This episode also addresses common questions listeners have about honoring parents, especially when the relationship dynamic is challenging. Furthermore, the show shares details regarding Steve’s upcoming speaking engagements across the United States, offering an opportunity for communities to participate and engage. Join us for a thought-provoking hour filled with biblical questions and enriching discussions, all aimed to enrich your knowledge and spiritual growth.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or about Christianity or you see things differently from the host and want to talk about those differences, we’ll be glad to talk to you. Right now we have quite a few lines open on our switchboard, a very good time for you to try to get through. If you want to be on the program today, here’s the number to call, 844- 844-484-5737. Once more, that’s 844-484-5737. And for a while, I’m going to be making this announcement. I made it last week, too. I’m doing a lot of traveling in the next several months, spending several days to a week to more than a week in each of these different states. We have listeners. The reason I go there is we have listeners there who set up meetings for me to speak. And you can do that if you want to because it doesn’t take anything special except a venue and some people interested in coming. But the first week of March, I’m going to be in Tennessee. And a lot of those days are already booked up. But we could probably fit something in if you contact us. We could see if you want to have a meeting there. somewhere in Tennessee, and I’m going to be in both a national area and in eastern Tennessee. So, you know, feel free to get in touch with us if you want to, to set something up. Likewise, in the last week of March, I’ll be in Arizona for, I think at this point it’s several days, could easily extend to a week. If you’re interested in setting something up, feel free to contact us. So in March, that’s next month, the first week of March in Tennessee, the last week of March in Arizona. When it comes to April, I’ll be in Northern California in the first week of April. And in the last week of April, I’ll be in Texas. Got a lot of things lined up there. So that’s March and April. Those are four different states in two months, about a week in each case. And, uh, And then when we get to May, we’ve got over a week scheduled in Seattle area. And as it gets later in the year, August and October, I’ll be in Michigan and Oregon, respectively. And while I’m in Michigan, I don’t mind doing things in Illinois and Indiana and places close by. And when I say close by, it doesn’t have to be very close. I just say a reasonable driving distance for me because I’ll drive from one place to another. Anyway, those are all areas we’re going to. I’m going to. I don’t know how many my wife will be able to accompany me in. But anyway, those are coming up in the next several months. And if you are living in any of those areas, you can look at our website, thenarrowpath.com. Look under announcements, and you can see all that information I just went through rather quickly. And if I’m going to be in your area, you might want to show up and visit us. I’d like to meet you. Or you might just want to set something up in one of those areas, too. All right. Let’s talk to Howard calling from Boise, Idaho. Hi, Howard.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome. Hi, Steve. How are you doing? First of all, you mentioned biblical scholars, and you yourself have studied all the material for decades. So I consider you as much a scholar as any teacher anywhere.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, you know, the word scholar really literally means a student. I mean, that’s literally the meaning of the word scholar, a student. And so, in a sense, all of us are scholars in that sense. Now, most people restrict the use of the word scholar probably to somebody who maybe is some kind of a professional trained scholar. I mean, you don’t have to restrict it to that. I mean, I’m a student, too, so I guess you could call me a scholar if you’d like to. But I don’t see any reason to refer to myself that way. But if I say I’m not a scholar, I usually mean I’m not a scholar in the sense that people usually think of that term where someone’s been trained and they’re a professional, that kind of thing. But I appreciate the fact that the word scholar has a broader range of meaning.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, and you know all the same material anyway. Now, I heard a teaching recently that there were two words for interpret. One meant translating to another language, and the other one was just kind of like explaining what’s going on. But I don’t see two different words in the New Testament. Have you heard anything like that?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I’ve not heard that about the Greek or anything like that. I’ve not heard that there’s two Greek words for interpret. I would say that in English there are two different ideas. Translate is one of them and interpret is the other. And those words do have the meanings that you suggested. To translate simply means you render something that’s written or spoken in one language and faithfully into another language, so that all of our Bibles in English are translations. They’re not, hopefully, interpretations. Now, interpretation is something more that a commentator would do. Somebody would look at the material and seek to understand what it is saying, which is not always upon the surface. Sometimes it requires special hermeneutic skills to be applied, but To interpret means that you’re drawing from it its meaning. In some cases, the meaning may not be obvious or unambiguous, so that you might have different interpretations of the same material. So interpreting is a very different thing than translating. And that’s reflected in the two English words. I don’t know, at least I’ve never heard that the Greek language has two different words for that. They might, or not.
SPEAKER 03 :
Because I think they were saying you don’t need an interpreter to translate the In worship, you just need somebody to explain what’s going on.
