In this thought-provoking episode, host Steve Gregg embarks on a deep dive into the spiritual tug-of-war between the flesh and the spirit, seeking insights into our mortal and spiritual wills. Engage with listener questions that explore philosophical and biblical boundaries around Open Theism, as challenging perspectives are dissected to illuminate God’s omniscience. The episode continues with a meticulous comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, where intentions and divine focus are brought to the forefront.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon. We take this hour to invite you to call in with your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith we can discuss on the air. You can also call in to discuss any disagreements you might have with the host. Be glad to talk to you about that as well. The number to call is 844-484- 57-37. Now, sometimes during the show, there’s just all the lines are full. Right now, we have two lines open, so this is a good time to call. 844-484-5737. And we’ll be glad to talk to you when we can get to your call. Right now, we’ve got a call from Kentucky, from John in Salyersville, Kentucky. Hi, John. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Good to hear from you.
SPEAKER 07 :
Good afternoon, Steve.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, hi.
SPEAKER 07 :
I was going to get your opinion on something. How our flesh wars against our spirit. We have a different will, our flesh has a different will than our spirit. Yeah. And also, when we speak in unknown tongues, the Bible says that Our soul prayeth, but our understanding is unfruitful, lest we interpret. Do you believe that the Lord had the same situation that we’re in when He was here on earth?
SPEAKER 05 :
Which kind of situation? You mean that He was a human being with a flesh and a spirit?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes. Well, His flesh and His spirit had different wills.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, yes. I mean, I think his flesh was just like ours. In other words, he had appetites of the flesh. It’s not sinful to have appetites, by the way. Animals have them, too, and animals are not sinful. It’s not a moral issue to have an appetite. The problem is our appetites can certainly dominate us, and we can place them first like an idol in our lives, and we just can say, well, whatever I want, whatever I crave, whatever I desire, I’m going to go for that. Now, that’s making the appetites of the flesh, or what the Bible calls the lusts of the flesh, the word lust means desires of the flesh, that’s making those an idol. Although there’s certainly no sin in eating when you’re hungry, there is a sin in stealing food from somebody so you can eat. There’s no sin in having sex in the proper marital context, but there is wrongness in having sex outside of that. There’s nothing wrong with sleeping at night when you’ve got time to sleep, but it’s certainly wrong to sleep if you’re a sentry and you’re supposed to stay awake and people’s lives are at stake. In other words, the body has its cravings, just like animals have, and humans have those too, and so did Jesus. The Bible says he got tired and he fell asleep in a boat. He got hungry when he was fasting, and so he had all the same appetites we have. The difference between Jesus and all of us is that when it came to choosing to either obey the appetites of the flesh or to restrict himself from doing so, He was always obedient to his father. See, this is the thing. Animals don’t sin no matter how they exercise or indulge their flesh. People, however, have things that we have a moral obligation to govern our flesh in ways that do not harm other people or do not violate God’s. codes of, you know, righteousness. And so, you know, there is a conflict. Paul said the flesh lusts against the spirit, the spirit against the flesh. Jesus even knew this. Jesus said the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. So, you know, he knew because he was, that was in the ground of the seminary, he knew very well. He was willing to do his father’s will, but it was hard. The flesh wanted to avoid being beat up and crucified and things like that. So, however, his spirit I mean, he submitted to the spirit and not to the flesh. And that’s why he gave himself up to be crucified. That’s what people do when they’re walking in the power of the spirit of God. Paul said, if we walk in the spirit, we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. That’s Galatians 5, 16. So we have the will of the flesh and we have the will of the spirit. And I think the will of the spirit is not different from what Paul referred to as the will of his mind. because he said, for example, in Romans 7, 22 and 23, he says, I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. Now, the inward man, I believe, is his spirit or his mind and so forth. But I see another law in my members, that’s in my flesh, my body, warring against the law of my mind. Now, in other words, my mind approves of the law of God. There’s no problem there. I want to obey God. My mind is on God’s side. Like Jesus said, the spirit is willing in a believer. But the flesh is weak. And he says, I find this other force in my flesh that’s warring against what I want to do with my mind. Now, Paul made a very interesting statement in Ephesians chapter, I think it’s chapter 2 or 4. Let me check this out real quickly here. Yeah, 2. Ephesians 2, he talks about how the converts that he’s writing to the Christians, he’s talking about before they were Christians. He said, among whom we also all once conducted ourselves. That is, the sons of disobedience are the people mentioned in the previous verses. We used to be among them. We used to be sons of disobedience too. Among those we also once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. Now, in this place, the Greek word for desires is the word wills. We were, before we were Christians, we were fulfilling the will of our flesh and the will of our mind. Now, something has changed since then. We don’t fulfill the will of our flesh and the will of our mind at the same time if the will of our flesh is in contrast with the will of our mind. What he’s saying is there’s what our body, what our flesh wants. That’s the will of the flesh. That’s what we have to be careful about because some of the things it wants are things that we can’t indulge rightly. Now, the will of the mind before we were Christians