On Air
Washington Watch
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Steve Gregg opens the lines to callers grappling with understanding faith in everyday life. The episode covers discussions on baptism’s significance and the challenges it creates within families who hold different beliefs. Olivia, a Roman Catholic, shares her emotional response to Protestant views on the Eucharist, revealing the delicate intersection of respect and doctrinal differences in family settings. Steve also tackles the question of how Christians should weigh their involvement in politics and war, emphasizing justice and divine values as the ultimate guide.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hello, this is Steve Gregg. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Last couple of programs were unintentionally, we had to do recorded shows. We don’t like to do that. We had equipment failures. That happened a couple of weeks ago, too, right? I actually went to some drastic measures and put out some money to get something that probably will help us not to have that problem again. And we are a live broadcast for those unfamiliar with the show. For 28 years, we’ve been on Monday through Friday an hour in the afternoon, almost always live. The only time it’s not live is when it’s actually impossible to be. And that was the case on Thursday and Friday. But we’re back now. And because we’re live, we can do what we normally do, take your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, you can call in and ask those questions. We’ll be glad to talk to you about them. If you have a difference of opinion with the host and want to call in and talk about that, I welcome you to do that as well. Here’s the phone number, 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Now, I have a few announcements. This Wednesday, being the first Wednesday of the month, is our monthly Zoom meeting. That’s in the evening, Wednesday evening, 7 o’clock Pacific time. So make whatever adjustments you have to for the time zone you may be living in. 7 o’clock Wednesday night Pacific time is our monthly Zoom meeting, which is a lot like the program, only we can see each other while we talk to each other. It’s a Q&A. And it goes a little longer than this program, which is only an hour. And so if you want to join us for that, the login information is found at our website, thenarrowpath.com, under the tab that says Announcements. Also under the Announcements tab, while you’re there, you can see where I’m going to be speaking this weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. I’ll be in what I call Northern California. California’s got about 1,000 miles from the southern to the northern part. It’s really kind of central northern California. I’ll be speaking in San Jose this Friday and Saturday. And I’ll be speaking in Santa Cruz Sunday. And I’ll be way up in Ukiah on Monday. And so if you live anywhere near those places, or maybe you’re going to be in that area this weekend, feel free to look at our website again, thenarrowpath.com, under Announcements. And all the times and places of those meetings are there. And, of course, all our meetings are open to the public. You’re welcome to join us. In some cases, they are held in private residences. So in those cases, normally you have to call the resident to get the address. But go to thenarrowpath.com, look under announcements, and you’ll see all the places I’ll be speaking this weekend and even into Monday up in Northern California. All right, enough on that. Let’s go to the phones and talk to Mark from Mission Viejo. Mission Viejo, I should know how to say that. I lived in Orange for a long time, and that’s right close by. Mark in Mission Viejo, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hello, Steve. I hope your ministry time and traveling went well over the weekend. A lot of teaching. That’s great. Yeah, I just got back.
SPEAKER 02 :
I got back at 1 o’clock this morning. I got home. Oh, my.
SPEAKER 07 :
Oh, my.
SPEAKER 02 :
It was in Arizona.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I don’t know how you do it, but it must be the grace of God. On 3-26-25 of last week, the first caller asked about Ephesians 1, 3 through 6. And I want to focus on verse 4, the main clause in verse 4, because I have a different interpretation based on the grammar. And so it starts out with that he chose us, the Father chose us in him before the foundation of the worlds. And so the Father, Father God, is choosing us, and the us here is the direct object, and it’s referring to, in my understanding, to the believers or the saints in Ephesus and to Paul himself. And then he says, in him, the two prepositional phrases, in him and then before, the foundation of the world, The in Him is referring to the location or where the choosing takes place. So the Father chose us in Him, in Christ, and it takes place before the world was even created, before the foundation of the world. And so, and of course, it seems to me, when the choosing takes place before the foundation of the world, that would preclude any person choosing Christ when they’re alive on the earth. I mean, in other words, it’s already taken place before anyone was even born to choose Christ. And so it’s just that simple. He chose us in Christ. The choosing took place in Christ. And it happened before the foundation of the world. And I think it’s as simple as that. What do you think is wrong with that interpretation which I just gave there?