On Air
Mon - Fri: 12:00 AM - 12:30 AM & 11:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Tune into a thought-provoking session on the existence of God and the philosophical arguments surrounding atheism with Steve Gregg. This episode further delves into raising children with Christian convictions amidst modern cultural challenges. With comprehensive discussions that unravel biblical texts, from the mysterious character of Elihu in Job to Paul’s teachings in Hebrews, Steve Gregg provides listeners with thoughtful, scripturally backed explanations.
SPEAKER 09 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon. We’re taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible, about the Christian faith, we take those calls for an hour. We’re commercial free. If you also have a difference of opinion from the host and want to talk about that, you’re welcome to join us and we’ll be glad to talk to you about those things. Right now our lines are all full. But that changes continuously throughout the program. If you call randomly in the coming hour, you may get on. If you call too late in the hour, of course, we may not have time to get to your call. But if you call in a few minutes, perhaps. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. I want to remind our listeners in Tennessee that I’ll be doing some teaching in New York State in several different locations on the first week of next month, first week of March. And for those of you in Arizona, I’ll be doing some teaching in various towns in Arizona the last week of next month. So we’ve got some, actually, I think in the case of Arizona, we might still have some a room on our calendar to set up a few more meetings. I’m not sure. If you want to set up a meeting and have me teach there, feel free to get in touch with us. We’ll let you know what we can do as far as putting that on the calendar. We have a lot of other traveling coming up, but I won’t bother you with all that right now. But next month, first week of the month, I’ll be in Tennessee in the Nashville area as well as in eastern Tennessee. And the last week of the month, I’ll be in Arizona. And maybe in both cases we might be able to fit in, you know, if you want to set up something, we might be able to fit something in. Just get in touch with us. How do you do that? Well, you go to, I guess, my e-mail, or is that the best thing, or maybe on Facebook Messenger or something would be one way to do that. So my e-mail address is found at the bottom of the page, our main page of thenarrowpath.com. Okay, let’s go to the phones and talk to Alan, who’s calling from East Hartford, Connecticut. Hi, Alan. Welcome. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, thank you for being there, Steve. As always, thanks for your service to us Christians in the student community here and to whoever calls. Now, can I read one verse and ask a question from it? Okay, here we go. 2 Corinthians 5, verse 16. Now, I just want to say, I find, maybe it’s a fault of mine, some ethnic groups, Generally speaking, more aesthetically beauty to me and some not so much. But I have to convince myself, I remind myself, everyone’s made in the image of God. We have that equality in that way. That’s how I take that verse. Maybe you can tell me the correct way to take that verse.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, when Paul says we don’t know anyone after the flesh, and we once knew Christ according to the flesh, but we don’t know him that way anymore. The term after the flesh could be taken more than one way. Now Paul uses that expression in Romans chapter 1 to speak of Christ that he was, according to the flesh, he was the offspring of David, which simply means his lineage, his ethnicity. And so to say we don’t know anyone or maybe we don’t regard anyone according to the flesh, I think there’s a very good possibility he means that We don’t assess people by their lineage, which would be a way of saying it doesn’t matter if you’re a Jew or a Gentile or any other race. That doesn’t count for anything. We assess all men in Christ the same because the next verse is if anyone is in Christ, he’s a new creation. Old things are passed away. Behold, all things become new. So he’s saying in Christ, the old ways of identifying yourself. whether it was with your family name or your race or your, you know, anything like that, any, you know, just natural way of identifying yourself from other people in some category. Those categories are gone now. Old things are passed away. All things have become new in Christ. So racially, we don’t assess people by their race. Some people actually still do, and some Christians might even do that. But Paul’s saying that’s not the right thing to do. Now, then he says, we used to assess Christ that way. Now, in this sense, I don’t know if he’s kind of shifting the meaning of after the flesh or not. But after the flesh could simply mean according to natural consideration. And he might be indicating that, you know, when he was an unbeliever himself, that his assessment of Christ was, was based on his own carnal ways of assessing the Messiah or a person. He was not impressed. He was not impressed with Christ. Christ’s life didn’t follow the patterns that he thought the Messiah should, but now he doesn’t see it that way anymore. Ever since Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus, he doesn’t think, carnally about Christ. He assesses Christ according to the way a spiritual person would. But I have to say that the expression according to the flesh or after the flesh is a term that could speak either of the qualifications of the person being assessed. That is, that person’s background, that person’s race, that person’s maybe even his social status, We don’t assess people like that anymore. Which would be agreeable with