SPEAKER 01 :
Uh-huh. Well, you know, the main use of the word interpret that I’m familiar with in the New Testament is where it’s talking about the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation of tongues. And there are many people who believe that the interpretation of tongues simply means essentially to translate, you know, to translate into, to make a speak, an utterance in tongues, make it intelligible to people in another language, which is the work of translation. Though some have said that since it talks about interpreting tongues, it may not be strictly speaking the translation of the words into the vernacular so much as a rendering of the thought of what was implied in the text. So I don’t have a firm view about that because I don’t think one could prove one way or the other. But I do think that, you know, obviously in English we talk about a different process when we talk about translating than when we talk about interpreting.
SPEAKER 03 :
But it seems to be the same word in the Greek. I don’t know. You know, I don’t know how many words there may be in Greek for it. Yeah. Okay, according to Strong, they’re all the same root, they’re hermeneutic. Okay, thanks a lot, though. All right, Howard.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thanks for your call. Bye now. Okay, let’s see. Tina from Surrey, British Columbia. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi. I was just wondering, when babies die and when they’re in the new earth with Jesus, will they be… automatically grown into adults or will they still be young? And I’ll take my answer off the air. Thank you.
SPEAKER 01 :
All right. Well, I don’t think you’ll be very satisfied with my answer because the answer is I don’t know. I don’t think we have any information about that. I do believe that the Bible gives us enough information to know that humans who die in infancy will also be saved. I mean, because Jesus said, of such… When he’s talking about infants, he says, of such is the kingdom of God, as the kingdom of God is comprised of people like them, these infants. So, obviously, infants are just the type of person that God saves, wants saved. And, of course, that’s not because they’re not sinners, but it’s because even though humans sin from a very early age, in most cases they don’t have a comprehension of right and wrong that is sufficient to justify condemnation. Just like in a court of law, if an 11-year-old murders somebody, that’s a horrible thing to murder. It’s a great crime, but they’re not usually tried as an adult because they’re assumed not to be quite as responsible because they have a mature understanding of reality, I guess. But I think it is true that children who die young have not reached age of accountability and therefore will be saved. But in the resurrection, I think this is what you’re asking, if someone dies and is buried as a baby, when they’re resurrected, will they be an adult? And I don’t know the answer to that. It’s really hard to know because, I mean, I can’t think of any principle of Scripture that would lean a certain way on that. And there’s certainly no statement of Scripture to answer it. So I’m just going to say I don’t know. And that we will find out. I wish I could give a more definitive answer, but some things were just not told. Okay, Priscilla from Vancouver, British Columbia. Two Canadians in a row. Hi, Priscilla. Welcome. Welcome.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi there, Steve. I just want to take a moment to thank you and your work and the crew for your dedication and compassion. And thank you very much and thank all friends to be in. Okay, so how can we still honor our parents if it is and when very difficult in any circumstance with them? And why does God ask us to honor them and as well why is the term fruit used in the bible as reference because i studied the word homology and i felt a double-edged sword in my heart after the science of growing fruit and spiritually i felt a rush uh Yes, I will take this off the air.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, I understand your first question. I’m not sure I understand your second. You say, why is fruit used in the Bible?
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, why, yes. In what sense? Why is the term fruit used in the Bible? Just generally, you hear, what’s the fruit, fruit, fruit? And what do you feel, or what are your thoughts, and why the fruit, yes.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, okay, thank you for your call. Well, in answer to your question, fruit is something that God created to present an analogy to spiritual things. We see that God in Genesis on the fourth day made fruit-bearing plants whose seed is in themselves and so forth. And then he tells man to cultivate the fruit of the garden and also to be fruitful himself. There’s two kinds of fruitfulness here. that the Bible talks about. One is, of course, natural fruit from a tree or a plant. Generally speaking, a grapevine or a fig tree is usually referred to. But it can’t even be grain. A crop of grain is considered fruit also. Just the beneficial products of agriculture are fruit. And then, of course, the fruit of the womb is also spoken of. So being fruitful and multiply means to have kids. So God, in Genesis 1, made plants to be fruitful, and then he made humans and animals to be fruitful in another sense. And this is because God intended, I believe, everything God made, he made with the intention of it being instructive to us. And so we find in the Old Testament, the prophets using the illustration of agriculture to speak of spiritual things. For example, in Isaiah 5, God refers to Israel as a vineyard and a vine, and he’s looking for fruit from them. And he cultivated it, and he expected that it would ripen and produce good fruit. Now, he actually identifies the fruit he’s looking for from Israel is justice and righteousness in Isaiah 5, verse 7. So justice and righteousness are likened to fruit, and God intended for his people to produce such fruit. Now, in the New Testament, of course, we have the fruit of the Spirit. And those are character traits, not unlike justice and righteousness. The list is somewhat different. Love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, self-control, those kinds of things. But the point is that they are like fruit in that respect. They are something that pleases the farmer, and God is the farmer. And he… He expects it to be produced. It has to be cultivated. It has to mature. Jesus said in Mark chapter 4 that the kingdom of God is like a man who sowed seed in his field as he slept and as he woke. It grew without his further activity. He said he didn’t know how it grew, but the ground of itself made it grow. He says it