On Air
Washington Watch
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Steve Gregg takes live calls and tackles some of the most debated topics in Christianity. Is David the product of an adulterous affair? What does the Bible say about divorce, remarriage, and covenant-breaking? Plus, a deep dive into faith and works—does salvation require more than belief? Listen in for a thought-provoking discussion.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 07 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about Christianity or you differ from the host on something and want to talk about that, want to balance a comment, present another side of the question, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-484. 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And as many of you know, I’m in Tennessee this week speaking. Tomorrow night I’m going to be speaking in a little town called Englewood in eastern Tennessee in a church, the First Church of Christ. And that’s going to be on the Kingdom of God. I’ll be speaking about that. tomorrow night at 7 o’clock. So if any of you live in that area or are close enough to drive in, you’re welcome to join us. You can get information about that location at our website. And then this Friday, I’ll be speaking in Church Hill, Tennessee. And then I’m going to be speaking again on Sunday night at Calvary Chapel. in another little location, uh, not too far from, uh, Knoxville. I’ll have, uh, the information all about those things are on our website. The town in, uh, the town on, uh, Sunday night is, I think it’s Talbot. Little, I think it’s a little tiny town. But, uh, a little Calvary Chapel there. I’m going to be speaking on the four views of Revelation Sunday night. So, that’s, uh, that’s what’s happening. I got three more things I’m doing in Tennessee before I go home. Tomorrow night, Friday night, and Sunday night. And so, uh, Feel free to join us. If you’re interested in that and you’re nearby, go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Look under announcements. You’ll find those events and the times and places and so forth. And, you know, we almost went with a recorded show today. Right up until about 30 seconds before we went on the air, I was not able to get my remote equipment to hook up. And that’s pretty funny. Pretty scary because then we have to run a recorded show, but we got it up literally in like 30 seconds before we went on the air. So we are live, and we’re taking calls, including the first call we’re taking today is Scott in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Hi, Scott. Welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah. Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I’m really glad that you were able to. I know. My question – I have two questions. They’re both sparked from a new show on Amazon Prime, and neither question requires that you have seen it, but the show is called The House of David. It’s a really great show. It’s very similar to The Chosen in terms of their style and the way they try to stay as biblical as possible, but, of course, they add their own fiction to it. It’s a very good show. My first question is related to… the story of David’s origin, the first time I heard this theory was from you, that David was the product of an adulterous affair that Jesse had, and he was kind of considered illegitimate among his brothers. That’s how they’re playing it in this show. And I thought, oh, wow, that’s interesting. Yeah. And so my first question. Go ahead. My first question is on that. other than Psalm 51 and 5, what biblical support is there for that theory about David’s origin?
SPEAKER 07 :
Sure.
SPEAKER 01 :
And then I’ll have a second question.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Well, the idea that David might have been like Jephthah, the son of a prostitute, instead of the son of his brother’s mother, Jesse’s wife, is only a theory. And it makes sense of a term that has been typically interpreted in a rather counterintuitive way. But Augustine did it first, and I think everyone has followed him. In, as you know, Psalm 51.5, David says, in sin my mother conceived me. And so, you know, Augustine said that means that when he was conceived, he was already sinning. He was a sinner. He was conceived and came into existence in the realm of sin, in original sin. And, you know, whether David had a doctrine like that, we don’t know. No one had it before Augustine. I’m not sure why David would have it. But certainly the Old Testament never teaches anywhere else about this doctrine, even the doctrine of the fall. Even in Genesis 3, when God told Adam and Eve what the consequences were of their sin, he never mentioned anything about the original sin doctrine, which would have been a good place to mention it. If it was so, but in any case, I’m not going to argue against it. I’m going to say that that’s the most true thing which works. If somebody told me, if I was conceived as sin, it sounds like I was born out of wedlock, kind of thing, and that could be a ridiculous thing. Now, is there any other evidence of this? Not much. Not much. It’s only a couple of things. We know that another one of the leaders of Israel, Jephthah, was, I guess, he was the type of person his brothers hated him as he wasn’t, you know, an old brother. You know, his brothers didn’t like him either. And I’m trying to figure out why. You know, he didn’t get into that. And his older brother went to war. He came to bring them provisions from home. And they had kind of scolded him. I mean, they were very affectionate with him. And they treated him through that. It’s not like he’s the same. He’ll take it. How so? He said, Paul, all your sons, because I’m going to annoy them to the king. He called him out to David, and then he mentioned David existed. And he said, because I’m the one. So, I mean, why didn’t he mention David? Well, he told him he was an assassin, and David wasn’t brought in. I don’t know what to say about that. Also, David did say in Psalm 2710, when my mother and my father first take me, the Lord will take me up. And most people who are in terms of family need to contemplate their father and mother first. It’s pretty natural for fathers and mothers to take each other up. That might have something to do with it. I’m not saying it’s true at some point. That’s just sending a hint in Scripture to it. I do not see necessarily that it is the figure is correct. Maybe, but… What I would say is that there are a lot of indicators that they’re just thinking about that necessarily. And once it’s in the city, it’s about that. It may be that the main thing is, you know, for a lot of people, it’s a lot of rejectables for that reason. Just because of their details, you know,
SPEAKER 09 :
I have a little trouble hearing your signals breaking up. I don’t know if it’s the radio app that I’m listening on or my phone signal.
