Join Steve Gregg in this insightful episode of The Narrow Path as he navigates a series of thought-provoking questions from callers across the country. Listen to discussions about the nature of faith and the divine gifts that enable our belief in Steve’s conversation with Jeffrey from Los Angeles, a deep dive into the nuances between choice and predestination. Are these aspects of our spiritual journey a gift, a choice, or both? Tune in to find out.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, we’re going to talk to some callers coming up here real quick. Let’s talk to Jeffrey from Los Angeles. Jeffrey, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. Sure. I have a question. I wanted to see if you could help me, if you could provide some clarity for me. I was having a discussion with a a couple of my pastors a couple days ago about faith. And from what I understand, and I hear this a lot, when it comes to Ephesians 2, verse 8 and 9, when it talks about that the faith that we have, some people would say that it’s not of ourselves and that God gives us the faith to believe. But the thing that I’m kind of confused with is my pastors, they’re not—it sounds kind of Calvinist, but I know they’re not Calvinist, and I know— They don’t adhere to that. But they would say that God has given them the faith to even believe. But where they would differ, they would say, well, the choice. So can you help me to distinguish between, or if there is a distinguish, if you can distinguish between faith, choice, and belief? Because I’m getting kind of confused there. And I’ll take my answer off you guys.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, Jeffrey, thanks for your call. Well, of course, Ephesians 2.8 says, By grace you’ve been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. So something, Paul says, is the gift of God. And Calvinists, you said your pastors are not Calvinists. But Calvinists believe that Paul is referring to faith as a gift of God, that God gives faith to those that he chooses to give it to and withholds it from those from whom he wishes to withhold it. And therefore, he has selected which ones will be saved and which ones will be not. And the ones he’s chosen to be saved, he’ll give them faith so they can be saved. And this is assuming, of course, that Paul is saying that faith is the gift of God. It is not referring to faith as the gift of God when Paul says it saves. The word it in the Greek is a neuter pronoun. Faith is a feminine noun. And therefore, since the pronoun is supposed to agree in gender with the noun. The neuter noun does not refer back to faith, which is a feminine noun. Now, I actually debated with James White, who’s a Calvinist, and he actually agreed with me on that. And we both agreed that what is the gift of God is salvation, being saved by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift of God. We disagreed somewhat about how it was administered. But the point here is, you’re asking, is faith a gift or is it a choice? Well, it’s not one or the other. If somebody gives you a choice then that giving is a gift. If somebody gives you anything then what they gave you is a gift. If what they gave you is a choice then your choice is a gift. You have the gift of being able to choose. Animals don’t have that gift. They’re not being given that opportunity to choose. They just do what they do instinctively. That’s what animals are. Human beings are given a choice, and that is part of God’s gracious bestowal upon us as human beings. And therefore, we can say, thank God I was given the opportunity to believe. Furthermore, the Bible says in Romans 10 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. So you can’t have faith unless you hear the Word of God. And therefore, the opportunity to hear the word of God presupposes that God has been gracious enough to speak and to speak in a situation where you have opportunity to hear him. And so while not everybody has had the opportunity to hear the word of God, you and I have. And therefore, we can say, if I exercise faith. As a result of hearing the word of God, I can thank God for the gracious gift of allowing me to believe by allowing me to hear the word of God. On the other hand, of course, a gift that is offered. or even given, can either be accepted or rejected if a person has free choice. And so if I choose to believe God when I hear his word, I’m responding as I should to the gift that God has given me, the opportunity to be a Christian, to be a believer. He’s given me the word of God, and I didn’t arrange for that to happen. He did. And therefore, my belief, if I trace back its ultimate benefactor, it’s God. God is the one who has allowed me to believe. He’s the one who gave me, who sent Jesus so that there’s someone to believe in. He’s the one who spoke his word so that there’d be a word to believe in. He’s the one who allowed me to hear his word so that I’d have the opportunity to believe. My believing, I’ve got to give God all the credit for my believing. No question about that, because I couldn’t have believed if not for the fact that he had done so many things that make that possible. On the other hand, I can’t blame him if I don’t believe. Because he didn’t just unilaterally push faith into my head and my heart. That’s a choice I make. I receive the truth or I don’t receive the truth. If I receive it, I’m receiving that which God has graciously given. If I reject it, I’m rejecting what God has graciously given. It’s a gift. But frankly, there are people who have given me gifts that I’ve turned down. And there are certainly people that God has offered his gift to, and they have turned him down. So there’s a choice involved. You will believe what you choose to believe, ultimately. In fact, it’s not even necessarily the case. Some people think, well, you’ll just believe the thing that you see the most evidence for and that you feel compelled to believe by the facts. Well, that’d be nice if that was true. If we were all completely honest, that would be true. If we’re all completely honest, we would believe whatever we see the evidence best supporting. But there’s something more in us besides honesty, and that is preference. Some people would prefer not to believe in God, and therefore they can’t even look at the evidence objectively. They will believe what they choose to believe. A person cannot be made to believe what he refuses to believe. And so God himself cannot force faith upon somebody. If he did, it would not be a gift. It would be an imposition. If God forces somebody to believe who didn’t want to believe, then he’s imposing it on them. That’s not the same thing as a gift. That’s an imposition, and that’s a different concept. So that’s what I think. I think faith is something that God, we can thank God that we have faith, because all the things that were preliminary, that made it possible for us to have faith, were of his doing. The decision whether to receive that gift of faith or to reject it, to respond favorably and honestly to it, That’s our choice. And so I think your pastors are probably on the same page I’m at. I’m not really sure for sure. Exactly. We’re going to go to Ben from Seattle, Washington. And Ben, thanks for calling The Narrow Path. You’re on.