and the will of the flesh were the same. So he says when we indulged the will of the flesh, we were doing the will of the flesh and of the mind. That is, our mind and flesh both wanted the same things. But that was before we were saved. You see, when you’re saved, you repent. Repent means you change your mind. Now, you don’t change your flesh. You just change your mind. You can’t change your flesh until you die, and then you’re going to be resurrected in a better one. But, you know, at this point, we have no power to change our flesh in terms of its moral goodness or badness. But we can change our mind. So he’s saying when we were in the world obeying the flesh, we were doing it because we wanted to. We were fulfilling the will of the flesh and of the mind. But we’ve changed our mind now. Our mind now wants to obey God, our inner man. is agreeable with God’s ways, but it’s still at war with the flesh that hasn’t changed. So that’s why we have a conflict that sometimes unbelievers don’t have. Unbelievers don’t have the conflict because they’re doing the will of the flesh, but they’re also doing the will of their mind. What their flesh wants is what their mind wants. But we who are Christians have repented. We’ve changed our mind. Our mind now wants to obey God, but the flesh still hasn’t changed and won’t. anytime soon, until we die. So, you know, there’s both. Now, Jesus, his flesh craved things, too. We know that because he was tempted in all points as we are. And we read of his temptation in the wilderness by the devil. He’s tempted by his hunger for food. He was tempted by the kinds of things people are tempted by. But he said no to all of them. That is to say, he walked in the spirit and did not fulfill the lusts of his flesh. And he’s the only person who’s ever lived who did that perfectly. Now, we do it imperfectly, but we can still do it. That is, if we walk in the spirit, which we don’t do all the time, but should. If we walk in the spirit, we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. He did it all the time. And so he had the same struggle we had. That’s why it says he was tempted in all points like we are, but without sinning. He has the same struggles, but he defeated it. And we are not as good at that. I appreciate your call, John. Rob in Indianapolis, Indiana. Hi, Rob. Welcome.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Steve. Hey, Steve. I’m in a discussion with my nephew. He’s kind of dabbling with the idea of open theism. We’ve gone through a lot of scriptures together, but I decided to develop a deductive argument using syllogism. I was wondering if I could give you my four-point syllogism and see if you can punch any holes in it.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Okay.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, so number one, God is complete and nothing can be added to him. Number two, learning something is adding knowledge. Number three, if God doesn’t know the future, then information is added to him when that future event takes place. Therefore, God knows the future.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, it sounds pretty good to me. You know, as far as I know, the premises are good. They sound reasonable. And if the premises are good, I would say your conclusion follows logically.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, that’s good. Well, perfect. I’ll call them and tell them to listen to this. And when Steve Gregg says it’s right, therefore it’s right.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, remember, I don’t hold to openness theology, but I’m not offended by it like some people are. You know, I don’t have an ax to grind against it. I have a lot of friends who are openness theologians, and I appreciate their process. But, I mean, after all, what you just gave us is a logical philosophical argument, and there’s nothing wrong with logic or philosophical arguments. And that’s what C.S. Lewis said when he wrote a chapter about this in Mere Christianity. He said this is a philosophical question. It’s not a biblical question. He was, of course, saying that God does know all future things. He was not an open theist. But it’s correct to say that when we say that God knows everything, now the Bible does say God knows everything. The question of whether the future is a thing or not is disputed because, I mean, there are things that exist right now, and God knows all of them. There are things that will potentially exist in the future. They don’t exist now, so they aren’t things yet. And so some would say, to say that God knows everything means he knows everything there is, everything that exists. But future things have not come into being yet. The choices we’re going to make and things, and therefore they would argue that To say that he doesn’t know those is not to deny that he knows everything. You know, those aren’t things. Those don’t exist. So that’s how they would argue it. Now, that’s a philosophical question the Bible doesn’t answer. Of course, the Bible does seem to imply that God knows the future in terms of him predicting through prophecy things that would happen, including things that people would choose to do, which are the very things that people say aren’t determined because we have free choice. And yet, if God knows what people are going to do before they do it, and we have free choice, too, well, then there are aspects of God’s foreknowledge, in fact, of the whole subject, that are, to my mind, beyond our ken, what we don’t fully understand. But, yeah, I mean, logically, assuming your premises are good, and they seem to be good to me, then I say you’ve got a logical argument.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, I appreciate it. And if you don’t mind, just a quick follow-up. I’ve heard you address this before, almost in the same manner you just did. But given the logical premises, though, how do you think an open theist would respond to the fact that if God doesn’t know something doesn’t exist, but when that thing does come into existence, he now learns something new that he didn’t know previously, so therefore it’s added to him. So by… By conclusion then, God is not complete at this point. He is not complete until everything is completed in the future.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, I guess the thing that they might challenge you on, and I don’t know if it’s a legitimate challenge or not, is you started out by saying that God is complete in himself.
