has more in mind than I know, but I think those things that are in heaven are God and Christ and our rewards and our, our life is hid with Christ in God. So our lives in a sense are there too. So it sounds to me like this and some other statements that Jesus and Paul made elsewhere are simply saying that we need to see our lives in this world as guided by values of things that are eternal, things that are related to God and Christ, things in heaven. And, uh, That’s about the best I can do on that. I’m not sure I’ve ever read a commentary that had a list of things that Paul might be referring to, but that’s what I’ve always assumed he means. So I’m going to go with that.
SPEAKER 06 :
Great. Thank you. I’ve enjoyed sort of pondering it, and it’s helpful to hear your thoughts on it, too. Thank you. All right. Thank you, David. Good talking to you, brother.
SPEAKER 09 :
God bless.
SPEAKER 1 :
Bye.
SPEAKER 09 :
Bye. Rick from Maine. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome. Hi, Steve. My question for you is about what I’ve been reading Mark chapter four with the seeds, the parable of the seeds. And it has to do with that and salvation and God’s kingdom, which I know you’ve written about. and it has to do with transformation in our hearts. So this is my question. I’m wondering, is salvation at its core? Is it merely – I shouldn’t say merely, but is it faith that’s taking root in our heart? I guess I’m wondering, is the seed faith that’s taking root in a person’s heart, or is it more like God’s kingdom taking – any type of transformation that results from God’s kingdom taking root in our heart. And I guess I wasn’t quite sure how to word that question, but I’ve just been thinking so much about how there’s like the second and third soil where they seem to have some mental ascent, but something didn’t take root in their heart. So there was like no change. And I’m trying to figure out how – entering into God’s kingdom involves like a heart transformation. And of course, I think faith is more than mental ascent. But I guess I just wanted to get you to maybe comment on the idea of what the seed is, maybe a little more precisely. Is it like, is the seed faith taking root in our heart? Or is it more like the faith, God’s kingdom and the transformation of that all that involves, which would then, with a changed heart.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, what you’re referring to is the parable of the sower, where Jesus talks about a farmer who throws his seed out by hands full, out on his field indiscriminately, and the seeds, some of them fall on the kind of soil that will produce what the farmer’s looking for, and some don’t. Some fall on soil that’s just not going to it’s not going to be very promising. He said the first kind of soil that was definitely not promising was hard soil, where the seed couldn’t penetrate it at all. The parts of the field that the workers walked on regularly pressed down the soil, so it was hard. And the seed just sat on top until the birds came and ate it, so it obviously accomplished nothing. The second and third types you mentioned, the seed did penetrate the soil, but in the first case, not very deeply, because there was rock under a thin layer of dirt, And it had enough dirt to make the seed germinate, but the rock under the dirt was such that the roots couldn’t go down very deep. And then when the heat of the day came, the moisture in the deeper parts of the soil could not be reached by those roots. And so the plant began to grow, but then withered and died. The third kind was a plants that began to grow, but then weeds or thorns and thistles grew up among them and choked it out. So the soil was promising, except it was infested with weeds. The fourth kind was a soil that didn’t have any of these defects. It was good soil, and it produced good fruit, good produce. Now, you’re saying, what is the seed? Now, Jesus did associate the interpretation of this parable with the kingdom of God, as you seem to imply. You know, all the parables seem to be about the kingdom. And the seed, Jesus said, is the word. In Matthew chapter 13, where this parable is found, he refers to it as the word of the kingdom. In another place, it’s just called the word of God. All three of the synoptic gospels have it. Luke has it in Luke 8, Mark has it in Mark 4, and Matthew has it in Matthew 13. But It’s the word. He’s talking about people hearing the word of the kingdom, hearing the word of God. And