grew and produced first the blade, then the head of grain on the stalk, and then the maturing seed. grain in the head. And he said when the grain was mature, he put in the sickle because the harvest had come. So the progressive growth of plants to be useful is something that’s a very common metaphor in Scripture. And I believe that there’s many things about fruit, about plants, and even about the fruit of the womb that God intended for us to see as spiritual parallels. So I think that’s why he talks about it a lot. It’s a very good parallel to certain things. Now, you asked about why are we supposed to honor our parents. And it seemed to me, although you didn’t explicate on this, it sounded like you were suggesting how some parents are not very honorable and makes it hard to honor your parents. Well, that may be true, but there is still the fact that everyone owes a debt to their parents. You might say my parents didn’t do a very good job raising me or my parents abandoned me. And I was raised by surrogates or by adoptive parents or whatever. Well, true. And I would say to the degree that your parents are honorable, I think to that degree you owe them the more honor. But the very fact that they brought you into the world means that God chose them to be the ones that would bring you into the world so you could know God and you could have a fruitful and a happy life. Now, your parents may not have contributed much to that, but they did contribute the genetics. And since you were not aborted, and if you’re listening to me right now, I can be pretty sure you weren’t aborted, it means that they allowed you to live when they could have gotten rid of you. Now, of course, many people have been born of mothers who were abandoned by men and were raised without fathers. Shame on those fathers. But the mothers, at least, endured the pregnancy. Sometimes they gave up the baby at birth. But still, that’s nine months of great inconvenience for the woman. so that you could live and not die. I’d say you owe your life to them. Now, to the degree, there’s many dysfunctional families. There’s many families that are not at all what God meant them to be. But in the vast majority of cases in history, I believe, children are born to a father and a mother, and in some measure, raised by them, and ideally raised to adulthood by them. Now, if that’s the case with you, then your parents, even if they were, let’s just say they had problems of their own. Maybe your dad was an alcoholic or something. Maybe your mother was a drug addict. Maybe they neglected their children and didn’t do very well. But if they raised you in their home and paid for your upkeep, then what they did was give up some of the more ideal years of their life, their youthful years, and a fair amount of their money. income to keep you alive. Now, parents should do much more than that. Parents should do more than just keep their children alive. They should nurture them. They should train them. They should do much for their children. And again, shame on parents that did not. But if your parents at all sacrifice years of their lives in any way and their income, then you have a debt to them. And of course, good parents have done a lot more than that. They’ve given up their whole independence to raise children in the earliest years of their lives when they had the most energy and the most opportunities they put those aside in order to sacrifice them for their children and so Paul speaks as if we have a debt to repay to our parents Paul is talking about widows in the church who might appeal to the church to help support them but he said well the church should support them if they don’t have sons or grandchildren if they have children or grandchildren he says let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents, for this is good and acceptable before God. That’s 1 Timothy 5.4. And what Paul is saying is that you owe your parents something. That’s what the word repay means. If your parents are old and they can’t support themselves, and you are now in your prime and you’re producing enough to do so, then by helping to support your aged and infirm parents, you are repaying them a debt that you owe them because they supported you when you were infirm and helpless as a youth, a child. So that’s one of the main reasons we honor them. There’s also something to be said for honoring people just because they’re older. And everybody is younger than their parents, and therefore their parents are their elders. And in a society that is not totally off the rails, younger people, respect the wisdom of older people. And if they don’t, they should. Because although there’s some old fools out there, and the Bible makes that very clear. I mean, David said, you know, I know more than the elders because I’ve meditated on your word. And apparently he means it’s the elders that he’s wiser than didn’t. So there’s some old fools out there, of course. But in general, anyone who’s lived to be 60 or 70 or 80 years old cannot have done so without learning some things, some things that younger people haven’t necessarily learned yet. So just respect for the aged, that the wisdom of the aged can be passed on to respectful and receptive younger generations through the generations is how society keeps from going totally off the rails. And then, of course, if those older people happen to have brought you into the world and if they happen to have made sacrifices in their early life to care for you, so that you could become independent, well, then that’s a great debt you owe them. And of course, the more that parents have neglected their duties, and there are more probably people doing that now than there were when I was growing up and in generations before that, but the more that parents neglect their duties, I would say, the less they have earned the honor of their children. But the very fact that you exist and came to full term and were not killed when they could have killed you and were supported to whatever degree that you were or arranged for, if they even put you up for adoption, that’s so that you wouldn’t die. Well, then you owe them something. Some honor is owed. And the more honorable they are, I think the more honor is owed. That’s how I would understand it. All right. I appreciate your call. We’re going to talk next. to Jacques from Colusa, California. Hello, Jacques. Hello? Going once? Going twice? Okay, Jacques does not appear to be there. Goodbye, Jacques. You can call back if you want. And if you do, I’ll try to get to your call. Okay, John from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve. Hi. I have a question. I’ve listened to you for quite a while. Are you familiar with the verse in 2 Thessalonians 3, 1 and 2 that talks about not all having faith?