SPEAKER 03 :
And nothing can be added to him.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right, nothing can be added to him. But I guess that depends on what we’re calling him. Does what he knows, is that an aspect of him, or is that just something in the external reality that he is aware of? These are deeper philosophical questions than I can resolve. Okay.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t want to take too much of your time on this, but when I say added to him, I mean added to his omniscience. Because by implying that he doesn’t know something that’s going to happen in the future, when he finds it out in the future, now you’ve added to his omniscience.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, yeah, I mean, you could be right. You could be right. But there are those who would say it’s not, you know, when he gets new information, when new information comes to exist, he knows it. it doesn’t mean that he was incomplete just because there was nothing in that category for him to know. You know, but, you know, I don’t, like, again, that’s a whole philosophical thing. I think that many times open theists are arguing from a philosophical basis, and so I’d say you have a good philosophical case. I’d be curious to know how he would respond to it.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, I appreciate your time. Thank you, Steve. Great, Rob. God bless you, man. Good talking to you. So, Dana, we said hi.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. She’s here.
SPEAKER 11 :
Bye-bye.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. Bye now. Okay. Michael in Santa Cruz, California. Hi, Michael.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve. Good to hear you. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, go ahead.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, go ahead. All right. So, you and I have talked many times about, well, you would emphasize the differences. I’ve always tried to emphasize. the parallels between the classic view of the Buddha and the biblical or Christian perspective. I personally don’t see, I mean, I don’t want to whitewash the theological differences or what Buddhism isn’t really a theology, but the differences in the worldviews associated with each perspective. But in actual practice, the Christian who’s trying to walk with God and Jesus, and the Buddhist who’s trying to follow the Eightfold Path, in real-world terms, it’s very close.
SPEAKER 05 :
I don’t deny that, but let’s put it this way. If a man was being kind to a woman because he loved her and wanted to serve her, he would behave perhaps in the same way as a man who was being kind to her because he wanted to seduce her. or wanted to do something, get some money out of her, get something from her. Being kind would look very similar in both cases. What makes one good and one bad is the intention. So, you know, when we talk about, well, if you live by the Eightfold Path, You may look an awful lot like a Christian who’s living by the Sermon on the Mount. You know, there may be a lot of things that you have in common. Well, yeah, like I said, people can act the same way or similar ways with very different motives. And the motive makes all the difference in the world. And so, I mean, Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees, they were very meticulous in keeping the laws that God gave them, which is a good thing to do if you’re a Jew. But he said, you’ve got bad motives for it. It’s like you’re all clean on the outside, but you’re like a tomb that’s been whitewashed on the outside, but it’s full of dead men’s bones. It’s dirty inside. So, I mean, in other words, whenever we, you and I have talked, you’re a Buddhist, I’m a Christian. We’ve talked hundreds of times over the past, what, 25 years or more. You don’t seem to see what I’m seeing here. And that is that you could do almost all the same things during your day that I do during my day. But we’re doing it for different reasons. Now, I have to ask you, because I don’t know the answer to this, what is the purpose or the object in Buddhism? What is the ultimate goal in Buddhism?
SPEAKER 02 :
Am I on the air? Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, I asked you a question.
SPEAKER 02 :
I heard a fellow, I thought maybe I was cut off. So, can you repeat that question? Because I got distracted.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. What is the goal or the end in mind for Buddhism?
SPEAKER 02 :
To be released from the torment of emotional… Affection, what Christians would call sin.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, so it apparently is then to achieve a subjectively positive goal from the standpoint of the person who’s practicing the religion.
SPEAKER 02 :
To come to a state of being that is not conditional. In other words, when people experience ordinary… ordinary happiness. If things are going well, I feel great. If things aren’t going well, I feel down. You know, that endless instability. But nirvana is defined as a peace beyond everything. Okay.
SPEAKER 05 :
Michael, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Let’s suppose that you live the Buddhist life perfectly and acquire the best possible outcome that a Buddhist can hope for. Whose interests are served by that?
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s twofold. One, the person who comes to the nirvanic realization or peace is no longer suffering in the ordinary sense. Okay, so his interests are served. His interests are served by it. So that’s number one. Number two, that person is no longer bringing to others the pain, you know, sort of bringing the toxicity into the field of his or her relationship so the person is a non-intimidating, non-abrasive person.