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, hi, Steve. Thanks for taking the call. I had a question out of Luke chapter 13, verses 23 through 24. It says, And someone said to him, Lord, are there just a few who are going to be saved? And he said to them, Strive to enter through the narrow door, for many, I tell you, will seek to enter but will not be able. And to me, this has always been sort of a haunting passage because it would be one thing if he said, you know, many are going to try to enter heaven or the kingdom of heaven, you know, but won’t be able to. That would make sense because there’s all sorts of people that try all sorts of things to make themselves right with God. But here it seems like he’s saying that people who are trying to enter the legitimate way, which is him, the gate, will not be able to. And so from time to time, I could see myself in that category, I guess. And I guess my question is, to what extent are we the one that is striving to enter the gate? And to what extent is God the one who is making that happen. I, you know, I think about the, you know, where he was talking to the rich young ruler and he went away sorrowful and Jesus said how hard it is for a rich person to enter. And then of course the conversation was concluded with, you know, what is impossible with man is possible with God. And so I’m just trying to understand the balance between our striving to enter and God’s provision there. So I’ll take the answer offline as well. Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Yeah, I think you’re seeing this a little differently than I do. You’re seeing it as striving to become a Christian and not being able to become a Christian. What he’s saying is strive to enter through the narrow gate. Okay, well, what does entering the narrow gate mean? Does that mean becoming a Christian? Or does that mean entering into, you know, life at the end of the road? I understand the narrow gate to be at the end of the road. I’ll tell you why. Because over in Matthew 7, he has this very similar teaching worded differently. But interestingly, he says by enter by the narrow gate. So it’s the same same command. This is Matthew 7, 13. Enter by the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction. And there are many who go in because narrow is the gate. And difficult is the way which leads to life. I hear him saying that if you’re going to go through the narrow gate, you’re going to take the narrow way because that’s the one that goes through the narrow gate. If you want to not go through the narrow gate, you can go on the broad way and get through the broad gate instead. And so striving to enter through the narrow gate, which he says in Luke 13, 23, I think is you strive to enter in the narrow gate by… currently walking on the narrow path, on the narrow road that leads to the narrow gate. So you have to strive for the simple reason that Jesus said the narrow one is more difficult. You have more opposition. The road that leads to destruction is the path of least resistance. You got a lot of company there. It’s a very popular place to go. Easy. Doesn’t require denial of self or bearing a cross or anything. So most people want to go on the broad way, and they will go through the broad gate that leads to destruction. But he says you need to strive to get through the narrow gate. That means you’re going to have to get on the narrow way, which is more difficult to walk on. It’s not a matter of difficult to get on that road. It’s somewhat difficult to walk on it because… It doesn’t have the advantages of the Broadway. You don’t have a lot of company. If you want to live a holy life, you’re going to be walking against the trend of culture. You’re going to be like a fish swimming upstream against the current, and it’s not the easiest thing in the world. You’re not going to have a lot of people glad-handed, and you say, good job. They’re going to be hating you, the Bible says, because the way you live is a renunciation of the way they’re living. And they feel you’re attacking them or judging them or whatever. And you’re just trying to do what, you know, is right. And they know they’re not on the right way. But when they see you going the right way, they don’t like it. So you get persecuted. And, you know, of course, the narrow way means you don’t get to indulge yourself all the time. You’re carrying a cross. You’re denying yourself. And it’s those things that will get you at the end of that road. And I would take that probably to be when you die at the end of your path. That gets you through the narrow gate. Into life, eternal life. And so it’s not like you might have been seen enter the gate as the beginning of the Christian walk. And I see it as the end of the walk. The narrow way leads to the narrow gate. So to strive to get through the narrow gate means you’re going to have to put in the effort and the difficulty that is involved in traveling on the narrow way. instead of the broad way. And then because of that, you can do it. Now, I think when he says, many will say, Lord, you spoke on our streets and you ate in our homes. And he’ll say, I never knew you. I think he’s describing people who are not walking on the narrow way. They’re walking on the easy way, the broad way. They’re not denying themselves. They’re not taking up a cross. They’re not unpopular with the world. And for that reason, they will get to, at the end of the road, they’re going to try to go through the narrow gate, but that’s not the gate that they walked to. And they’ll