Join Steve Gregg as he tackles some of Christianity’s weightiest theological issues in today’s episode of The Narrow Path. From an in-depth analysis of Calvinism and its offshoots to addressing the misconceptions surrounding repentance and conversion, every topic is dissected with precision and a scriptural lens. The discourse ranges from the predestination debate to the enduring mystery of doctrinal differences like Calvinism and Arminianism. Moreover, the episode offers intriguing reflections on whether certain Christian traditions have pagan roots. The narrative of polygamy in biblical times is also discussed, ensuring listeners have a comprehensive view of how Christianity’s past shapes
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon whenever our equipment is working properly. Last week I had a bit of a problem. I was on the road. That doesn’t usually create problems. I have remote broadcast equipment, but there were some errors going on in our equipment a couple of days, so we had to play recorded shows. So when I say we’re on five days a week live, that is the norm. And, of course, we had to interrupt that a couple times due to the factors out of our control last week. I hope there won’t be any days like that this week. We’re live right now. And if you want to call in with any question about the Bible or the Christian faith, or you want to disagree with the host about something, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844-484-5700. We have some lines open right now if you’d like to call now. The number is 844-484-5737. And many of you know I just returned this morning from 10 days itinerary in Tennessee. In fact, I got up this morning at 2.15 in East Tennessee in the morning and in order to catch an early flight, and that was California time where I’m sitting right now. That was 11.30 last night, so I’ve been up since then. Anyway, that shouldn’t be a problem. I’ll get a good night’s sleep tonight. But you’re welcome to join me. Call in with your questions or whatever at this number, 844-484-5737. And our first caller today is Ward calling from Eugene, Oregon. Ward’s been calling for a long time. Hi, Ward. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, it’s been a while, though. Hi, Steve. Yeah, hi. I heard a preacher the other day say that Charles Spurgeon died of a broken heart. I’m not sure what that means. He also said that he was harassed by hyper-Calvinists. I thought Spurgeon was a Calvinist. He was. I don’t know the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist. I guess that’s my question to you. I am not a Calvinist, like you are not. What is the difference?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, a hyper-Calvinist is really somebody who believes what Calvin taught. And a regular Calvinist is someone who doesn’t have a stomach for the doctrine of double predestination. Calvin himself believed, and so did the Westminster Confession of Faith, which many Calvinists look to as what their statement of faith is, believes that God predestined some people to be saved, and he predestined some people to be lost, and he made these determinations before anyone was born, so that everyone who was born was either chosen by God to be in heaven, or chosen by God to be in hell. Now, that latter part, that God would choose some people before they were born to be in hell, and make it inevitable and inescapable. that they would be in hell. I mean, once God’s made his choice, they say it’s set in stone. So that would mean that the majority of people who live and die without Christ were simply chosen by God to go to hell before they were born. And they were born without any option or any alternative. They had to do what God predestined them to do. On the other hand, those who were saved, they didn’t really have much of a choice either. Because they were predetermined before they were born that they would get saved. Now, some Calvinists will say, well, there is a measure of choice involved, blah, blah, blah. But the truth is, no matter how much you try to soften it, they do believe that every baby that is born already either has the death sentence on him for eternity or has the guarantee that somewhere along the line, before he dies, he’ll become a Christian. And that’s going to happen. Both of those things are going to happen. Because God’s the one who chooses those things, not we. So that’s Calvin’s doctrine. Modern Calvinists sometimes shy away from a bit of that. Not all of them do. There are hyper-Calvinists today, but some Calvinists believe that God doesn’t choose who’s going to hell. He just chooses who’s going to be saved. And so they say they don’t believe in double predestination, a doctrine that R.C. Sproul called equal ultimacy doctrine. I’m not sure why he gave it that name. It’s been called double predestination for a long time. But anyway, it’s just double talk because they believe that God knows that every human being is born condemned and that no one will be saved or can be saved unless God chose them. So by God choosing some and passing over others, he’s choosing the others to be lost. I mean, there’s just nothing for it. I mean, he’s just talking about it a different way. Now, the way that many Calvinists have talked about it is that God doesn’t choose who will go to hell. Everyone’s going to hell until God chooses them for salvation. And the ones who don’t get saved, he simply passes over. It’s not that he, you know, proactively chooses to send them to hell, so much as that’s where they’re going anyway, and he passes over them and doesn’t give them the grace of repentance and faith. So they go to hell. But Calvin actually anticipated people saying that. He said, that’s wimpy. He said, that is just wimpy. He didn’t use the word wimpy, but that’s what he was saying. He said, no, God chooses proactively to send some to hell before they’re ever born. And so if you hold that view today, people will call you a hyper-Calvinist, but really it’s just being a Calvinist. Okay.
SPEAKER 09 :
All right.