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I’m assuming that the interpretation you gave, you’re suggesting that each of us was individually chosen before the foundation of the world. And I don’t think that’s necessarily how Paul needs to be understood here. When Paul says he chose us, I think he’s speaking collectively of us. the church, basically, those who are in Christ. And when he says, in Christ, now something happened in Christ. In Christ refers to something. Was God in Christ choosing us? Or did he choose us because we are in Christ? Now, I believe that Paul is referring to us who are in Christ. That is the whole church. And that includes all Christians of all times. That position of chosenness in Christ was something God decided before the foundation of the world. Elsewhere it says that Jesus was the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. So Christ was not an afterthought for God. Actually, in Ephesians it says that it was God’s eternal purpose to have Christ have those who are in him, and he made a choice that those who are in Christ And this would mean no matter who they are, it’s not necessarily saying that he was choosing individuals as individuals, but he’s choosing Christ, really. And all who are in Christ share in that chosenness. Therefore, because I’m in Christ, I am chosen in him. He chose me and you and all others who are in him by choosing him. Paul in Ephesians 1 has a lot to say about in Christ. He says that we are accepted in him. A little later he says that we are seated in heavenly places in him. We’re certainly justified in him. We were risen with him because we’re in him. Being in Christ simply means, and Paul uses this expression fairly uniquely. The New Testament doesn’t really use it much outside of his letters, but I believe what he means is that being in Christ means that whatever we can say about Christ, or at least the thing he is saying about Christ, is true of us, too, because we are in Christ. And so Christ is, in fact, the one who is chosen, and all of us who are in him were chosen also by him being chosen. Now, we weren’t yet in him, but God chose Christ. the category. And every generation gets to choose whether they will be within or outside of that category. Those who come to Christ, they come into the chosen one. And the chosen one is corporate, just like Israel was chosen, but Israel was corporate. To me, Paul sees Christ, and so did Jesus, and so do the other New Testament writers, that Christ is the new Israel, as it were. In the Old Testament, Israel was a man, but also became a corporate group Israel the nation in the New Testament Christ was a man but has become a corporate entity with those who are in him now in the Old Testament if you wanted to be chosen you had to be in the chosen people you had to be in Israel now the Old Testament doesn’t suggest that God chose who would be in Israel and who would not be in Israel because people actually had choices about that a person who was born in Israel could defect and be cut off from the people and no longer be in Israel if they wished. And likewise, a person who was born a Gentile could be circumcised and come to be in Israel and be like a native of the land, the Bible says. So the constituency of Israel was fluid, but Israel was an entity that was not fluid. The entity was chosen. The nation was chosen, and you could be in it or not as you chose, but A Gentile who was born, let’s say a woman like Ruth, was born a Moabite, so she wasn’t in the chosen people. But when she converted and came into Israel, she was chosen. So she was not chosen from birth. She was chosen when she became part of the chosen entity. The chosenness inheres in the corporate entity. Now Christ is the new Israel, and he is chosen. Israel was the chosen people. Christ is now the chosen one, and we are now in him. We’re one in him. Male, female, Jew, Gentile, slave, free, all are one in Christ who are saved. And so, you know, anyone in Israel could have said, well, we were chosen by God at whatever point God chose Israel, even though we weren’t in it yet. But our chosenness comes upon us as a result of being in the corporate chosen group. If we leave that group, we’re not chosen anymore. It’s the group that’s chosen. And the same thing is true of Christ. Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world. All of us who are in him are chosen in him, too, because we’re part of him. But if we leave him, let’s say if we abandon him, well, then we’re not in him anymore. We’re not in the chosen one. We’re not chosen anymore. It’s Christ and those in him as a category that’s chosen. And so we are chosen. We were chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ. That is, he was chosen before the foundation of the world, and when we come to be in him, we share in that primordial, eternal chosenness. And so it’s true of us what is true of him. And that’s how Paul talks about being in Christ throughout Ephesians 1 and 2. The expression in Christ or in him appears a bunch of times, and he’s always basically trying to tell us that because this is true of Christ, it is now true of us because we’re in Christ. And so that’s how I understand that. Now, true, many people have thought that what he’s saying is that every individual who is in Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world to be in Christ. And I would have to agree with that if Paul had said that we were chosen before the foundation of the world. He chose us to be in Christ. He didn’t say he chose us to be in Christ. He says he chose us in him, in Christ. So the idea is that God simply chose that whoever is in Christ, from the foundation of the world, he made this decision. Whoever is in Christ will be in Christ and will share in the chosen status, just like a person who was a Gentile became part of Israel, now was part of the chosen nation. So the chosenness is a corporate phenomenon, and individuals can come and go. Frankly, I mean, the constituency of that entity is fluid, but God has an eternal chosenness upon Christ, which is shared by all those who are in him.
