In today’s episode, Steve Gregory tackles meaty subjects about faith, salvation, and the theological implications of open theism. Journey through a thought-provoking discussion as Steve sheds light on the concept of faithfulness versus losing one’s salvation, and unpacks the profound biblical narrative linking New Jerusalem, the gates of Heaven, and life everlasting. Finally, explore the fascinating discourse on open theism; learn how this belief system reconciles God’s omniscience with human free will—all explained within the framework of Scripture.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 06 :
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, including today, so that you can call in during this commercial-free hour and ask, if you wish, questions you may want to discuss on the air about the Bible or about the Christian faith, including the challenges to the host. If you do not think that the host is correct about something and you want to balance comment or bring correction, you’re welcome to do that. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Eric in North Pole, Alaska. Eric, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hello.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey there, how’s it going, Steve? Good. Derek again.
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, Derek.
SPEAKER 08 :
I just said it wrong. Yes, yeah, no worries. Yes. Hey, I wanted to ask you a question here. I just have a two-part question. I’ll be quick here. One is 2 Peter 3, 6. It says, And by the world that existed perished, being flooded by water, but the heavens and earth, which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved on fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Now, I was listening to a message by a guy, and he is a post-millennial guy, and he was applying this 2 Peter 3 to the destruction of the Old Covenant order, right? And something that kind of occurred to me in my thinking is I know that I’m pretty sure most guys, like most people of that opinion, they still hold to the six-day curation and the idea that, well, the global flood was indeed global. Now, I thought this was kind of almost a contradiction in his mind because the judgment in Jerusalem, that’s a localized judgment. How can this be talking about things that were global and using the flood as a reference of that, you know what I mean, if you’re holding to a global flood perspective? And so in my mind, oh, sorry, what was it? Go ahead. In my mind, I’m thinking that this is kind of one or the other. You’ve got to choose one or the other. And so that’s why I was kind of struggling with that. And he went to Acts 3, verse 19, and used this to support it. And he says, repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, when he shall send Jesus Christ, which was preached before unto you. And I was thinking, well, and then in the next verse it says, who heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things. And he made some comments about the elements being burned up and whatnot, and I heard that, but it seems like it’s not quite hitting, and I wanted to know, you probably know what I’m talking about here. Could you kind of give comment on those things?
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes. Many postmillennialists, maybe most, and certainly all preterists, full preterists, not partial preterists necessarily, but full preterists, believe that the term heavens and earth in biblical times was sort of a code word for the temple. I wrote a book called Why Not Full Preterism? And I have two chapters in the book about this very question of the new heavens and new earth and what Peter’s talking about here. The full preterists believe, and many others who are not full preterists but who are postmillennial, believe that the earth is not going to be destroyed, but this is a reference to the destruction of the temple, of Second Temple Judaism, because that was made obsolete by the coming of the New Covenant, and therefore it’s the Old Covenant vanishing in the flames of the temple being burned by the Romans in AD 70. And they say heavens and earth was a regular expression among the Jews to speak of the temple or of the temple order. And therefore, Peter’s saying, you know, the earth and the heavens are going to vanish in flames. We’re looking for new heavens, new earth. He says that in verses after the ones you read in the same chapter. So their view is that Peter is talking about the destruction of the old Jerusalem and the old order because of the coming of the new covenant. Of course, they have to argue then that the new covenant and the new order had not yet come when Peter wrote because he’s still looking forward to it. And there are people who would make that argument, though I don’t think there’s any basis for it at all. They would say, well, yeah, the new covenant was kind of coming at the time, but it didn’t really come until the old temple was finally destroyed. I disagree with that. Paul, who lived and died before the temple was destroyed, saw himself as one who was a minister of the new covenant. He talked about how the new covenant has the law written in the hearts. He said that’s exactly what has happened to the Corinthians, the law written in their hearts. because of the New Covenant. So Paul did not think that the New Covenant had not yet come. Neither did Jesus, who in the upper room said, this cup is the New Covenant in my blood, indicating that he was instituting the New Covenant with his disciples. So the idea that the New Covenant had not yet come when Peter wrote this is wrong, I believe. And yet that’s what you’d have to assume when he says in verse 13 that we’re looking for the coming of the new heavens and the new earth. If by that he means the new covenant, which I argue he does not. Now, I just want to say that in my book, I brought this out. I looked up the words heaven and earth as many times as I had time to on an Internet search in the Bible. I looked at well over 100 cases, and I didn’t find any case in the Old Testament or the New where heaven and earth was used as a figure of the temple or of the