SPEAKER 02 :
The other day, I heard… Let me just say one more thing. Spurgeon was a very strong Calvinist. Now, I don’t know that he died of a broken heart. He may have. I mean, I haven’t read a biography of him lately, but he’s a very strong Calvinist. He actually believed that Arminianism was from the pit of hell. He’d say things like that in his sermons. That it’s a false doctrine. But it may be that he wasn’t a hyper-Calvinist, or like I said, he disagreed with Calvin on that one thing, and that the people who were hyper-Calvinists thought he was being weaselly, and so maybe they harassed him. But I haven’t followed the later years of his life so much. I’m more familiar with his conversion and early ministry stories. Sure.
SPEAKER 09 :
The other day I heard John MacArthur. I just turned it on, and he was preaching a sermon, and it was beautiful. And as I got about halfway through, I wanted to record it and send it to him. It was the most anti-Calvinist message you could preach. It was all about God’s grace, and you need to respond to it by faith, your response of faith to the message. And I was thinking, John, this is not Calvinism that you’re preaching.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, it actually… Yeah, it actually is. Calvinists do say that people have to respond by faith, but they say you won’t be able to do so unless God has already elected you. But if you say, well, why preach them about repentance if the elect will inevitably repent anyway and the unsaved will inevitably not repent, what’s the point of urging people to repent? They’re either going to do it or not do it because God already decided before they were born that they would do it or not do it. But the Calvinist answer is almost always, that God not only foreordains the end, but he also foreordains the means. And so they say that if you’re predestined to be saved, God has predestined that some person somewhere will make an appeal to you with the gospel, and that will be the means by which you’re saved. So Calvinists often do preach just like Arminians. In fact, A.W. Tozer, who was not a Calvinist, was asked, if he was a Calvinist or an Arminian. He said, well, I’m a Calvinist when I pray, and I’m Arminian when I preach. And really, almost all Calvinists are Arminian when they preach. I mean, they definitely appeal to the conscience and the mind and the soul. I mean, it’s very clear that Paul reasoned with philosophers and so forth and disputed with people in the streets of Athens. to get them saved, well, why would you have to dispute with people and reason with them if, you know, the ones that are going to be saved are inevitably going to be so anyway? Well, they say, well, because that reasoning and that preaching and all that stuff is the means by which God ordained in advance that the elect would be saved. So he He not only preordains the salvation of the elect, but also the means by which they will be saved, which the means means someone preaching, generally, or reasoning or convincing them or something like that.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, Jesus said, I thank you, Father, that you’ve hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. And I am a children’s pastor, and I do summer camps and Sunday schools. And I’ll tell you the truth, this whole thing breaks my heart. This whole thing brings tears to my eyes and breaks my heart because the God that I believe in, that you’ve always taught, and I’ve known you for 50 years from Calvary Chapel, is a God of love and mercy and grace and longs for all men to be saved. Every kid, I plead with kids at camp in a good and wonderful way to respond to Jesus and baptize them. me five at a time in the lake at my camp.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, Ward, my lines are full of people waiting to ask questions, so I’m going to have to move along, but I appreciate your call and your question. And you don’t have to have your heart broken because that Calvinist doctrine isn’t taught in Scripture, so you don’t have to worry about that. It is a shame that people believe it, but if it were true, that’d be something to break your heart.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, that’s why I called you, because you’re kind of my… My backup of what I’m already believing. All right. Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 02 :
God bless you, Ward. Bye now. Kevin from River Rouge in Michigan. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome, Steve. You and I have a mutual friend, John Schaefer.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, we do. I didn’t know you did, but, yeah, I just saw him last week.