what Paul said in a number of other places, including Galatians, where he said there’s no male or female, bond or free, Jew or Gentile, in Christ, we’re all one. I mean, that would be a very similar kind of statement. Or in Colossians, he talks about how in the new man, which is the body of Christ, there’s no Jew or Greek or Scythian or bond or free, that all, again, are one in Christ. The point being that Christ… eliminates all the barriers by which people who are not in Christ would assess and categorize people by fleshly considerations. Now, exactly what he means when he says, I used to know Christ after we used to know him after the flesh, he might even be saying that when Christ was on earth, now when Paul says we, he wouldn’t in this case be including himself. He might just mean we humans. We once knew Christ. According to the flesh, he says, we have known Christ according to flesh, yet we don’t know him that way any longer. He could be saying, you know, Christ dwelt with us in the fleshly form. And we, you know, not Paul himself, of course, but humanity had the opportunity to see him in the flesh. and to evaluate him as a man, as another man. But now, of course, he’s in heaven. He’s the king of kings. He’s exalted. We don’t see him in that way anymore. He’s not here in that form anymore. So it’s truly ambiguous. The main thing in terms of when he says we knew Christ after the flesh, but now we don’t know him that way anymore, I’m of the opinion he probably means We don’t evaluate him in a carnal way now, though we did when we were carnal. And so that’s probably what he means there. Thanks for your time and courtesy. Well done. Thank you, Steve. Okay, Alan. Hey, God bless you. Thanks for your call. Okay, Eric from Compton, California. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Can you hear me okay? Uh-huh. Okay, um… Let me give you a couple of verses, and then I’ll ask a question. All right. The kingdom of God is within you. I have an uncle that interprets that, that the kingdom of God is within everybody. You just have to realize it. I asked you about a guy named Aaron Apke a couple of weeks ago. Apke, if you’ve ever heard of him. He interprets Jesus throwing out the money changers, and my father’s house should be a house of worship. He interprets that as Jesus was against the whole sacrificial system, which is crazy. And there’s other scriptures like eat my flesh, drink my blood, and, you know, one of the most famous ones, don’t judge. I mean, you’re not supposed to say anything about anybody else negative. The question is, is there a resource, a book I can buy that groups all of Jesus’ sayings together and with a proper biblical interpretation of them? That’s the question.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, no doubt there are several. I know F.F. Bruce, a very good scholar, Frederick Fifey Bruce, but he goes by F.F. Bruce. He’s dead now, but he wrote a book called The Hard Saints of Jesus, and he selected a bunch of the saints of Jesus from the Gospels that some people find difficult, and he explains them. I thought he did a pretty good job. I usually agreed with him on it. There are others who have put up books on the teachings or sayings of Christ where they deal with, you know, if someone writes a book like that, they’re going to necessarily have to deal with and maybe primarily deal with passages that most people find difficult. So, yeah, you can go. I’m sure there’s a lot of books available. But if you, say, go to Christianbook.com or Amazon or something and look up, The Hard Sayings of Jesus by F.F. Bruce. I’d say that’s a pretty good book, I think, of what you’re looking for. And, of course, Amazon will probably have on the same page similar books by other authors, too. I haven’t read all of them. For the most part, I’ve had to work out what Jesus meant on my own because I didn’t have books when I was younger, didn’t have money for them. But there are some good ones out there. So I’d recommend that one. And you mentioned several points that I would have some differences with, but I don’t have time. It’s like you said, five different things, and we’ve got my lines full. But if you just want a book recommendation, that’s probably the one I would recommend, first of all.
SPEAKER 06 :
All right. Thanks, Steve.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, Eric. Thanks for your call. All right. Peter in Spokane, Washington. Welcome. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, thanks, Steve. Appreciate you taking my call. I have a question about in Revelation, starting in 17 verse 1, from the previous chapter, you have the angels with the bulls. And the vision that he’s given in 17 verse 1 is sort of a long vision of Babylon. And it seems like that ends in, I think it’s 19 verse 8. where John gets this conclusion and he’s bowing down before the angel. It seems like there’s another section that starts in chapter 21, verse 9, I think, and another angel with a bowl also from chapter 16, it would seem. It gives him a vision of the bride then, and Again, that ends in, I think, Chapter 22 with John also bowing down towards this angel. So it seems like you’ve got some pretty obvious sections there. What I’m trying to figure out is with the amillennial view, that section in 19, it seems like it’s more of a narrative that brings those two visions together. What I’m trying to figure out is I know the amillennial view sort of separates things at Chapter 20, but to me it seems sort of like a continuous sequence. section in between there to bring those two together. So I’m just wondering if there’s a reason why people sort of make it discontinuous, at least a reason from the text. What would make it discontinuous from the end of chapter 20 or the end of chapter 19 going into chapter 20 where Satan is bound?