that would mean probably the gospel, the message of the kingdom. And they are receiving it or not, depending on the conditions of their hearts prior to hearing it. There are people who are open to God. There’s people who are not open to God. There are people who are kind of open to God, but not ready to have a real deep change in in their life, and there are some people who are open to God, but they’re not ready to abandon what the thorns and the thistles represent, which Jesus said was the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches. So, I mean, there’s different conditions of the heart that the seed finds when it lands upon them. And so he’s saying that the Word of God is going to produce its desired effect in the lives of those whose hearts are capable of receiving it in a deep way and are willing to be rid of the cares of the world and so forth that compete with it like thorns and thistles. So this is just one of many parables about the kingdom of God, but you’re saying, what is salvation? Salvation would be those that their hearts do receive the seed and it grows. Now, both the second and third kind of soil The seed began to grow, but there were problems. One didn’t have deep roots, and so it didn’t last. The other seems to have lasted longer, but it got choked out by the thorns. In both of those cases, it would appear that although there was growth, there was some life, there was some salvation. They were saved, but they didn’t continue for whatever reason. In the case of the seed on shallow soil, he said it’s because persecution and tribulation came upon them because of the word and they couldn’t endure that. So he’s saying that even those who receive his message, and we know there were some, for example, in John chapter 6, it tells us that after Jesus spoke offensively, to the crowds, it says many of his disciples departed and didn’t walk with him anymore. So he had some people who had received him and were disciples, but they didn’t stay. Now, Jesus said in those parables, one thing that makes people not stay is they don’t have deep roots, and persecution and tribulation drive them away. They’re just not interested in being faithful through that kind of hardship. The other parable, was the type that had this world’s riches and pleasures and cares competing with God’s kingdom. And people went the wrong way and went with the cares of the world instead of with the kingdom. Which basically is saying that once you’re saved, you have to be aware of those things that have been known to drive some people away or render or choke out their spiritual life. Salvation itself, of course, is the receiving of the word of the kingdom, which is the message that Jesus is the king. Jesus is Lord. And embracing that and having no holds barred. Saying, I’ve decided to follow Jesus. No turning back. There may be persecution and tribulation, but no turning back. There may be temptation toward the world and its joys and its riches, but I’m not turning back. I’m not going to. I mean, those things provide a challenge. but I’m going through with Jesus. And only those who endure to the end, Jesus said elsewhere in Matthew 24, only those who endure to the end will be saved. So you can be saved temporarily, at least that Jesus describes such a phenomenon, but ultimately you’re not saved unless you endure to the end. And by being saved, I mean if you die and you’re still on good terms with God, that’s ultimately being saved. But salvation, of course… is not something that we only experience after we die. So we may walk with Christ and have eternal life for some time. But if we abandon Christ, we abandon that eternal life that is in him. It’s still eternal life, and it’s still in him. But we’re not. And if we’re not in it, we’re not tapped into that eternal life. So that’s what those parables seem to be saying, I think, and how they relate to the subject of salvation. I appreciate your call. James from Jamesport, Missouri. Welcome. Hello, James.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. Yeah, hi. Love your ministry. I sound like I’m a little sick. I’m under the weather, but I’m home, and I’m looking for a… I’ve been listening to a lot of your lectures, as always, on your website, but I want to make a change here and watch a Jesus movie. And I’ve watched Jesus of Nazareth so many times. I’m looking for a different one. You mentioned a movie that you really liked about Jesus some time ago. I don’t know what it was called.