SPEAKER 05 :
And that’s what I thought. That’s what I thought you would say. Now, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing in itself. I’m just trying to point out to you that you’re always trying to tell me that there’s not really very significant difference between Buddhism and Christianity. I believe that those two goals are achieved by living the Christian life, but those are not the primary goals of Christianity. The primary goal of Christianity is to glorify God. We were made for his glory. So to submit to Christ, to live according to his teachings and his standards, to be like Jesus, we do that for the purpose of pleasing and glorifying God, which is the purpose that the whole universe exists for. The existence of the universe is to glorify God. And most of it does. It’s the people who don’t do it very well. You know, the heavens declare the glory of God. the stars, they show forth His glory. But we who are disobedient and imperfect, we don’t always show forth the glory of God. But the goal of the Christian life is to, by submitting to Christ, following Christ, experiencing the life that He gives us, which is a new species of life through His Spirit, that we are changed from glory to glory into an image for the glory of God. Now, in other words, the whole focus of Christianity is about God. Yes, do we benefit from it? Yes, we do. Does society benefit by our being good Christians? It should, very much, yes. But those are like byproducts. Those are the whole focus of Buddhism. There is no God in Buddhism. for you to be pleasing you’re simply trying to conform to dharma or whatever so that it’s good for you you got bliss the world is more blissed out because you’re in bliss and so you don’t hurt people you’re not toxic like you said yeah that should be true people who live the christian life and that’s the part you’re seeing that’s where you’re seeing there’s not much difference between being a christian and a buddhist you’re saying because kind of both of them are intended to bring peace, bring clearness of conscience, make us better people. All religions are really intending to do that. There is, however, a very great difference between all of those and Christianity. Christianity is about God. And this is something that I’ve always told you, and it kind of goes over your head, because you still think there’s not much of a dime’s worth of difference between Buddhism and Christianity. It’s 100% different. Like I said, it’s like the difference between being nice to a woman because you’re devoted to her and want everything to go well in her life. You’re doing it for her sake. Or… Being kind to them because you want to seduce her or get something from her. It’s the same behavior, very different motives. And, you know, Jesus said, if anyone would come after him, they need to deny themselves. Now, see, every human being, until they come to Christ, is seeking their own salvation. Now, it might be a selfish kind of hedonism or narcissism kind of a thing where you’re using other people for yourself, or you might be seeking an advantage of a spiritual kind, you know, spiritual peace, clearness of conscience, whatever. But it’s the natural way for human beings from the time of birth till death to want to please themselves, to want to get for themselves something better, and that’s what they will apply themselves to. I think a good Buddhist… is applying himself or herself toward getting, you know, nirvana, getting peace, becoming invulnerable to pain and things like that. And, you know, I can understand that. But that’s just still one thing. That’s one selfish goal among many that people have sought. To be a Christian, I realize Christians are selfish sometimes too. I’m not sure how many people who call themselves Christians really are Christians or how much Jesus would call them Christians. But he said that if anyone would come to him, the first step is to deny self, which means that instead of living as I always have with concerns about what I can get out of this, what can I get out of this person? What can I get out of this religion? What can I get out of this discipline? What can I get out of this expense? What can I get out of God? You know, if it’s what can I get out of this, I haven’t denied myself. Self is still making the call. It’s still self looking out for itself. And we weren’t made to look out for ourselves. We were made to glorify God. And so when a person becomes a Christian really, I’m not saying they jump through the hoops of American evangelicalism or whatever, because people can do that without becoming real Christians. Jesus made that clear enough. No, when a person really becomes clear, becomes a Christian, They have denied themselves and said, okay, I’ve lived for my own interests, for my own advantage. I now will live for God’s interests and for his advantage to bring him pleasure and to bring him glory. And if I perish, I perish. I mean, as a Christian, I came to this many decades ago. That even if I were to go to hell and suffer, still, I’m going to live to glorify God. It’s not what I get out of it. It’s what God gets out of it. Because he deserves something. He created us. I don’t deserve anything, but, you know, the consequence is my misbehavior. Fortunately, God is gracious. And he forgives and he saves. And that is good for me. It’s good for everybody. But that’s because I’ve stopped looking out for what’s good for me. I’m looking out for what’s good for God. And that’s where Buddhism and Christianity… are in different universes. And that’s why you’re always surprised I don’t see your point, that they’re the same thing. They’re not. Hey, I need to take a break. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We are listener supported. You can donate from the website if you want to. We have a break at this point for 30 seconds, and then we have another half hour. I’ll be taking your calls. And so please stay tuned.