SPEAKER 03 :
Uh-huh.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think that’s the right one, 2 Thessalonians. Yeah. Do you think that everyone naturally has the faith that the New Testament associates with salvation?
SPEAKER 01 :
No, faith that the Bible associates with salvation is faith in God. And while anybody can put their trust in God, not everyone does. And the people who do not, do not have the faith that is the saving faith. Now, and that’s what Paul means, which is not all have faith. He means not all have the faith we have, not all have faith in Jesus. But to suggest that any people don’t have any faith of any kind would be absurd, because any time you trust what someone tells you, that’s an act of faith on your part. And almost everything you know, very few things that you know, are known to you by personal experience. I mean, you no doubt have learned a lot of things by personal experience, but everything you’ve learned about history, for example, You didn’t learn that by experience. You learned it from someone telling you. And if you believe them, then you know it. If you don’t believe them, then you don’t. So everything you know that you did not experience yourself, you got it from someone else, and you believe them. That’s faith. Same thing about learning.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m talking about the faith associated with salvation, though. In Titus 1.1, he talks about the faith of God’s elect. Uh-huh. Meaning, I take it to mean that only the elect have faith. And I find it hard to believe that you… Become one of God’s elect once you believe.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, you may have a hard time understanding that, but they are elect because they have faith. And so true. The faith of the elect is distinctly the saving faith of putting your faith in Christ. Now, it’s not as if faith in Christ is some other kind of phenomenon. than faith in anyone else. The Bible says it’s not wise to put your faith in princes, or curses he who puts his trust in man. But we should trust the Lord. The Bible says, trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on or don’t trust in your own understanding. So everybody trusts something, but no one is as worthy of trust as God is. So we’re told to trust him, Even when we trust him, we will still trust other people in some measure, or else you’ll live in a padded cell. I mean, you will not drive a car if you don’t trust that other people on the road will stay in their lane and won’t come crashing into you deliberately. You’ll never eat out or eat any food that you didn’t prepare yourself unless you trust that the persons who prepared it did not slip poison in it and didn’t have a death wish. You’ll never ride on an airplane unless you trust that the pilot didn’t is not planning to commit suicide on that flight. You know, you’ll never do anything if you don’t trust men. But the truth is, men sometimes can’t be trusted, even though we trust them. That is, we trust in those sometimes who are not trustworthy, but we still trust them in some measure. God is fully trustworthy, and therefore we should trust him completely. But trusting him completely is just as much a choice as to trust the person we marry. You know?
SPEAKER 02 :
I kind of think that’s more a case of experience than trusting like the Bible is talking about for salvation.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I’m not sure that I agree with you about what the Bible means. The Bible tells us to trust in the Lord with all our heart, okay? So, I mean, I’m not sure that it means something different than trusting in someone else except that he’s somebody else to trust in. But listen, I’m going to keep you on. so we can get a little further into our conversation. We have to take a break here. So please hold on. I’m going to put you on hold and we’ll come back to your call. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are a listener-supported ministry. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you may. You can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. That’s The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730. Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can donate from the website. Everything at the website is free, but you can donate there if you wish. It’s thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away. We have another half hour.
SPEAKER 05 :
If you enjoy the Narrow Path radio program, you’d really like the resources at our website, thenarrowpath.com, where hundreds of biblical lectures and messages by our host, Steve Gregg, can be accessed without charge and listened to at your convenience. If you have not done so, visit the website, thenarrowpath.com, and discover all that is available for your learning pleasure.
SPEAKER 01 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. Our lines are full at the moment, but if you want to try a little later, the number to call here is 844-484-5737. Before the break, we were talking to John in Oklahoma City about faith and the John, I’m going to go ahead and let you succinctly make your point, and we can continue.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, basically, the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. When we’re born, we’re born dead in trespasses and sin. We don’t have that capacity, that capability to trust spiritual things such as Christ for our salvation, eternal life, I think the only real way an individual, because otherwise some people have this ability that other people don’t have, and they make this choice that other people fail to make. And I’m like, why do they believe while others don’t?