SPEAKER 07 :
You know, Steve, it doesn’t say the language, just the sentences, the sentence itself doesn’t say he chose Christ. that Christ was chosen before the foundation of the world. But it says it elsewhere.
SPEAKER 02 :
What’s that? It says it elsewhere. Paul is trying to tell us what our privileges are in that passage. Elsewhere, we read that Jesus was chosen before the foundation of the world. Paul certainly had that as part of his theological furniture. It’s right. In this part of Ephesians, he’s not listing all the things that are true of Christ himself. you know, as a separate category, but all the things are true of us because we’re in Christ.
SPEAKER 07 :
So the focus is not… Can you give me that reference, that reference of where… Off the top of my head, I’m not thinking of it, in Ephesians, where you’re saying he chose Christ.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, not in Ephesians. It’s elsewhere in Scripture where, for example, chapter 13 of Revelation, it says the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13, 8. And I think there’s one other place. So we know that Christ’s death is everything that’s true of us in Christ is true of us in Christ because it is true of Christ. That’s the point. So when Paul in Ephesians 1 says that we are accepted in him, in Ephesians 1.6, he’s made us accepted in the beloved that is in Christ. Okay, so how can we be accepted in Christ? Because he’s accepted and we’re in him. So whatever is true of us in him is true of us in him because it’s true of him. So, I mean, that’s Paul’s theology. I mean, if you don’t know about what it means to be in Christ and what Paul’s trying to say about the privileges that accrue to those who are in Christ, they are Christ’s privileges now shared by us who are in him. And that’s kind of the whole theological foundation for Ephesians 1 and 2, it seems to me.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right, and I don’t want to disagree with that at this point in general, but when he’s writing, he writes to the Ephesians, and the letter’s going to the Ephesians. And so when the letters read to them, I just don’t think they’re going to pick up all that theology that may or may not be built into this that you’re presenting. I just think they’re going to hear when they’re reading.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, unless, Mark, I want to say they won’t unless they remember that he ministered in their church for three years prior to writing this epistle. Right. So they had heard his theology up the wazoo. They’d heard him probably several times a week talking about his theology. So I don’t think that he had to go back and reinvent the wheel here.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s a possibility, but why then did he not just simply say, he chose Christ before the foundation of the world, and when you choose him… That puts you in Christ.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think the reason he didn’t say that is he wasn’t writing to Calvinists, and therefore he didn’t feel like he had to refute Calvinism. His audience would know, unless they didn’t remember when he was with them, they would know that Paul sees Christ as… as the church is Christ. The church is the body of Christ. As he says in Ephesians 1, verse 23, the church is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. So Paul’s theology is the church is the fullness of Christ as his body. And that, you know, like organs are in a body. Or as Jesus said in John 15, as branches are in a vine… You know, they are part of the organism. A branch is part of a vine. And Jesus describes, I’m the vine, you’re the branches, you have to remain in me. If you are in me, you bear fruit. If you don’t abide in me, you’re cast forth as a branch and you die. So the idea that Christ is an organism and we are appendages to that organism, and all the parts of my body share in the status of my whole body. So And that’s true. That’s Paul’s theology. Now, I doubt that he spent three years with them without bringing that out since it seems to be one of his favorite subjects in Ephesians. Now, yeah, you’re right. He didn’t have to clarify that to them like he would to us since we have a tendency to be Calvinistic in our orientation because that’s what Protestants have been taught. But I don’t think his audience had been taught Calvinism. I think they knew that when Paul talked about in Christ – He’s saying that means Christ is this, and in Christ we are that now too. And so I don’t know that he had to spell it out. But I’ll tell you this, because my line’s full, I need to move on, but I have no interest in persuading you. I mean, if the wording is a stumbling block for you, and you say, well, I’m just not going to see it the way Steve sees it, that’s okay. There’s no command of Scripture here. that says anybody has to see any verse of Scripture the way Steve does. So you can see it differently if you want to. And frankly, sometimes when someone says, I used to see it that way too, it might sound like condescending. You know, when I was ignorant, I saw it the way you saw it. Now, I don’t mean it that way, but I will say that I was raised seeing it differently than I do now. And more or less like what you apparently see it as. And it just, you know, I couldn’t hold on to that viewpoint as I studied Paul’s theology. So anyway, you and I may just have to disagree about that. And it’s fine because that’s not a crisis to disagree with each other. Mark, I need to move on to another caller, but I appreciate you joining me. Okay, have a good day, Steve. Thank you for bringing up your points.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, bye.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, God bless you. Bye now. Okay, Patrick from Scottsdale, Arizona. Hey, I met Patrick a couple times this last weekend. Hi, Patrick. I see.