SPEAKER 04 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you but everything to give you. When today’s radio show is over, we invite you to study, learn, and enjoy by visiting thenarrowpath.com where you’ll find free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listener-supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Remember thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 05 :
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, about the Christian faith, about anything that can be answered from a biblical perspective, I’d be glad to talk about it with you. You can call. The number is 844- That’s 844-484-5737. Our next caller is Joe from Mena, Arkansas. Hi, Joe. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you, Steve. First of all, I want to apologize. I didn’t say goodbye to you the last time. It was my first call, and I was a little nervous. It was a few weeks ago. That’s been eating at me.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s been eating at me ever since, Joe. I’m glad you apologized.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, yeah, anyway, I’m sorry about that. But my question today is concerning tongues. I was raised Catholic, and in my 20s I went to a Pentecostal church, and I read the Bible then, and I stayed with that church, and I speak in tongues. But I do not believe that my tongue is the Acts chapter 2 tongue, where it’s an actual language where people understand. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 2, For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him. He understands mysteries. All right, so that’s what I believe I speak. Just… You know, it’s a personal language. It comforts me, and it brings me close to God. But I’ve had many, well, not many, a few ministers say, oh, no, you’re actually speaking a language somewhere on some obscure island or something. You know, somebody can understand that. Can you give me your thoughts on that?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, you are correct that Paul says that when you speak in tongues, In the church, he’s talking about the church tongues, because there’s two different settings for tongues. Acts chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, was not in a church meeting for the benefit of the church. It was true the church was gathered, but it was for the benefit of unbelievers. And Paul says tongues is a sign for unbelievers. If tongues is going to be a sign, it’s a sign to unbelievers. And so among unbelievers, sometimes somebody supernaturally speaking their language, although that speaker has never learned their language, but supernaturally knows and can speak to them in that language, that is a sign to the unbeliever. That’s what happened on the day of Pentecost. Now, Paul also talks about tongues that are not for unbelievers, that tongues are for the edification of the church. Now, the church is made up of Christians, not unbelievers. So he says in the church, you really should be not speaking in tongues unless there’s an interpretation. Now, Paul does not deny that such speaking in tongues is an actual language, but he does say no one present understands it. Now, some Pentecostals talk about there being like a heavenly language, like a language of angels. Like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13, 1, if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels and don’t have love, I’m nothing. So, I mean, some people think there are tongues that are heavenly languages, but language is nonetheless. I’m not going to go to the mat about that because Paul could be speaking hyperbolically when he says, if I speak in the tongues of men or even angels and don’t have love, I’m nothing. I don’t know if he’s affirming that there are tongues of angels that people sometimes speak, but I do think the very word tongues does refer to languages. It may be, however, that it’s a language that nobody present knows. doesn’t mean that there aren’t people somewhere in the world that would know it, but you’re not in their part of the world, and you’re not among them. So it might as well be, I mean, to those who you’re with, it might as well be gibberish. But that doesn’t mean it is gibberish. There’s a lot of people who speak languages I’ve never learned, or I mean, it sounds gibberish-y to me, but I know it isn’t, you know. But I don’t know what the difference would be. I mean, to tell you the truth, I mean, I don’t know why that would be why that would make a difference. It’s clear that even when you’re speaking in tongues in church or even privately in your prayer life, that you may or may not be speaking a language known somewhere. But whether it is or not is a moot point because you don’t understand it. No one present understands it. It could be interpreted by somebody who’s got a supernatural gift of interpretation, according to Paul. So it If it can be interpreted, there must be information content, you know, because interpretation is taking the information and elucidating it to people present. So I’d say if there’s information content that can be interpreted, it probably is a language expressing something. But I agree with you. It wouldn’t necessarily be a language that anybody around would know or need to know. Now, if you’re correct… I think what you’re suggesting is not a language at all, just noise, but it means something to you or God. You know, it means something to God. I can’t argue that that’s true or false. All I know is that the expression speaking in tongues does refer to languages. It’s simply that, you know, Paul does acknowledge there are lots of languages we don’t know. and that nobody around us knows. And, you know, when we speak in tongues, nobody knows what it is we’re saying, unless it’s a sign to the unbelievers. But Paul’s, of course, in 1 Corinthians 14, he’s not talking about unbelievers. He’s talking about Christians and the Christian assembly. So tongues can have different purposes in different venues. But, yeah, I mean, to say that the tongues you speak in are not a language, I don’t know how we’d prove that that’s true or not. I guess we would prove you wrong if somebody came into the room who knew the language and told us, but that’s not generally the case. So I’m not going to argue about that. You could be right or wrong. I don’t know that it would make a difference in the practice. Okay. Let’s talk to Paul in Mobile, Alabama. Hi, Paul. Welcome.
SPEAKER 10 :
How are you doing, Steve? First time caller and just started, excuse me, Really just started following you. I was studying eschatology. Things weren’t matching up. And what you’re saying, I feel like it makes a lot of sense to me. And I’ve got two questions. One of them is going to be real easy. One of them is, so your intro music, is there a story behind that?