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, well, I’ll tell you that in the book of Revelation, John obviously gives a series of visions, and they each have their reference. They each have something that is their fulfillment. But they are not given always in the order that things are going to happen, just like the book of Daniel. Daniel also has a series of visions and dreams. Some of them cover the same ground as each other. Like Daniel chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream covers the same ground as Daniel’s vision in Daniel chapter 7. And in Chapter 8, where it talks about the conflicts between the Medo-Persian Empire and Alexander the Great, characterized as a ram and a he-goat, respectively, that’s covering some of the same ground that Chapter 2 in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Chapter 7 in Daniel’s dream covered, only it’s more of a focus section. And yet, you know, there’s things in between these different visions, too, which aren’t necessarily chronologically accurate. telling a narrative from one to the next. The nature of these dreams, and by the way, Zechariah is that way too. Zechariah’s got like nine or ten different visions, and each one has its own context. It’s not like you say, okay, the first vision kind of lays the groundwork for the second vision, and then the third vision talks about things that follow after the stuff in the second vision. That’s not how they work. These are like separate dreams and visions that the same person has, or in some cases different people have, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, in the book of Daniel. But they’re simply, each vision has to be taken on its own terms and its own connection. For example, chapter 11 of Revelation, you’ve got the seventh angel sounding the trumpet, And it says that when he sounded, this voice in heaven said, the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever. And it goes on to talk about the judgment. It says in verse 18, the nations were angry, your wrath has come, and the time of the dead that they should be judged, that you should reward your servants, the prophets and the saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and you should destroy those who destroy the earth. Okay, so it looks like the judgment. It looks like the kingdoms of this world have all become Christ’s kingdom at this point. For this reason, many people, including myself, think the seventh trumpet is a reference to the end, end of the world, the end of the world as we know it, when Jesus comes back. But then in chapter 12, right after that, It goes back to the pregnant woman and the child that’s going to rule the nations with the rod of iron, which is Christ being born. It goes back and tells of his birth and then of his ascension and of what happened when he ascended and cast Satan out of heaven and so forth. So these are not, I mean, one vision follows the other one, but the events in the second vision do not follow the events in the first. Now, that’s true in many points in Revelation. I mean, you talk about chapter 17 where the woman is on the beast. Her name is Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots. And it talks about how, you know, things that she does. And then, of course, we find that she’s destroyed by the ten horns on the beast. And, you know, her fall happens. is lamented throughout the whole chapter 18. But she is kind of introduced in chapter 17. Yet, in the previous chapter, chapter 16, verse 19, it says, Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and great Babylon was remembered before God to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. So we’ve got the destruction of Babylon in chapter 16. Then we’re introduced to Babylon again. still very much alive and almost like introduced to her as if we were starting to learn her career in chapter 17. And then, of course, in chapter 19, many people feel, I don’t necessarily think it has to be seen this way, but many people feel that when Christ is seen in chapter 19, verse 11, riding on a white horse, that this is a reference to the second coming of Christ. In which case, again, if that is what it’s talking about, and there are some other views available. But if that’s what it’s talking about, then we have again the end. The end has come again, and then there’s more after that. So it’s like some of the visions take the story all the way to the end, and then the next vision kind of starts it over again or starts at an earlier point and moves forward from there. So to say that chapter 20 and the binding of Satan for a thousand years does not necessarily follow the second coming of Christ is, Even if we read of the second coming of Christ in chapter 19, and then we read of the binding of Satan in chapter 20, okay, so we encounter the binding of Satan after we encounter the other thing. But that’s because there’s a new vision here. And does the new vision go back to an earlier point and start again? It might. Now, to decide whether that is so would require that we interpret the vision. and identify what it’s about. Same thing with chapter 12. Chapter 12, we’ve got the woman who’s pregnant and all that. Well, we can interpret that pretty well by recognizing the symbolism and how it’s spoken of elsewhere in Scripture and what a time frame it’s referring to. For example, I mentioned that Satan being cast out of heaven in Revelation 12 is when Jesus ascended. Well, why would I say that? Well, because that’s what happens just before it in Revelation 12. The male child who’s going to rule the nations with the rod of iron, he’s ascended into heaven and then Satan is cast out. And Jesus himself said in John 12, he said, you know, now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And in Revelation 12, 10, after Satan is cast out, someone in heaven says now salvation has come. And the kingdom of Christ has come. So we see the kingdom and salvation came when Jesus died and rose again and ascended into heaven. And that’s depicted in Revelation 12. So, you