old order. There were, I think, as I recall, maybe three or five or so that you could possibly read that into it, though there was nothing in the context that would require that. There’s nothing that would insist upon that reading. But, you know, hundreds or at least many scores of passages use the term heavens and earth in the Bible. And in most cases, the overwhelming majority, the term cannot be seen as anything other than the earth and sky. I mean, it’s used in context where that’s clearly what is talked about, including Genesis 1-1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now, you know, it may well be that among the Jews it became common to speak of the temple as the heavens and earth. The argument usually is that they saw the temple as the place where heaven and earth join, where people on earth can have access to the God of heaven at the temple, and therefore they spoke of it as heaven and earth. The only historical reference that I have found them giving, now I’m not saying they don’t have others that I haven’t seen, but I’ve looked for them, The only historical reference is in Josephus where he talked about the various things in Solomon’s temple and the decorations and stuff that he said these represent the animals, these represent the sea, these represent the stars or whatever. And in other words, he’s saying a lot of the imagery in the temple represented or corresponded to things in nature. including the stars that are in heaven and so forth. But he didn’t say, he never used the term heaven and earth as a reference to the temple. And it could easily be that the temple could have ornaments that resemble things in heaven and earth without that meaning that the term heaven and earth had come to mean the temple. There’s no case I know of. Now, it may be that those who are more familiar with rabbinic writings can find examples of the Jews using that expression. But what we can’t find is any unambiguous case in the Bible of biblical writers using that expression to have that meaning. Like I said, there’s three or five passages in the whole Bible where it’s conceivable that you could read that idea into the expression heaven and earth out of well over 100 cases. But even in those few cases, And in their context, there’s not a reason in the world that you would have to take it that way. You can still see them in the normal sense that all the other cases mean it. So this is a very weak point, in my opinion. Now, you mentioned that Peter is likening the destruction of the heavens and the earth by fire, which is anticipated, with the destruction of the earth and the heavens in the flood. And you pointed out that the flood was indeed a global situation. And even if it wasn’t, it was not the destruction of a temple of any kind. It wasn’t the ending of a covenant. Certainly wasn’t the, we don’t know of any, you know, it resulted in a covenant. At the end of it, God made a covenant with Noah and all flesh, but the flood did not end any known covenant that God had made. But to say that Peter, in talking about the old heavens and old earth, was referring to an old covenant that was destroyed by the flood is, well, to my mind, kind of absurd. And so the question of whether Peter is speaking of heaven and earth in a more literal sense or figurative sense seems to me can be decided by the way he uses it. He says in verse 5, 2 Peter 3, 5, For this they willingly forget. that by the word of God, the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of water and in the water. Now, he’s talking about the creation of, as he calls it, the heavens and the earth. And the waters are part of this, too. The earth is standing out of the water. He’s referring, of course, to the fourth day of creation when God causes the waters to allow dry land to appear. So he’s talking about Genesis 1. He’s talking about the earth, the heaven, the literal heaven and earth. He says, by which the world, meaning by water, The world that then existed perished, being flooded by water. Okay, so this was not a covenant that perished. It was the world that he’s just described, that God created by the word of God, the world and the heavens. He’s not talking about the temple or anything remotely like that. Then he says, but the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word. Now, the heavens and the earth that now exist are contrasted with the heavens and the earth that the old heavens and earth that perish in the water. For him now to have changed the idea to mean the heavens and earth that now exist are the temple in Jerusalem, it goes without the slightest hint that he’s changed his meaning that radically. And there’s nothing in the passage at that point or later. That would give the audience the idea that he was talking about the old heaven and earth was that literal heaven and earth destroyed in the flood, whereas the heaven and earth that now is is now something entirely of a different sort, the temple, and that that one that now is is going to be destroyed by fire. So, you know, I just don’t see how this is an exegetical project. It looks like an eisegetical project. It looks like someone who wants this to be true is insisting that these terms are being used that way when there’s not any exegetical reason for reaching that conclusion.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, sir. I was in my – I’ve been kind of – in my own personal studies, something that I’ve noticed is I feel like this is also the error of the full preterist perspective is that they see heaven and earth and assume it has to be the same usage every single time because there are times in the New Testament where certain words mean certain things elsewhere the same way. And so they apply that hermeneutic to other things like the heaven and earth thing. But like I said, like you mentioned earlier about Genesis 1, to me it seems like he’s clearly talking about the created order. not covenant status, right, because he’s talking about fish and all animals and stuff, right? Right. You know what I mean? And so it’s like it’s kind of flattening it out. I know they would not see it that way, but from my perspective, it seems like it’s kind of oversimplifying it almost for convenience.