Dive into our engaging discussion featuring calls about Christian doctrines such as Calvinism and its controversies, the concept of divine creation, and the perennial debate on perseverance. The show also directs a critical lens towards the doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists, particularly concerning the beliefs about hell, soul sleep, and adherence to Mosaic Law. With such an array of subjects, Steve encourages listeners to question and explore their own faith perspectives.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
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 so we can take your calls in real time and talk to you about the questions you may wish to call in about, questions you have about the Bible, Christianity, your Christian life, that kind of thing, Christian apologetics, Christian history, Christian ethics, whatever. Feel free to give me a call. If you are not a Christian or you are a Christian who sees things differently than the host, feel free to call in to disagree. I’d be glad to talk to you. The number is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And we’ll go directly to the phones and talk to Hank from Youngsville, North Carolina. Hi, Hank. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 10 :
Good afternoon, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. I would like to ask you a question about Genesis and the creation account. If a skeptic should ask about the Genesis account and say that is there any way to reconcile the Genesis account with scientific findings stay in the fossil record, etc. How can the creation account and scientific findings be reconciled in any fashion as an apologetic to a skeptic?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. Well, now to a Christian, there’s not a problem reconciling it with what we see in science because we have a supernaturalistic worldview. So we can look at the data of science and We can look at all the experiments that evolutionists and atheists look at. And we don’t have to be, we’re not forced to take a naturalistic approach to things. In other words, we don’t have to assume that everything took its present form through natural processes that took place over millions of years. It may have, but we’re not forced to that conclusion. We can recognize supernatural things. intervention from God, because that’s part of the Christian worldview, that there is a God. And supernaturalism is simply an open-minded position compared to the naturalist view, which says, without any evidence whatsoever, that there’s nothing supernatural that’s ever existed or ever will. Nature is all there is. Now, this is a worldview that atheists take and that many seculars who maybe wouldn’t commit to atheism would take. They just say, well, there’s just, you know, there’s just in the universe, there’s just natural forces at work. And that being so, of course, all the evidence has to be interpreted through that grid. And there are things which could never have come out as they are now in a very short time simply by what we know about natural forces. So, yeah, for the Christian, we don’t have a problem. But what about for the non-Christian, the person who doesn’t have a supernaturalist worldview? Well, I will say this. If a person is a young earth creationist, there’s a long list of things they can discuss from the scientific position that can be said to point toward a young earth creation. However, when you’re dealing with a non-Christian… they’re just going to see all the points you make about that as special pleading, that you’re believing some superstitious old-fashioned view that modern scientists wouldn’t believe anymore, and therefore you’re just coming up with clever points that probably are not really true. I mean, let’s say that the average person with a secular education believes that the evidence is all in favor of, you know, very different scenarios. than what Genesis 1 describes. And you know that the earth happened very differently and evolved very slowly, and this all happened over billions of years. Now, this is what they’ve been told from school onward. Now, if you bring up evidence for a younger earth, if that’s what you believe, or evidence that the Genesis account is true, you may be right, but they will suspect that you’re just being you know, evasive and, like I said, special pleading for an unsupportable position, because they will trust their teachers. They will trust, you know, the majority of naturalistic scientists who’ve said, no, it happened this other way. So the way I would approach it, if I’m talking to an atheist, would be to not get hung up on whether Genesis 1 is literal or not, but the question of whether it is correct in telling us that everything was made by God, by an intelligent and omnipotent person who has an interest in it. Now, see, this is far enough away from the secular worldview that it may be a really hard thing for them to swallow. But they can’t. They have no evidence against it. That’s the point. If you give them evidence for young earth, well, there certainly is evidence. And once you’re a believer… even if you became a believer not believing in a young earth, you would at least be able to have an open mind to look at the evidence as if, you know, maybe Genesis is literal. But to take Genesis 1 literally is not the only position that Christians can take. There’s at least three or four different positions that Christians have taken about Genesis 1. In fact, and this is not just since the, you know, theory of evolution came along. This goes back to Augustine in the 4th century. He didn’t take Genesis 1 literally. He thought it was a mistake to take it literally. Why? Well, because a lot of things in the Bible are not written in literal form. The Psalms, for example, and the prophets use a lot of poetry. Jesus spoke in parables. There’s lots of different figures of speech and non-literal stories that are illustrative and so forth in the Bible. Anyone who doesn’t want to believe that simply is not much of a Bible student. Now, the question