know, it’s all symbolic visions with dragons and women and a baby being born and and wars in heaven and so forth, it’s all told in the same typical symbolism of the rest of the book of Revelation. But we can determine what the time frame is and what it’s talking about by its allusions to other parts of the Bible that are less ambiguous. Same thing with Revelation 20. You know, the binding of Satan. Well, Revelation 20 is not the first place we read about the binding of Satan. And elsewhere… The binding of Satan in passages like Matthew chapter 12, verse 28, I guess it is, or 29. Yeah, I think it’s 28, 29 maybe. Colossians 115, Hebrews 214. There’s passages that describe what happened to Satan at the cross as being bound or disarmed or other similar kinds of things. So when we read about that in Revelation 20, we say, okay, we’ve got other places in the Bible to tell us what that’s about. And likewise, the other things in the chapter. So I would say that chapter 20, if we’re going to decide whether it follows the second coming of Christ or not, we’d have to find out from within it, not where it stands in relationship to the literary composition and the inclusion of chapter 19 before it, But we need to take it on its own terms because we know that Revelation sometimes tells a whole story in its vision and then starts the story over again with another vision. And that’s what an amillennialist usually will think is the case in chapter 20. The story ends in chapter 19, picks up again in chapter 20 from scratch, from the beginning again. Now, of course, nobody has to see it that way, but that’s the way that amillennialists typically would see it. And I’m inclined to agree with that interpretation myself. Okay. Let’s see here. Looks like the next caller is Ron in Orange County, California. Hi, Ron. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey, Steve. How are you doing today? Good. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Go ahead. Great. Thank you for taking my call. Thank you for your show. I love your show. So… Anyway, the question I have today is about, forgive me if you’ve answered this question a hundred times before, however, about the existence of God. And it’s kind of a two-part question. The first part is I have a… what I would call a primary argument I use for reasons of God, and I was going to run it by you and see if I’m missing something in it. And then the other part of the question was, if you come across somebody who’s sincere and they’re not a militant atheist or whatever, and they come to you and they’re really saying, hey, Steve, what are a couple arguments that you have for why you believe in God? I’m curious as to what those arguments would be, and then I – I wanted to run this one I had by you and see if I’m missing something or if it makes sense to you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, now we’re coming up on a break. Why don’t you tell me what your argument is, and I can resume the conversation after the break. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, I’ll make it brief. Okay, so basically it has to do with the laws of the universe. Basically, I look out at systems that are governed by laws, and I go, okay, I can see that those are all put in place by a sentient being, mostly humans. And so I look at these other laws, laws of the universe, laws of diffusion, whatever, natural laws, and I know there’s slight differences between them and stuff like this, but the laws themselves change. It seems that if this whole set of laws over here are put together by people, by sentient beings, then it makes sense to me that these other laws, gravity, diffusion, like I say, angular momentum laws and things like that, would also stand to reason that they are put together by a sentient being. And I’m wondering if that’s effective, if I’m missing something. It makes sense to me, but I want to see if it made sense to you.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, yeah, I mean, obviously, it’s basically the argument from design. The idea that there is intelligent design, as there are, let’s just say, there’s organization and design in the universe, and it follows organized laws. Well, something has to have been the author of that organization. If there are laws of science, I guess one person could argue, or laws of nature, An atheist could argue, well, that’s just how it is. That’s just how it is. If you ask, well, how did these laws come about? Well, something had to be there, and that’s what it was. Now, you see, when we talk about laws of nature, of course, we’re not really talking about laws like we’re talking about human laws. Human laws dictate. They’re saying, okay, you’re not allowed to do certain things. People can violate them, and they can face consequences for violating them. But people can’t really violate the laws of nature. They’re more like descriptions of the way things are. And I suppose an atheist might say, I don’t think they have a good argument for atheism, but they might argue with you that, well, what you’re calling a law of nature is just a description of what is, the way things do work. And they had to work one way or another. And even if they came about by chance, they would work a certain way, and you wouldn’t have to. conclude that some being had made it work that way. Now, I believe you would, but I can see an atheist copping out that way. You ask what arguments I think are the best arguments for God. I guess I’ll wait until this break has passed because I don’t have time now. I’ll go ahead and put you on hold, and I’ll come back after the break and talk a little bit more about that. You’re listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour coming up, so don’t go away. We are listener-supported. If you’d like to write to us, the address is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate if you want to to keep us on the air from our website where everything is free. It’s thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away. We have another half hour coming up.