SPEAKER 1 :
Mm-hmm.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, my sister mentioned that he and my sister are very close. I don’t know if you understand or have heard what’s going on with Calvary Chapel, the lawsuit. Anyway, that’s not why I called. I just want to say one thing, and I’ll get to my question, that why would God say something about Jacob have I chosen, Esau I despise, or he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and There’s so many verses, the list goes on, about, well, you would get a controversy about Judas Iscariot. I have a brother. Anyway, we could get into a semantic jungle about that. I was raised 12 years Catholic. I got saved in 73. I want your gut opinion of the controversy behind 1 John 1, 8, and 9. Erwin Lutzer seems to believe that. I’ve heard… Various different expositors talk about that was written for Gnosticism and people that didn’t believe they had a sin nature.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right, I’ve heard that too. I’ve heard that too. For those who don’t know, 1 John 1.9 is that famous verse that says, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Now, there’s a certain hyper-grace kind of… preaching that says, since Jesus died for all of our sins past, present, and future, well, once we get saved, all our future sins as well as our past ones are forgiven. And that being so, there’s never any need for us to repent again or to confess our sins or to ask for forgiveness again because Christ has already forgiven all our sins. And some are going to say, well, what about the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said, When you pray, say, forgive us our debts or our sins as we forgive our debtors. And they’ll usually say, well, that was for a different dispensation because these are dispensationalists who say this. And that was for a different dispensation. That was for the Jews in the kingdom dispensation. They rejected it. And the dispensation of grace has come, and that’s what we believe in now. And so we don’t have to repent anymore. And also, of course, 1 John 1.9 says if we confess our sins, he’s faithful and just to forgive us our sins. So it sounds like he’s talking to Christians and saying that we need to confess our sins. And if we do, he’ll forgive us our sins. Now, what they say about that is, Well, you have to understand, John, when he said we, he doesn’t mean to include himself and the Christians he’s writing to. He’s talking just about people, if people will confess their sins, meaning if unsaved people will. Now, this is usually cast in the context of the Gnostic tendencies that 1 John is written to refute. Gnostics had – that was a heretical group – Not so much blooming in John’s day, though it does seem like there was some beginnings of it there. Because he was, you know, some of the things he corrects are things that the Gnostics later taught. It was mainly in the second, third century that the Gnostics really blossomed as a threat to Christianity as a heresy, as a major cult. But John does seem to have some of the ideas of the Gnostics he’s trying to refute. But he’s not writing to the Gnostics. He’s writing to Christians against maybe Gnostic ideas. So he says, for example, you know, if anyone confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, he’s of God. If he does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh, he’s not of God. That’s probably addressing the Gnostic idea perfectly. of docetism, which was that Jesus wasn’t really human. He wasn’t really physical. He didn’t really come in the flesh. He was just a spirit, phantom kind of creature. And some Gnostics taught that. And that particular emphasis in 1st and 2nd John, when he talks about Jesus coming in the flesh, and people have to admit that, most scholars believe he’s kind of addressing that docetic heresy of the Gnostics. But His readers, he assumes, are Christians. He says in verse 12 of chapter 2, I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his namesake. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. He’s writing to Christians. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. Certainly the Gnostics hadn’t overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, because you have known the Father. I’ve written unto you fathers because you’ve known him who is from the beginning. I’ve written to you young men because you are strong and the word of God abides in you and you have overcome the wicked one. That’s 1 John chapter 2 verses 12 through 14. Clearly he’s saying his audience that he’s writing to are people who have their sins forgiven. They’ve known the father. They’ve known him who is from the beginning. They are strong young men who the word of God abides in. They’ve overcome the wicked one. So he’s not writing to Gnostics. So he says, if we confess our sins, he’s not talking to unbelievers. You know, you need to confess your sins so you can become a Christian. In fact, we know he’s not talking about a one-time thing because he’s saying that he’s expanding on what he said two verses earlier. If you just look at the second half, really, of 1 John 1, he starts in verse 6 saying, if we say that we have fellowship with him, which Christians do claim, But we walk in darkness, which Christians do not do. We lie and do not practice the truth. So if we’re claiming to have fellowship with him and we’re walking in darkness, we’re not really walking with him. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanses us from all sin. Now notice this. The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. That’s what he also says in verse 9. If we confess our sins, he cleanses us from all unrighteousness and forgives our sins. So the same promise is in verse 7 as in verse 9. But in verse 7, the condition for having the blood of Jesus, his son cleanses us from all sin, is that we walk in the light, which is not the moment of conversion. Walking is a process. It’s the Christian walk. We abide in the light. We walk in the light. It says in chapter 2, verse 10, he who loves his brother abides or remains in the light. So he’s talking about the Christians here are the ones who walk in the light. And as we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus is cleansing us from all sin. That means that we still sin and we still need cleansing from sin. But, you know, walking in the light, he says, is not saying that we have no sin. That’s being in the dark. In fact, he’s kind of alluding to John, the gospel written by the same author. John chapter 3, around verse 17 and following, where John talks about the light and the darkness. This is the condemnation of the world, that light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. He says for whoever does evil does not love the light. He hides from the