is, is Genesis 1 such a place? I don’t necessarily think it is. I have no problem believing a literal young earth creation account, though I don’t claim to be absolutely certain about it because I wasn’t there. And I do know that Genesis 1 may be, I don’t necessarily think it is, but it may be written as a creation poem. I don’t particularly favor that view, but for me to say I know that that is not the case would be to go beyond anyone’s pay grade, because none of us know exactly whether Genesis 1 is absolutely literal or not. Now, people may just say, well, I take the Bible literally. Well, but you don’t. You don’t. I mean, when Jesus… said he was the bread of life, or, well, I guess Catholics take that literally, but when he said he’s the true vine, or when he said he’s the door, the sheepfold, or that he’s the shepherd. You know, Jesus never tended actual sheep anywhere. When the book of Revelation talks about an animal with seven heads and ten horns ruling over the world, no one believes the world will be ruled over by an animal. They understand all this is symbolic. And, you know, it’s absurd not to because the scriptures were not always written. in a genre that is literal. So my position would be there are Christians who do not take Genesis 1 literally, but they do see it as affirming something that is absolutely essential to the Christian faith, and that is that everything was made by God, and that since we are his creation, we are answerable to him, and he made everything purposefully and made man specially. I mean, these things are clear in Genesis 1, but they’d be clear to a Christian whether they took Genesis 1 literally or figuratively. Now, I’m not saying that there are no consequences of taking Genesis 1 one way or the other. I’m just saying that, to my mind, that doesn’t look like a hill to die on with an unbeliever. If you’re going to just say, listen, if you’re going to be a Christian… you better start by being a young earth creationist, six-day creationist. I’d say, well, I really don’t know that that’s a fundamental point of Christianity, especially since Christian scholars since the time of Augustine didn’t think that was a necessary thing. Not that I think Augustine is inspired or always right, but he was, I’m just saying, to take Genesis 1 in a non-literal sense is not a modern innovation. It’s something that many Christians throughout history have done. Now, if we were to say, well, they were wrong to do that, well, we can take that position, but we would not be right in saying they’re not Christians. And therefore, if Christians throughout history have been able to believe in Christ and follow Christ and be Christians without taking a literal view of Genesis 1, then it must be a second-tier concern. Creation is not. Intelligent design is not a second tier consideration. It’s a first tier. I mean, that there is a God, that we’re created by God, that we didn’t just arrive here by chance and randomly, that human beings are not just a higher evolution stage of anthropoid apes. Those are, to my mind, those things are not second tier because we can, but we can believe all that kind of, you know, affirm all the important things, that man is specially created by God, as everything is created by God. Obviously, some people have used this as an argument, as a criticism of C.S. Lewis, because C.S. Lewis clearly believed something other than the literal Genesis account of creation, but he believed that God was the creator, and he believed that man was special, unlike the animals and so forth. So, I mean, some people have made this their hill to die on in Christian apologetics. That, you know, if you can’t get someone to believe in, you know, six-day young earth creation, well, there’s no hope for them being a Christian. That simply is not the nature of the case. The case is that a person is a Christian if they follow Jesus as King and Lord and are obedient and trusting of him and, you know, and they live a life pleasing to him. What they think about many, many other things, including creation, you know, the means of creation that God used, is secondary, and I don’t think it’s entirely unimportant. I just don’t think it’s first tier. If you would say to an unbeliever, you know, the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not universally accepted by all people who are Christians, which means that, you know, to be a Christian does not in itself require a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1. Therefore, I’m not going to make that the thing we’re going to debate about here. I think we can say becoming a Christian does require that you believe there’s a God and that he’s the creator and that he made you and that he has you in mind and a purpose for you and will call you to account for the things that you do in this life that much. You do have to believe that to be a Christian. But to believe that God made it all 6,000 years ago in a period of six days… when the implications on our lives would be the same if God made everything over a period of 4.5 billion years and used a process of change with modification. He could use that if he wanted to. I don’t personally believe that he did. But if I did believe that he did, it wouldn’t change anything about the way I follow Jesus. He’d still be the creator.
SPEAKER 10 :
Right. Steve, thank you so much. That’s very helpful. Thank you. I do appreciate that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Good talking to you. God bless you. God bless you. Okay. David in Victorville, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path, David.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hey, Steve. Good talking to you. Yeah. 2 Peter 2.21. Have you ever heard a rational… or logical explanation from Calvinists, Calvinism, of how it could be any worse for someone, Peter would write it, but it would be worse for someone to have heard the gospel and turned away if they were eternally destined for suffering and suffering. the lake of fire anyways, how can it be any worse for someone who has heard the gospel?