SPEAKER 02 :
In a 16 lecture series entitled The Authority of Scriptures, Steve Gregg not only thoroughly presents the case for the Bible’s authority, but also explains specifically how this truth is to be applied to a believer’s daily walk and outlook. The authority of scriptures, as well as hundreds of other stimulating lectures, can be downloaded in MP3 format without charge from our website, 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 are full, but if you want to try a little later, the number to call is 844-484-5737. Just before the break, we were talking to Ron from Orange County, California. His question, he was talking about arguments for the existence of God. And he shared with us an argument that he likes to use, and he asked what arguments I think are best. Well, okay, I would use all the classic arguments for God, but more than just arguments, and there are many, and I can share some of them with you, but rather than arguments themselves, I would just say, I believe… that the existence of God is the most natural conclusion from common sense. Now, atheists would say the opposite. But here’s the thing. I believe that all people throughout history have believed there is a God or gods. And atheism, the idea that there is no supernatural realm, that there is no God of any kind, that there’s no soul, there’s no afterlife, those kind of things. Atheism really is the minority view and a fairly recent one. And so the question would be, since people instinctively recognize that there’s a God, and I’ll mention what some reasons are for that, but people have instinctively throughout history known that there’s some kind of deity. I’d ask, so what has come up to question that? What new evidence has come up to say there’s not one? Now, there is no evidence that has come up to say there’s not one. It’s simply the mood of our age. Since the Enlightenment period, especially, and the Industrial Revolution, and the dominance of scientific discovery and so forth, people have just said, well, I guess we don’t need God anymore. I guess I have no need for that hypothesis, as a philosopher told Napoleon. I don’t need the God hypothesis. Okay, well, you don’t need it, but does that mean it’s not true? And the fact is, you may need it more than you know. You may be ruling out an objective consideration of the evidence because of your preferences about this. But whether you need it or not, that’s not proof that it doesn’t exist. You know, for example, I know my parents exist. But what if someone said, but you could argue that your parents don’t exist because, you know, maybe the birth records were switched in the hospital at birth. And the parents that you think are your parents aren’t really them. And the ones that really were your parents are now gone. And so you don’t really have parents in this world. You think you do, but you don’t really need to have that hypothesis because there’s other possible ways of talking about it. I’d say, well, OK, as soon as you can find evidence that the most natural way to understand reality is wrong and that there’s another alternative that’s better. I’m all ears. I mean, I certainly am open to evidence. I’m just not open to prejudices. To my mind, every sensible person knows that there’s a thing called the law of cause and effect. Although scientists have quantified it, it was well known intuitively forever. If you see something happen, you know that something caused it to happen. If you see that something exists, you know that something caused it to exist. That’s a scientific law today, but before it was a law, it was just intuitive. You know, if a rock flies by your head when you’re walking through a field, you know that someone threw it. Rocks don’t fly on their own. There’s a cause for that. That’s just you don’t need scientific theories for that. You just have common sense. Now, the law of cause and effect indicates that there cannot be any effect that did not have an adequate cause. And therefore, since everything we see in the universe is the effect of some cause, we have to say, well, what do we see? And what cause could be adequate to bring it about? Any thinking person will come to this unless they simply don’t want to come to this conclusion. And that’s, of course, the case with many people. The truth is, what do we see? What are the effects in the universe? Well, we see a great deal of order. a great deal of what looks like planning. One of the things that convinced Anthony Flew, a lifelong champion of atheism and one of the leading atheists in the world when I was younger, he became a believer in a god. He didn’t become a Christian, but before he died he became a believer there must be a god. And one of the reasons was because of what’s called the fine-tuning argument. There are dozens of phenomena that laws of science that have been discovered in the past century that render this planet suitable for carbon-based life to exist. And every one of these factors, if they were off just a little tiny bit, would have prevented it and made it impossible. I’m not going to go into those in detail, but that’s something that scientists are wrestling with now, and atheists are wrestling with it. Because they, I mean, we can line up quotations from atheists as long as your arm, saying, it sure looks designed, it sure looks like someone prepared it for us, but we know they didn’t. You know, everything looks like it’s finally adjusted for life here. Yeah, well, the easiest way to understand the evidence is it was. Even Richard Dawkins said, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, and he’s, of course, one of the chief atheist voices in modern times, he said, biology is the study of things that look very much as if they were designed. And another atheist scientist said, a scientist, when he’s looking at these things carefully, has got to continually remind himself that they were not designed. Well, wait, why does he have to keep reminding himself of that? Because what he’s looking at would naturally persuade him that they are designed. Okay, well, if that would be the first impression you got, then why would you rule it out? Who can say it wasn’t designed? You see, the atheist is the one who’s ignoring common sense, ignoring the evidence. Now, Dawkins himself was asked in an interview, where did the first living thing come from? He said, we have no idea. Because science doesn’t. And he’s one of the leading biologists on the planet today. He said, we have no idea where the first living thing came from. When we talk about the origin of the first living thing, we’re not talking about biology at all. It’s abiogenesis. It’s the beginning of things that are not biological yet. So, and he says, you know, he has no idea how. Well, then, when you come