SPEAKER 07 :
We may have to switch to a program. Yeah. Let me just do that. Okay. I don’t want to, you know. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Quite bad. Quite bad on my end. Something I’m going to do. Okay. I’m going to charge the report for a reason. I don’t know why. Connections. My equipment indicates the connection is good, but obviously if it’s not going to be good, we’re going to go to a commercial. Okay. I’m going to break it off here, and we’ll be live tomorrow. Okay. Okay.
SPEAKER 10 :
All right.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thanks. Okay.
SPEAKER 09 :
We’ll try tomorrow. Thank you. God bless.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. Bye. Christian abandoning the marriage and saying, I don’t want to end this marriage anymore. Of course, in 1 Corinthians 7. So those things seem to be outright destroying of the covenant relationship. And where there’s no covenant binding, there’s no marriage because marriage is a covenant. That’s what marriage is. And so when you enter into a marriage, you make a covenant. And you are bound by that covenant as long as you live. And so is your spouse. But if one of you breaks that covenant, well, then there isn’t, I mean, and you just take it as such. In other words, you say, well, okay, I’m not going to just wait around forever for this person to come back. They broke the covenant. That gives me the option of being out. then I think you can get out. And once you’re out, you’re not married anymore. You see, Jesus said, whoever divorces their spouse, he said if a man divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication, he causes her to commit adultery, her new spouse commits adultery, and if he remarries, he commits adultery. Now, what’s this mean? This means that if a divorce occurs without biblical grounds, Well, then the divorce is not acknowledged by God.
SPEAKER 04 :
If both parties marry again, in God’s eyes, it would still be invalid.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s right. If there have not been biblical grounds for the divorce, then both parties are still married to each other. And if either of them remarry, then everyone involved in those remarriages are committing adultery. Because what’s happening is an existing marriage is being ignored again. But it still exists in God’s sight because there’s a covenant that was made and God holds people responsible to keep the covenant.
SPEAKER 04 :
So even if they ask for forgiveness and maintain the two marriages, the two new marriages, in God’s eye it would still be a breaking of the covenant.
SPEAKER 07 :
So you mean if people wrongfully remarry and then later realize that was a mistake and repent…
SPEAKER 04 :
but they continue to remain in their new marriage.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I believe that that depends on certain things. For example, let’s take a case where a man leaves his wife and she was innocent. She’s done nothing wrong. He just took off with another woman, all right? Now, I know that you’re in a situation that isn’t that way. And my situation was not that way. So partly I’m making this scenario so it doesn’t resemble yours and my situation. But here’s, you know, a woman has been faithful. Her husband has run off with another woman. What does she do? Well, she could divorce and I think legitimately remarry. But she might decide, wait, I don’t want to have another husband. I want my children’s father to be my husband and I’m going to wait for God to convict him and bring him home. So she stays faithful. Now, if she decided to break off and say, okay, my husband’s gone off to commit adultery. I’m going to get divorced. I’m going to find another man. I think she has every right to do that. And if she does, there’s a sense in which that husband, if he gets saved again, if he gets converted, he doesn’t really have to go back to her because she’s given up on him. She’s released him. She’s gone on with her life. She’s accepted his adultery as grounds for divorce. The covenant’s broken. She’s gone on and formed a new legitimate marriage, and he can’t go back to her because she’s taken.
SPEAKER 04 :
Another problem, huh?
SPEAKER 07 :
Right, exactly. But suppose she has remained single, and she’s remained celibate, and she’s waiting for her husband. She’s still staying faithful to the covenant, even though he’s out playing around. Well, by the time he repents, what’s he going to have to do? Well, he’s going to have to go back to her. She still has a claim on him. It’s sort of like a debt, you know? It’s like if I borrow money from you and I say, well, Chauncey, I’ve just decided I’m not going to pay you back. Well, then I’m cheating you. Now, you can forgive me the debt or you can wait and say, well, I’ll just wait until Steve changes his mind and then he’ll have to pay me. Now, if you forgive me the debt, then I’ll never have to repay you. But if you don’t forgive me the debt and you say, well, no, I think that debt is still a good debt. I’m going to hold on to it. You’re still going to owe me. Well, whenever I repent, what am I going to have to do? I’m going to have to go pay you that debt. And so also, if the man has left his wife without biblical grounds, he’s defaulting on a debt. He owes her something. He owes her the rest of his faithful life to her. And if he’s gone off and cheated on her, but she says, well, I’m going to still hang on to this. I still want this marriage. well then he still is indebted to her. He still made a promise to her that he has not been freed from. And so when he finally repents, he’s got to go back to her.