light. He doesn’t want to be exposed. But whoever walks, whoever does the truth comes to the light. So the idea of light here and darkness is you are exposing or refusing to expose your own sinfulness. You know, if you’re sinning and you don’t want people to see it, don’t want God to see it, don’t want to confess it, you’re in the dark. If you come to the light, it means you’re exposing. You’re being honest. You’re being transparent. And that’s what John’s talking about here. If we say we have no sin, well, that’s hiding something because you do have sin. That’s being in the dark. We deceive ourselves and the truth is honest. In verse 10, he says, if we say that we have not sinned, again, similar. We’re in the dark. We’re not bringing the truth out into the light. We’re not being transparent. If we say that we have not sinned. We make him a liar. His word is on this. And in between those two verses, he says, now those verses say, if we say we have no sin, if we say that we have not sinned. Okay, but by contrast, if we confess our sins, now that’s coming to the light. That’s walking in transparency. That’s admitting ourselves to be sinners, something we’d much rather not admit because it’s shameful. But if we confess our sins, that is what walking in the light is. So in verse 7, he says, if we walk in the light, The blood of Jesus cleanses us. That’s a present ongoing intent. And walking is what we do. That’s not getting saved. That’s the life of a saved person. And that person who’s walking in the light is confessing their sins. That’s the point. And the blood of Jesus cleanses sins. So the context of the statement in verse 9 is not about, you know, if we get saved, well, then, of course, we get our sins forgiven. No, he’s talking to people who are saved, people who walk in the light. And if they walk in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses them as they walk in the light. So that is as they live the Christian life and are transparent and honest and confess their sins rather than try to conceal them. Well, then they have forgiveness. In Proverbs it says, he that conceals his sin will not prosper, but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall find mercy. So John’s saying the same thing. But he’s certainly not writing to Gnostics. He is warning Christians throughout the epistle about the errors of Gnosticism. But his readers, as he points out, in the verses I read earlier, are Christians themselves. And yet, he tells them, if we. It would be very strange if he’s talking about Gnostics and includes himself as a Gnostic. If he’s saying, if we get saved, we’ll be forgiven. Well, but John, why doesn’t he say, if you. If he’s writing in Gnostics, he’s saying, if you get saved. If you come to the light. If you confess your sins. But when he says, we. He’s talking about a group of people of which he is a member. And that is the Christian community. And it’s a promise to Christians. So, you know, those who say otherwise, I don’t think they’re doing good exegesis. They’re just trying to support. They’re really trying to, they’ve got a doctrine that they think sounds good and encouraging. But these verses are kind of a problem for them. It’s kind of a wrench in the works. So they have to come up with a really wild, counterintuitive, and wrong doctrine. as it were, in order to get these verses out of the data pool for them. All right. Thanks for your call, Kevin. Let’s see. We’re going to talk to Elizabeth from Apple Valley, California. Elizabeth, welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, this is more of a comment than a question, but in Isaiah 40, 22, it is he who sits above the circle of of the earth although it’s not translated sphere it just bummed me out when I read that when I’m thinking the people who are like in Christopher Columbus’s day thought the earth was flat even in the Old Testament it was known that the earth was not well it was round it’s not a sphere it’s just a comment it just shocked me all right yeah that verse has been used many times to make that point thank you for your call
SPEAKER 02 :
Mary from Upland, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, good afternoon. My question is, is Ash Wednesday God ordered or where did it stand or what’s the purpose?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, Ash Wednesday and Lent are not found in Scripture. So it’s just a human tradition. which is not to say it’s a bad thing. I’m not saying if something’s just tradition, it’s a bad thing. But if it’s just human tradition, it’s not an obligatory thing. So if somebody says, well, I’ll draw nearer to God through this giving up chocolate for Lent or something like that, or by putting ashes on my forehead, I’ll be showing my respect to God. Well, if that’s what it means to them, then maybe it will. Maybe it’ll help them. There’s lots of things you could do. If you said, I’m going to get up every morning and read my Bible for a half hour. That’ll get me closer to God. True. But there’s no command in the Bible to follow such a regimen. But it’s not a bad idea. It’s a great thing to do. So I think Lent and Ash Wednesday, I know Protestants who do it. I think of it mostly as a Catholic thing, but I know Protestants who do it. Well, I guess that’s okay. To my mind, a lot of traditions seem a little superstitious to me, but I’m not going to judge those who, for them… They’re doing it unto the Lord. Remember Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14, some people think they shouldn’t eat any meat and others will eat everything. And some people think they should keep a holy day and some people don’t. He says, well, you know, to the Lord they’re doing what they’re doing. They’re eating out of conscience toward God. So don’t pick on them about it. If they’re not eating, that’s out of conscience toward God, too. So what somebody does that they see as something to draw near to God may not be something everyone does. I’ve never observed Lent. I’ve never seen any reason to. I figure if there’s something I can do for 40 days to draw near to God, why don’t I do that 365 days? I don’t see any period of the calendar as being I have some more obligation to please God and draw near to God than any other time i think i think we’re supposed to do that all the time so i wouldn’t know how to do it more if i do know how to do it more for four days i should do it more all the other days too so that’s my take on it but it’s it’s not something that christians i think are doing wrong when they do that it’s just not a biblical practice all right i’m gonna have to take a break here but we have another half hour coming so don’t go away if you’re not familiar you’re listening to the narrow path radio broadcast my name is steve greg We’ve been on the air daily for 28 years. We’re listener supported. If you’d like to help us get on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Our website’s thenarrowpaths.com. I’ll be right back. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