up with a good theory of how it could have come about, which you don’t have yet, and no scientist does, well, then maybe come to me and tell me you have an alternative for the more sensible thing. Everything we know from science is that living things always come from a previous living thing. And if life exists… We know of no law of science. We know of no process. We know of no instance where a living thing came about without a living origin. If there’s life on earth, that’s an effect of some cause. The only adequate cause for the existence of life that we know of, that science knows of, is a living thing. So we’d have to conclude there’s something living. Before, there was biological living things. Something had life to give it to them. That’s what we call God. There’s lots of ways to talk about this. The point here is I’m not actually trying to prove this from scientific arguments. I’ve read them all, and I believe they’re all sound. What I think is if someone wants to say, well, there is no God, I want to hear his scientific arguments because I’ve never heard anyone, and I’ve read Dawkins. I’ve read Christopher Hitchens. I’ve read Sam Harris. I read atheists a lot, and I’ve never heard them present one argument that or one proof, or one evidence, that God doesn’t exist. So, I mean, all the philosophers have known there’s a God, I mean, until modern times. All religious people have known there’s some kind of a God. They haven’t all agreed that’s the biblical God. But it’s the intuition of humanity to look at things the way they are and say, of course. There’s living things. Some living thing must have made them. There’s intelligence. Some intelligence must have made intelligence. There’s consciousness. Some conscious thing must have made consciousness. There’s design. Some designer must have designed it. Now, some of you say, well, that’s very simple thinking. It is indeed simple thinking. Jesus said, I thank you, Father, you’ve hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. A child can understand what a scientist doesn’t because he doesn’t want to. But what he doesn’t have, what the scientist does not have, is the slightest evidence that there’s no God. None. Any atheist out there listening, feel free to call me and give me any evidence that there’s no God. And I’ll point out to you why you’re mistaken about that. Because you can say, well, we can explain these things without God. Well, if you try hard enough, you might be able to do so to your own satisfaction. But if you do so, you haven’t proved there’s no God. You’ve just proven that you can satisfy yourself with an alternative theory. But even if you can do that, that doesn’t mean there’s no God. So, I mean, the atheist is the one who’s got, he’s the anti-intellectual. He’s the one who’s ignoring logic. And he’s doing it because it’s a religious passion of his to deny that there’s a God. Why would he have a religious passion to believe there’s no God? Well, you have to ask him that. I’ve got theories, but I can’t read his mind. But I don’t think it has anything to do with honesty. All right, Ron. Thanks for your call, bro. Let’s talk to Greg in Sonoma, California. Greg, welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi, Steve. First question I got to, they’re short. In Job 42 epilogue, God chews out the first three friends of… of Job for cause and effect, that he must have sinned to be punished with all the travesties of his body and everything. But the person Elihu is not mentioned in the epilogue. Do you have any reason why he was left out? Do you have any idea?
SPEAKER 09 :
Elihu is not mentioned in the epilogue. He’s not even mentioned in the prologue or the earliest part. In chapter 3, we read of Job’s friends coming to counsel him, try to comfort him. And it gives their names. And then they give these cycles of speeches throughout most of the book. And once they fall silent and they haven’t convinced Job and he hasn’t convinced them, it’s like there’s a stalemate. Suddenly, this Elihu speaks up who has not been mentioned previously. And, you know, so Elihu… You know, he goes on for several chapters, but he doesn’t settle anything either. You know, and then the story goes on without him. And like you say, in the epilogue at the end, he’s not mentioned.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yep. God didn’t chew him out, but he chewed the three friends of Job out.
SPEAKER 09 :
Uh-huh. I’ll tell you, many Old Testament scholars have wondered whether the chapters about Elihu were written later and added into the book, you know, as not part of the original. I’m not going to make that conclusion, but the evidence is such that it allows someone to think that, which means it’s like the chapters about Elihu are just kind of stuck in there almost as having no real connection with the previous or later material. Now, I believe when Elihu speaks, he says, I didn’t speak up before because I thought age should speak. I’ve listened to you older guys. I’m a young guy. Who am I to interrupt you guys when you’re making a mistake or when you’re guessing? But anyway, some people feel that he was just kind of a bystander. A younger man who didn’t intrude into the conversation until the other guys had reached the end of their arguments and couldn’t go further. So he jumped in. And that’s a possibility. You know, because my suspicion is that we’re to understand that not only Job’s three friends were there to comfort him, but he was a famous man. And he had, you know, had a notorious disaster in his life. And no doubt there were lots of other people involved. if only people in his village or people in his tribe or whatever who were kind of around and when these speeches when these wise men because that’s what Job’s friends were they were like philosophers of their time and so was he there’s like these four philosophers Job and his three friends philosophizing over a question that everyone had in their mind you know why is a good man suffering like this I wouldn’t be surprised if it gathered a crowd I would think the debate probably had an audience and And my guess is that Elihu was in the audience, too. But he didn’t actually say anything much different. Some people think that he came along with the right answer. I don’t see it. You know, when I read Elihu’s speeches, it doesn’t sound like he had any new insights that the other guys didn’t have. So it’s almost as if the speeches he made were unnecessary to the story. But, you know, since I didn’t write the book, I don’t know why it’s written as it is. I don’t know why he’s left out. of the earlier portion or the end. But as I say, some scholars have thought those speeches may have been written later and just inserted into this book by someone. I’m not saying that.