SPEAKER 04 :
And how would that apply to unbelievers?
SPEAKER 07 :
Does the covenant feel before God even though… You know, I’m not really sure that it applies the same way to unbelievers. And the reason I say that is that Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 5.32 and Matthew 19.9, those teachings are given to people who are in a same-faith marriage, basically God’s covenant people. They were Jews, but they were not pagans. And so Jesus is talking about Jews married to Jews or people married within the same faith in the covenant community. That would be applicable to Christians married to Christians, too, and Paul says so. But Paul says that there’s another group that Jesus never addressed. He says so in 1 Corinthians 7, verses 12 through 15. He said there’s another group that Jesus did not mention, and that is where a Christian is married to a non-Christian. And perhaps it would be applicable also if a non-Christian was married to a non-Christian. He says if the unbelieving spouse wants to depart, let him go. The brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases, he says.
SPEAKER 04 :
He’s not in bondage. That means he can move on and remarry.
SPEAKER 07 :
I think so. I think so. Now, there are people who would disagree, but I think it does mean that. Because later in the same chapter, Paul talks about widows. And it says that a woman is in bondage to her marriage, but if her husband dies, she’s free to remarry. Now, being bound to a husband then, To Paul means not free to remarry. If you’re bound to a husband, you’re not free to marry anyone else. But if you’re not bound, well, then you’re not bound. You’re free. Free to what? Free to do the will of God for your life, which might include marriage or might not. I don’t believe that Paul could say that they’re not in bondage if his unspoken subtext was, but they must stay single. Well, if they have to stay single, isn’t that bondage? I mean, aren’t they still being held bound to their marriage then? Isn’t the fact that they had a former marriage being used as a defining thing concerning their liberty to remarry? Then how are they not bound? You see, the bondage or the binding to a person is the covenant binding. If a person remarries and Jesus calls that adultery, it is only because there’s an existing marriage that that is being violated. Adultery is only the violation of an existing marriage. Right, right. You know?
SPEAKER 04 :
But if the marriage… It’s just happening, it seems to be happening so much, even in the Christian community, that… Oh, there’s a lot of tangled stuff. …marrying other people and saying that they, scripturally, they’re justified, and it just… I know, I… I was just wondering, I was just kind of wondering why… And I know the time setting was different in the first century. Why is it, I guess, more clear for application today?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I think it was reasonably clear in the Bible. I think the reason it’s not as clear as some would like to say it is to themselves is because they want to make excuses. I mean… I don’t think you have to be looking for excuses to see Jesus saying, except for the cause of fornication.
SPEAKER 04 :
In other words… Very clear.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, that exception means something. But when people say, well, my husband is a controlling guy, or my wife is verbally abusive, or my husband is lazy… Or my wife is a nag.
SPEAKER 04 :
How would that apply to spousal abuse?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, that’s a really good question because it even, well, of course it raises the issue of what do we mean by spousal abuse? Are we talking about physical abuse?
SPEAKER 04 :
Physical, more than verbal. Right, right.
SPEAKER 07 :
If a wife is in physical danger in her home or if the children are in physical danger in their home, I believe that a wife is justified in taking the children and finding a place of safety. Now, is that grounds for divorce?
SPEAKER 04 :
They should separate or at least find a safe place and try to work things out.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s what I mean.
SPEAKER 04 :
And if the individual that’s committing the physical abuse isn’t willing to take the necessary steps to change, then it would be apparent that divorce may be appropriate for the safety, welfare of whether it’s female or male and the children.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I’d put a finer point on it than that. Suppose there is physical abuse. Most likely, in most cases, it would be the man abusing the woman, although it can be the other way around. But let’s say a man is abusing his wife physically and she’s in danger. She feels that she and the children are in danger. She leaves, goes to her parents’ house or to a safe house of some other kind. And so she separates from him. Now, let’s say he has never committed adultery or done other things that would be clearly grounds for divorce. Well, then I don’t think she should divorce him. Now, on the other hand, suppose he never gets better. He remains dangerous. Perhaps he’s a violent criminal. Maybe he’s even got other, you know, victims of his criminal behavior. But he never commits adultery. You know, does she have no grounds for divorce? Well, what I would understand the Bible to teach is this. Remember Jesus said in Matthew 18, if your brother sins against you, go to him. If he repents, you have won your brother. If he doesn’t, take two more. If he doesn’t repent, take it to the church. If he doesn’t repent, then let him be counted as a heathen or a tax collector to you. So this woman is not without recourse. If her husband is behaving sinfully, and certainly beating his wife is a sinful behavior, then he needs to repent. And if he doesn’t repent, then you go through the steps of church discipline that Jesus described. If he does not repent at any of those levels, then Jesus said you consider him to be a heathen. Now, what does that mean? If he’s now recognized to be a heathen and she’s a believer, well, then what is she? She is a believer whose husband is not content to dwell with her. Now, someone might say, well, he’s content to dwell with her. She’s not content to dwell with him. She doesn’t want to get beat up. Well, a man who’s beating his wife up is not content to dwell with her as a wife, because that’s not a wife. That’s a punching bag. If he’s not content to be a husband, and he’s a non-believer, and she’s a believer, then it seems like that’s the condition that Paul described, where the woman would not be under bondage in a case like that. I mean, it may sound like there’s a lot of complexities, but it’s really relatively simple principles. You keep your covenant.