SPEAKER 04 :
I hear you, and I think you make a good point. Let me just read the verse for people who are not familiar with it. Peter said, well, let me start earlier in verse 20. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them, that is the pollutions of the world, and overcome, The latter end is worse for them than the beginning, for it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. Now, this sounds like it’s saying some people may know the truth and may be delivered from the pollutions of the world through it and they may turn back. Now, I think your question goes further into this. I’ll take that entirely, I think. But this alone suggests that the Calvinist doctrine is not correct of, you know, perseverance of saints because they believe that if you are really saved, then you will never fall away. You will persevere. That’s that God, if you’re one of the elect, see, you won’t be really saved unless you’re one of the elect. And if you’re one of the elect, then you will persevere to the end. And here’s a description of somebody who appears to be saved. They know the truth. They have, through the knowledge of the truth, escaped the pollutions of the world. In other words, they’ve been delivered from sin. That sounds like the work of the cross. That sounds like the work of Christ in their life. And yet they turn back and they become entangled in the world again. And it’s now worse for them than before they were a believer, which means, of course, they’re not saved now because they weren’t a believer. I mean, they weren’t saved when they weren’t a believer, so they’re not saved now if it’s worse for them now. So it sounds very much like you know, a case against perseverance. Now, I think your point goes a little deeper because a Calvinist would say, well, they never were elect. They never were elect. The fact that they fell away and became a worse state, that proves that they weren’t elect in the first place and that, therefore, their seeming knowledge of the truth, their seeming salvation, their seeming pollution, escaping the pollution of the world, which, by the way, Peter doesn’t say they seemed to. It says they did. They did know, and they did escape. But let’s just be a Calvinist for a second here. Say, well, all that was just seeming. It seemed like they really had been saved, but they really weren’t, and they proved it by not persevering. That would be the Calvinist doctrine. But you’re, I think, saying this. Well, okay, if you’re saying they never were elect, how is it that they’re worse off after they fall away than before they become a believer? Yeah. Obviously, if you don’t think they’re elect, then they were going to hell before they became a believer. And now that they’ve fallen away, they’re still going to hell. Nothing has changed. So how are they worse off now? Now, from the standpoint of someone like myself who believes that it is possible to go from genuine faith and salvation to a point of apostasy, the argument here would be once you’ve known the truth, and you go back to error and lies and sin and the world, you’re not the same as you were before because you have now sinned against light. Before you were a Christian, you didn’t have much light, and when you began to know the truth and being escaped, then you responded positively to light. which shows that you were open to the truth. But when you’ve known the truth and say, I don’t want that anymore, I don’t think that’s true anymore, or else I just don’t want the truth, well, then you’re sinning against what you know to be real, or what you have known to be real, and you’re hardening your heart. Your heart is harder now than it was before. And the Bible speaks about this in various ways, different places. But, yeah, the fact that a person who has been a believer… has fallen away, it means that their heart is harder than it was before. The very falling away was a result of hardening their heart against what they knew was true. So they’re not at the same innocent… pliable, good ground for the seed to fall on anymore. They’re now hardened hearts. And that’s worse off. Now, why is it worse off? Because it’s a lot harder for them to come back to faith when they’ve hardened their heart. But, again, that’s an Arminian talking. If a Calvinist is looking at it, well, why would God, if they were already sinning before they got converted… and already going to hell, and already not elect, which means God didn’t want them saved in the first place, because if he had, he would have elected them. He could elect anyone he wants to. If he didn’t elect you, he didn’t want to. So, this person whom God did not wish to have, nonetheless, somehow broke through the barrier and came to knowledge of the truth and escaped the pollutions of the world through it, but just couldn’t persevere because he wasn’t elected and he fell back away. Well, Why would God put him through that process if the guy was already on his road to hell? And why would God make him more worthy of more hell when already the guy was going to hell? I mean, does God not want these people to – well, does God want people to suffer maximally? I mean, some people think he does. But I don’t know why anyone who’s not a very evil or hateful person would want anyone to suffer maximally, even their worst enemy. Jesus indicated we should love our enemies, and therefore we would never wish for our enemies to be suffering maximally. And yet, some people think God is that way. And, you know, here’s a person who’s already going to hell, but God, in this case, in a Calvinist view, I think, would say, well, here, God teased him. God allowed him to come to faith a little bit, just so he’d fall away, since he couldn’t possibly persevere as a non-elect person, and just so he’ll get more punishment, just so he’ll be subject to worse things than he was already doomed to when he was born. This is a very bizarre scenario, and to my mind, it doesn’t reflect God’s character correctly. I don’t think it’s, it certainly is, to my mind, a counterintuitive way of reading that verse. So you’re asking how a Calvinist – I think you asked how a Calvinist would take that. I’m not sure – I mean, I know how they would take it. I’m not sure why they would. But did you have thoughts about that?