be turned away. So I think that’s what it is. Now, you’re wondering to what degree a person getting saved is the work of God and what degree it’s our work. And actually, that was being discussed just on the previous call to this one. But I would say that it’s both. I mean, as you look to God, he gives you the strength. And of course, as he gives you the strength, you’re expected to walk in that strength. And as you encounter more difficulties, you’re continually trusting in God to give you the strength. And you’re also committed to making the decisions to use that strength to do what’s right instead of what’s wrong. So we’re walking with God. He’s empowering us, but we’re still making the decisions. about things. And so I guess it’s a little like if a child was trying to walk on an icy sidewalk and his father, who had a much better footing, said, here, hold my hand and I’ll help you go along. And the hand is there, but the child may or may not reach up and grab it. And God is always there to enable us to do what we cannot otherwise do, to walk as Jesus walked. And, you know, it’s our… responsibility to grab it and not try to walk without that power. So how much is God and how much is us? I think we’re in it together with God. I think he and we are partners in this matter. Now, a lot of people say no, because if you’re involved, then it’s not all God. And if it’s not all God, you can take credit for what you accomplish. And this is just a paranoid way of talking. You know, if the child holds the father’s hand and successfully makes it down the sidewalk without falling down, it’s not as if the child has grounds to congratulate himself that he held the father’s hand. He needed the father’s hand. He held the hand because he knew he couldn’t handle things without it. And for us to say, I don’t get any credit for trusting God to give me power. I trust him because I don’t have the power to do anything for which I would get any credit. To my mind, You know, receiving from God is like a beggar reaching out his hand with his palm up. If he doesn’t have his hand out, he probably won’t get anything. But if he puts his hand out and receives it, he has done something to receive that assistance. But he doesn’t walk away and say, look how powerfully I provided for myself. Look how well I did for myself. No, I just had my hand out. Someone else did all the giving. And that’s the same thing with our walk with God. Of course we have to have our hand out. We have to receive. We have to trust. We have to walk and trust that he will give us the power. And he does. And at the end of it, we don’t give ourselves any credit because we know that we couldn’t do it without him. So that’s kind of how I view that working together with God kind of idea. Cheryl in Lincoln, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. Thank you very much. I have a question about N.T. Wright. I’m using him for a group Bible study, and one of the members of the Bible study came up to me and was questioning whether he’s biblically sound. And I did some looking into it, and there’s a controversy about a book he wrote on new perspective on Paul and different things. Are you familiar with any of that?
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m not an expert on N.T. Wright. I’ve read some of his books and I’ve heard him speak a number of times. I’ve actually heard him speak live. I’ve also heard him speak on recordings. And so I have familiarity with him. The man has written gazillions of books and some of them are as big as a brick. And I haven’t been able to read them all. I’ve tried to familiarize myself with the things he’s most famous for teaching. And even those, some of them go over my head. But I will say, I haven’t found anything objectionable in him. Now, recently there was a controversy because he was asked in an interview about what he thought about abortion. And it seemed like he was a little lawfully on that. I believe it was abortion. Yeah, it was abortion. Yeah. And that was one thing they brought up too. Yeah. So a lot of evangelicals are offended by that. And I disagreed with him too. I disagree with him too. He’s not pro abortion, but he’s a little too open to the idea of abortion in the case where, you know, a woman is traumatized or something like that. I don’t, I don’t think that you’re allowed to murder innocent people, no matter how much it traumatizes you to let them live, you know? So I disagree with him on that. That’s a pretty big disagreement. But theologically, his new perspective on Paul isn’t related to that. His new perspective on Paul is a little hard to explain. That’s why he has to write whole book-length treatments of it. But he’s essentially saying that Paul wasn’t simply, as evangelicals sometimes think, trying to lay out a key to how to get justified to go to heaven when you die. And that faith… that we’re justified by and saved by isn’t merely just believing some facts. Faith has a broader meaning than that. For one thing, faith the word faith in the Greek, pistis is the word in the Greek, it does mean faith, it does mean believing, but it also means being faithful, which is another aspect of it. And I think that if I recall, it’s been a while since I’ve read him, it seems to me like he believes that being justified by faith has to do with coming into a relationship of faithfulness with Christ. Now, I’m not giving a very good explanation because I’m cautious about doing that, simply because I don’t remember his specific points that well. I’m not a follower of N.T. Wright. Lots of people really like him, and I don’t dislike him. When I’ve heard him speak, I’ve found that he agrees on many things with me, though he’s never heard of me. But, I mean, some things I had come up with and taught, for example, in Romans, When I heard him teach, he was the first teacher who said things agreeable with what I had found there. So I kind of resonate with him in some respects. But he’s written so much, I haven’t read most of it. And so I’m not very good at giving an analysis. I would say this, though. Nothing I’ve heard from him, even things I forget now, even things I didn’t fully agree with him when I heard, are not alarming to me. I don’t think he’s a dangerous theologian at all. He believes the Bible’s true. He believes in Christ. He believes in salvation through Christ. He’s not what I would call a liberal, but he’s a free