SPEAKER 04 :
Looking for a way out.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
For non-biblical or using the Bible to try to justify their wrong. And they know it, but they say the Lord said something. And how should we apply that to people? Should we do those steps? If we know someone’s in a situation like, or, you know, a divorce situation or leaving their husband or wife,
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I do.
SPEAKER 04 :
I do think so. And try to get them on the right track. And if they refuse, then do we go to get another brother?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, I think so. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul said if anyone claims to be a brother, that is a Christian, and yet they’re a fornicator or an adulterer and it gives a long list of things. Then he says, don’t even associate with them. Don’t even eat with them. Now, a person who leaves their spouse is a covenant breaker unless they’ve got grounds for leaving. If they remarry or get involved with someone else, then they’re an adulterer too. Now, if a person claims to be a Christian and they’re doing these things that are sinful, they’re covenant breakers and adulterers, then certainly I think any Christian who cares about them should confront them gently, you know, caringly. You know what Paul said in Galatians 6.1. You know, brethren, if any of you are overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, you know, considering yourself, lest you also be tempted. So in other words, you confront them, but you don’t do it in a caustic, accusatory, condemning way. You go to them gently. You go to them entreatingly. You try to persuade them to recognize the error of their way and to do what’s right. If they don’t do it, then you go through the other steps.
SPEAKER 04 :
So then you get another brother or sister.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yep. That’s what Jesus said.
SPEAKER 04 :
But if they still refuse to talk to you, then you go to the leader.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah. Now, see, a lot of churches today don’t want to obey Jesus about this. I mean, Jesus gave extremely clear teaching about this. I mean, it’s not ambiguous at all. But I’d say eight out of ten churches refuse to do this. I mean, you can show them what Jesus said, and they just say, I don’t care. We’re not going to do that here. That’s just because the churches are in absolute rebellion against their head. They claim to be the body of Christ, but they’re not holding the head. They won’t do what Jesus said. And therefore, they’re not worthy to be called churches at all. And the church leaders who refuse to do what Jesus said should be thrown out of their position because they are not following Christ, nor are they leading the sheep to follow Christ.
SPEAKER 04 :
But they’re not because the members are going to uphold them. Because nobody’s perfect. That’s the famous phrase, nobody’s perfect. So they keep doing what they do.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. When you talk about church discipline, people always come up with that. Well, nobody’s perfect. What are you going to do, kick everyone out of the church because they’re sinners? No. Everyone’s a sinner. But every Christian is a repentant sinner. And if they sin again, they repent. What we’re talking about here is somebody who’s sinning and is not repenting, even though you’re giving them every opportunity to to repent and urging them and they refuse to repent well they’re not a Christian then if the church leader doesn’t do anything you just leave it alone leave the church alone I’d say excommunicate the church you know the church is in rebellion against God they’re as bad as the person that they should be disciplining Ephraim is joined to idols leave them alone God said if you find the church is just joined to idolatry instead of to Christ, then you find somewhere else to go to church, I think. I only have about a minute before we’re going to have to take a break at the bottom of the hour. We have some of our stations leave the network at the half-hour point. And if you are listening to a station that actually leaves the network at this point, you can hear the second half of the program by going to our website, thenarrowpath.com, where we stream the program live. and we archive it for later. There’s also a podcast, and there’s also our telephone apps, which you can listen to the program all the way through on those apps. And they are free, so you might want to check those out. The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry, and we pay for the radio time. We buy the time on the radio. There’s no one paid at the Narrow Path. I’m a volunteer. Everyone’s a volunteer. We’ve got a lot of people who volunteer, but nobody gets paid a penny. And no one receives any benefits. But we do take the money that is given and we give it to radio stations so that we can stay on the air. And that’s what we do. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. You can also donate if you want to from our website, thenarrowpath.com. But thenarrowpath.com is a resource for you to take things for free. Everything is free there. Or you can donate at thenarrowpath.com. Please stay tuned. In about 30 seconds, we will be right back to continue the program for the second half hour.