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, I agree with you. I agree with you. I think they have – They’ve taken an approach to biblical studies that begins with deciding what the passages have to mean and then works a way into using a big shoehorn to try to shove them into that meaning they’ve already decided. I’m just not that kind of a student. I’d rather do the research first and then reach my conclusions rather than reach my conclusion first and then find a way to make the research fit them. Anyway, I appreciate your call, Derek. I need to go on and talk to somebody else at this point just because there’s a lot waiting. But I appreciate you joining us here. Okay, let’s talk to Viru in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hi, welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Brother Steve, thank you so much for taking my call. I have a question. You know, when we read the Revelation at the end, the 19, 20, 21st and 22nd chapters, It talks about New Jerusalem, New Heaven, and New Earth. And I was hearing a Pentecostal preacher, he was talking about, you know, some people will live in New Jerusalem, some will live on New Earth, some will live in New Heaven. How do I understand these three places? Like, where do the believers live in the eternity?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, my impression is that the New Jerusalem is described as the place where the saints, that is, those who are Christ’s faithful disciples, will live with him. Now, who’s on the outside of there? Well, some people would say everyone who is outside the New Jerusalem is in the lake of fire, and they’re lost. That is one, I guess, possible view. However, it does talk in Revelation 21 about and 22, how that the kings of the earth will bring their gifts into the New Jerusalem, which sounds like they live outside the New Jerusalem, and they will bring their gifts into it. Now, what’s more, the expression the kings of the earth, was last used in Revelation 19 where the kings of the earth were making war against Christ and were slain by him. And so it’s hard to know exactly if the kings of the earth are people you’d call saved. At what point did they get saved if they were slain while making war against the Lamb? It’s very difficult to know. There is at least one other option. And that is that the new Jerusalem houses those who are reigning with Christ. And there are those who live outside in the new earth, outside the city, who are not reigning and perhaps are the ones being reigned over. And who would those be? Well, I don’t know. Jesus did talk about the sheep and the goats, how the sheep did go into eternal life because they treated his brethren well. It doesn’t say they were his brethren. His brethren are, as he said elsewhere, this is my mother and this is my brother. He that does the will of my Father in heaven is my mother and my brother. So those who are followers of his right now, his disciples, are certainly his brethren. But then there’s those who treated his brethren well when they were in need, and they are rewarded. And Jesus said elsewhere, you know, to his disciples. You know, that he that receives a prophet will receive, in the name of a prophet, will receive a prophet’s reward. And he said, he that receives a disciple in the name of a disciple will receive a disciple’s reward. And he said, verily I say to you, whoever gives as much as a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of a disciple will not lose his reward. Now, you know, he’s talking about people who are not themselves disciples, but they are receiving and kind to and so forth. They’re not rejecters. They’re not those who are opposed to the gospel, but they may, for whatever reason, not have been converted. I don’t know. We’re not given details about this, but one view is that everybody who’s not in the city is in hell. The other is that outside the city in the New Earth, there are those who are not in hell. They’re not condemned. They are allowed to live, but they’re living under the reign of those who were disciples of Jesus. I’m not affirming one or the other since the Bible simply does not clarify that. And so we’ll have to find out when we die. We’ve got to be there. But I will say this. I do see the New Jerusalem as being on the new earth. Some people seem to think of the New Jerusalem as hovering around the new earth. I know one pastor I used to have thought of it as sort of like a satellite around the earth, like the moon, in fact, about the same size as the moon, circling around the earth up off the ground. And, you know, we would travel between there, like the mothership or something, and earth from time to time. But the indication I see is that the New Jerusalem is on the new earth. It says John saw new heavens and a new earth. And he says he saw the New Jerusalem descending from heaven. Okay, so if there’s two places, heaven and earth, and something is descending out of heaven, as far as we know, everything in the Bible that is said to have descended from heaven, whether it’s Jesus or angels or anything else, they descend to the earth. And that seems to be the natural meaning of the expression. Now, you said that some people, the pastor said some people will be in the new heaven and some will be in the new Jerusalem, some in the new earth. I don’t know of anything that says anyone will be in the new heaven. The heaven is the Lord’s, but the earth he’s given to the sons of men, the Bible says. So I don’t really have any indicator in Scripture that anyone will be living in the new heaven, but living with Jesus and with God who lives, the Bible says, in the new Jerusalem, which is on the new earth. That’s where I believe that the saved or those who have been faithful unto death and who are reigning with Christ will be there. Now, who’s on the outside? Are they all in hell or in the new earth, but not in the New Jerusalem? That is something that people can find out on their own. I don’t have to settle that matter, but that’s, to my mind, an ambiguity in Scripture.