SPEAKER 01 :
I understand. I understand you’re a Calvinist, and these are talking points that I always hear from Calvinists. But here’s the thing. It’s the Calvinist who says that some people have something other people don’t have. They’re saying that some people are unconditionally elected to be saved, and because God elected them before they were born, he gives them the gift of faith. And if he doesn’t do that, then they can’t. And he doesn’t do that for everyone. So, obviously, some people can be saved and some cannot be saved. That’s the Calvinist doctrine. I’ve never accepted the Calvinist doctrine because I can’t find it in Scripture. Now, you did use some scriptures that they used. In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul said the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God because they’re spiritually discerned. Neither can he know them. But that’s in the context if you read 1 Corinthians 2. Paul said that he was among the Corinthians who he said are carnal and babes. That’s how he described them in the opening verses of chapter 3. They were spiritually carnal and they were babes. And he says, I couldn’t speak to you much except Christ and him crucified. I couldn’t give you any more information than that because you were too immature to get it. I could only give you milk. And the milk I gave you is Jesus Christ and him crucified and didn’t really get much further than that with you. But he said in verse 6, 1 Corinthians 2.6, but among those who are mature, we do speak other things. You’re not mature, you Corinthians, but when I’m with mature people, I speak the wisdom of God in a mystery. And he says, this is a mystery that’s revealed by the Holy Spirit. Then he says, the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. He doesn’t mean they can’t receive the gospel. He means they can’t receive these spiritual things, which Paul himself did not preach, even to the Corinthian Christians. he’s basically saying they couldn’t receive it. In fact, he actually says it to them. In chapter 3, you were not able to endure it, neither now are you able to. So here they are actually Christians. But he says you’re not able to receive these spiritual things. People who think only in natural ways, you know, the mysteries of God are foolishness to them. But there are people who do receive them. Now, he’s not talking about receiving the gospel or not, because he did preach the gospel to them, and they did receive it. What he’s saying they couldn’t receive were the things that spiritual infants cannot receive, not things that he preached to them, they were able to receive it well enough. But he said he had things he would have said to them, but they couldn’t receive. Jesus said the same thing even to the apostles in the upper room in John 16, verse, I think, 12 and 13, if I’m not mistaken. Jesus said, I have many things to say to you, but you cannot receive them yet. when the Holy Spirit comes, he’ll lead you into all truth. Jesus said also that Elijah was actually John the Baptist, but he said if you can receive it, John is Elijah who is to come. Why would it be hard to receive? Because it’s hard to receive spiritual things if you’re thinking like a natural man. So Paul is certainly not saying that natural men cannot receive the gospel because people do it all the time. Every day, thousands of people around the world receive the gospel. And the moment they do, I should say the moment before they do, they’re strictly natural men. Now, a Catholic might say, well, they are natural men and they do receive it because God implants it in them. Well, that’s a different thing. They are receiving it. So he’s not saying that natural men can’t receive the gospel. You could say, well, they do it because God implanted the faith. Well, you could say that, but the Bible doesn’t make it that necessary to say that. The point is, all people are responsible to believe in Christ, and if they don’t, there is culpability for not doing so. Now, you can’t be culpable for not doing something that was simply not at all possible for you to do. No one can hold you responsible for things that you simply are physically or spiritually incapable of doing through no fault of your own. Because according to Calvinism, everyone’s just born incapable of that. Now, you said we’re dead in trespasses and sins before we’re born again. Well, yeah, but that’s a metaphor. We’re not literally dead, just like the prodigal son was not literally dead. though his father said he was dead. He said, my son was dead, but now he’s alive. So the prodigal son, when he came home, had come out of a state of death, just like we came out of a state of death. But in that state of death, he still came to his senses and said, I’m going to go back to my father. I’m going to repent, and I’m going to try to be his servant. And, of course, he was restored to sonship. But the interesting thing is, it was while he was in the condition that’s called death, that he chose not to be dead anymore. And it doesn’t ever say the Father sent a messenger to impart this message to him or to impart this repentance to him. He just came to his senses, Jesus said. Now, Jesus is describing conversion here. So, I think that the verses that are sometimes used to say that people cannot put their faith in God… are simply not relevant to that subject. It’s Calvinist talking points. But, I mean, everyone’s entitled to be a Calvinist if they see that is what the Scripture teaches. I simply don’t. By the way, I have some lectures on Calvinism called God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation at our website. And I do go into those verses you raised and every other verse Calvinists ever have raised because I’ve debated many Calvinists publicly. I’ve read their books. I know all the arguments they use, and I address all the arguments they use in these lectures, and I exegete the passages that they neglect to exegete. They cite them, but they don’t exegete them. It’s always better to exegete the passages so we can know what they mean. But anyway, yeah, I understand what you’re saying. I understand it’s