SPEAKER 03 :
You are listening to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. The Narrow Path is listener-supported radio. After the show, we invite you to visit thenarrowpath.com to learn more. There are topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and the radio archives of all our shows. So when the show is over, come on over to thenarrowpath.com. Learn, study, enjoy. We thank you for your support, and we thank you for listening each day to The Narrow Path. We now return you to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 02 :
Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be taken. In place of the usual format, we have put together some of the best calls from past programs. They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in the Bible and Christianity. And now, please enjoy this special collection of calls to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
We’re going to go to the phone lines now and talk to Ryan from Kansas City. Ryan, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good to talk to you again, Brother Steve. Appreciate it. A few months ago, you had given an enlightening discussion on the concept of sola scriptura, and I’m trying to recollect some of the details. I just thought I’d call and ask you quickly again. You’ve mentioned some parts of that idea or that tradition that you did subscribe to and other parts that perhaps you felt like were not biblical or were good for us. evangelical Christian to subscribe to. Would you mind commenting perhaps afresh on what Sola Scriptura is and if you feel like it’s a practice we Christians should be engaging in and I appreciate that.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I do agree with Sola Scriptura as I understand it. Luther, of course, is famous for having brought up the idea of Sola Scriptura as a part and contrasting from what the Roman Catholic the Roman Catholics felt like the Scripture and church tradition equally are authoritative in determining what Christians should believe and do. Luther said, no, only the Scriptures are authoritative in that respect. And sola scriptura means only Scripture. Now, I agree with him. I agree that Scripture alone carries the authority that we must recognize and follow in faith and practice. So, if the Bible doesn’t teach something to be true, I don’t feel obligated to believe it, even if the church tradition says it’s true. If the Bible doesn’t say I’m required to do a certain thing, I don’t think I have to do it, even if the church tradition says I do have to. So, sola scriptura simply means that not tradition and scripture, but just scripture, are the final authority for Christians in all matters of faith and practice. Now, what that doesn’t mean, it doesn’t mean that God never communicates His will other than through Scripture. Certainly, every Christian has the Holy Spirit, and the Bible says as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the children of God. We know many things from other sources other than Scripture. For example, we learn things from science. We learn things from experience. We know things from having been there and seen it with our own eyes. We know people. that are not mentioned in Scripture but who are real in our lives. There’s lots of things we know that we don’t know them from the Scripture. But with reference to the distinctives of Christian practice and worldview, there’s no more authoritative source than the Scriptures on this because the Scriptures were written by the prophets and apostles that Jesus and God chose to reveal His will to mankind. So the Scripture is entirely unique. a unique authority, and on the matters about which it speaks, it speaks above the authority of all others. Now, church authority, church tradition, would be at a lower rung. There may be something positive to be said about some church traditions if they’re not unscriptural traditions, but if they are not taught in scripture, and they’re only taught by an organization or church leadership, I don’t consider that they carry the same authority as the Scriptures. That’s how I understand the soul of Scripture. It doesn’t mean we don’t know anything except what the Bible says. We know many things from other sources. But when it comes to knowing about God and God’s will and the truths about God and things that are distinctive of the Christian worldview and ethics and so forth, the Bible speaks with a voice that stands above all other authorities, including others. Church authorities. And so that’s what is meant by sola scriptura.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, that’s very helpful. So you’d say it’s Luther’s opinion against tradition being as authoritative as Scripture. Would you also say it has to do with the so-called magisterium of the Church that kind of interprets what the text would mean?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, that’s what the tradition of the Church to the Catholic is. What the magisterium, the College of Bishops, and the Pope, whatever they officially decide to be true, becomes the church tradition for the Roman Catholic Church. And Luther, of course, was a Roman Catholic. He was a monk. But he objected to this, and he felt like, no, we should go by only what the Scripture says. The magisterium and popes and so forth don’t have the same kind of authority. And that’s why he got kicked out of the Roman Church, because he took that position. Gotcha.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, that’s very helpful. I’m seeing a rise of new apostles and prophets who are claiming to be the new magisterium for the evangelical church and interpreting the scripture. I just think the scripture is very helpful to show through the wheat and the tares there. I appreciate it, Steve. Amen.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, thanks, Ryan, for your call. Bye now. Clifford from Novato, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. Hello. I have a question about James, James 2. Unfortunately, I’m going to a church where the preaching pastors preach the message, and then I got in a discussion with one of the other elders that is an elder at the same church, and they disagree on the meaning of James 2, specifically in verse 14. where it says, what good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deed? Can such a faith save him? Now, the two opposing views on this is that, and I want to get your advice on what you think it is, but, you know, he believes in sola fide, so faith alone is what saves us, or they both believe in sola fide, but one pastor says it’s our faith that saves us, but it’s our works that justifies our faith. Now, the other elder is saying that he disagrees with that, and he says that it’s not talking about like where it says, can such a faith save him? Well, he says he’s not talking about salvation there. He’s talking about can it save us our physical life or something like that. I never heard that before, but I wanted to get your opinion on it.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, first of all, the second man whose view you just expressed seems to be really kind of, if you’re representing his statements correctly, he seems to be really kind of out in left field. I mean, there’s certainly nothing in the Bible in this passage that talks about your faith saving you from physical death or physical harm anyway.