thinker. And that threatens a lot of people who are more traditional thinkers. Now, I’m not going to critique traditional thinkers. I’m just saying there’s some people who are temperamentally more traditional and others who are temperamentally more inquisitive and aren’t going to settle just for traditional answers when one can search it out and maybe find maybe a better answer in some ways. And if you’re searching the Bible for those answers, I don’t think you’re unsafe as long as you’re seeking God and his word. Now, N.T. Wright is of the second type. I don’t think he’s making any effort to accommodate traditional answers. But then I resonate him in that because I don’t either. I mean, I was raised as traditional as you come. But as I studied the Bible, I found that some of the traditions of my denomination simply didn’t really reflect what I find the Bible to teach. So I’m pretty sure that’s where N.T. Wright is. And I don’t think that any of the doctrines that he has promoted are, even if I don’t agree with some of them on some measure, I don’t think any of them are dangerous or heretical. I think they’re on the basics of being a Christian and of being an evangelical. I think he holds all the same doctrines. that the Bible promotes in that area.
SPEAKER 07 :
That goes along with my past experience with his previous Bible studies, and so I was taken aback by these comments, and I appreciate your balance on that as well.
SPEAKER 04 :
There are people who love to hate famous Christians, and if they hear a rumor about them, or if they find that that person doesn’t hold exactly the same views that their church teaches… They love to label them as a heretic and dangerous and so forth. I know that from personal experience because people have done that with me. But I mean, and they’re welcome to do it. People are welcome to do that. I just, I’m not one of those people who as soon as I find someone disagrees with me, I say they’re a heretic, avoid them. I think if they’re a responsible, intelligent, competent theologian and they know the Bible well and they love God, If they say something I disagree with, rather than avoiding them, I want to find out if they found out something I don’t know. I want to hear them. That’s what a teachable person does. Some people are not teachable and don’t want to be teachable. They feel like I need to camp out in a secure place. And the doctrines I hold now are those my church teaches, and I’m pretty sure the people in my church are going to heaven, so I’ll stick with that rather than explore the dangerous waters of asking questions about those things. And like I said, there’s adventurous people and there’s not adventurous people. I think in the search for truth, there’s much to be said for being adventurous for the simple reason that every denomination has certain things they disagree with other denominations about, so they can’t all be right. And the idea that perhaps something I have been taught traditionally is one of those things that isn’t right, and there are many Christians who see it differently, seems to make it incumbent on me to kind of look into what the other ones are and see if it’s better than what I have, biblically speaking. And sometimes it isn’t, but it won’t hurt me to look. And if it is better, then I’ve learned something.
SPEAKER 07 :
That’s probably my perspective on that as well. I’ve learned a lot from you about that through the listening to you all these years, but I just thought, well, could you sit through it and then bring up ideas that you think disagree with biblical teaching? But I don’t think that they were open to that, so I didn’t pursue that.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s too bad. Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of people have decided or been told, maybe they’ve been told by their preachers, this famous person is not reliable. Avoid him. And in many cases, those people don’t even know what it is that person teaches. But his name has gone on a list in their mind, the people my pastor doesn’t trust. It’s like there was a lady who called the show a few months ago, and she just said, I want to warn all Steve Gregg’s listeners that he’s a false teacher. And I said, okay, what is it that I teach that you think is false? And she couldn’t come up with anything. She didn’t seem to even know what I teach. And I said, well, why do you think I’m a false teacher? And she said, well, the Bible says there’s going to be false teachers and showed some verses that say there will be. And I said, well, I know there are. Sure, there are false teachers. I’m just saying, what is it that made you decide that I’m one of those? And she had she had nothing. Now, I’m not saying there are there probably are people out there who could give a long list of things they know about me. And they say that’s false teaching because they disagree with me on things. But she didn’t even know what she disagreed with me on. And my suspicion is she heard me on the radio, asked her pastor, what do you think about this Steve Gregg guy? He probably said, well, he’s not he doesn’t believe what we do to stay away from him. And she thought, well, I better warn his listeners. But she didn’t have any idea. She clearly didn’t have any idea what I teach. So anyway, some people are like that. They want to just pass along distrust towards somebody because someone else told them they should distrust it. But if you ask them, well, what did they say wrong? And why is it wrong? A lot of those people are in no degree prepared to answer that kind of a question. Anyway, I need to take a break. But Cheryl, God bless you. And… Appreciate it. Thank you. I wouldn’t shy away from N.T. Wright, but I wouldn’t let him or any other teacher, including Steve Gregg or anyone else, I wouldn’t let anyone think for me. I’d look at what he had to say and say, well, does that make more biblical sense than what I already believe? If so, I’ll go with it. If not, I’ll let it go. Bye. All right. Thanks for your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming. We’re not done. we want you to know that The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. If you’d like to help us pay the radio bills, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and you’ll see how to do that. I’m going to be gone for 30 seconds, and we’ll be back for another half hour’s broadcast, taking your calls.