commonplace for Calvinists to say that, but the Bible does not say that a person can change his faith that he cannot change his faith from trusting in money to trusting in God, or trusting in his own wits to trusting in God, or trusting in his own powers or other people to trusting in God. The Bible simply indicates these are different options. You can trust in God, or you can trust in something else, and you will decide what you will trust in. That’s how the Bible reads, and that’s why… becomes the responsibility of the individual to believe or not. If I simply was not one of the elect, and therefore as one of the non-elect, it was impossible for me to believe in God. And then I stand before God, and he says, why didn’t you believe in me? Go to hell. Well, wait a minute. I dare say, I didn’t have a chance. Why should I be put in hell when I’ve never been given the option of believing in God? According to Calvin, If you aren’t one of the elect, you don’t have the option of believing. You’re just born to die and to be damned. And it has nothing to do with anything you’re going to do. Yet the Bible says people are judged not because of being born sinners. The Bible says we’re going to be judged by what we have done. And apparently, if you can be judged for what you’ve done, we’re talking about things that you were capable of doing. And you either did what you were responsible to do or you didn’t. So… Yeah, the whole theology to my mind is very flawed, and that’s why no Christians ever believed it before Augustine. You see, the Calvinistic doctrines were invented by Augustine, and that was in the 4th century AD. Some of the doctrines that Augustine taught about this were known to the earlier church fathers, and they rejected them and called them heresy. But Augustine eventually kind of gave respectability to those doctrines. But Before that, they were recognized by all the church fathers as belonging to a heresy called Manichaeanism. And these very things were refuted by the church fathers. But then Augustine, a Manichaean, as it turns out, got converted to Christianity and became the most influential theologian in history. And he invented those doctrines. And that’s where the Catholic Church got some of them. And that’s certainly where Calvin got them. Calvin and Luther were both Augustinian monks. Luther was a monk in Augustine. Calvin, I think, was a lawyer, but they were Augustinians. So, yeah, I appreciate the position. I mean, I appreciate where you’re coming from, but I don’t think it’s a good way of interpreting Scripture. I would definitely suggest going to thenarrowpath.com, look under the tab that says Topical Lectures, and my series called God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation is a thorough treatment of all the Calvinist points. Thank you for calling, brother. Good talking to you. Let’s see. David from Ontario, Canada. Three from Canada already today. Hello, David.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hello, how are you?
SPEAKER 01 :
Good, thanks.
SPEAKER 06 :
Good, yeah. So I have a question. Well, I would have lots, but I’ll do the most important one. The question is, are children born in sin? Like, are children actually born in sin?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, that gets back to Augustine again, because Augustine taught a doctrine called original sin, which was never taught, at least not plainly taught anywhere, by any Christians before his time. And again, we’re talking around the year 400 A.D., so a long time after the apostles died, this doctrine was introduced. Now, it was based on, Augustine based it on two scriptures, one in the Old Testament, one in the New Testament. The one in the Old Testament he used was Psalm 51.5, where David said, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother bore me, or something. Yeah, Psalm 51.5. And then the other scripture he had was Romans 5.12, which Augustine misunderstood because he didn’t read Greek. He only read Latin. and the Latin Vulgate read that verse differently than the Greek. Now, it was written in Greek by Paul, so the Latin Vulgate seems to be the one that had a defect. But it talks about Adam and Christ in Romans 5.12, and it indicates that death entered the world through Adam, and then from him it spread to all men. And it says, because all sinned. Now, that’s what it says in Greek. Because all sinned, death spread to all men. So it sounds like it’s saying not because Adam sinned, but because all sinned, they are all subject to death. And that makes sense. But in the Latin, it reads that through one man, Adam, sin came to the world. And it says, in whom all sinned. Now, Augustine took that to mean in Adam all sinned. So the Greek doesn’t say that. The Latin rendered it that way. And Augustine thought that meant in Adam we all sin. So I guess we already sinned before we were ever born because Adam sinned and we were all in him. So his sin was ours and therefore all babies are born in sin. And that’s the Augustinian view. Do I believe that? Well, I will say this. While it is maybe possibly true, and I’m not trying to be, you know, obstinate against it, I will say those two verses don’t do a very good job of establishing it. I don’t think either of those verses teach that doctrine, which might be the reason why no Christian ever saw that doctrine there in the first 400 years of church history. Maybe they didn’t see it because it wasn’t there. And when you see it, and if you think hard about those verses in their context, you begin to think, well, maybe it’s not there. Maybe Augustine wasn’t seeing it correctly. And so I will say this. The Augustinian doctrine has two parts. The original sin doctrine has two parts. One is that babies are born with an infection that makes them inclined to sin. That is, they have a sinful nature. which means just like it’s the nature of beavers to build dams and of spiders to make webs and of birds to build nests, it’s the nature of humans to sin. They just do it by nature. That’s their inclination by nature. That’s one part of the doctrine. The other part is, in addition to having