SPEAKER 09 :
No, that was great. I just think that I agree with you that these warning verses in the Bible are very important to believers, and they’re very minimized when you’re just either elected – to not need the warnings, or you’re elected to not need the warnings, because either way, you don’t need the warnings. Yeah, I know.
SPEAKER 04 :
I hear you. Thank you. All right. God bless you. Yeah. When you ask Calvinists, you know, why are there so many warnings against falling away if, in fact, a truly elected person can’t fall away? And some Calvinists say, well, it’s because the church that is written to, where these warnings are given, is a combination of believers and unbelievers. So So the warnings don’t apply to the believers because they can’t follow it, but it’s a warning to the unbelievers. But wait a minute. If the unbelievers are, in fact, non-elect, what’s the point of warning them? And why would you not want them to fall away? The sooner they do, the sooner their real character is known. I mean, why would you want unbelievers who are not really elect to be in the church and to not fall away when, in fact, falling away is their ultimate destiny anyway? Why do you want them in the church all of a sudden? It makes no sense to me. And also, Calvinists have sometimes said, well, these warning passages are the means by which God motivates the elect to persevere. Because he warns them about the dangers of not persevering, so those who are really elect will take heed and will persevere. This, too, makes no sense. Because as soon as the elect believe in Calvinism, these warnings will be of no value. As long as these warnings… you know, are there, but the Calvinist now knows they don’t have any impact on the true Christian, then they will have no impact on the true Christian. Why would you fear them if you really believe that you can’t follow them? There’s just too many philosophical and theological and certainly many scriptural questions problems with the Calvinism. It’s just, to my mind, there’s not much that commends it, certainly not Scripture. All right, let’s talk to, let’s see who’s next in line here. It’s going to be Michael from Englewood, California. Michael, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, Steve, I had a question, but real quick. Your calls are on Matthew713.com later on, right?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, every day. It’s updated every day, yeah.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay, so my question has to do with the Tanakh and the Septuagint, Isaiah 14 and 12. I’m wondering why does the Wycliffe and the Vulgate specifically use the word Lucifer?
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, the Vulgate uses it because the Hebrew word Imunah, that is, no, that’s a different word, I’m sorry. There’s a different Hebrew word there. It escapes me right now. But the Hebrew word there means… bright light or shining one, light bearer. Okay, so… Zakar? Is it Zakar? Okay, we got it. So, in other words, in Hebrew, the word is addressed to somebody who is called light bearer. Okay? When Jerome translated the Old Testament into the Latin, he used the Latin word for light bearer, which is Lucifer. It comes from the word, you know, Lucis. So, I mean, it has to do with light. So, Lucifer is simply… the Latin word that means light bearer. Now, for some reason, when English translators translated the Bible from, well, into English, actually some of them used the Latin. I forget which ones did. Tyndale, I think, may have used the Latin, or Wycliffe, one of those guys used the Latin of the Old Testament. So, of course, they saw the name Lucifer there, and they took it as if it was a proper name. and retained it. But even later, when later translators translated the English version from the Hebrew, they still retained the Latin word Lucifer instead of translating it into English. If they translated it into English, like they did all the other Hebrew words in the text, they would have said, how are you fallen from heaven, O light bearer, or shining one, or morning star. I mean, these are various possible translations of the word. In the Hebrew. But they didn’t. Instead, they retained Lucifer as if it was a proper name. Now, that’s because there had arisen a tradition very early on, as early as Tertullian in the second century, that this passage in Isaiah 14, 12 and following was addressed to the devil. And therefore, since they had grown up in the Latin Bible calling this person Lucifer, they assume Lucifer is a name for the devil. And so English translators typically just retained it as a proper name rather than translating it. So, I mean, generally speaking in the Bible, that which is taken to be a proper name is carried over into the English untranslated. So even the name, for example, Jesus means Jehovah is salvation or Yahweh is salvation. But we still take his name Jesus without translating it because we see it as a proper name. And that’s why… Lucifer was brought over into English as if it were a proper name. Hey, thanks for your call. I need to take a break here. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming, so we’re not anywhere near done. But at this point, we do like to let you know we pay for the radio stations to carry this show every day. We’ve been doing so for going on 29 years now. And we’ll continue doing so as long as the Lord permits. But we are listener-supported. And if you’d like to help us pay these bills, you can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. You can donate there if you’d like. I’ll be right back. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