SPEAKER 05 :
The whistle? There is. That music was written by a student of mine. in a school that I taught, a Bible school, and it was inspired by one of the talks I gave about children called Vision for Children. That’s one of the lectures on my website, Vision for Children. He was quite struck by that, and he wrote that song. It’s called Like Arrows Do. By the way, if you want to hear the words to that song, You can go to thenarrowpath.com and go to the tab that says links and resources. And there’s a whole drop-down menu. One of the things is the song, like Arrow’s doing it. Somebody has taken the whole song, words and all, and made a kind of a slideshow out of it. But, yeah, he did that after hearing a lecture about children.
SPEAKER 10 :
I like it. I just wasn’t critical of it at all. I just thought I would ask them. My primary question I would say is about Hebrews 6, 4 through 6. And I’ve listened to some – I’m a fairly new Christian. I came to know the Lord as my Savior in 2016 at the age of 56 years old. Okay. So there’s always hope, right? That’s the way I see it. Amen. But I’ve heard some really intelligent, well-meaning, I believe, pastors – speak on both sides of those verses of whether they show the person can lose their salvation or vice versa on the other side that it’s not. It’s just pointing to the fact that he’s talking about Hebrews and they’ve kind of gone astray and going back to the old covenant. And I just would like to hear how you feel about that particular passage, I can hang up and just listen.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. That’s great. Thanks for your call. Thank you, Steve. Okay, Paul. Bye now. Yeah, now let me just say this. There are many passages that people frequently ask about, and I do give somewhat thorough answers to them. Just for the sake of – I will answer your question here, but just for the sake of anyone who’s got questions like this, There is a website called Matthew713.com, Matthew713.com, and it’s got a topical index of calls that have come into this show over the past 20-something years. And it’s got them arranged by topics. And there’s like 20, I think there’s like 25,000 calls that have been topically indexed there. And, like, you can go there and look up a question. There’s over 2,000 questions. And you can find this passage. And you can find the scores of times I’ve spoken on it before to callers. Or you can also go to my website, thenarrowpath.com. where I have verse-by-verse teachings through every book of the Bible, including Hebrews. And you can go to the Hebrews 6 for this. This is a question that comes up a lot. It’s confusing the way it’s written. The writer says, For it’s impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come and have fallen away. To renew them, that is, it’s impossible to renew them again to repentance since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put him to an open shame. Now, it talks about people who have had several experiences which all in the Bible relate to being a Christian. They were enlightened. They’ve tasted the heavenly gift, which is, of course, salvation. They’ve become partakers of the Holy Spirit. Only Christians have the Holy Spirit. They’ve tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. So these five things all point in the direction that he’s talking about Christians. And he says it’s impossible if somebody’s had all these experiences and have fallen away. Now, falling away means you’ve given up on the faith. You’ve given up on Christ. You’ve walked away. You’re an apostate. It’s impossible to restore that person to repentance. because they’re crucifying Christ afresh. Now, lots of different views have been taken on this. There are, of course, Christians who think you cannot lose your salvation, and this passage is a troublesome one for them, because it basically talks about people who were saved and have fallen away, and they can’t come back. Well, it doesn’t say they can’t come back. It says it’s impossible to renew them to repentance, whatever that means. But it certainly sounds like they’re lost. So those who believe you cannot lose your salvation have come up with different ways of understanding this. Some of them say he is speaking hypothetically about something that cannot happen. You know, that somebody who’s had all these experiences of conversion, obviously they can’t fall away. And he’s saying that they can’t because, frankly, if they did, they’d be crucifying Christ afresh. And Christ can’t be crucified again. So they say this is arguing that it would be hypothetically impossible for someone to fall away. Well, that’s not the point he’s making. In fact, he’s not saying it’s impossible. He’s talking about people who have fallen away after this. That’s the language. The King James Version says, if they fall away, and it makes it sound hypothetical. In the Greek, there’s no if. It just says, they’ve tasted the good word of God, the powers of the age have come, and have fallen away. So he’s not talking about a hypothetical situation. He’s talking about some things that have happened to some people. Now, another way… it is argued, by those who think you cannot lose your salvation, is to say, well, all these things can happen to a person without them really getting saved. Maybe they’re not really saved in the first place. So they take the view either that if you really are saved, you can’t fall away, or these people aren’t really saved anyway, and they can fall away because they’re not really saved. But the description of them, they were enlightened, they tasted the heavenly gift, they’ve become partakers of the Holy Spirit. To suggest that this is describing someone who’s not a Christian, It’s pretty wild. I mean, they’re saying, well, they got close. They’ve tasted at it. They’ve kind of been interested. No, Paul, I mean, the writer doesn’t say they’ve been interested. It says they have partaken. They’ve eaten. They’ve gained. taking in the Holy Spirit and the heavenly gift, and that’s salvation. So there’s no possibility that these things would be describing a non-Christian. And if someone says, well, it could be if he doesn’t mean they’ve absolutely entered into all these experiences. Yeah, well, he should probably say that then, because everything he says describes them in terms that all readers would say, oh, he’s describing Christians. And if he’s saying, well, no, you can get close to it. You can have all these things and not really get saved. Well, that’s the point he should have made. Because he certainly hides it well by giving this list of things they’ve done, which elsewhere in Scripture are only attributable to being a Christian. So those who say you can’t lose your salvation really have trouble with this passage, I would say. Now, what about those who say you can lose your salvation? Well, most of us who believe that it is possible to apostatize and depart from Christ after you’re saved, we also believe that you could come back. But this seems to say they can’t come back. If they’ve done it, it’s impossible to renew them to repentance. for