The Narrow Path is on the air due to the generous donations of appreciative listeners like you. We pay the radio stations to purchase the time to allow audiences around the nation and around the world by way of Internet to hear and participate in the program. All contributions are used to purchase such airtime. No one associated with The Narrow Path is paid for their service. Thank you for your continued support.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’ve got some lines open if you want to call with your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith. The number to call is 844-484-7000. 5737. Once again, that number is 844-484-5737. Now, I told you I’d been up since 1130 last night because of time change and catching an early plane out of Tennessee, and I’m in California now this morning. So I might have misspoken at the end of the last half hour, and I’m not sure if I did or not, but somebody in the same room with me thinks I might have. I was speaking about Romans chapter 14, verses 1 through 5, where Paul talked about how some eat all things, some want to abstain from meat, some keep one day holy, some keep all days holy. That reference is Romans 14, 1 through 5. It’s possible I said 1 Corinthians, though if I did, I was half asleep because I would never think of 1 Corinthians 14. Having that information, 1 Corinthians 14 is about the gifts of the Spirit and stuff. Different subject altogether. Anyway, just don’t want that to go uncorrected if I said the wrong thing. I might mention that later this month, I’m going to be in Arizona. At this point, it looks like I’m only scheduled to speak for three days in a row in a number of towns surrounding Phoenix, pretty much, I think. But, yeah, north, south, east, west of Phoenix. And, by the way, it’s the 28th through the 30th, the end of this month. Now, it’s a couple weeks off, I think. So if anyone wants to set something up in Phoenix, feel free to get in touch with us or around that area. because, uh, You know, usually when I go that far, I don’t mind speaking more days than that. So we could set something up. But that’s the end of this month, March 28th through 30th. And next month I’ll be announcing a couple of places I’ll be going. I’ll be going in April to Northern California, Santa Cruz, San Jose, Ukiah. And then I’m going to be going to Texas also next month. But you can find all those places. Listed at our website, thenarrowpath.com. Thenarrowpath.com under announcements. Check it out. All right. If you want to contact us, feel free to email me or something or message me at the Facebook page or something. Or better yet, message my wife because she’s the one who makes the appointments. All right. The Facebook page is Steve Gregg, The Narrow Path is what it’s called. All right. Enough of that. Let’s talk about what someone else wants to talk about. And that person is Jeff in Little Rock, Arkansas. Jeff, welcome. Thanks for calling. Hey, Steve.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good to talk to you again. It’s been a while.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right.
SPEAKER 08 :
I was, I had mentioned to somebody that, I believe it’s in Romans, who he foreknew, he predestined. Yeah, Romans 8.
SPEAKER 1 :
829.
SPEAKER 08 :
And I had mentioned that predestination to me, in my mind, as an Amillennial, it’s a destination. It’s a place. Yeah, that place is already made, but not to confuse it with predetermined. And Oh, that didn’t sit right, and I don’t even know if I said it right. They said they’d love to have that discussion with me because all through the Bible it says God chooses, and I just didn’t know. I know we’re going to talk again. It was our life group Wednesday, and this coming Wednesday I know we’ll probably talk again for a minute or two.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, you’re making an honest mistake. Predestination obviously has our English word destination in it. But it’s not thinking of destination like I’m going somewhere and that place I’m going to is my destination. It has more to do with destiny. It’s related to that. And to predestine means to establish somebody’s destiny. Now, that destiny might be to be at a particular place or destination, but the word predestination isn’t directly focused on the place so much as the fact that the destiny has been established. So it really is like the word predetermined. It’s not the same word as predetermined, but it’s not very much different in its meaning, I don’t think. Okay. All right. But, of course, I believe Calvinists make a mistake as to what Paul’s talking about when he says that. In Romans 8, 29, he says, For whom he foreknew, he also predestined, or that’s predestination, but predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. So there are people that God foreknew. Who are they? Well, they’re the Christians, the believers. And those people… that he foreknew, he predestined something for them. In other words, what is destined is not that they would become Christians. They’re already Christians. The people we’re talking about are people who are Christians. The ones he foreknew.
SPEAKER 08 :
At some point. Right.
SPEAKER 02 :
So he destined something for them. What did he destine something? He predestined that those people will be conformed to the image of his son. Now that’s what will happen at the end of our lives when we are in the resurrection. When Christ comes back, it says in 1 John 3, Beloved, now we are the children of God. It does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. So that when he comes back, we will be like him. That’s our destiny, to be like Jesus. And that destiny is something God planned. He predestined that for his children before we were his children.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wouldn’t it be a good thing? But would it be a good thing to say that that’s a progression in this life, I guess finalized?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, absolutely, because it says in 2 Corinthians 3.18 about this present life, it says, As we all with unveiled faces behold the glory of the Lord, or of Jesus, we are being changed from glory to glory into that same image, even as by the Spirit of the Lord, he says. So this life is a process of becoming more like Jesus. But I don’t know if a very large percentage of the people who profess to be Christians actually become a lot like Jesus before they’re dead. I mean, they should. A lot of Christians aren’t told they’re supposed to. But the destiny for his children is that someday we will all be in his image.