Everyone is welcome to call the narrow path and discuss areas of disagreement with the host, but if you do so, please state your disagreement succinctly at the beginning of your call and be prepared to present your scriptural arguments when asked by the host. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t have the last word or if your call is cut shorter than you prefer. Our desire is to get as many callers on the air during the short program, so please be considerate to others.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour. We’re taking calls from people like yourself. Right now our lines are full, but let me give you the phone number because before very long some of these lines will be open and then you could call if you have questions. about the Bible or the Christian faith or a disagreement with the host, we’re always glad to have you call with those kinds of things. The number to call is 844-484-5737. All right. We’re going to talk next to Slavic from Spartanburg, South Carolina. Hi, Slavic. Welcome.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. I got a question. Oh, first of all, I’ve been listening to your… your audiobook, Why Hell. I’m almost finished, but it’s been very interesting. I did have a question on Luke 20, verse 34-36, when Jesus is speaking about the resurrection. He says, “…the sons of this age are married and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” for they cannot die anymore because they are equal to angels and are sons of God being sons of the resurrection. So we know that both the just and the unjust are going to be resurrected. So does that term, sons of the resurrection, only apply to those who are saved?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes. Yes, it does. It does. It’s like when Paul… It’s like when Paul in Philippians says that he labors that he might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Well, the Bible teaches, and even Paul taught, that everybody should be resurrected from the dead. In Acts 24.15, Paul said that he believed there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. So, you know, you don’t have to labor in order to experience resurrection in the end because the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected. And Jesus said… in John 5, 28 and 29, that the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and will come forth, some to a resurrection of life and some to a resurrection of condemnation. So resurrection from the dead is going to happen to everybody, but Paul, when he says, I’m seeking to attain to the resurrection of the dead, he obviously means the desirable resurrection of the dead, because the wicked will be resurrected only to condemnation. He’s obviously saying, not spelling it out in so many terms here, but we know his doctrine. So he means I want to attain to that resurrection, which will be a resurrection to immortality, a resurrection to the likeness of Christ, the resurrection that he describes in 1 Corinthians 15, where the believer is glorified and changed into the image of Christ. That’s the resurrection of the dead that he wants. I think that That’s clearly what Jesus is referring to when he’s talking about the sons of the resurrection in Luke chapter 20.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. I did hear a while back a teacher that I was listening to. He’s not alive anymore, but he used this verse to support the idea of two resurrections because he says that in the Greek, when Paul says in Philippians that he wants to attain to the resurrection,
SPEAKER 06 :
From among the dead.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, it says out from among the dead. So something like that. And by that, he was trying to prove that Paul was referring to the resurrection of the just, not the resurrection of the unrighteous, like a thousand years later, after the millennium.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, yeah, that’s the dispensational view. And they do use that in Philippians chapter 3, where Paul says, I want to attain to the resurrection from among the dead. That’s not how it reads in most of our Bibles in English, but that’s essentially what the Greek means. From among the dead bodies in the ground, he wants to be resurrected, which would suggest that he and perhaps others will leave that realm of the dead and leave others behind. And, of course, the dispensationalist believes that the others that are left behind will not be resurrected until a thousand years later, after the millennium. So the very statement, from among the dead… is something that dispensationalists kind of cling to. Now, in my opinion, if he’s, I mean, obviously, if he’s talking about the resurrection of the righteous, it may well be that the righteous will be raised from among the dead prior to the rest of the dead being raised. But Jesus said it all happened in one hour. I mean, some people may… all arrive in a place in one hour, but some may come earlier than others. It’s possible that Jesus will first raise his own people from the graves, and later the others, later in the same hour. Now, of course, the word hour doesn’t have to be pressed for literalness, but it obviously means within a very short period of time. So, you know, if the righteous dead precede the unrighteous dead in resurrection, briefly, then obviously they’re coming out from among the dead. Christ is selecting his own out from the realm of the dead and raising him. That doesn’t tell us how long it will be after the rest of the dead will be raised, but we know that both Jesus and Paul believe that there’s only one resurrection of the dead that includes the righteous and the unrighteous. That’s what Paul said in Acts 24-15.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Hey, thanks for your call. Good talking to you. All right, we’re going to talk next to Scott in Dallas, Texas. Scott, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, sir. I had a question about the earth, if it was… before it okay so in genesis when it says that um he created the heavens and the earth was there any time prior to that that there were like angels living on the earth or is that when they got passed down to the earth that that i was just wondering is there anything in the bible that tells us what when those things happen like when i talked about that joe the that the sons of God were singing when he spread out the earth. Does that make sense, the question?