SPEAKER 09 :
The book of Hebrews tells us do not forget to do good and to share with others. So let’s all do good and share The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg with family and friends. When the show is over today, tell one and all to go to thenarrowpath.com where they can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. And be sure to tell them to tune into the show right here on the radio. Share listeners supported The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Share and do good.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or you see things differently from the host and want a balanced comment, feel free to give me a call at The number is 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Steve from Bellevue, Washington. Steve, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
Thank you, Steve. My question today has to do with the Book of Revelation. I like that concept that John is actually telling the story of the Olivet Discourse in probably more apocalyptic language. And in the beginning, he says that these will soon take place. But at the end, he says, I’m coming soon. So the end of the book doesn’t sound like things that have taken place to those first century listeners. How do I understand that?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, it all depends on what he means by I’m coming soon. I mean, first of all, some people would dispute what soon means. I would dispute what I’m coming means because. throughout the Bible, Old and New Testament, the coming of God, or even in the New Testament, the coming of Christ, is very often a figure of speech referring to the fact that he’s sending armies. He’s coming to judge. Famously, in Isaiah 19, 1, it says, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and will come into Egypt. Now, taken literally, that means that god’s coming on the clouds to egypt but as you read the chapter you find out he’s talking about the assyrian armies are coming this in the 8th century bc and that they came and destroyed egypt or they conquered egypt and so uh this is not unusual micah chapter one also talks about god coming out of his place and so forth and he’s talking about judgment he’s talking about He’s not talking about the second coming of Christ. He’s not even talking about a literal coming of God so much as that God, through his agents, the armies of the invaders, is bringing judgment on a people. If we say, well, I don’t think that sounds like he’s saying that, well, that’s the problem. We’re not Hebrews. We’re not Hebrews. We don’t follow their Hebrew figures of speech. And therefore, a lot of people, when they see references to Jesus’ coming, they think it’s not talking about the second coming of Christ. It’s talking about something like the Old Testament talks about, maybe the Roman armies coming and destroying Jerusalem in judgment upon them. And in my opinion, there are cases where that does mean that. Now, some people are called full preterists, and they believe that every time it talks about Jesus coming, it’s talking about that, 70, 80, and they don’t believe there’s a literal second coming at the end of the world at all. This is, to my mind, an irresponsible approach to the Scripture. I’ve written a book against that view. But there are times where it’s very clear, I think, from the context and from the details, that it is talking about a future second coming of Christ in glory and in judgment, and at the end of the world but there’s also times where the language is used seemingly in the same way the old testament uses that imagery where he is talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d i mean 24 being a place so if if revelation is also about that then if he says i’m coming soon uh the question is what do you mean coming what do you mean you’re coming does is this talk about the second coming of christ at the end of the world, or is this talking about, is he talking to that generation who are going to face or see the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies, and that’s his coming against them. And it’ll be soon. So that’s why when people see in Revelation, behold, I come quickly, or I’m coming soon, they think, oh, Revelation must clearly be about the end times. But On the other hand, once you read the Bible enough to know what I’m coming means in different contexts, you realize that it could be that this is talking about the second coming, but it’s also possible it’s talking about something that isn’t a literal coming, but is a figurative coming in judgment. And if the evidence is good that Revelation is about the events of the Jewish war in the first century, then that’s the way you’d probably understand I’m coming soon. If the evidence is better that it’s talking about the end times, then you probably take it to mean the second coming of Christ at the end of the world.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. I mean, in the synoptics, they talk about him coming on clouds, so I get that. That’s the judgment, right? Right. But at the end, when he’s talking about all the stuff about the devil being thrown in the lake of fire and all that, is that… Is that somehow also connected to the Olivet Discourse? Or is that another topic? I don’t think so.
SPEAKER 04 :
I don’t think so. I think that’s another topic. Satan thrown in the lake of fire is, of course, mentioned in Revelation 20, which is the only chapter in the Bible. I mean, to say nothing of the only chapter in Revelation. It’s the only chapter in the Bible that mentions the millennium. And so Satan is thrown in the lake of fire at the end of the millennium in that chapter. Right. in Revelation 20 and verse 10, I think it is, or 9. And so the question is, what is the millennium? And the millennium, to my mind, doesn’t have anything to do with the material of the Olivet Discourse. But it is, too, disputed. I mean, a premillennialist and a postmillennialist and an amillennialist have different views of that, which we won’t get into now because my lines are full. But, of course, I have lectures today. lectures up the wazoo at my website about that stuff.