SPEAKER 03 :
What I heard is, Steve, what he mentioned is that in the Revelation 7, what about the 144,000 people are there? He said that whoever those 144,000, they will be in New Heaven, which is also called Zion, with God. And people who are raptured will be in New Jerusalem. And everyone else who was saved at the time of seven years of tribulation, they will be in New Earth.
SPEAKER 06 :
As I said, I don’t know of any passage that says anyone will be in the New Heaven. The 144,000… are mentioned twice in the Bible, in Revelation 7 and in Revelation 14. They are never said to be in heaven in any passage. In chapter 7, they are simply sealed to be spared the plagues that are poured out. And in chapter 14, they’re simply seen to be on Mount Zion, which in the Bible either refers to a physical mountain on earth, or to the church, as in Hebrews chapter 12. Mount Zion is said to be the church of, you know, general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven. So there’s nothing that places them in heaven at any point. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are of the mind that the 144,000 will be in heaven and that everyone else will be on earth. But they don’t have scriptures for that. That’s just a scenario they’ve come up with, and they choose to perpetrate. I don’t agree with them. Randy in Redlands, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks to you. My question is about 1 Timothy chapter 4, where Paul talks about doctrines of demons. And in the last days, these will be things like absence from certain foods. It looks like he’s talking about kosher foods there. Is that correct? No doubt. Yeah, I presume he is. But yet he calls it a doctrine of demons, which seems a little harsh for being part of Jewish law. And then he takes, you know, a similar language in Romans 14. He has kind of more of a, you know, kid’s glove we’re talking about. Well, what he’s calling a doctrine of demons.
SPEAKER 06 :
is the teaching that forbids people to marry and commands people to abstain from foods of certain kinds. Now, Paul in Romans 14 did not mind if somebody wanted to eat kosher or even vegetarian. but didn’t require others to do so. Paul is talking about those who do require others to do so, who forbid it, who forbid the eating of meats that God has given to be eaten. So he’s talking about a legalism which did exist among the Judaizers, and it may well be that that’s who he has in mind, although there’s other possibilities because Certainly the Judaizers are not the only people who, religious people, who practice food restrictions. And he does mention those who forbid marriage, which the Judaizers did not do. There were certain ascetic groups, Gnostics and others, who believed in being celibate and so forth. But it’s not entirely clear if there’s just one group he has in mind or not. But You know, the Judaizers did forbid people to eat certain foods according to the Mosaic law that they were promoting. And to forbid that is said to be a doctrine of demons. Now, if somebody says, well, I’m not forbidding anyone else to do it, but I just feel in my conscience I should keep the dietary laws that Moses gave. And they do it. Well, I think Paul would say they are those that he calls weak in conscience, but not evil conscience. And I think he believes that they probably need to come around and recognize the liberty that we have in Christ. But he’s not condemning them. He’s just saying they’re weak in faith in Romans 14. But, yeah, I don’t think he’s saying that to be a vegetarian or to keep a kosher diet is itself a demonic thing to do. But if somebody makes that one of the requirements of religion, they’ve got the wrong religion. And it’s a demonic one, he says.