SPEAKER 08 :
Very good. Thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, brother. God bless you. Okay, let’s see. Next caller is, let me see, all these callers on here have been here a long time. Oh, the one I was going to just hit his button, he just hung up. Okay, Doug from Kentucky. Welcome to The Narrow Path, Doug.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Thanks for your program. I was wondering, in light of the problem with false converts in the church, easy believism. I hear these expressions, um, uh, receive Jesus or invite Jesus into your heart. And I don’t hear the message of repentance included in those expressions. And if I’m understanding, if I’m remembering and understanding the scripture, um, It has been always taught repentance, whether it be starting with John the Baptist, whether it be Jesus himself.
SPEAKER 02 :
Or the apostles, right, exactly.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, thank you. Always included that word. So it’s like, is that the main rub, the main problem with the false conference in the church and not being told about what true biblical repentance is and the importance of it?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, you know, the church may have… There may be several reasons for it, but when you say is that the main one, I’m inclined to think it probably is. I think the way the gospel is preached to people and the way they understand it or misunderstand it because of the nature of the preaching, which is often, I think, not biblical preaching. Yeah, I think a lot of people think they’re saved and they’re not. And when I say it’s not biblical preaching, what I mean is, of course… To tell somebody to ask Jesus into your heart is not something the Bible ever says. Jesus didn’t ask anyone to ask him into their heart. The apostles didn’t tell anyone to ask Jesus into their heart. It’s just not a biblical expression. It’s a very common American evangelical 20th and 21st century expression. The revival evangelists and crusade evangelists and stuff sometimes, and just pastors who give an altar call, At the end of their sermons, they often tell people, you come, accept Jesus in your heart. Well, what does that even mean? Well, it means something, no doubt, because the Bible does say, Paul prayed for Christians, not unbelievers. He prayed that Christ might dwell in our hearts through faith. And so Christ does dwell in our hearts. But the Bible doesn’t ever tell us to ask Jesus into our hearts, because people, when they got converted… The Holy Spirit of Christ came to live in their hearts. But being converted means they’ve changed their way, and that’s what repent means. Now, the Bible does use the word repent, and you’re right. John the Baptist, Jesus, all the apostles, Peter, on the day of Pentecost, Paul told people to repent. This is something that is a very common thing. This is how people came to Christ, by repenting. But a lot of people today don’t know what that word really means. And so it’s possible to use a different word, but if it gets across the same concept, then people may realize what they need to do and do it. The word repent literally means to change your mind. But, of course, changing your mind is not that unusual. Everyone changes their mind about a lot of things. There’s something very specific to change their mind about, and that is about sin. fundamentally, it’s about who am I going to obey? Who am I going to live for? Who am I going to please? And, you know, by nature, the answer to that question is me. I’m going to please me. I know what I want. Nobody can tell me what to do. I’m going to make my own plans. I’m going to pursue my own dreams and do what pleases me. Well, that’s the natural state of, you know, fallen human nature to think that way. But you have to think the opposite way. And that is It’s not I, but Christ. What I want is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things, but what God wants is all important. And that’s a change of mind. When you actually decide, I’m not going to be concerned about my wants and my needs and my being pleased anymore. That’s being rather narcissistic to be concerned about my needs all the time or my wants. Certainly, we do think about our needs from time to time, but have to do that. But to be absorbed in what we want. That’s very natural, but it prevents us from surrendering to what God wants. God’s plans for our life are often different than ours, and we have to say, okay, whose plan am I going to follow? As an unbeliever, I follow my own, but I’m going to change my mind about that. I’m going to change my mind and say I’m not going to. It’s not me, but God, that I’m going to follow his plans. That’s repenting. Now, a person could do that without ever hearing the word repent, of course. And the word repent might be archaic enough that a lot of people don’t even know quite what it means. But if people do know what it means, or if you explain what it means, then using the word repent is a perfectly good word, and it is certainly understood by the first century people who heard John and Jesus and the apostles preach. But what has to be gotten across to people is, If you want to be a Christian, if you want to be a follower of Christ, initially what that means is you come to the end of yourself. You’ve