SPEAKER 06 :
I’m sorry to interrupt you, but he also, it’s not just his opinion, but he gave me a book from Zane Hodges called which is called Absolutely Free.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, Zane Hodges. Zane Hodges, I would toss that book, frankly. Yeah, Zane Hodges is an antinomian. I believe that Absolutely free in his book. I believe he basically is coming against what he would call lordship salvation.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right. The subtitle is A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
And, of course, lordship salvation is simply biblical salvation. The Bible teaches that if you confess that Jesus is Lord, you’ll be saved. So, you know, when Jesus is acknowledged as your Lord… then he becomes your Savior, because that’s when you’re saved. Paul said that in Romans 10, 9, and of course there’s nothing in the Bible to refute that anywhere. Now, see, the issue here is that the first pastor you mentioned, apparently, believes that good works and obedience to God are a proof of your faith. That sounds like a proof, and that would be true, and that’s what James very clearly says. James says, show me your faith without works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works. Just a verse or so after that. So the idea is that you show that you have faith by your works. And that’s because if you do have faith, you’ll have works. Just like if you have life in your body, you’ll have a heartbeat. You can look at a corpse and say, you know, he looks alive to me. Well, I say, well, let’s check his heartbeat. There’s no pulse. Okay, then I’d say, however alive he looks, he’s dead, because he has no pulse. If he had life in him, the evidence of life would be vital signs. And what I believe that James is saying, and what Paul would say too, and every biblical writer would say, Jesus said it too, that if you have a genuine relationship with God, if you have eternal life, if you have the life of Christ in you, there are vital signs. And among those vital signs, are going to be seen in the way you live your life. Now, Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. So that’s Jesus saying it. Paul said, what matters to God is a faith that works through love, in Galatians 5.4. And James makes it very clear that a faith that doesn’t have works is a dead faith. But none of these people are talking about your faith as something that preserves you in life, you know, against physical concerns. It’s talking about salvation. in terms of being in a relationship with God. Your relationship with God is seen in the way you live.
SPEAKER 06 :
But the second pastor, and also Zane Hodges, would argue that you’re against sola fide, and that you’re… Well, why would he say that?
SPEAKER 07 :
Why would they say that?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, I mean, as far as you’re including works…
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, yeah, the Bible includes works everywhere. Any doctrine that doesn’t include works isn’t a Bible doctrine. Do you know every place in the Bible that speaks about the judgment says that the judgment will be a consideration of people’s works. Jesus said that in Matthew 16, 28. He said the Son of Man will come with his holy angels with him, and he’ll reward everyone according to his works. Jesus said when he comes, he’s going to separate the people like sheep from the goats, and he’s going to Look at their works. I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me. You go to eternal life. I was naked, you didn’t clothe me. I was hungry, you didn’t feed me. Well, you go to eternal fire. Paul made it very clear that judgment is by works. If you read Romans 2, verses 5 and following, it says that Christ will render to everyone according to their deeds. And it goes into detail about that. James, of course, talks about the need for works. Peter, In 1 Peter 1.17 says, If you call God Father, who without respect of person judges everyone according to their works without partiality, pass the time of your journey here in fear. In Revelation, the books are opened at the judgment and everyone is judged according to his works. Paul said that Jesus will come and give everyone what they’ve done in their body. There’s not one writer in the New Testament that speaks of the judgment as being anything other than a judgment of people’s works. Now, why would that be? If we’re saved by faith, why would we be judged by works? The reason is because if we are saved by faith, the proof of it will be in our works. And if we say we’re saved by faith, but we don’t have those works, then we aren’t really saved by faith because we really don’t have that faith. I mean, again, I mentioned it a moment ago, Galatians 5, 6 says, Paul said in Christ, circumcision doesn’t count for anything, and uncircumcision doesn’t count for anything, but what counts with God is, he said, a faith that works through love. Now, he didn’t say a faith plus works. He said a faith that works. Okay? And that’s what James is talking about. James is not talking about having faith plus works. He’s talking about having a faith that works. The works are what is generated from faith, like fruit is generated from a fruit tree. If you say, that tree in my front yard, that’s an avocado tree, but it doesn’t ever bear any avocados. In fact, maybe it bears something entirely different. Maybe it bears oranges. Well, then you’re going to say, well, that’s not an avocado tree. And if someone says, well, you can make it one by, you know, stapling up some avocados on some of those twigs there, then you’ll have an avocado tree. No, you don’t. You don’t add fruit to the tree to make it a fruit tree. If it is a fruit tree, it produces the fruit. You don’t make your faith genuine by adding artificial works in a legalistic way to your life. If you have a genuine salvation, those good works will be generated from your life because you will have a new life. And a new life is, you know, God says he writes his laws on your heart and in your inward parts so that your heart is emanating obedience to God. See, Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie and a few others like them have argued that you don’t have to have any good works to be a good Christian. And that just doesn’t agree with any writer of Scripture. It certainly doesn’t agree with Jesus. Jesus said, he that hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who builds his house on sand.