SPEAKER 09 :
Of all the Jesus movies, some are better than others. I’ve been mildly favorably responsive to some of them. But most of them I don’t care for very much. But the one I like the very best of all the ones I’ve seen It’s called The Gospel of John. Now, I think there’s more than one video, more than one Netflix show called The Gospel of John. And I’m not sure how to tell you which one it is. I will say the guy who played Jesus in it was one of the actors in Lost. But I thought he did a better job of depicting Jesus than perhaps any others in the other movies. There’s one on The Gospel of Matthew. I call it the laughing Jesus. The actor is a true Christian man. He’s a godly man and speaks in churches and things like that. But he interpreted Jesus as laughing a lot. I guess he just wanted to depict the joy of Jesus. And he happened to be part of the Vineyard Movement at the time when the Toronto Blessing was going around. And they were laughing a lot, you know. And so he kind of interpreted Jesus as really laughing a bunch and happy all the time. Now, the Bible says he was a man of sorrows according to grief. So I’m not saying Jesus was never happy, but I think that was a little overdone in that particular one. That’s the Gospel of Matthew video. Now, the famous Jesus video, as it’s called, or the Jesus movie that was put out by Campus Crew to Save for Christ back in the 70s, it’s still thought to be a pretty good one. It’s based, I think, on the Gospel of Luke. I haven’t liked everything about it, but it was not bad. Yeah, okay, so the one I like is called The Gospel of John. It’s narrated by Christopher Plummer, and he just reads the scriptural text where there’s no dialogue. There’s nothing in it except scripture. I think they use like the Good News translation or something like that, but You know, there’s no dialogue in it among the actors except what’s actually in the text of Scripture. And the narrative that kind of connects the story between the dialogue is read by Christopher Plummer. And the guy who played Jesus is named Henry Ian Cusick. He’s an Australian actor, but Henry Ian Cusick. And so that’s so far of all the Jesus stories. depictions in movies I’ve seen. That’s my favorite of Jesus. Thank you. All right, brother. Okay. Okay, bye. Good talking to you. All right, let’s see. We only have a minute or so before we have a break, so we’re going to hold off on taking another caller. We have quite a few calls waiting, and we have at least a line open if you want to call and be on in the second half hour. The number to call is 844- The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry, but we don’t have any expenses except radio time. Radio time is very expensive. We pay over $100,000 easily every month to radio stations just to put it on the air. And we don’t have any other expenses. There’s no overhead in this ministry. No payroll. No one gets paid or anything. It’s all volunteers. So it’s a very lean ministry. No waste. If you donate, you are donating to putting this on the air. It goes directly to buying airtime. If you want to write to us, you can at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. You can donate from our website, though everything’s free there, at thenarrowpath.org. We have another half hour. Don’t go away. I’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 01 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to thenarrowpath.com where you can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. See you at thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 09 :
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 appear to be full, and so we’ll go directly to phone lines and talk to these people. If you want to try to get on later when a line opens up, the number to call will be 844-484-5737. All right. Our next caller is going to be Zen from Beaverton, Oregon. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Welcome. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hello, Steve.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah. Steve, my question is on 2 Timothy 2.15. 2.15 or 3.15? 3.15. 2.15, about rightly dividing the word of truth.
SPEAKER 08 :
I wonder if you could explain that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, Paul doesn’t actually make it clear what he means by rightly dividing the word of truth. This is a favorite verse of the early dispensationalists who believed that what Paul meant was that the word of God, some of it applies, they said, to Israel. Some of it applies to the church, and some of it applies to the Gentiles, apparently the unsaved Gentiles. Because Paul elsewhere says, give no offense to the Jew or the Gentile or the church of God. And so they say, well, some of the scripture is to one group and some to another, and we have to rightly divide it. Which would mean, if they’re right about that, and I’m not a dispensationalist, but I’m not sure I have a thoroughly alternative way of answering that question. If they are right about that, then it would mean that we apply the scripture properly in its proper context. I mean, recognizing, for example, that much of the law of Moses was not intended for us at all. It was intended for the Jews of the time prior to Christ. So when we read those scriptures or speak of them, we need to make a distinction between that and scriptures that are, say, the words of Jesus or the apostles that are relevant to us. you know, directly in the church. So this would be simply suggesting that you have to make the proper division in your mind between one kind of scripture that’s applicable to one group and other scriptures that are applicable to another. Now, I think that’s a good and necessary thing to do, whether that’s what Paul was thinking of or not. And dispensationalists, you know, they’re the ones who