been pursuing your own ends all your life. Whether you’re young or old, your whole life you’ve been pursuing your own ends. You’ve chosen for yourself. You’ve said yes to things if they pleased you. You’ve said no to things if they didn’t please you. Now, that’s got to come to an end right now. If you’re going to be a Christian, you’re going to have to say no to all that. It’s from now on, you’re going to think, not me, God. God’s the one whose will the whole universe exists to comply with. And the big problem is I haven’t been complying with it. I’ve been seeking my will instead of God’s will. So when a person is smitten in their heart and convicted by the Holy Spirit, and they say, whoa, have I been stupid? Have I been evil? I’ve been a rebel against the king of the universe. That can’t go well. You know, I mean, when a person begins to, when it dawns on them what they’ve been doing and how that stands in terms of reality with God, they’re often broken, terrified, weeping, whatever. I mean, you don’t have to have all these emotions, but you do have to change. You’ve got to recalibrate. You’ve got to say, okay. From now on, my will is not going to be really what I consult. Not first, anyway. I’ll consult God’s will. And if his will is ambivalent on certain things, then I guess I can choose what I prefer of different options. Or at least whatever will promote the kinds of things that God wants to see promoted. Because I’m his now. I’ve been bought with a price. I’m owned. So if a person doesn’t want to be owned by God, if they don’t want to be bought with a price, then they don’t want to be a Christian, and they shouldn’t say they are. Unfortunately, there’s a whole bunch of people who think they’re Christians because someone just told them, say a prayer. Accept Jesus into your heart. Well, what’s that mean? Does it mean I’m supposed to like him? I’m supposed to say, oh, you’re okay, Jesus, I like you. What’s it mean to accept Jesus into your heart? Well, I don’t know because the Bible never mentions it. The Bible never recommends it. Some people think it does in John 1, verse 12. Of course, as many as received him, which is kind of the same thing as accept. As many as received him, to them he gave the power to become sons of God. But this is not referring to asking him into your heart. It’s saying that he was in the world and the world did not receive him. But The ones who did receive him, he gave power to be the sons of God. Receiving him meant embracing his claims. He came and presented himself to Israel as God’s messenger and Messiah. And Israel, for the most part, didn’t receive him in that role. Some did. The ones who did, he gave them the power to be sons of God. So receiving him isn’t a matter of saying a prayer coming to my heart. None of the apostles who received Jesus in the first century said a prayer like that that we know of. But it means I’m confronted with the claims of Christ, and his claim is that he owns us. He created us, or he represents the God who created us, and he died for us. He bought us with a price, and we are now confronted with the fact that the only righteous thing we can do is honor that and acknowledge that and reorient our whole life and plans around that fact. And we can receive that claim of his or we can reject that claim. If we receive it, it doesn’t mean we’ve said a prayer coming to my heart. It just means that we have not resisted it. We’ve embraced it. We’ve acknowledged it and adjusted to it. That would be what receiving him is. And, of course, that very acknowledgement is a change of our mind, and that’s what repent means. Metanoia in the Greek is the word for repentance, and it means to change your mind. So, you know, once I realize I’m not my own, I belong to Jesus, I’m not able to righteously pursue my own selfish dreams, I can only righteously submit to the one who owns me and who made me. That’s a significant change of mind, and it changes the way you live, and you become what the Bible calls being converted, which means changed. So if people knew that, many of them would not come forward at altar calls or say sinners’ prayers if they knew that they’re making a transaction where they’re signing away all their rights, signing away all their dreams. they’re going to be a slave now. They’re going to be owned by Jesus. And they’re going to live that way. And so I think a lot of people in churches need to hear that. And when they do, some of them will leave. And I suppose that can’t happen too soon because we don’t need the church full of people who mistakenly think they’re Christians. A Christian is one who has come on Christ’s terms. And he certainly has not made the terms ambiguous if you read the Gospels. All right, brother. I appreciate your call.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thank you. All right. Bless you. All right. We’re going to talk next to Jim from Lewiston, Minnesota. Jim, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, Steve. It’s actually Lewiston, Maine.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, Maine. Okay. The abbreviation is wrong on my call screen. Okay. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s okay. No problem. Long-time listener. I just wanted to follow up with the previous call about Lent and Ash Wednesday.
SPEAKER 02 :
Uh-huh.