this natural tendency to sin, we are already born with the guilt of sins we didn’t commit. Now, soon enough, we will commit them because we have this sinful nature and we’ll be committing sins of our own. But even before we commit it, while we’re still in the womb, we are guilty of Adam’s sin. Somehow Adam’s sin and its guilt attach to us. Now, here’s the problem with that. If Adam’s guilt attaches to us from the time we’re conceived… and the only way to be free of it is to believe in Christ, then anyone who dies before they’re old enough, like maybe a baby in the womb that’s aborted or miscarried, or maybe a baby who dies in infancy or a little kid when they die, if they’re too young to really understand faith in Christ, well, it’s considered they’re not too young to go to hell because they had the guilt of Adam on them, though they didn’t have any of the virtue of Christ on them yet. I don’t think the Bible teaches that. I don’t think that the guilt of one man is imparted to others or imputed to others. It may be that we’re born with a sinful nature, but I’m not even sure we have to understand it that way, but I don’t have any problem with it. It’s obvious that all humans sin from a very early age. The real question is, when a baby or a little child commits acts that we recognize as sin, but the baby itself doesn’t recognize them as sin, does God hold the baby responsible for that? I believe the Bible suggests no, he doesn’t. He doesn’t hold them responsible for that. Do they have a sinful tendency from birth? It depends on how we understand a sinful tendency. I believe that what we have from birth is definitely a selfish tendency, and that leads us to commit sins. See, Augustine talked about sin as if it was sort of like a genetic trait that’s passed along from Adam to all people. The Bible talks about sin as something people do. You commit a sin when you disobey God. Sin is not a genetic thing, at least if it is, the Bible gives no indicator of it. And it doesn’t sound like the Bible uses the term sin that way. Sin becomes a force in us as a result of our sinning because when we commit sin, we become the slaves of sin. So, I mean, and I believe we sin from an early age. I think as infants and little children, God doesn’t hold us accountable for it. But that doesn’t mean there’s not consequences. For example, if you tell a toddler not to stick a knife in the electric socket, and he does it anyway, you probably won’t hold it against him that he was too little to know better, but he’s still dead. In other words, the things that are done, sinful things that are done, one can be forgiven of them, but it doesn’t mean that there’s no effect of them. And I think that babies and children do selfish things and sin all the time, and by the time they’re old enough to even know better, they’re already in bondage to those behaviors. So I don’t think there’s any human being who is old enough to be accountable to God who says, isn’t embodied to sin. I think that’s a universal situation, and that’s why we need salvation from our sins. So that’s kind of how I understand that situation. I have a couple of lectures on total depravity, which is a Calvinist idea, on original sin and total depravity, I think it’s called. It’s under the topic of lectures at our website, thenarrowpass.com. And I go into this in more detail there. All right, let’s talk to David in Portland, Oregon. Hi, David.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hi. I was reading, when I think about the Exodus, I’m thinking there’s got to be some water gushers that had to have sprung up because there’s so many people and they need water. What do you think?
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, the Bible does say they encountered water in the desert, yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, well, I mean, I don’t remember, you know, those times when it said that there was gushers or anything like that.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, I don’t know that there were gushers except, I don’t know if there were gushers except when the water came out of the rock. I guess it gushed out of the rock. But, I mean, there could have been springs. Yeah, there were like, I think there were 12 springs of water at Elam. It says in Exodus when they came to Elam, I think it says there were 12 springs of water. They also came to Marah. In chapter 15 of Exodus, they came to Marah, which had bitter waters, but God supernaturally changed the waters to make them potable waters. So, you know, we read of them encountering water here and there. Now, out in the desert, water isn’t everywhere, but the desert does have oases. And an oasis, usually there’s a, you know, some kind of a spring or pools or something like that. And that’s why animals can live in the desert. animals are very drought resistant sometimes camels and so forth and certain reptiles can be very drought resistant but on the other hand they have to drink water sometimes and so there’s obviously water supplies in deserts though much less so than in other kinds of places in deserts and then of course there were a couple times they didn’t have any water from any natural source, and God brought water out of a rock supernaturally through Moses striking it. So, yeah, they had that water, you’re right, and they did from time to time. But there were times when they had to go from point A to point B, and there apparently wasn’t any water between those two points, which would be very trying if you’re thirsty in the desert and you can only store a limited amount of water. Water is heavy to carry, by the way, when you’re traveling. Yes. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