really quote this verse a lot because they think it’s important to note that there’s a different plan for Israel than there is for the church, which is something I don’t agree with them about that. But I do agree that some scripture applies to Israel and some does not. And some applies to us and some does not. So I’m going to just say that’s the only interpretation of this verse I’ve really encountered. And, of course, I don’t just follow dispensationalists blindly. So I’ve given it a lot of thought on my own independently to think of what else might it mean. And I’m, yeah, I got nothing, you know. I just, I think that Paul is suggesting that when you are, you know, preaching the word or reading the word, you need to, you know, apply it in its proper setting. And not all scripture has the same setting and the same audience and so forth. And so to correctly make the division between one category and another is, of course, an important part of biblical study and biblical application. Now, Paul might have something else in mind when he talks about rightly dividing the word, but I can’t think of what it would be. So I’m going to be with the dispensationalists on this a little bit, but where I differ from them is they think that some of the promises of God are just to Israel. and continue to be for Israel, even though the church has come, so that they believe there’s continuing relevance of Israel and of the church as separate entities having different promises and so forth. And so that’s how they move from this. I would just say you’ve got to be smart enough to recognize that when you’re reading Old Testament passages, it’s not always given instruction to Christians. And when you’re reading the Christian passages in the New Testament… That’s not something that was given earlier to Moses, for example. And, you know, there may be more to it than that, but that’s all I know.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. Thank you for your call. God bless you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. Our next caller is Joshua from Phoenix, Arizona. Josh, you’re becoming a daily caller here. How are you doing? You don’t have other daily callers? I don’t think we have anyone who calls every day, but that’s okay. I mean, as long as we don’t dominate too much here. There’s other calls waiting, so I can’t give you as much time as I’d like. But you’re welcome to call as often as you want.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. So I have been thinking, because I listen to a lot of atheists as well, and I have been thinking that a Protestant uses the Bible as an atheist uses science, like these new atheists use science. Both have their foundations. And if anything contradicts or isn’t found, they reject or simply say we can’t know. It is using a high level of skepticism. The first one I am not so much against, this idea of if anything contradicts, I reject it. I’m not against that. But the second one is if it’s not in there, right? So if science hasn’t taught it or if the Bible doesn’t teach it, we reject it. And I think that’s a high level of skepticism, and I don’t think that’s healthy. But that’s just all I would say.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, yeah, I don’t think Christians are parallel to atheists in that respect, because there’s many things the Bible doesn’t teach that we don’t reject. For example, if I look at a world map and see the distribution of continents, I don’t read about that distribution of continents in the Bible, but I don’t reject the authority of the map. As far as I’m concerned, it’s probably correct. Now, there are things that secular sources would say that do contradict the Bible, and I’d go with the Bible in those cases because I think God is more authoritative than man. But the Bible doesn’t tell us that if something isn’t in the Bible, we can’t accept it. Even solo scripture of Protestants like myself don’t see it that way. We just believe that if the Bible does say something, there’s no other authority that has equal status or equal standing to contradict it and for us to accept. Now, atheists often are that way about science. They would say, if you can’t prove it scientifically, it’s not real. But they’re not consistent because, for example… I mean, they use it against miracles, obviously. They would say, well, there can’t be miracles because they are outside the realm of scientific law, and therefore they can’t be real because they’re not subject to scientific experimentation and repetition for observation and so forth, as scientific laws or physical phenomena are. Therefore, we don’t accept miracles because science can’t address them, can’t analyze them, can’t see them. On the other hand, they do believe many things that have not been proven by science. They take scientific data and extrapolate things from it that don’t need to be extrapolated. For example, variation within species. Everybody recognizes that’s scientific. And a Christian, a Bible-believing Christian or an atheist who looks at that data will equally conclude within species there’s often variations. But an evolutionist will extrapolate from that that those variations can become so great within a species that it moves to another species and another kind of creature altogether so that all creatures by that process arose from simpler forms. There’s no evidence of that. I mean, there’s certainly no proof of it. I mean, some people may take some data and call that evidence, but the same data can be interpreted through a different paradigm. So, you know, it’s funny that atheists will often say, well, if you can’t prove it scientifically, you know, we can’t accept it. Well, you can’t prove evolution in that sense. You can prove variation, but that’s a very far cry from proving the broader theory of common descent