they crucified Christ again. Now, the question then is, is it impossible for them to repent, or is it impossible for them to be brought to repentance? In other words, that’s a passive. If I could bring you to repentance, of course you’re repenting, but I’m the one who’s bringing you in that sentence. The action of that verb is me. I’m bringing you to repentance. He says it’s impossible to bring them, to restore them to repentance. For who? Who’s doing the restoring? Who’s doing the attempt? Well, the readers are doing the attempt. And he’s saying that they’re babes. They only drink milk. They’re not skilled in the word of righteousness. That’s what he says about them in the closing verses of the previous chapter. These people are not skilled in their Christian life. And he said there are people who’ve had more experience than you in the life. And they’ve fallen away. And you’re not going to be able to do anything for them. Not in your condition. So he could be just saying that these people need to grow up and become useful so that they can be useful to helping these people who have fallen away. There were people who had fallen away. He mentions that elsewhere in Hebrews 10. He talks about many have forsaken the assembling of the church, to go back to Judaism, in other words. So there’s that. And then there’s also the statement, it says they are crucifying Christ afresh. The language in the Greek allows for the possibility that he’s saying, while they are crucifying Christ afresh, they can’t be restored to repentance. In other words, while they’re in the process of this apostasy, you’re not going to be able to do anything to bring them back because they’re dead set against it. They’re crucifying Christ afresh. Now, presumably, if they would stop doing that, maybe they could be brought to repentance. So there’s a lot of ways to go with this. It’s a very strangely worded passage. And there are those who are devoted to the idea that a Christian cannot lose their salvation. And there’s others who simply take passages at their face value and say, well, the Bible does warn many times about the danger of losing your salvation, apostasy. So we’ll just go with what the Bible says instead of just trying to, you know, cover it over with crazy explanations because we’ve adopted a doctrine that we don’t want to lose. Anyway, I would suggest for a more in-depth teaching on that, you can go to my website, thenarrowpath.com, look under verse-by-verse teachings, and look up Hebrews chapter 6, and you’ll find a more thorough discussion there, if one can be imagined. Bill in Townsend, Washington. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. I’m wondering if maybe you can shed some light on something that I find rather confusing. In Leviticus 20… It says that the penalty for adultery was death. And I think in Leviticus 24, it says if you take someone’s life, that is also a penalty of death. But then King David was guilty of both counts. He was a Jew. He was under the law. But why was he spared? And then also it says that a man will leave his mother, father, and cling to his wife, and they will be spared. He will be one flesh. Then he had seven wives and several concubines, and it never seems to be addressed. I’ve always been a little confused about that because it does seem to be a little bit contradictory to what we know about Scripture. And I’d like to hear what your view is on that.
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, what we know about Scripture is that doing those kinds of things are worthy of death. And David himself admitted that. In fact, when Nathan the prophet came to him to confront him about that very thing, how he had committed adultery and murder, he couched the confrontation in a fictional story where a man in the story represented David, but David didn’t know it. And the story was told of this atrocity that a man had done. And David was asked to make a judgment on it. And he said, the man shall die. So David admitted that, you know, the death penalty really should apply to him. But he didn’t always talk about himself. And Nathan said, you’re the man. But then David repented. And this is what we know about Scripture, too, is that when people repent, God can forgive. There’s a thing called grace. There’s a thing called law. There’s a thing called grace. Now, some people think that, you know, under the Old Testament, God had to act strictly according to the law. No, he didn’t have to. People had to. People were required to. God is not bound by his own law. It’s true that a magistrate or a judge would have had to condemn David to death. But God said, okay, because you’re repentant, I’m not going to do that. There will be penalties, and David did suffer penalties. His house was a disaster. His family was a disaster. His children killed each other off and things like that. And that’s what he said. The sword will never depart from your house because you’ve done this thing, but I’m not going to make you die. So God gave a special thing like he does for many people. I mean, many of us have sinned things that are, well, the way to sin is death. We’ve all sinned, so we’re all worthy of death. But the Bible teaches that God is gracious to those who repent. He can forgive, and that’s what we see there. As far as the many wives, the Bible doesn’t actually command that a person not have more than one wife. And there was polygamy practiced in Israel before David’s time and afterward. It’s just not God’s ideal. And Jesus made it very clear that God’s ideal is for there to be a man and a woman faithfully joined to each other for life. But that didn’t in itself clarify whether a man could be jointed more than one woman devoted for life. And that’s what polygamy was. And so David had multiple wives. Solomon had even a lot more than that. But most Jews didn’t, and most people didn’t want more than one. Why would you want more than one? You’ve got enough trouble just making one marriage work with your kids and all that stuff. Why would you have more responsibilities than that? But anyway, the Bible teaches in the New Testament that God’s purpose for marriage is to reflect a picture of Christ in the church. Now, that would… have to be monogamous since god only has christ only has one bride the church not many and therefore a man who’s intending to reflect christ in the church in his marriage is going to have to be monogamous and that is the christian goal and because christianity influenced cultures for so long after the time of christ uh polygamy just basically stopped being practiced in christian countries uh because of the desire to fit the biblical norm. You see, even in the Garden of Eden, God made it very clear that a man leaves his father and mother and leaves his wife and they become one flesh. He didn’t make it clear whether the man could do the same thing with multiple women or not, but Jesus indicates it’s a monogamous thing. And so, yeah, David didn’t violate a law about that. although he did fall short of perfection, and most people do in some way or another. But David was an object of grace.