SPEAKER 06 :
Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
But he that hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who builds his house on rock. And what happens? The man who builds his house on sand, it collapses in the judgments. The man who builds his house on rock, he survives the judgment. What’s the difference between building your house on sand and building your house on rocks? It’s when you hear what Jesus said and you do it or you don’t do it. Jesus never gave instructions just to interrupt the silence, just because he thought it was too quiet. And so he thought he’d give out a few commands. He gave commands to be obeyed because he’s the Lord. Zane Hodges doesn’t insist that people must recognize Jesus as Lord, in which case he teaches a gospel that’s contrary to anything Paul or Jesus or Peter or James or the writer of Hebrews or any other biblical writer. No biblical writer teaches that you’re saved by faith apart from any kind of change in your life. Faith that is a saving faith changes your life. A faith that doesn’t change your life is not a saving faith. That’s why James says, you know, the demons also believe and tremble.
SPEAKER 06 :
What he’s saying is… Like James says, what good is that faith?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, what good is that faith? He’s saying the devils have a certain kind of faith too. Obviously, it’s not the kind that saves anyone because it doesn’t change the way they live. And anyone who says they have faith and the way they live hasn’t changed doesn’t have that faith. Now if Zane Hodges says, now you’re adding works as a necessity. No, I’m not adding any works. I’m saying you need to have that faith. If you have that faith, those works will be there. Just like if you have life, you’ll be breathing and your heart will be beating. There will be the evidence of life. There will be vital signs. Good works are the vital signs that show that a person is saved. They don’t save them. One could argue that breathing and heart beating makes people alive and therefore you know, generate life. But I don’t think so. I think it’s the fact that we’re alive that makes the heart beat and makes the breathing take place. Obviously, if you stop breathing, your heart stops beating, you’re going to die. But it won’t start up again unless you come alive again, because life, presence of life in you has evidence. Presence of eternal life has evidence, too, and that’s in person’s works. When Zane Hodges says, but then that’s not sola fide. Well, where in the Bible does it say we’re supposed to determine who’s right and wrong by some appeal to some Latin phrase, sola fide? Sola fide says faith alone. That is, we’re saved by faith alone. Well, maybe we are saved by faith alone.
SPEAKER 06 :
That dams contradict. If you interpret it the way what you’re saying, then it contradicts what Paul is saying. By faith alone, it saves us.
SPEAKER 07 :
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, I just showed you. Paul said the same thing.
SPEAKER 06 :
I agree with what you’re saying. I’m bringing up their argument because I’ve been dealing with both of these elders, and I’m trying to sort through their arguments, and I am leading toward what, I mean, it makes sense what you’re saying, you know, and I want to know how to, and you’re bringing up a lot of good points for me to talk with this elder.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, so if they think that faith without works will save, then they’ve got to go against what James said and against what Paul said. and against what Jesus said, and against what the writer of Hebrews said. Look at Hebrews 11. It talks about all the people who had faith and who were saved by faith in the Old Testament. It says, by faith they, what? By faith Noah built an ark. Why? Because God told him to. He obeyed God. By faith Abraham left his homeland. Why? Well, because God told him to. By faith these people obeyed God. That’s the point. As you go through the Old Testament hall of faith in Hebrews 11, what you see is these people who had faith It says, by faith they did something, and what they did happened to be what God told them to do. So, because they had faith in God, they obeyed God, and that’s the point the writer of Hebrews is bringing up. But there simply is no writer in the New Testament, least of all Paul, who says you can be saved by faith if you have no works. When Paul talks about works in a negative sense, he’s talking specifically about the works of the Jewish law, and by that he means the ceremonial law. He’s talking about circumcision. He’s talking about keeping festivals. He’s talking about keeping the ceremonies. Because whenever he’s talking against works, he’s talking against Judaizers. And the Judaizers were the ones who were trying to say, yes, okay, you can be saved by faith, but you still have to get circumcised. You still have to eat a kosher diet. You still have to keep the Jewish festivals. You still have to be a good proselyte to Judaism. And Paul said, none of those works matter. You’re saved by faith without any of those works. You know, that’s what Paul’s getting at in those few places where Paul seems to say something negative about works. He’s not talking about good works generally, which is basically a shorthand way of saying good behavior, good dealings. Listen, let me show you what Paul says in Titus. Take these verses down and show them to your friend. Okay. Paul wrote Titus, right? And it talks about certain wicked people. In Titus 1… 15 and 16, it says, To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Even their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in works they deny him. Okay? Titus 1.16? Well, yeah, that’s Titus 1.16. In works they deny him. So by disobeying God, they prove that their profession of knowing him is false. But then look down in chapter 2, verses 11 and 12. It says, for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age. What teaches us that? He says the grace of God teaches us that. And then look at what he says about Christ in verse 14. Titus 2.14, he says that Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works. Okay? Doesn’t sound like Paul’s against good works there. Then in chapter 3, verse 1, Titus 3, 1, Paul says, Remind them, meaning the Christians, to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, and to be ready for every good work. I mean, it’s like Paul’s again and again saying that we should be, look at Titus 3, 14. Paul says, and let our people also learn to maintain good works to meet urgent needs. So, I mean, Paul is not against good works. There’s six times in these three chapters Paul says that Christians should have good works and that people who profess to know God, but their works deny him because they don’t have good works. He says they’re deceivers, they’re wicked people. So, I mean, Paul never had a doctrine that you can be a Christian without good works. What he taught was you’re saved by faith. not by having done enough good works, but that the faith that saves you is a faith that works through love. Let’s talk to Craig from Roseville, California. Hi, Craig. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks. I had a question on the amillennial view. How much time is there between the rapture, when the dead rise first and then the living follow, and the second coming? when he comes in all his glory and sets his foot upon the Mount of Olives? How much time in between? Because on the dispensational view, there’s basically the seven years. I was curious on the all-millennial view of how much time.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. The all-millennial view sees essentially no time in between. It’s the same day. Now, there might be minutes between or something like that, but Jesus said he will raise his people up on the last day. In John 6.49, excuse me, John 6.40, and also John 6.44, and John 6.54, and actually several times in John 6, Jesus speaks about his people and says he will raise them up on the last day. Now, raising them up, I take to mean the resurrection and the rapture, because Paul puts those in very close proximity in 1 Corinthians 15 and in 1 Thessalonians 4. He says, Both places he speaks of the dead shall be raised, and then he talks about the living being changed or caught up to meet the Lord in the air with them. That all occurs, apparently, on what Jesus called the last day when he raises them up. Now, there’s different theories of an alternative sort that have arisen in reasonably modern times. You’re right, the dispensationalist usually places seven years between the rapture and the actual physical second coming of Christ to earth. There are some mid-tribulationists who place three and a half years as the interval between. And then there’s pre-wrath rapture people who place a shorter time, shorter than three and a half years in between. But the Bible doesn’t really place any period of time in between, really. John 5, 28 and 29, Jesus said, The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done good to the resurrection of life, that would be Christians, Those who’ve done evil to the resurrection of condemnation. That’d be the non-Christians. Now, the non-Christians are raised on the last day also. According to John 12, 48, which says, you know, he that rejects my words has one who condemns him or judges him. The words that I’ve spoken unto you will judge you in the last day. So in the last day, the wicked will be judged by Christ’s words. And in the last day, the righteous will be raised, Jesus said. So we’ve got the the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked on the same day. In fact, John 5.28 says in the same hour. So, you know, I don’t know the exact number of minutes between, but anyone who places more than a day in between seems to be going beyond what the Scripture’s language would authorize.
SPEAKER 08 :
It doesn’t give you enough time to get your hair done or anything before coming back down.
SPEAKER 07 :
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t give us any time at all like that. Well, the idea of the rapture in the Bible… unlike that in dispensational theology, is of a meeting the Lord as he’s descending. As he’s descending, we go up like a welcoming committee from earth to meet him in the air and to descend the rest of the way with him. This is actually the word that is used in 1 Thessalonians 4, where it says we, in verse 17, we shall meet the Lord in the air. The word meet is a word that’s used two other times in Scripture. One is Matthew 25.1, where it says the ten virgins went out to meet the bridegroom. Now, if you know the Jewish bridal customs, they were going out to meet him, to accompany him the remainder of his journey. He’s coming from wherever he is to the bride’s house. And these people are at the bride’s house, and they’re going to go out and meet him like a welcoming committee and accompany him on the last leg of his trip. That’s what the word meet means. Also, we have the same word used in Acts 28. when it says that Paul, who was shipwrecked in Malta, actually walked north to Rome, and the Christians in Rome heard that he was coming, and they went out to meet him. Well, again, going out to meet him meant going out to welcome him and to accompany him on the final leg of his journey into Rome. So meeting, this particular word meet, which is used three times in Scripture, always means to go out as a welcoming committee. as it were, to meet somebody who’s on a journey and to accompany them on the final stage of that journey. So as Jesus is coming from heaven to earth, we, the church, will go up to meet him in the air and to continue with him on the final stage of his journey back here.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Thank you.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. I appreciate your call, Craig. Thank you for your time. God bless you. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. We’re on Monday through Friday at this same time, and we continue some of these discussions, and we have new discussions day by day. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, we are listener-supported, and we do buy the time on the radio stations that we’re on. If you’d like to help us pay for that time and stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. You can donate from there or take any of the resources that are all free at thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
SPEAKER 03 :
This has been the best of the Narrow Path radio broadcast. The preceding was prerecorded.