of all living creatures. That certainly has never been demonstrated scientifically. And, I mean, I’m not saying they don’t bring up data and say, see, that’s evidence. But if the same data can reasonably be explained without your theory, then at least your theory is still a hypothesis, you know? Now, also, of course, even evolutionists who believe that evolution is true, they argue that there’s no possible way to explain at this point in the scientific community the origin of life, for example. No one knows. No evolutionist can tell you how the first living thing came about. It’s beyond the realm of science to explain it. But they believe it anyway, so… When they say, well, we just believe what science can prove. Well, no, they don’t. No, they don’t. They believe what they want to believe, just like most people do. And I don’t know any Christians who say, if something isn’t in the Bible, we can’t believe it. Because, for example, we all believe that there was an election last November and that there’s a different administration in Washington, D.C. than there was earlier. We believe that, but the Bible doesn’t mention that at all. You know, we believe many things the Bible doesn’t say. The one thing we don’t do is believe things that are contrary to what the Bible says. And that’s a totally different kind of category.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah. I guess to be more specific, it would be within things we don’t know, as in matters of faith and morals. So if I was to make a claim about something that has to do with faith or morals, then a Protestant would be typically like, well, I don’t see that in Scripture or prove that in Scripture. I think there is a time that Protestants will refer back to Scripture, right, as in Sola Scriptura. And atheists will do the same thing when you’re making a claim about, you know, the truth of the universe, right? They’re going to appeal to science or prove that scientifically. So it’s dependent on the truth matter.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay. So let me ask you this. What is it you would recommend as an alternative to that? Okay. So if you say, well, I think we should believe this. Or we have a moral obligation to do that. And I say, well, I can’t find anything relevant to that subject in Scripture. You’re saying that’s not really a good approach. You must have another approach in mind that would be better. I’d love to hear what it is.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, when it comes to, like, I can’t speak for atheists. I’ve been baffled by that. But more so with Protestants, it’s more like prayer. And I think a lot of us could benefit a lot from just praying. Not just not just reading scripture, but also praying it. Um, in the Catholic church, we actually do pray it. Um, which is, which is good. I think we should pray scripture, not just read it, but also pray it and reflect on what we’re, we’re reading, not just read it, but actually to take it into the heart.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I know, I know of Protestants that have prayed the scriptures. Madam Gail was a Protestant woman, uh, centuries ago who was famous for that. Um, And I’ve known others who’ve done it. So I’m thinking, you’re talking about arriving at convictions about faith and morals, that you might arrive at them through praying the Scripture. I think that’s what you’re saying. Well, I don’t doubt that. I think that’s entirely good. But what you’re praying is Scripture. So in other words, God may open your eyes to Scripture. and show you things that the Scripture says that you hadn’t noticed before as a result of prayer. But it’s still the Scripture. I mean, it’s still the Scripture that’s going to have the information you’re looking for, even if it’s not brought out without prayer.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, I think it’s important to, yeah, of course, pray, especially the Scriptures that are challenging. Just like for an atheist, there’s challenging things for him. You know, and he should actually, like, reflect on it. I wouldn’t tell him to pray because he doesn’t believe in God, but I would say reflect on these things. Really take them in, think about them. And I think a lot of people aren’t. And I think it’s important for us to reflect. Even as Catholics, we have to reflect. If we believe, we profess, if we believe, like we say, we have the truth, then we need to learn so we can help others. And likewise, if Protestants believe, they should learn so they can help others. And that’s all. Yeah.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. Well, thanks, Joshua, for your call.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. Take care.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, you know, I’m going to be in the Phoenix area at the end of this month. Maybe you can come out to one of those meetings we can meet.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. All right.
SPEAKER 09 :
God bless you. Bye now. Okay. Let’s talk to Marilyn from Snohomish, Washington next. Marilyn, welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, I’m on the freeway, but I’m good. I’m currently going to a church that’s not where I’m comfortable. It’s not where I come from, but my husband’s going to church, so I’m going. And they talk a lot about revival, and I know that revival means renewing people back into faith, but it’s every single Sunday, and there’s a lot of these prayer things where they’re You know, my husband and I don’t go to them, but I don’t see this revival that people talk about in the New Testament. I know there are things going on at colleges, and I think people are expecting something to happen, but I don’t understand that, and I don’t know. What do you have to say on that topic of revival?