SPEAKER 04 :
It does. It makes sense. Well, it would not make sense to say that there were angels living on the earth before God created the heavens and the earth, obviously. And Job does talk about the sons of God sang for joy when he laid the foundations of the earth, which means they existed before. Before he laid the foundations of the earth and they rejoiced when he did it. Again, we don’t know how much before. Maybe he made them and then right away made the earth and they were excited about it and sang for joy. We’re not told any details about that. As far as Satan being cast to the earth, the only place I know of in the Bible that speaks of Satan being cast to the earth is in Revelation 12. And, you know, verses 7 through 9. And the next verse after that, verse 10, speaks about what happened when Satan was cast down to the earth. It says, Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, Now has come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of the brethren has been cast out. who had accused them day and night before our God. So when Satan’s cast down to the earth, that’s when salvation came. That wasn’t back sometime in Genesis. That was when Jesus died and rose again and ascended. Because that’s, again, when Satan is cast out, according to Revelation 12, that’s when it says salvation has come, the kingdom of God has come, the authority of Christ has come. Well, what’s the time frame for that? Well, Jesus said when he rose from the grave, all authority… in heaven and earth has been given to me. So when he came out of the grave, he had all authority. And Revelation 12 says the authority of our Christ has come. That sounds like his resurrection or his ascension at least. Also, of course, there’s a similar statement by Jesus himself. It’s not identical, but it’s similar. In John chapter 12, as Jesus is contemplating the cross and it’s very soon coming, He says in John 12, 31, now is the judgment of this world. Now the ruler of this world, which is taken by all to be Satan, will be cast out. So as Jesus is going to be crucified, he says now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And, of course, Revelation describes the dragon being cast out of heaven to the earth. So that’s not referring to something that happened in Old Testament times. That’s referring to something that happened through Christ, which is what he accomplished. Now, whether Satan had fallen in some other sense in Old Testament times before Jesus came is not clearly stated in the Bible. An earlier caller was asking about Isaiah chapter 14, verse 12, which talks about the fall of the light bearer. And many people say, well, that’s Satan. In fact, I think most people say that’s Satan. But the Bible doesn’t say that that’s Satan. Isaiah doesn’t say it’s Satan. In fact, if you read the passage it’s in, Isaiah says he’s talking to the king of Babylon, which was not Satan, but was a man, a human king. So some would say… that Isaiah 14 talks about Satan falling, you know, in Old Testament times. And they would also say that Ezekiel 28, verse 12 and following, talk about Satan falling also. These are the two passages in the Old Testament that people have generally drawn the idea of Satan falling in ancient times from. And yet, these two passages identify the person they’re speaking to, and in neither case is that person identified as Satan. In Isaiah 14, the person identified is the king of Babylon. And in Ezekiel 28, the person identified is the king of Tyre. Interestingly, both of these passages fall in longer sections of Isaiah and Ezekiel, respectively, where more than one chapter is attached to this longer prophecy against Babylon in Isaiah 13 and 14. And in Ezekiel, in chapters 28 and 29, and some of the chapters around it, 27 and 26 and so forth. So we don’t really have in the Old Testament a clear statement about Satan falling, and so people have typically imported that meaning to a couple of passages that don’t mention it. And maybe they’re right, but it’s not at all clear why we should think they’re right. Anyway, I deal with that in a lecture on my website at thenarrowpath.com. If you go to the tab there that says Topical Lectures, thenarrowpath.com, at the tab that says Topical Lectures, there’s a series called Spiritual Warfare. And either the first or the second lecture, I forget which one, is called The Origin of Satan. And I go through all those passages in great detail and all the relevant passages. So that would clarify some of these things if some of what I’ve just said is perhaps unfamiliar. Thank you for your call. Let’s see. We’re going to talk next to Jen in San Bernardino, California. Hi, Jen. Welcome.
SPEAKER 11 :
Good afternoon. I have a question. I visited the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and a friend of mine told me, oh, they believe in the annihilation doctrine, not a literal hell. And I was wondering if you could explain that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, their doctrine of hell is actually called conditional immortality and is sometimes also called annihilationism. Now, it is true. They do hold this view. It’s not, I mean, if we would say they don’t believe in hell, I’m not sure if that’s the best way to put it. They believe in hell, I think, but they believe hell is a place where people are ultimately rendered nonexistent.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 04 :
Though not immediately. They believe that when an unsaved person goes into hell, they are punished immediately. And they’re punished proportionately to what they ought to be punished. In other words, not everyone deserves the same penalties because not everyone is equally rebellious or wicked or whatever. I mean, for example, let’s just say a 16-year-old kid who dies in an automobile accident before he’s ever heard the gospel. He may not be… as culpable as somebody who’s spent a whole lifetime resisting the gospel on purpose. So they would say that when you go to hell, that you’ll be punished proportionately to what is owed, which would be in keeping with the whole idea of God being a just judge and that he wouldn’t give everyone the same penalty when everyone’s not equally guilty. So anyway, they believe after each one has been punished proportionally as their deeds would deserve, then they are put out of existence. They’re annihilated or whatever.