SPEAKER 02 :
I know. I appreciate those. I rarely call you because I can get all my information there. So thanks for your time, Steve. I appreciate it. All right. God bless you, Steve. Bye now.
SPEAKER 04 :
Bye. All right. Our next caller is, uh, it’s going to be Dwight from Denver, Colorado. Hi, Dwight. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. Um, my question is about partial preterism. Um, I think I’ve heard you say that that was pretty much the main view of the church throughout history. Is that correct?
SPEAKER 04 :
No, that’s not correct. Now, if by partial preterism, if you mean that somebody believes that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70, or that Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70, that view was on the table with other views early in the church, but it was not the It was not necessarily the prominent view of the church. Now, amillennialism is another issue. Amillennialism was the prominent view of the church, at least from the 3rd century until the 19th century. So through most of history, the church was officially amillennial. And I am amillennial. I’m also a partial preterist, but those are different things. Amillennial has to do with what you think the millennium is about. Preterism… really is a word that generically means past, something fulfilled in the past. Now, a full preterist thinks that all prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, but a partial preterist holds the view that some prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, but not all of it. So a partial preterist believes there’s some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past and some remain to be fulfilled in the future. In that sense, although most Christians wouldn’t call them so then, all Christians technically are partial preterists because they All Christians believe some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past, notably the ones that Jesus fulfilled when he was here on Earth and many others before that, like the fall of Assyria and the fall of Philistines, the fall of Moab in the Old Testament. Those are fulfilled in the past too. So I don’t think there’s a Christian on the planet who doesn’t think some prophecies fulfilled in the past. That would make them partial preterists, but they don’t call themselves that because that term is usually restricted to people who take that view about the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24, and about the book of Revelation. And the reason that those two are kind of the definers of that label is that many, many Christians… believe that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation have not been fulfilled in the past and will be fulfilled in the future. Even though the same Christians believe that there are, of course, a lot of scriptures, a lot of prophecies have been fulfilled, those are not among them. The partial preterist who wears that label usually says, no, those are among them. Revelation and the Olivet Discourse are among the large number of prophecies that have been fulfilled in the past. But not all prophecies have. 1 Thessalonians 4 has not. 1 Corinthians 15 has not. And any prophecy about the resurrection or the rapture or the final judgment, those things haven’t happened yet. So some prophecies fulfilled in the past. All Christians believe that some has. It’s that people who are, and that makes them technically partial predators, but the term is usually reserved for people who specifically include among those prophecies already fulfilled, the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation. That’s pretty much what that refers to. Now, how far does that go back in history? Well, we know that Arethas and Andreas were a couple of bishops, I think back in the 8th century, 700 or so, who either held or knew of preterist commentators on Revelation. One of them, seemed to say that he kind of believed that it was fulfilled in 1870. And the other one, writing independently, said, there are those indeed who do hold that it was. So in that century, which is pretty long ago, not real early church, but pretty long ago, there were at least two witnesses that said that there were people who believed Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD. It doesn’t say that it was the majority view. We don’t know what the majority view was because we don’t have any complete commentaries of Revelation prior to the third or fourth century. And so, you know, different views have been held at different times. Now, so if you thought I said that preterism or partial preterism was the most ancient view, that was mishearing me. I don’t believe that. But it was not an unknown view among Christians, there just were others too. And as far as millennialism is, I have said and would vehemently defend the statement that amillennialism was the view of essentially the whole church from the fourth century on to the 19th century, and still is to the majority of Christians today. but maybe not in America. Most Christians in America tend to be dispensationalists instead.