SPEAKER 01 :
The second quick question is Hebrews chapter 6, verses 18 through 20. The author mentions there’s two unchangeable things about God. The first one is that God can’t lie. What is the second one? I really… The oath.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, the second one is the oath he made. So God’s word is one immutable thing, and his oath is another immutable thing. What he says is that we’ve got to look earlier for that. It says in verse 16, For men indeed swear by a greater than themselves. And an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it with an oath. That by two immutable things. His counsel was immutable. And he confirmed that immutable counsel with another immutable thing. That is his oath. For God said, by myself I have sworn. That’s the point he’s making. He swore by himself. So what he’s saying is God’s word is immutable or unchangeable in itself. And then he confirmed it with an oath, another thing that’s immutable, his pledge. That’s what he’s referring to. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Greg. God bless you. Okay. Paul in Los Angeles. Welcome. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. So I’m a new listener of Mineral Path, and I’m trying my best to, you know, pursue the faith as best as possible along with my girlfriend and my family. So this question is more… In relation to my family and how to raise my kids specifically, to put it this way, Grandpa on my girlfriend’s side has always been about, you know, don’t watch certain movies. For example, he criticizes us a lot for going to Disneyland because he thinks it’s an evil corporation who just worships the devil and so on and so forth. My question to you is, is there anything actual biblical that, you know, supports his statement, or how should we go about navigating things like entertainment and media in today’s modern age?
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, first of all, you need to make sure that you’re doing what you have a clear conscience about. And if you do, then the disagreement of relatives about it is simply something you can just, you know, pass off. I mean, you should listen to them because they might be seeing something you’re not seeing. They might have a case to make. But after you’ve heard their case. If you say, well, you know, I don’t think that applies in our case. And, you know, my conscience is clear. So I’m the head of my house, not him. You know, so I’ll just raise my children as I believe I should. But if he’s an older Christian and you’re a young Christian. then obviously you don’t want to just write it off if he says something you don’t agree with. You need to listen to it and, you know, judge it on its merits. When it comes to entertainment, this is a very personal matter because, frankly, even sitting at the park and watching your kids play on the playground is entertaining. But that’s a very simple form of entertainment that not very many people would criticize. Going to a theme park. is entertaining. But again, it’s not obviously a dangerous thing to do. Now, going to Disneyland, that’s specifically supporting the Disney Corporation. And some people might think, well, I don’t agree with Disney. I want to boycott Disney. I don’t want to be putting money into their pocket. And so they might decide not to go to Disneyland, even if they go to some other kind of entertaining place. Now, I mean, I’m saying a Christian might feel that way, but they don’t have to. The Bible doesn’t ever talk to us about boycotting things. But, of course, some people feel that their Christian convictions are such that they shouldn’t do business with, you know, some spreader of heresy or something like that, as they believe the Disney Corporation does, and I believe they do, too. But I don’t know if that’d keep me from going to Disneyland, because I honestly don’t think, if I go to Disneyland, that I’m determining whether Disney will go out of business or not. You know, I’m keeping them in business by what I pay to go in there. But I don’t go to Disneyland very often. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there’s liberty. You can do whatever isn’t forbidden in Scripture. But even some things that are not forbidden… might be something you wouldn’t choose to do. I mean, Paul says all things are lawful to me, but not all things are edifying. And I think that’s what I would take as the rule for entertainment. First of all, is it unedifying? And then secondly, is it just neutral? I mean, if there’s something that is in itself edifying, and by that I mean it strengthens you and builds you up spiritually, Obviously, things that are edifying are mostly going to be done without any tinge of conscience. Something that isn’t specifically edifying or unedifying, something that’s just a pastime, like I said, watching your kids play on a playground or taking them to the beach, I mean, that’s entertainment. It can be edifying, depending on where your mind’s at, or it could be unedifying, but it’s not anything that’s evil. Now, when it comes to things that are potentially unedified or corrupting. That’s when you have to be very careful. Now, some people say, well, if there’s anything corrupting in a song, in a movie, in a, you know, I don’t know, in a conversation, Christians should walk away and not have anything to do with it. Well, that depends. Is it damaging you or your children spiritually? If it is, then I agree. Walk away. On the other hand, We do live in a world full of people who talk about things that aren’t very edifying, who use language that’s offensive, who might dress in a way that we find provocative. I mean, there are people in the world around us that don’t follow our convictions. And as Christians, we should be strong enough to say, well, I don’t have to go off and live in a cave or in a monastery to where everyone’s just like me, it’d be nice if I’m strong enough that I can