SPEAKER 04 :
So this is occurring in modern Christian groups which have food restrictions like this. We could safely assume that that’s a doctrine of demons that they’re still promoting.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, yeah, I would say so if they say that’s necessary. And you might be thinking of some Hebrew roots Torah observant groups or maybe even of the Seventh-day Adventists. You know, many Protestants have used this to speak of the Roman Catholics who forbade a marriage among the clergy, and at one point, I don’t know if they still do, forbade the eating of meat on Fridays. When I was growing up, my Catholic friends were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays, which is, again, a tradition of men. I don’t know if either of those are really doctrines of demons, but they do fit closer, in a sense. to what Paul says here if both restrictions are to be found in the same group. Because Seventh-day Adventists, for example, who do restrict diet, I don’t know that they absolutely require that restriction. It seems to me that Seventh-day Adventists I’ve known have sometimes felt they were at liberty to eat kosher foods or not, but that they felt it was a better thing to do, which is, again, more like what Paul’s allowing in Romans 14 for people to do. But there are people who are strict Torah observant, people who name the name of Christ, although they have, as Paul would suggest it, well, Paul speaks of such an attitude as falling from grace and alienated from Christ in Galatians. So I just, you know, I’ll let God be the judge, but I’ll always teach what I believe the Bible says, and that is that we are not required to follow that kind of restrictions. People who say that we are, they’ll have to face God and Paul about what he had to say here. And You know, I’m inclined to think that they are deceived by demonic forces when they are carried away into such legalism. Hey, I need to take a break. We have another half hour coming, so don’t go away. You’re listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. We are listener supported. If you’d like to help us pay the radio bills, you can write to the Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or go to the website thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. We’re proud to welcome you to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today, but everything to give you. When today’s radio show is over, we invite you to visit thenarrowpath.com, where you’ll find topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and the archives of all the radio shows. Study, learn, and enjoy. We thank you for supporting the listener-supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.
SPEAKER 06 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we welcome you to join us if you have questions about the Bible. or the Christian faith, or would like to correct or balance something you’ve heard on the program at any time today or any other time that you feel was misleading or not correct, feel free to give me a call. The number is 844- And I just watched the lines fill up just now, so our lines are full. But if you get a busy signal, call back randomly in the next several minutes, and you’ll probably find a line has opened up. That usually is the case. All right, let’s talk first of all to Slavik from Spartanville, South Carolina. Hi, Slavik.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. A lot of Jesus is up here. Parables are themes like the growth and the influence of the kingdom of God on earth is going to be in a positive way. Yet there is, in Luke 18, after speaking about a woman who’s crying out for justice to a judge, He ends it saying, nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth? And I was wondering if this in any way, not contradict, but it almost sounds like he’s saying the opposite, that there might not be many who have the faith that on the earth when he returns, or is this a different kind of coming? And also, in connection to this, is Revelation 6-9 connected to this in any way? Because you also have the souls underneath the altar crying out for justice. And they’re told to wait a little bit longer.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, I myself do connect those two passages. The woman seeking justice, crying out for vindication to the judge, and seemingly not getting an immediate response, though eventually he does respond and does give her justice. And likewise in Revelation 6, 9, the souls under the altar are saying, How long, O God, O Lord, before you avenge our blood on those who dwell on the land? Now, both of these passages speak of the word earth or land, and I guess both passages use the word earth in our English translations, although the word ge in Greek is the same as the word for land, and therefore, whether it is translated earth or land is really kind of a toss-up in many cases, although sometimes the context makes it obvious which is needed. If someone says the earth, we usually think of the whole planet earth. But if the Bible speaks of the land, more often than not, it’s talking about the land of Israel. So, you know, when he says, will he find faith on the earth or on the land, would be different things. Because when he says when the Son of Man returns, well, when he returns to the earth, the planet earth, will he find people here who believe? Well, he certainly will. although the Bible does describe a time just before his second coming when Satan is released for a little season and enemies of the church besiege the church and appear to threaten its very existence, which is, in my opinion, the same scenario that we find in Revelation 11 with the two witnesses, which I take to represent the church. being slain and lying in the streets for three days before they are caught up into heaven and resurrected. I take that to be the church also. The point being that I do believe in the expansion of the church to all nations that Jesus predicted. It’s growing into a great tree from a mustard seed or to a great mountain to fill the earth from a little stone, as Daniel puts it in Daniel 2. I believe the Bible predicts that, but there’s a sense in which the kingdom