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, as promised. You are the Patrick I met, aren’t you? Yes, yes, exactly. So I’m coming to you with the same question that I kind of alluded to yesterday. So I was teaching on Jude specifically, but number one is it’s pretty interesting when you get into it and how much of a – punch it back in how deep and how wide it actually is for a letter. But one thing that I was kind of thinking when I was reading it and a question that I wanted to pose to you is because Jude and Peter are referencing the Apocrypha several times, what would you say for Christians nowadays? How much, if any, benefits would you say can a Christian get from studying the Apocrypha?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I would probably just say what Luther said about it. Luther said that the apocryphal books are edifying, and they’re fine to be read for the purpose of edification. And I’m not going to dispute that. I haven’t even read all of them because I’ve got enough other edifying things to read. But Luther did not believe there was scripture, and I don’t think the Jews did either. What constitutes scripture, at least when I’m looking for scripture, when I’m looking for a book, include in Scripture. I’m looking for a book that was written by an inspired author. If the author is inspired by God, let’s say like a prophet, or they’re appointed by Christ, like the apostles, to speak on his behalf as his official spokespeople, well, if one of Christ’s appointed special spokespeople has written a book and they have unique authority from Christ to do so, I’m going to take that as an authority over my life. If a prophet of God by inspiration wrote something, that’s very different than if anyone wrote anything without inspiration. So the books that I would approach as God’s word or as having absolute authority would be those written by inspired or specially appointed authors. Now, nobody believes that the apocryphal books were written by those kinds of people. The book of Enoch obviously claims to be written by the prophet Enoch, But the prophet Enoch lived a couple thousand years before the book of Enoch was written. And the book of Enoch appeared only a couple centuries at the most before Christ. Enoch lived before the flood of Noah. So, I mean, he was way back there, thousands of years earlier. The book was not written by Enoch, and nobody knows who it was written by. But it was one of a lot of the apocryphal books written. Not necessarily the ones in the Catholic Bible, but a lot of the ones that aren’t even in the Catholic Bible, which would include Enoch. Even Enoch is not in the Catholic Bible, though they have some books that Protestant Bibles don’t have. But the books that are not in the Protestant Bible are not in it because none of them were written by, as far as we know, inspired people. Interestingly enough, too, and this wouldn’t mean as much to me as it might mean to the Jews themselves, but all the apocryphal books of the Old Testament were written in Greek. None of them were written in Hebrew. All the inspired books that we know of in the Old Testament were written by Hebrew prophets in the Hebrew language. But after the Old Testament prophets ceased to speak and write, Malachi, as far as we know, being the last of them, there was a 400-year period before Jesus came. And in that 400 years, Jews began, and most of the Mediterranean world began to speak Greek, because of the influence of Alexander the Great. And a lot of Greek language religious books were written by Jewish writers, because they were now Greek-speaking. And these books, some of them, not all of them, but some of them were attributed to people who were not the real authors. That is, the authors claimed to be them. So you’ve got the book of Baruch, you’ve got the book of Enoch, you’ve got the book, you know, the testimony of the twelve patriarchs that were not written by the Twelve Patriarchs, or any of these men. These are called pseudepigraphal books. Pseudepigraphal means written under an assumed name. And Enoch is one of those. Now Jude does quote from Enoch, and Jude does also make a strong allusion to another apocryphal book called The Assumption of Moses, neither of which were written by inspired authors. And you’re right, 2 Peter chapter 2 also alludes to some of these things. So we’ve got two of our New Testament books using as illustrative material stories or things that are found in non-inspired books. So what then? Does that mean we should start thinking of those as inspired books? Well, if we take that approach, we’re in trouble because Paul, on three different occasions, quoted Greek philosophers to illustrate his points. And there’s certainly no reason to believe, since they were pagans, that he thought of them as inspired men. It’s like when I teach, if I know a good quote from Abraham Lincoln or Benjamin Franklin or Mark Twain or Will Rogers, someone who’s witty or says something interesting that’s insightful, or if something I’m talking about has a good illustration from Pilgrim’s Progress or even from the Chronicles of Narnia, I might use that as an illustration without implying that I’m quoting Scripture when I quote them. And so I think that Jude did that, Peter did that, Paul did that. Their readers knew these books. They were familiar books. They were good illustrations of what these guys were saying. But neither they nor their readers saw those books as Scriptures. And they might be edified, just like reading A.W. Tozer’s edifying, but he’s not writing scripture. So that’s my approach to those things when I find them there in the Bible. Hey, I need to move to another caller after this break, but Patrick, I hope that answers your question for you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, it was a great answer.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thanks. Okay. God bless you, brother. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming, so don’t go away. The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. If you’d like to write to us, you can do so at this address, The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or just go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. We have another half hour, so don’t go away.