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, well, first of all, the term revival is not a word that the New Testament uses. So we don’t have any description or definition of the word revival in the New Testament. But the word revival means to come back awake, awake or back alive. Actually, it literally means to come back alive, revivified. And so the word itself… comes from a subtext that the church has become, in some measure, spiritually deadened and needs to be woken up, needs to be come back alive again. Now, one reason perhaps the Bible doesn’t talk about that is the last books of the Bible that we have were written still in the lifetime of the Apostles. And revival speaks of coming back alive after there’s been some death. But from Pentecost to probably the death of the apostles and maybe beyond, the church hadn’t died. I mean, they had what we would call, if it was happening today, we’d call it a revival. But what it would mean is a restoration of what they had. You know, the church as it was then being restored. brought back to life as it was then. So you’re not going to read about the word revival in terms of the early church, but you will read about a live, a spiritually alive church. Now there are, excuse me, near the end of the first century or near the end of the apostolic age, there were some churches that had cooled off considerably. We know in the book of Revelation, the church of Sardis had a reputation that it was alive, but Jesus said it was dead as far as he was concerned. And there were also other churches mentioned that were compromised and churches that needed to repent. And I guess, you know, that’s, you know, from time to time, I mean, churches do have their ups and downs. If a church has become cold, if a church has become spiritually dead spiritually, or compromised, then repentance and a return to the first love and so forth that Jesus said the church of Ephesus needed there in Revelation 2 need to be sought. I mean, I suppose the churches, the seven churches in Revelation are the best example in the New Testament we have of the need for revival because the book of Acts, for example, and the epistles that Paul wrote were written early enough in church history that the church, the churches didn’t need revival per se because they hadn’t died yet. But we do see in the book of revelation, we do see that some of the churches there are beginning to, uh, fall into compromise and stuff. And, and Jesus, five, five of the churches of the seven, Jesus actually calls them to repent. And that’s what revival really comes down to is repentance. Um, Some of the great revivalists of the past, and Charles Finney is a very famous one, preached that when people begin to repent, that’s when revival is going to happen. Of course, when people begin to repent and take God seriously, which many people in church simply cannot be said to do, that is, they don’t take God seriously in their lives, when people begin to do that, that’s because they’ve repented of having not done so. And when people begin to take God seriously, that is revival. Because God shows up. When we call on God with all our hearts, he’ll be found of us, the Bible says. So, yeah, people talk about revival in the context of the fact that there’s been much lost in the modern church in terms of spiritual dynamics, spiritual life, and so forth that existed in the original church, especially the church in Jerusalem before Christ. before there were a lot of pagan areas that were evangelized. But even in those pagan areas, there was true, vital Christianity in the early days of the apostles. But we live 2,000 years later, and it didn’t take 2,000 years for churches to become dead or to begin to die. As I say, before the end of the first century, some of those churches were in that condition, as Revelation tells us, and we can certainly see many times in history where churches seemingly the whole Christian church, with probably the exception of some small remnant within it, had become very formal rather than spiritual, I think. And so today and in days past in church history, there have been many times when people in mass began to turn to God and pray and repent and And God poured out his spirit and there were powerful conversions of masses of people in a short period of time. Generally speaking, there were supernatural signs and wonders in some areas where that was going on. You know, it’s just kind of a return to apostolic Christianity. So that’s what revival usually is referring to. And I think we do need revival now.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. So it’s okay then?
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, the word revival is not a bad thing. Now, I will say that some people think revival, I mean, they have a cultural associations in their mind with revival. Pentecostals, for example, will often think that revival is going to be, you’re going to mainly see a bunch of people, you know, speaking in tongues and working signs and wonders and things like that. That may or may not. always be part of revival i the the only revival that has occurred in the united states in my lifetime that i am aware of that that was uh you know that lasted any time was what we call the jesus movement or what the movie calls the jesus revolution i was fortunate to be there when that began to happen and and i was at you know ground zero of that at calvert chapel costa mesa in 1970 and that was a true revival there were thousands and thousands of people really converted uh There weren’t a lot of signs and wonders, but it was a Holy Spirit-filled revival for the most part. There were some healings and things like that, but it was mainly a focus on Christ and conversion and Bible in the Calvary Chapel and Bible teaching, which was a real hunger for the Word of God, which is a mark of a revived church when they’re A healthy baby seeks food. And, you know, Peter says as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word. Many times churches go into a deadness where people are not very hungry for the word of God. And when people are not hungry for the word of God, they’re not a healthy child. They’re not a healthy son, you know. So I have seen revival and we need it all the time. I mean, these days. And it happens in some areas and not in others sometimes. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, so much. That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, Marilyn. Good talking to you. Okay, we’re going to talk next to Gil in Long Island, New York. Hi, Gil. Welcome.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, I don’t know if you remember me. I’m the blind caller that called last year, I think it was. I wanted to ask you a question. Right now, the Catholic Church does not allow people to have meat on Fridays and especially on Good Friday, where do they get that from the scriptures or do they get that from the Catholic catechism or both?