Also, Moses went through two 40-day and 40-night fasts. And was there a little time in between? Because it’s hard to imagine someone fasting almost 80 days.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, the Bible doesn’t mention Moses eating between those fasts. He fasted for… 40 days and nights when he received the law. Then he came down the mountain because of the golden calf, broke the tablets, rebuked the Israelites, and then he went back up the mountain and fasted 40 days and 40 nights again as the tablets were being replaced. Now, we’re not told that he did or did not eat when he came down. However, if you fast 40 days, you can’t just eat a full meal when you break that fast. When you fast extended periods of time, It’s not safe to eat a lot when you break your fast. In fact, they say you need to take almost the same length of time getting back to normal eating patterns after you break the fast so that when you fasted 40 days, you’re going to die if you eat anything more than thin soup or liquids. And even that has to be pretty watered down at first because your body has to get back in the habit of processing foods. And you can’t eat solid food probably for a week or two after you’ve ended the fast that long. There are people who do fast that long. Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights. Others have done so. Elijah seemed to have done so. And I’ve actually known people who did. So it’s not impossible. But 80 days, yeah, that would be pretty remarkable. I think that Moses couldn’t have come down after the first 40 days and eaten a big meal. and gone back up, it wouldn’t be possible for him to eat a big meal and survive it after 40 days fasting. And more than that, when Jesus fasted 40 days, he only fasted from food, but not water. It says he ate nothing for 40 days, and afterwards he was hungry. It doesn’t say he drank nothing and was thirsty. He was only hungry. Moses, it specifically says he had neither food nor water. So, in other words, he was sustained supernaturally. No man can go 40 days without water naturally. They die. Usually you die within about three or four days without water. So, you know, it’s just not possible. So Moses, whether it was fasting for 40 days or even if he fasted for a year, in his case, God sustained him supernaturally. And God can do that, obviously. And I think we have to assume that that’s how it happened with Moses, since he didn’t drink anything during that time either. Okay. All right. Thank you for your call. Barbara in Roseville, Michigan. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you. I have a question, but I did want to comment on Carla, who asked why we make the Bible always talk about truth.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, let me just say this. Before you go on, we only have a couple of minutes. The more you comment, the less time we’ll have for your question. We’re going to be off the air here in just a couple minutes.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, I just want to say fruit is something that everyone understands. When I’m at church, when the pastor talks about football or different things, I don’t know what he’s talking about. When you talk about fruit, everybody can understand from a child to an adult. My question is, I was at a church and they said that Jesus on the cross, that they gave him to eat or drink, whatever that was, that it had like fecal or urine or bowels or something in that. Is there any truth to that? No.
SPEAKER 01 :
Well, it was not urine, and it was not fecal material. It was gall. Gall is a product of the gall bladder, and it’s pretty bitter. It’s pretty bitter tasting. Now, I’m not sure how it is that they chose gall, but I have heard that the mixture they gave him was something that was often given to sufferers on crosses. Since it was such a painful way to die, the mixture was intended to help alleviate suffering pain a little bit. So I don’t know the chemistry of it, but gall might have the ability to be sort of an anesthesia of sorts. One of the Gospels tells us it was vinegar or bitter wine. So whatever it was, it must have maybe had some bad wine mixed with gall. It would be terrible tasting stuff. But from what I understand, at least in the common perception of people in those days, these things would help alleviate pain. And so it was actually a merciful thing. Some of the women especially would go out when people were being crucified and have a sponge on a stick and dip it in this stuff. And you remember when Jesus was crucified, they offered it to him immediately, and he rejected it. He wouldn’t take it. And then he hung on the cross for six hours. And when he was ready to give up the ghost, ready to die, they offered it to him again. He said, I thirst. And they offered it to him again. He took it. But as soon as he took it, he just gave up the ghost and died. So he apparently did not wish to take it earlier on. I don’t know if that’s because he wanted to say, I’m going to feel the full brunt of this pain. I don’t need any anesthesia. Or if it’s because he had told his disciples a few hours earlier that he wouldn’t, eat a drink of the fruit of the vine again until he drank it with them in the kingdom. And technically that wine was bad, that vinegar was bad wine, so it was the fruit of the vine. So perhaps, I don’t really know his reasons, we’re not told what they were, but some would see it probably that he was rejecting the relief that could have come through I mean, we know that alcohol in sufficient quantities can deaden pain. And I don’t know if I think the gall was intended to have that purpose, too. Now, again, I don’t know whether gall does help that way. And it might not. It might have been, you know, just a superstition. The Bible doesn’t say what the value of it was and does not confirm that it was an intelligent thing for people to do to give people that. But it’s just what they did. And it reports that they did that. So I’m going to kind of go with the idea maybe that it was intended to alleviate some of the pain, and he didn’t want to do that initially. But I could be wrong. All right. I appreciate your call. We’re going to have to end the program now. So the time goes by so quickly for me. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, we are listener supported. That’s why we have no commercial breaks, no sponsors. But we do pay a lot of money to radio stations. If you’d like to help us, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or just do it from the website, thenarrowpath.com.