SPEAKER 05 :
So where can I find a written verification of the amillennial view being held from the 3rd through the 19th century?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, you can get any church history book that deals with the history of theology. You know, some church history books only talk about the events of church history, but some focus also on the theological viewpoints of the different writers. Yeah, there’s no question that Origen was all millennial, and he was the most influential theologian of his day. That was in the third century, but his views were not universally held, but But he was amillennial, and it was the 3rd century. Augustine, in the late 4th and early 5th century, established amillennialism as pretty much the official doctrine of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Then, you know, after that, pretty much the Roman Catholic Church followed Augustine, and so they were amillennial. Then the Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, all those guys, they also followed Augustine. And so the Protestant Reformation was also amillennial. And to this day, many denominations are amillennial, but the premillennial view existed among some in the first three centuries. And it kind of had a revival in the 19th century. But between the dying out of the premillennial view in the third or fourth century and the revival of the premillennial view in the form of dispensationalism, in the 19th century, uh, the churches, uh, the Western churches, at least we’re all millennial. It’s a little harder to nail down the Eastern churches because sometimes they’re, uh, they didn’t focus on those kinds of things so much, but yeah, all millennialism was definitely the view of the Western church, which is the one that almost all of us have come out from, you know? Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, Dwight. Good talking to you, brother. All right. Um, We’re going to talk next to Greg in Fair Oaks, California. Greg, welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. I was reading in Hebrews 11, 1, where the definition of faith is, and I noticed something I hadn’t noticed before, verse 2, elders obtained a good testimony, and it helped me in reading the other things on the testimonies that were from God and stuff, that how we live affects our testimony. And I got down to verse 11, 39, and And beyond the testimony part, I’m confused as to what that might mean. And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. Especially 40, I didn’t know what that was about.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay. Okay. Well, of course, he’s summarized between the verses you quoted, verse 1 and 2, and then 39 and following, there’s a bunch of verses where the writer is surveying the entire Old Testament from Abel, the first generation after Adam and Eve, all the way up through the prophets, basically. So essentially the whole of the Old Testament period is surveyed, naming many of the famous people, and then also summarizing the prophets, and the judges somewhat, and he’s saying that all these people received a good testimony through faith. Now, he’s arguing that we’re saved by faith, and he’s pointing that that’s not something new that came along with Jesus. It was true in the Old Testament. People were saved by faith there, too. Now, I say saved by faith. He says they received a good testimony by faith, but the assumption is that it was God who testified of them favorably. The good testimony they received was God witnessing to their credit, God approving them. And therefore, the point would be that, of course, they were acceptable to God because of their faith. By faith, they received this commendation from God. So he’s arguing throughout that the justification by faith doctrine, which is, of course, the Christian doctrine, was no different, really, in the Old Testament. People back then were saved by faith, too, both before and after the giving of the law. Now, at the end, he says, after he’s kind of surveyed these people, he says, all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise. Now, that’s because they lived in the Old Testament. And the promise is the promise of the Messiah. And it says, and the messianic blessings and so forth. It says, God having provided something better for us. Now, the statement that God has provided something better for us echoes what he said back in chapter 8 where he said that Jesus brought in a new covenant based on better promises, better promises than those in the old covenant apparently. Now he says in 39, they didn’t receive the promises, but God had some better promises in mind, which we have received. And that’s come with the new covenant. But then he says that they should not be made perfect apart from us. That has confused a lot of people because the word perfect is a little troublesome. I think we should understand the word perfect here to mean complete. The Greek word for perfect can mean mature or perfect or complete. And I think here he’s saying their number was not complete without us being added to it. without us also coming and receiving a good testimony by faith just like they did, their number was an incomplete number. They were not made complete without us being added to the number. And that’s what I understand what you’re saying.
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, that’s fantastic. That’s articulated wonderfully. That clears it up and makes a lot of sense there. So thank you very, very much. My pleasure, Greg. God bless you. I appreciate it. God bless you. Good talking to you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Bye now. Okay, we’re going to talk next to Anne in Vancouver, British Columbia. Hi, Anne. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi. Thank you so much for taking my call. Yeah. Hi. I’m just wondering, for 1 Corinthians 9, verse 27, when Paul said that he’s concerned that he’s going to be disqualified. Mm-hmm. I’m just wondering, like, what would disqualify Christians from serving in roles, and would overeating qualify?