SPEAKER 11 :
Now, they also believe that when you die, you’re just sleeping till resurrection.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. That’s called soul sleep. Yeah. And so they do believe that. I don’t agree with the soul sleep doctrine. I think that the Bible teaches that, you know, when you die… your spirit departs from your body and goes, if you’re a Christian, goes to be with the Lord. But it’s not a really major concern. I mean, both sides use certain scriptures to support them. I’ve looked at the scriptures that they use for soul sleep, and I just feel like they’re not understanding the context of those passages or the way that the word sleep is being used. But that’s okay. I mean, if they’re wrong about that, that’s no big deal.
SPEAKER 06 :
All right.
SPEAKER 04 :
I would be much more concerned, not about what their view of hell is or soul sleep, but what their view of keeping the Torah is, keeping the law is. Because, I mean, they even named their movement after their belief that we should keep the seventh day as a Sabbath day.
SPEAKER 11 :
Oh, they make you feel like if you know you’re supposed to go on Saturday and you don’t, you might not make it.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, you might be taking the mark of the beast, yeah. So this is, in my opinion, an error in their interpretation of Scripture. And I have many lectures about this kind of thing at my website. I have a lecture on Sabbath observance. I have a set of lectures on Torah observance, where I talk about the Sabbath issues, too. The Hebrew Roots Movement, I have a series on that. All of these will go into the Sabbath question, as well as, frankly, just going through my verse-by-verse lectures on Colossians or Romans or some of these others we talk about. So I disagree with them on that. I don’t believe that that doctrine necessarily disqualifies them from being Christians because they do, I believe, hold to the deity of Christ in most cases.
SPEAKER 06 :
Of course.
SPEAKER 04 :
And to the death and resurrection of Christ and his lordship. So I don’t think beliefs such as they have would deprive them of salvation. But if they get to the point where they believe that it is their Sabbath observance, that qualifies them for salvation, whereas people who don’t observe the Seventh-day Sabbath are not saved, well, that would be incredibly cultic. And I think there is a cultic element in the Seventh-day Adventist movement because of their adherence to Ellen G. White’s teachings so strongly. Anytime any movement follows one man or one woman in their interpretation of the Bible… to the exclusion of thinking for themselves and exegesis of the passages, that’s a cultic thing. But cultic doesn’t mean necessarily they’re going to hell. I mean, people, if they go to hell or not, will be determined on what they did with Jesus.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so that would be the issue.
SPEAKER 11 :
Okay. Thank you very much. You’ve helped me a lot.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, Jen. God bless you.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Bye. Pete from Indianapolis, Indiana. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for coming.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hello, Steve. Hello. I appreciate your show very much. I’ve been listening to you for a while. I appreciate your gracious approach to all the answers. And I have a question in the book of Mark, Chapter 8. And I also want to say, to me, I was raised a Catholic and changed years ago, but it’s really exciting to hear so many Catholics say, calling in and asking questions and challenging you, too. But just when I found out, you know, that the Bible is the authority and how you treat it that way, too, and teach that, that’s really exciting for me. But anyway, my question is in Mark chapter 8, right there in the section from 8.14 through 21 when – They were mainly talking, Jesus was teaching the disciples again, and, you know, about the yeast of the Pharisees and all that. But down, my question is, down towards the end of that section, around 19 through 21, he’s reminding them about feeding the 4,000 and then the 5,000, and with all the numbers there, and to me what, and I want to get your answer on this and see what you’re, Your explanation is it seems like Jesus is wanting them to see something deeper about the numbers.