SPEAKER 03 :
Are you aware of the wide variety of teachings available without charge at the Narrow Path website? In several hundred lectures, Steve Gregg covers every book of the Bible individually and gives separate teachings on approximately 300 important biblical topics. There is no charge for anything at our website. Visit us there and you’ll be amazed at all you’ve been missing. That web address again is www.thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve. We’re live for another half hour. Taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian life. or Christian faith, anything like that, feel free to give me a call. If you disagree with the host, as many people do, and that’s fine. That makes for interesting conversation. You can give me a call, too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. If it’s easier to remember, it’s 844-484-5737. So we have a couple lines open, so it’s a good time to call. We can maybe get to your call in this half hour if you call now. 844-484-5737. All right. Our next caller is Olivia from San Diego, California. Hi, Olivia. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, thank you. Well, this will be in the category of something like disagreeing with you, but that’s not – The focus of it, really, the focus I’d like to take is last Monday, a woman called in and was asking you to define the word Eucharist. And I am a Roman Catholic. I’ve listened to you often for years now, and I have always found you to be very respectful, you know, toward the Catholic faith and different issues you bring up about the faith. But on that particular Monday, toward the very, very end of your conversation with her, you said something like, and the Catholics actually believe it. This is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And her response was like, oh, wow. And to me, that was the first time I ever heard you make a comment that was, I would put it towards derogatory. And that’s so unlike what I’ve experienced from you, but I’ve been praying about this for the whole week. I don’t like to confront people, and I hope this doesn’t sound confrontational to you, but I just want to share with you, as a Roman Catholic, such comments, I felt as if a dagger had been pierced. I had been stabbed with a dagger or a spear. It was so painful to hear that comment and yours and hers that I understand, you know, that we all don’t agree on the same things, you know, as Christians. But I just needed to call you and tell you that I had that experience when you said what you said, the way you said it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, thank you. Thank you for telling me that. And I’m sorry that something I said would have that effect on you. Maybe I did say it without sufficient deference or respect or something. But, you know, here’s the thing. I assume that most of my audience are not Catholic and therefore probably do not believe in transubstantiation. They might not even realize that both Catholics and… Orthodox, Greek Orthodox people actually do believe something which most Protestants do not and would find difficult to believe. So to say some people actually believe this, my statement is intended to convey, some of you may find it surprising that this is something that people really believe. Because I see if you’re raised Catholic, it doesn’t seem a strange thing. But if you’re not raised Catholic, if you’re raised in a way that you don’t believe, that the bread really turns into the body of Jesus and the wine really turns into blood instead of wine, frankly, people who haven’t been convinced of that, that sounds a very strange thing for someone to believe. And while… I don’t say that people cannot sincerely believe such a thing and be a Christian. My audience, I assumed, most of them are not of that belief. And so I wanted to make it very clear there are people who really believe that because it might be surprising. If I was uninformed of the various Christian beliefs of Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and so forth, if I was a new convert, let’s say, and someone was talking about some beliefs, let’s just take that one, that the Eucharist actually changes into something different when the priest says some words over it. I might be surprised to hear it. Do people really believe that? Yeah, there are people who actually believe that. And I don’t mean that insultingly, although it’s very clear that I think it’s a very hard sell to believe that. And that’s, of course, I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t see that, and I don’t believe the Bible teaches it, but I’m not trying to make fun of people who do. So, again, I apologize if that’s how it came off. I’m not going to, I can’t back down from my statement except to say maybe that did come off more disrespectful than I intended it.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, well, thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. I thank you for bringing it up, and I apologize. All right. God bless you.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. God bless you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thank you. Okay. Let’s talk to Edward from Vancouver, Washington. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Edward.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hello, Mr. Gray.
SPEAKER 02 :
Are you there? Yes. Yes. Do you hear me? I hear you. You’re not speaking through a speakerphone, are you? I am. Are you using a speakerphone? Okay. I think your voice would be clearer.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, am I hard of hearing?