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, no. No, I don’t think so. I don’t think overeating would disqualify you from Christian service. I should point out that though the New King James says disqualified in the last word of 1 Corinthians 9, he says, I’ll give the whole context for listeners who are not looking at it. He says, therefore I run thus, not with uncertainty, thus I fight, not as one who beats the air. Now, he’s using the illustration of fighting a war and running in a race. These are two metaphors that Paul uses elsewhere, too, talking to Timothy and otherwise. But the Christian life is like running a race. It’s like fighting a battle or maybe a pugilistic match. And he says, I fight. I’m not shadowboxing. I’m not beating the air. I’ve got a real enemy here. I’m running the race. He says, I have to discipline my body to do this and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified. Now, the word disqualified there, the Greek word, is the same word that’s translated reprobate in Romans chapter 1, when it says that God gave them over to a reprobate mind. Or later, in 2 Corinthians chapter 13, he says, examine yourselves. see if Jesus Christ is in you. He says he is in you unless you are reprobate. Now, it’s very clear that the word reprobate is used to speak of people who are not saved. And so when he says, after I’ve preached to others, I need to be careful not to become reprobate myself. Now, technically, many commentators or lexicons would say that reprobate means disqualified. And so he could, I think the new King James probably is translated by people who lean toward the once saved, always saved doctrine. So they don’t want to suggest that Paul’s concerned about becoming unsaved. And so they’re thinking in terms of an athletic match. You know, if you don’t keep the rules, you’ll be disqualified. And so they have him doing that and saying, okay, I’ll be disqualified from ministry or maybe from receiving the prize for my labors. But It looks like he’s using a word which he uses in at least a few other places to mean someone who’s not saved. He says, do you not know that Christ is in you unless you’re reprobate? Or the same Greek word. And so I think he’s talking more about if I release the reins on my body and let it run free and don’t bind it to obedience, I don’t keep it in subjection, I don’t discipline my body, You know, there’s no end to the disaster that can come into my spiritual life. It could even end up that I go away from Christ. Now, if you go away from Christ, you’re not a Christian. That’s simply because being a Christian means following Christ. It’s being a disciple of Christ. Jesus said, if you continue in my words, you’re my disciples. Well, what if I don’t continue? Well, then I won’t be his disciple. And, you know, Paul said, even though I’ve preached to others and I’ve been in ministry, I could continue. Like anybody else, I could be disqualified or reprobate. I could walk away from Christ. If I’m careless, this is a war we’re in here. You know, we don’t go to war and say, well, one thing I know is I can’t get killed. No, you go to war realizing there is a danger of being killed. You’re going to try to avoid that. And you’re going to do everything you can to avoid that. But if you’re not careful, you could get killed. We’re at war here. Satan is like a roaring lion walking out seeking whom he may devour. Well, why warn me about that if I can’t be devoured? If I’m immune from being devoured by Satan, then why tell me about it? Who cares? It’s obvious that we’re being warned. He says, be diligent because your adversary, the devil, this is Peter, 1 Peter 5, is walking around seeking to devour you. Well, that’s a nice little thing to know, but what do I care if I can’t be devoured because I’ve got eternal security? Well, don’t warn me about it then. Don’t scare me with that stuff. But you see, Peter and Paul never assumed that once you’re saved, you can never drift or defect or apostatize. That was always something that was being heavily warned about in Hebrews. And then even in passages like this one. So I think he’s just saying, if I don’t take seriously the battle we’re in, if I don’t discipline my body as any athlete would have to do, if he doesn’t plan to be thrown out of the race, I could become apostate or I could become reprobate. Now, when we talk about being disqualified from ministry, I don’t know that Paul has that particular meaning of the word in mind. But let’s just say that he might, since some translators take it that way. Suppose he’s saying, I have been in ministry, but I could be disqualified from future ministry. I think that’s how the translators are probably understanding it. Okay, well, I would say God alone will decide when you’re disqualified. And Paul did say he has to discipline his body to prevent that. But he didn’t say that avoiding becoming overweight was one of the things that was necessary to be qualified for Missouri. Was it you or someone else that called me the other day about gluttony? It wasn’t you. Someone else did. And I said some pretty hard things about gluttony and about being overweight just because I don’t think that’s a good testimony for someone to be obese. Generally speaking, obesity is something that can be controlled, not easily, but it is something that people who are obese for years and years and years and years sometimes decide to take their weight issue seriously, and lo and behold, They get on a diet and a regimen and so forth, and I see them months later, and they’ve lost 100 pounds or 200 pounds. And I think, well, it can be done. They don’t think it can because it’s so hard, but it can. And if somebody is obese, usually they could do something about it if they really cared. And the fact that they carry the weight around and don’t seem to do anything about it is a poor reflection. on Christ. At least many people would reflect poorly on Christ when they see that. It’s like if you saw a minister at the bar getting drunk every Friday night, you know, that’d be a poor reflection on Christ. Well, over drinking, overeating. Of course, most people can’t tell if you’ve been over drinking by looking at you during the week, but they can tell if you’ve been overeating if you’re carrying it visibly. So it’s a shame. I mean, it’s a sad thing that some people have a real hard time keeping the weight off and I don’t condemn them. But I will say, you know, being obese does carry a stigma. And it’s not a stigma like, you know, you’ve got an ugly nose. It’s more like you’ve got a condition that you have control over and you’re not controlling it. And so when Paul says, I discipline my body, I keep it reined in because I don’t want to be I don’t want to be reprobate or I don’t want to be disqualified. One could take that to mean there are things that I would do wrong if I don’t discipline my body, which will disqualify me from ministry in the sense that I’ll lose my credibility. My ministry is trying to persuade people to follow Christ. But if I lose my credibility in their sight, well, I guess I’m disqualified. I don’t think God eliminates you from ministry because of something like that. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know everything God does or doesn’t do, but I don’t see it that way. But even though I don’t, I still think there’s a good, strong argument here for disciplining your body so that you can actually glorify God in your body. and glorify him in what you eat and drink, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10. Anyway, those are reflections on that passage. I’m going to have to end the program, unfortunately. Boy, time flies. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener-supported. If you’d like to help us out, you can go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. There’s a tab there for donate. Check it out. Let’s talk again tomorrow. God bless.