SPEAKER 05 :
And recently I did a little, like, Just research on that. And from what I could find, it was a Babylonian pagan tradition in the morning of Tammuz. I believe that was the son of Samuranus and Nimrod.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s what Alexander Hislop wrote, yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and I just didn’t know if you knew anything about that or if there was any validity to that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, when I was a young man, which is a very long time ago, The book by Alexander Hislop called The Two Babylons was a much-discussed book, and it was mostly taken seriously as historically sound. Alexander Hislop taught a great number of the Roman Catholic traditions. Now, his book was thick. I didn’t read the whole thing, but I heard repetitions of it a lot. But I imagine he probably said this about Lent, too. He said a great number of the traditions of Christmas and Easter and other things, they really are just lifted out of Babylonian paganism. And Tammuz was the god, the son of Semiramis, a goddess of the Babylonians, that was honored in these traditions. Now, I’ll just say this. We repeated this kind of stuff all the time because Hislop was respected. But since that time, newer research, apparently, has been done by other Christians. And what I’ve heard for the past few decades, anyway, is that Hislop’s research was sloppy and that you can’t trust everything he said. There’s even an author that I I knew who’s an evangelist wrote lots of books, good books. He wrote a lot of good books. But one of his books was about the Roman Catholic Church as the new Babylon. And he based his book on mostly information from his lap. And I talked to him on the phone a few years ago because he had said some things I was looking for the documentation on. And he said, you know, I’ve withdrawn that book from publication because a lot of that stuff I was basing it on bad sources. So it may be true. I’m certainly not going to say that that particular tradition did not come from the worship of Tammuz and Samoramas among the Babylonians. It may have. I just don’t know. All I know is that a lot of Catholic traditions… were once thought or accused of coming from that source, and yet the historian who was kind of at the back of it, that most people were getting their information from, has been somewhat discredited in later research. So I can’t tell you if it is true or not about Lent. You know, it is possible, but I can’t say it is so. I wish I knew for sure, and I apologize, I don’t.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, Jim. Thank you for your call. All right. John from Vancouver, British Columbia. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Greg. Steve, sorry. Your name is mixed up there. You’re not the first. Okay. That’s a comfort. I have been a Christian, I think, just about as long as you. I became a Christian during the Jesus people era. movement, they reached up here into British Columbia. Great. Yeah, I just thought I’d insert that. One question, I was just reading this morning, doing a chronological reading of the Bible, and I came across these laws about having more than one wife, and I thought, it doesn’t seem right to me. It doesn’t seem biblical, but then there’s patriarchs and different people have more than one wife, and I just wonder how you can
SPEAKER 02 :
how we can justify that yeah well you know it is true Abraham had more than one wife or had children by more than one woman a wife and a concubine actually two concubines and Jacob had two wives and two concubines had his whole family by those four women obviously David had even more wives than that about eight it seems and And Solomon is said to have had a bunch, hundreds of wives. And then some of the lesser known kings in the later history also had sometimes more than one wife. Now, you know, is that right? Well, it wasn’t forbidden in the Old Testament. That doesn’t mean it’s right. But a number of things were tolerated in the Old Testament that were, while they weren’t exactly right, they weren’t wrong enough for God to put them on the front burner and end them when he could have. Now, in the New Testament, we can see that those who follow the New Testament would not practice polygamy because Paul said that we recognize a mystery that they didn’t know in the Old Testament, and that is that being married isn’t just a way of having babies. See, that’s why men did have multiple wives. because they wanted a large family, and in almost all their cases, I mean, perhaps not in the case of the kings, who just kind of had wives because of political alliances with the fathers of these women and stuff. I mean, things were different then. But like Abraham and Jacob and Elkanah, the father of Samuel, They had more than one wife, but only because their first wife was barren. And it was because of the barrenness of the wife that in many cases it was the wife herself who suggested, well, here’s a concubine, have babies with her. And in most cases it doesn’t indicate there was any particular love necessarily between the man and all the wives. But Like Elkanah, the father of Samuel in 1 Samuel chapter 1. He loved Hannah, but she was barren. So he had another wife and she gave him like 10 sons or something like that. And of course, Hannah gave him Samuel eventually. But it’s very clear the Bible says he loved Hannah. It doesn’t say he loved the other wife. I believe that he married Hannah out of love. And when she couldn’t give him children, he must have taken another wife to do that. Because it was much more of a crisis in those days than it is for us if a person died childless. They didn’t know about the afterlife. They didn’t know about eternal life. And so the only way to make yourself immortal was to leave, when you died, leave behind part of you in your children who carry your name and they pick up your estate and they continue what you’ve done. And so to be childless and to die childless seemed like a great tragedy. And a woman who could not give her husband children, that was considered to be a great tragedy. And as I say, more than once we read of women who are married but can’t have children, and they tell their husband, you know, go have one with this lady. So also… There’s another thing, and that is that men sometimes were killed off in battle in great numbers, leaving a lot of women who didn’t have men to be married to. And so there are times in the Bible where because of the slaughter of the men in war, women would share a man because there’s too many women and they can’t all take care of themselves. So a man would bring more than one woman into his home and take care of her and be her husband. So, I mean, polygamy had very different ideas about it back then, and it served some good purposes, so God didn’t forbid it until the New Testament, where it tells us that marriage is supposed to be like Christ and the church, and Christ only has one church. So, obviously, monogamy is the only thing a Christian would accept. Hey, I’m out of time. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow.