live in the world, interact with the world, and instead of that harming me spiritually, I have an impact on them for good. That’s how it was with Jesus. You know, under the law of Moses, if you touch a leper, you become unclean because the lepers are unclean. But Jesus touched a leper and the leper became clean. It went the other direction. Because his contact with uncleanness cleansed the unclean. Whereas many times people’s contact with uncleanness defiles them, themselves. So we have to ask ourselves, and we need to do this very honestly. I mean, obviously we might prefer to do a certain thing and say, well, I’m going to make an excuse for this, even if I think it’s not going to be good for my spiritual life or the children’s. But we need to ask ourselves very honestly, is this something we can have contact with? And it won’t hurt anything. I mean, we’re doing fine. We didn’t compromise any of our convictions or our morals or anything like that. If so, like I said, where the spirit of the Lord is, there’s liberty. I don’t think anyone else can tell you you shouldn’t do those things. I think they should consider that maybe God won’t let them do those things because they might have a weakness you don’t. But you should also be open to the possibility that maybe they see it. We just have to live our lives conscious of the smile or the frown of God’s spirit upon our activities. And if there’s something we sense that he does not approve of, then we just stop doing them. And it might be something that we are not harmed by, but we can see our children are being harmed by it. For example, I’ve said before, I don’t think children… should have access to smartphones. For one thing, I don’t see why they’d need one. If they need a phone, you can get them a flip phone. But I don’t see why children should have to be on the Internet at all. And if there’s need to, let’s say for a school project, then I think they should be on the family computer in the living room where other people are walking through and so forth. I don’t think children should be left alone with the Internet. Now, I say that. Not as a legalist, but as someone who’s saying, I just think that’s best. Now, if somebody says, well, my child has a flip phone or a smartphone, and they’ve never misused it, they’ve never looked at anything or heard anything on it that has corrupted them in any way, Well, more power to you. That’s fine. I mean, I just think you need to use wisdom. And I think you need to make sure that you’re not allowing your children to be corrupted, even by things that you don’t find corrupting to you because you’re more mature. But as far as, you know, Grandpa saying you shouldn’t see movies or you shouldn’t go to Disneyland, those are his convictions. And I would say let him keep them. Let him keep them. You go by your convictions. And you’ll probably be learning of them as you raise children. You’ll be learning what things work and which things don’t for your children’s spiritual advance. But, yeah, I’d say it’s good to have the Holy Spirit leading you and convicting you that you should go by. Okay, Steve, I appreciate the insight.
SPEAKER 05 :
It’s very, very helpful.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay, Paul. Jimmy from Staten Island, New York, welcome. Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi, Steve. I think I’m running out of time, but this has to do with the call last night. You believe that babies are innocent and they have to reach an age of accountability and whatnot. I’m just going to read two verses, Hebrews 7, 9, and 10. And as I may say, so say, Levi also who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham, for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. You agree with that, right? That Levi paid tithes in Abraham.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. So if you extrapolate that back to Adam, the Bible says, as in Adam all die, death passed upon all men except Jesus. He’s accepted because he’s the seed of the woman. But death passed upon all men. That includes every single baby. Babies start out. They’re estranged from God. They need to be reconciled.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, I don’t see that in the Bible. I don’t see the Bible saying babies are estranged from God. And I had to jump in because you’re right, we are almost out of time. I just want to say this. To say that, in a sense, Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham because he was not yet born from Abraham at the time, and then say, well, let’s extrapolate back that to Adam. Well, why should we? Why should we extrapolate? The writer of Hebrews doesn’t extrapolate that. Should we say that everything that any of our ancestors did, we did? If so, then every Jew should be saved because their father Abram believed and they must have believed in him. In him they believed too because they were in him. Well, no, the Bible doesn’t teach such a thing as that. Did I build an ark in Noah because I came from Noah’s lineage? No, I didn’t ever build an ark. In other words, yeah, the writer of Hebrews is making an important point. Namely, that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to that of the Levites. Because even Abraham, who was the great-grandfather of the Levites, noticed and acknowledged the superiority of Melchizedek. So certainly the Levites, who were in Abram, were in a sense doing so as well. But that doesn’t translate back into everything my ancestor did before I was born, I did it in him. You’re going to have to work on that argument a little better if it’s going to convince anybody that can think logically. Thanks for your call, Jimmy. We’re out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live Monday through Friday. We are listener-supported. You can write to us at The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593, or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com.