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I can hear you. I can hear you. I think you have a little bit of an echo you wouldn’t have if you didn’t use a speakerphone. Do what you need to do. Go ahead. I’m sorry. I turned it off now. All right. Your voice sounds more natural, I think. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes. My question is about what should be the Christian interest in a war and conflict in politics at large? It seems to me that perhaps a lot of Christians think that you just shouldn’t care, look the other way. But then it seems that oftentimes Christians are sort of, like, propagandized to a lot and sort of used for worldly ends without realizing it. Right. You know, and so I’m wondering, like, how invested should Christians be and how should they think about it to, like, prevent themselves, you know, from being used for bad purposes? I’d just like to hear your thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. Well, when it comes to war between two nations… First of all, Christians need to realize that we are not involved in an international battle as Christians. We are involved in a spiritual battle. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and rulers of the darkness of this age and against the powers of wickedness in the heavenly places. So we have another focus here. Now, that doesn’t mean Christians never fight in wars. I think that that can righteously be done. But when people fight in a war, they’re not specifically promoting the kingdom of God. They’re promoting a national interest. Now, Christians who are interested in the kingdom of God are interested in justice. At least they should be. I know the church doesn’t condition us to be that much. I think a lot of times the church conditions us either to be unconcerned about politics and war, or they just teach us to be patriotic and just support our country. I don’t think either of those things really are quite our position. Our position is that we, like God, are on the side of justice. Now, some people actually go to war in order to, as they hope, promote the cause of justice. Other people go to war just out of patriotism, and they really haven’t researched to know whether the nation that they are representing or supporting actually has the just cause in the conflict. They just figure, you know, this is my nation or it’s our allies, and so we’re going to fight for their cause. I think that Christians need to be more critical about that kind of thing. I don’t think that we should just take the patriotic view about every subject. Because our nation, though I think in many cases, I have actually felt that most of the wars that America has fought in, we’ve been on the right side of the issue. When we fought against the Nazis, when we fought against the Axis powers, when we fight against communists, I actually think that our cause is more righteous than the ones we fought. But I don’t consider that fighting those wars is right. specifically the promotion of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is not promoted by physical weapons. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to pulling down of strongholds and casting down imaginations and all that. So what is our interest in war? Do we have any interest in war? Well, we have an interest in people. We have an interest in the well-being of people. In a war, any war, a lot of people get killed. Now some of those people are righteous people and therefore their death is unjust. Some of those people are not righteous people. But the Bible says that God doesn’t even have pleasure in the death of the wicked. So war is not something God likes. He sometimes uses war. I believe that God has used war throughout the Old Testament and even in the last 2,000 years to bring down wicked oppressors whose continuation in power would have done more harm to people whom Christ died for and whom we are to love. And therefore, the bringing down of a tyrannical and cruel nation through war, we can rejoice in general that peace has come and hopefully justice will prevail. But we don’t see that as really the plane that we’re primarily concerned about. We are concerned about it. And the same thing in politics. We don’t promote anything because a political party promotes it. Whatever we promote or whatever we oppose, we should promote or oppose on the basis that we are looking at that issue from the standpoint of God’s values, which are justice and mercy and faithfulness. These are the things that God values most, Jesus said. These are the weightier matters of the law with God. So if a political agenda has the promise of promoting a more just society, we realize that we’re supposed to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. And therefore, we would want them to not suffer injustice if possible. We can’t always control that. But if we have anything to say about it, we want to support justice because justice is good for people. God is just. God loves justice. So, you know, when it comes to politics and, of course, war, which is a somewhat more extreme political concern, we are not, as Christians, we are not blindly loyal to one nation or another. We are citizens of heaven. We are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. We are ambassadors for Christ in the nation we live in. Now, an ambassador… I assume he’s concerned about the safety and the peace of the nation