SPEAKER 09 :
That’d be Catholic tradition. There’s nothing in the Bible that would forbid the eating of meat on Friday or any other day. I know that when I was a kid in California, I remember that they didn’t serve meat even in our public school lunches on Fridays to accommodate Catholic people, but I had the impression that the Catholic Church had moved away from that particular practice. I guess I’m mistaken.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, they were emphasizing it. I know that Paul talks about people who forbid meat, forbidding meat and marriage, and then Colossians 2.16 says, let no one judge you by meat or drink or religious festival or holiday.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, I think in both those places, one of those is Colossians 2.16 and 17, and the other one is 1 Timothy 4. Verses 3 to 5. But I think in those cases he’s speaking particularly about Judaizers who are trying to limit Christians’ diet to that which is appropriate in Judaism, to a kosher diet. So they may not be referring to the eating of meat altogether. I think in the early church there might have been some… That’s what I was asking about, the early church, yeah. Yeah, in the early church there might have been some vegetarian movements, but we know from reading the book of Acts and many of the epistles that Paul, who was the one who wrote about that, he was in conflict with Judaizers a lot. It was not the only heretical group that he encountered, but it was the most common group. And so when he talks about, you know, look out for those people who forbid you to eat certain meats that God has made to be received with Thanksgiving, I think he’s probably referring to those who are trying to put you under a kosher diet. But I’m not positive.
SPEAKER 02 :
Wow, thank you very much.
SPEAKER 09 :
It would also be wrong to insist on people being vegetarian, which is not the Judaizer’s position.
SPEAKER 02 :
Or the opposite.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Or the opposite, being that some people want to be vegetarian because they want to be healthy diet. And they believe in natural living and stuff like that. So that wouldn’t be wrong. It’s only if they used to say the Bible promotes that, then it would be wrong.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, same thing with circumcision. You know, lots of people are circumcised for hygienic reasons. I think my whole generation of young men were circumcised at birth routinely. Not that everyone my age was, but I mean, I know the hospital where I was born, they just did it. You didn’t have to be Jewish or Christian. They just did it because at the time it was considered to be, you know, hygienically desirable but other people Paul says if you get circumcised with the idea of doing it to please God as if it’s required then that’s a false doctrine that’s submitting to Judaism well I don’t know if you know that I’m blind and I didn’t know how to read until I got into the Bible in 1991 and
SPEAKER 02 :
One of my life verses, because I suffer from ringing in the ears, as I mentioned to you before, is Psalm 119, verse 71. It was good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn your decrees. And then verse 67 says, before I was afflicted, I… Went astray, but now I obey a word. I love both of those. I also learned to play the piano. Yeah, also because of that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, that’s fantastic. So you can see that having a disability actually got you to do things that you might not have done. Definitely not.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I’m glad. Yeah, I’m grateful to the Lord. I’m suffering a lot, though. It’s very uncomfortable. I’m very sorry. Thank you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, Gil, thanks for your call, brother.
SPEAKER 02 :
You’re welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right.
SPEAKER 02 :
God bless you, brother. Thanks.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right. Bye now. Well, we’re out of time. The music’s playing. I have 30 seconds to get off the air. And I’ll use that to let you know that The Narrow Path is listener-supported, as I mentioned a half hour ago. You can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Now, you can also donate through the website, thenarrowpath.com. But you can also go there and look under announcements and see where I’m speaking all next week. in Tennessee at thenarrowpath.com. Let’s talk tomorrow.