SPEAKER 08 :
What about the concubines?
SPEAKER 05 :
Concubines were wives, too. They were just wives who had a status of slaves. Of course, everybody had slaves in those – not everyone had slaves, but all societies had slavery in those days. We sometimes think, oh, how could the Bible allow slavery? Frankly – It wasn’t until about 200 years ago that anyone came up with the idea that slavery shouldn’t be practiced. Slavery was a universal practice in all societies, and David and other people had slaves. And if they fell in love with a slave and wanted to marry her, they could do that. And she’d be a slave wife. a wife who was not a concubine was not a slave but was a wife. And if a man could have more than one wife, it would be not forbidden for some of them to be taken from among his slave women. Of course, having many wives is obnoxious to us, and Christians should not practice it. But, I mean, when we read about the Old Testament, there’s nothing more objectionable about having wives. actually elevating one of your slave girls to be that of a concubine, one of your wives, than marrying anybody else’s multiple wives.
SPEAKER 08 :
So under the New Testament, is it a sin to have more than one wife under the New Testament now?
SPEAKER 05 :
There’s not a statement in the New Testament that says thou shalt not have more than one wife, but there is a teaching in the New Testament of what God wants marriage to be. In other words, there’s not a negative, there’s not a forbidding of it, but there’s a standard. There’s an ideal, and Christians are supposed to seek the ideal. The ideal is for your marriage to resemble Christ and the church, not only that it’s monogamous, but also that the way you treat each other is the way that resembles Christ and the church. So, yes, the Bible does. The New Testament isn’t made up primarily of prohibitions, but a lot of things would be inconsistent with being a Christian if we’re looking at the positive ideals and goals that God has in mind, and that’s what Christians should be aiming at.
SPEAKER 08 :
I understand. Well, thank you very much, Steve. That does help. I appreciate it.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. Good talking to you, man. God bless. We don’t have much time, but Derek in Cheyenne, Wyoming, can you use a minute or two? That’s all we got.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay. Well, real quick, can I drop the name of the book to one of your other callers? Someone called about asking about tongues, and I had a good book for him.
SPEAKER 05 :
If you want.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, it was just living in the spirit. It was a Pentecostal guy who wrote it. I don’t remember his name. I think it was George Wood. But it was a quick read, and I thought maybe the other caller might get something out of that. But my question for you today is I have a friend who is struggling with pride, a very prideful guy. And he was born into a very Christian family, and because of that he feels that he doesn’t need to be born again. He doesn’t need to repent anymore. And to top it off, his mom is a Frederist who believes that Jesus is here now, I guess sitting on an island on the Pacific somewhere. I’m not sure. But where would you start with trying to talk to somebody who is struggling with those types of things?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, is he struggling with them or he’s just disagreeing?
SPEAKER 09 :
No, he’s struggling with them. He knows that he’s very prideful, and when we talk about it, he admits that he is, but then –
SPEAKER 05 :
he’s really failing to be able to see his own pride and he’s real quick to point he and his brother alright as the music starts I have only a minute before I’m done here so I can’t hear more of the story I’m sorry to say all I can say is if somebody knows he’s proud then he needs to also know that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble it says that in the Old Testament it says it twice in the New Testament so it’s a repeated concept God resists the proud. He gives grace to the humble. Humbling yourself in the sight of God is a pretty important thing to do unless you want to live with God resisting you. Life is hard enough when God’s not resisting you. And if you’re living your life with God resisting you because you’re proud, your life’s going to be a lot worse than it needs to be and displeasing to God, too. I’m sorry I’m out of time. I wish we could have gone longer on this one, but the clock is a tyrant. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