that he is in, where he’s domiciled, but his primary loyalty is to the one who sent him, the nation that sent him. And, for example, Christians in Germany during World Wars I or II, there were Christians, a lot of them, in Germany, and some of them fought in war there. But they must have done so on the assumption either that they’re just supposed to support Germany because they’re Germans… which is not how any Christian should think about it. I don’t even think we should necessarily defend America because we’re Americans. We should defend America and its interests if, in a given situation, we believe America’s interests are aligned with God’s priorities. And, you know, if we were Christians in Germany during World War II and asked to fight for Hitler’s agenda, and if we realized… the horrible things that Hitler’s doing, we should not be patriots in that day. We shouldn’t fight for what’s evil. Even if we were Germans, and it’s Germany we’re fighting for. You see, people sometimes just by default, they just show up to fight on behalf of their nation, which I think is a righteous thing to do when your nation is on the side of right. But obviously in every war, both sides think they’re right, and somebody isn’t. So Christians have to be very nuanced in their support of anything, any war or any political agenda, because God is not associated with any one nation or its political systems or its political parties. God is on the side of people. And, of course, what God intends for nations is that the rulers seek the benefit of the people. that God has appointed rulers to uphold justice and security for the people that they’re serving. But when nations do things that are wicked and hurt people instead, Christians, even if they are generally pleased to be part of that nation, they have to say, well, that’s not right. That’s not good. That’s going to hurt people. And God loves people. So we don’t love that behavior. So even, for example, many conservative Christians are political conservatives and have tended to vote Republican. Now, I’m a conservative Christian. I’m also a conservative in terms of economics and social issues and so forth. So I have often voted for Republican candidates, but I’m not a registered Republican. I would vote against a Republican candidate if they are in that position. particular issue on the wrong side. Because we aren’t loyal to a nation. We’re not loyal to a party. We’re loyal to God. But insofar as we have any involvement in politics or war, we must be very discerning about, you know, are we really in the right here? Is God really on the side of what we’re promoting? If not, I’m sorry, I can’t promote it. Even if it’s my nation or a party that I’ve had much in common with. Now, that’s That’s my thought about Christians, how much we should be concerned about it. I think that in most times in history, Christians had nothing to say about the political policies of their emperors and of their kings and so forth. They just had to grin and bear it. If they didn’t like what their king or emperor was doing, they just had to, you know, just tolerate it because they couldn’t change anything. But we are living in a time where we are in a position where we can change some things. We don’t have all power to turn the nation around. We’re in a minority here maybe sometimes. But to do what we can is simply to be a good steward of opportunities that God has given us to help people and hopefully to protect lives and protect the innocent and do as little harm as we can to anybody. So I’m just saying I don’t stand with a political party. And although I’m an American, I’m glad to be an American, certainly thankful to be in this country, there are things that America would do that I wouldn’t support because my loyalty is higher to Christ and his kingdom. So that’s kind of a broad sweep of how I would address the issues you’re talking about. Obviously, we could get into the weeds on specific issues and ambiguity at some points and so forth. But just in answer to your question as a general rule, I think we are interested in war and politics and those kinds of things only insofar as the interests of justice are concerned because God has appointed us to do justly and to love mercy and walk humbly with God. So that would be the thing. I think war should never be engaged in unless you’re on the side of justice in it, not just because you’re on the side of of America or something. All right. Hey, God bless you. Thanks for your call. Let’s talk to Sherry from Detroit, Michigan. Hi, Sherry. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. In regards to baptism as a whole, baby baptism, adult, Could you put that into the category of it’s like an esoteric kind of an argument when people are debating about it? And also, in chapter 11 of Luke, in verse 18 where it talks about, or actually verse 17 where it talks about a kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation and a house divided against a house falls. If you have like a family who’s worried about their kids baptizing their children, you know, getting their grandkids baptized. Is that like, and you didn’t go? That didn’t happen to me, but it’s somebody else. Is that like dividing your house? Is that a good scripture to kind of say, what about this? Or is it just esoteric? Because everything I see, it’s always a debate. Everything’s a debate. It’s a false teaching. Well, it’s a debate.