SPEAKER 04 :
I know. I know. I’ve always had that same question. You know, when Jesus said to them, beware of the leaven or the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod, they thought he was saying that because they had neglected to bring bread with them. Now, of course, this traveling company, Traveling with Jesus, had to eat, so they packed bread with them when they’d cross the lake and so forth, like anyone would. Since there wouldn’t be a McDonald’s on the other side, they had to take their food with them, and they’d neglected to do so. And so they figured Jesus knew that, and he was kind of maybe scolding them for that, which, of course, had nothing to do with what he was doing. I’ve always wondered why even his statement would be taken that way. Why would you think he’s talking about you haven’t brought bread? Unless what he’s saying is, we’re going to have to buy bread, but we better not buy it from the scribes and Pharisees. We can’t trust them. They may poison it or something. Watch out for any food, any bread you buy, any yeast that we would get from those guys. Maybe that’s how they understood it, but obviously he was talking about something very different. But when he realized what they were saying, he said, you’re not getting my message. And in verse 19 he said, When I broke the five loaves for the 5,000, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up? And they said 12. And then when I broke the seven loaves for the 4,000, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up? And they said seven. Now, this is just recollecting details of two stories that are found earlier in the book. And yet the number 12 and the number 7 sound suspiciously significant, you know, because they’re important numbers. There were 12 apostles. There’s 12 gates to the city of Jerusalem. You know, there’s seven of a lot of things. And so when, you know, they give the numbers 12 and 7, and he just says to them, how is it you do not understand? And he’s already said in verse 18, having eyes to see, do you not see? Well… It almost sounds like he’s saying, hey, there’s a secret message here. You’re not seeing it yet. And then we say, well, what is that secret message? Well, there’s something about this 12, you know, baskets of fragments, something about the seven. Is that what he’s talking about? And it’s very tempting to think there’s a mystical message behind these numbers and that he’s hoping they’ll see something very hidden. On the other hand, he never explains to them what it is. And I personally have to say, having looked at it and questioned the very thing you’re asking, scores of times as I’ve read it over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that, you know, there’s nothing revealed here in these numbers. And that what he means is, are you still without understanding, is they were fearful that he was upset with them for not bringing bread. And he’s saying, you think I need you to bring bread? You know, do you remember when we said 5,000? with, you know, just a few, five loaves of bread, and we got 12 baskets full afterwards. So you’re thinking that I’m going to be concerned about you having enough bread with you? And I think that that’s what he’s saying. You know, I can handle these things. Why would I be upset about that? You know, don’t you understand what matters to me and what doesn’t? I think it’s probably more what he’s saying.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, and, yeah, and I guess, you know, I’ve been studying the Bible for 40 years, where I studied and marked every page, you know, I think I’m on my seventh time through, but just knowing the God of detail that he is and how he’s so, like his numbers and his math and his measurements are so, you know, the Old Testament with the temple and all the details. There’s so much in the numbers. I’m just curious to see what you thought about that.
SPEAKER 04 :
True. And like I said, those numbers sound like they may be significant. But they may simply be coincidental. I mean, what he may be saying is, do you remember how much bread we had left when we had much too little to begin with? And we, you know, I took care of that, didn’t I? I mean, remember the abundance we had left? Therefore, why do you think I’m concerned about bread? Are you having bread or not? So, I mean, that’s going to be my position on that for the time being until I see something deeper. But like yourself, I’ve thought about that many times, that very same question. But I’m not seeing anything deeper than that myself. Maybe he’d say to me, Steve, are you also without understanding still? And maybe he would because I am, unless I’ve got it right here. Thanks for your call. Let’s talk to Alethea in Alachua, Florida. Did I say that correctly?
SPEAKER 03 :
Hi, Steve. Yes, that’s correct.
SPEAKER 06 :
How are you doing?
SPEAKER 03 :
Good. Good. I’m hoping you can help me because I know you have a lot of discernment. So I have an issue. I just relocated about a year and a half ago to Florida where my sisters live, and I’ve been attending my sister’s church home. And I really love the ministry, and I love the people, but I’m not sure if I should join because of a few things that just doesn’t sit right with me. They don’t really do water baptism at the altar after they call for the altar call. And then, you know, so it’s just a prayer when people go up. There’s no Acts 238. And then… There’s, you know, they lay hands on us in prayer sincerely. They’re really nice pastors, him and his wife. They lay hands, and then people fall down on the ground, and sometimes they hurt themselves. For example, my sister, they lay hands on her, and she hit her head, and we ended up having to go to the hospital because she had a big lump on her head, and they said this was the Holy Spirit. So, you know, I know that they mean well, and I know that they’re operating in faith. But, you know, when you lay hands on people, I don’t think people should be getting hurt, you know.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I don’t think the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a bump on your head. So I think that’s a strange thing. You know, I’ve heard of a lot of churches that, you know, people fall over when they’re prayed for. But most of the testimonies I’ve heard is, you know, they’ll fall onto something hard, but they’ll have no injury. It’s like it doesn’t hurt them. Now, I’ve never seen that happen, so I don’t know if that’s true or not. And I just don’t have any motivation to believe or not believe it. But if somebody’s being knocked over at a church and they’re injured and the church doesn’t say, oops, sorry about that, maybe we ought to be more careful next time, then probably they don’t care as much about the people as they care about their own ministry looking good as far as baptism I don’t have much time to talk about that right now but I will say that if they don’t have a baptistry or a place to baptize them up at the altar then maybe that’s why they don’t baptize them when they come forward but they should of course schedule a baptism for them as soon as possible if they don’t think that’s important then maybe a different church is to look for because baptism is important Anyway, I’m sorry I don’t have any more time for the call or for any more calls. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We’re listener supported. If you’d like to help us out, you can go to our website where everything is free, but you can donate if you want to. It’s thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