SPEAKER 02 :
I wouldn’t refer to those things as esoteric. They are, in some cases, they may be what we call gray areas, that it’s hard to come down on one side or the other with absolute certainty. But I don’t see baptism that way. There’s a little bit of grayness in the area of infant baptism. But, I mean, to me… If somebody asks me a question about any practice, the first place my mind goes is to the Scripture. What does the Scripture say about it? And if someone says, what do you think about infant baptism? I’d say, well, first of all, the Scripture doesn’t endorse it, doesn’t command it, and doesn’t record any instances of it. So we have no reason to believe that anyone in the early church practiced it or promoted it. If they did, it’s completely off-record. Now, as far as what the Bible positively teaches about baptism, it seems to me like the Bible teaches that people are to be baptized when they put their faith in Christ, when they repent of their sins, when they become a follower of Jesus. And no one is born in that condition. No one is born as a follower of Jesus. And so, a baby who has made no decision to repent or to believe in Christ or be a follower of Christ, they don’t seem to be in biblical terms, to be a candidate for baptism. Now, Protestants, I mean, some Protestants do baptize infants. Reformed people do. You know, Methodists do. I mean, a lot of Protestants do. Certainly Catholics do. Now, you know, there are many Protestants like myself who have never been part of a denomination that does baptize infants. And from our point of view, It doesn’t do much good to baptize an infant since, again, baptism marks a choice to follow Christ. At least in the Bible it always does. We don’t have any exceptions to that in the Bible. So some have thought, well, you know, they might have baptized infants, although the Bible never mentions it. Well, they might have, but I’m not going to take a position on a policy on the grounds that some people might have done it without authorization, without any command from God, without any record of them even doing it. There’s a lot of things people might have done, but if I’m going to answer for baptism, it’s not that much of a gray area. So, you know, I don’t call it an esoteric question, but it’s not very much a gray area. Now, about dividing a house, when Jesus said a house divided itself will fall, He’s, of course, answering a rather stupid statement the Pharisees said, that he was casting out demons by Beelzebub. He makes it very clear, well, why would Beelzebub be so stupid to do that to his own kingdom? Why would he destroy his own household, as it were? But Jesus did indicate that loyalty to him will sometimes divide houses, not that he wants it to, but within a house there may be a person who, who is loyal to Christ and someone who objects to them being loyal to Christ. And so Jesus said on that subject in Matthew 10, 35, I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. He says, I’ve come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s foes will be those of his own household. Now, he’s not saying that I wish to do this. I wish the families would be divided, so I’m coming to make that happen. He’s saying my coming will have that result. Because some people will side with me and some will not. And when people disagree over Christ, that disagreement can be very heated. There can be hostility and so forth. And families often divide over that. Now, when you say, well, what if a Christian decides not to attend a family member’s baptism of their infant? Because I assume if they’re boycotting that, it’s because they don’t believe in infant baptism. Well, I think a person should do what they’re convicted to do. And the other family members who might be somewhat offended by it should say, well, you know, everyone has a right to their own decisions about this, so I’m sorry we disagree about it, but I’m going to respect your right to follow your convictions. I think everyone should do that. And if that brings division, well, sadly, so be it. I mean, you can’t help that. If you’re going to do the right thing, you can’t help that some people will be offended by you doing the right thing. You just do it. Of course, you don’t want to do it in a way that’s going to be unnecessarily offensive. You can say, well, you know, we have different ways of looking at this. You could always attend, too. I mean, to attend a church where they’re baptizing a baby doesn’t mean that you agree with that theology. And that might be a way to avoid problems. But families do divide over Christ. And he said they would. And that’s kind of a sad thing, obviously. It would be much nicer if that never happened. All right.
SPEAKER 05 :
Do that.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Well, thank you. Let’s talk to Kelly from Ledyard, Connecticut. Kelly, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes. Hello, Mr. Gregg. I just wanted to say that you may have more Roman Catholics listening to you than you might think.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, okay.
SPEAKER 04 :
because I’m a Roman Catholic as well, and the Catholic Church does not teach us the Bible. I’m going to say that straight out. We do not study our Bibles the way I believe other denominations do. And I’ve been following you for a number of years, and I’m learning more from you in five years than I’ve learned in my Roman Catholic upbringing in 50 years. So I want to thank you for what you do. and hopefully I’m speaking on behalf of some Roman Catholics when I say that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, thank you. It’s good to hear from you. Is that all?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I could ask another question if I have a couple seconds.
SPEAKER 02 :
We have a couple seconds. Go ahead. We have about a minute, it looks like to me.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, I’ll try really quick. Let’s see, I heard another pastor the other day talking about Paul from, I want to say, either Romans 7 or Romans 8, when he’s talking about my flesh wars against the Spirit and the Spirit wars against the flesh.
SPEAKER 02 :
That exact statement comes from Galatians, but Paul did talk about the same thing in Romans 7, yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, Romans chapter 7 then is what I am referring to. Thank you for the clarification. And the pastor was saying that that was his pre-conversion expression. And I don’t understand how it could be pre-conversion. Okay, thank you for your time. Goodbye. That’s a good point.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, unfortunately I can’t go into it in detail, but you’re right. There are people who think that Paul there is describing his struggles before he was a Christian. And others believe he’s describing the struggles that he had presently as he was writing as a Christian. I take the second view. And that’s largely because he uses the present tense and because he’s describing something that every Christian I know can relate with. We might say, well, I’m idealistic. I don’t think Paul had that problem after he became a Christian. Well, every Christian I know does. And I don’t know why Paul can’t be taken literally when he says that he does too. So that’s where I stand. I’m out of time. I only have five seconds. Thanks for calling. Our website is thenarrowpath.com.