has done that. The church has gone to every nation. The kingdom is growing in every place. I don’t know to what degree this process has to continue before Jesus comes back, nor… how long it may last before Satan is released to bring a challenge. So Jesus might be referring to the earth, in this case, the planet Earth, and saying, will he find faith? And there’s simply meaning this is going to call for some perseverance. There’s going to be some challenges to your faith. Make sure that you are not among the casualties, you know, when I come back. That is a very possible meaning of this, and probably the one that most people take it to mean when they see an English translation that uses the word earth. If, however, the word gay is here translated the land, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the land? He’d be saying, you know, when he comes in judgment, not his second coming, but the figurative coming that is sometimes spoken of. in Jesus speaking, when he spoke of him coming, as it were, to judge Jerusalem through the armies of the Romans. That’s not his actual second coming, but the language is the same used in passages like that as the language of the second coming. And so if he’s saying, well, when I come to judge Jerusalem, will there be anyone left in it who’s faithful? The truth is, there wasn’t. Because before Jesus… allowed Jerusalem to be judged, we read in Eusebius that a revelation was given to the church in Jerusalem, the Christians there, that they should flee, and they did. And it would appear that no Christians were left in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction. However, with Jesus sending a message to them to flee, it’s not a given that they would all be obedient, so there might be some still there, but… It’s difficult to know exactly which way he’s understanding this because the word land or earth would be the same, would be translated from the same word and would have a different suggested meaning to his statement. If it is referring to the land and Israel, then the woman would be the church in Jerusalem. praying and interceding, just like the martyrs in Revelation 6, which in the case of Revelation 6, I do think it’s the martyrs asking for God to bring judgment or to vindicate them against Jerusalem. And one reason for thinking that is that Jesus said that that would happen. In Matthew 23, Jesus said, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who killed the martyrs, killed the saints, And those who were sent to the prophets, he says, all the blood of all the righteous who’ve been slain will come on this generation he’s referring to on Jerusalem. And so the vindication of the martyrs. is identified by Jesus as taking place in the destruction of Jerusalem, which gives a good reason to see Revelation 6 as a parallel to that idea. Anyway, these are things that are, in the minds of some, ambiguous enough to leave questions as to their exact meaning. But I think there’s enough taught in the rest of Scripture that would make either meaning although it probably doesn’t mean both, but either one might well be harmonized with the rest of what the Scripture teaches. So either he’s talking about when the Son of Man comes in AD 70 through the Roman armies, or when the Son of Man comes at the end of the world, will he find faith there? I’m going to have to say it’s kind of a toss-up. At least the language allows it to be a toss-up. but some people will favor one and some another interpretation of its application. All right. Let’s talk to Stacey from Dayton, Ohio. Stacey, welcome.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi, Steve. I had a question. I was listening to your Genuinely Following Jesus lecture series, and I’ve heard you use this type of terminology before, and it seems as if it interchanges a bit. You’ll talk about being saved or faithful unto death, and sometimes it seems as if they’re interchanged. And as I was listening, I know that there’s this idea that floats around among some groups in the idea of losing your salvation. And yet what I hear it more of is that, you know, you didn’t actually have it to begin with, you know, that idea where someone appears to be away and, well, actually, that’s not the case. However, I guess I’m trying to get clarification. Are you indicating or do you indicate that someone can lead a faithful life there, you know, a disciple of Jesus and faithful in there, you know, the things they do say, that sort of thing. But then they take a turn in their life or they fall into sin. I know you’ve said before, actually in that series specifically, the idea about how, you know, when Christians sin, it’s out of weakness. It’s mistakenness. Out of error, but the desire is repentance. The desire is to do right and to turn. But those who don’t or live in a sin that they’ve chosen, knowing full well, are you saying that that individual then wasn’t actually sinning? quote-unquote, saved from the get-go? Or is it simply, I can’t call you a Christian because a Christian is someone who lives faithfully as a disciple of Jesus? Right.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, that certainly is a powder keg issue in the evangelical church. I do not shy away from saying what I think the Bible teaches. I believe the Bible teaches in many places that there are those who believe for a while, that there are those who Paul said will depart from the faith. There are those who are holy brethren and partakers of the heavenly calling who are warned not not to have an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. You know, there’s reference to people who have known the way of righteousness and have turned back, and it’s worse for them than before they were saved. There’s a lot of that kind of thing. Paul talked about the olive tree and its branches. in Romans 11, very similarly to the way Jesus talked about the vine and the branches in John 15. In John 15, Jesus said, you know, that I’m the vine, you’re the branches. And he exhorts them to remain in him. These are people who are in him, the disciples. And he tells them, you know, stay there. Stay put. Do not go away. Remain in me. But he says in verse 6, if anyone doesn’t remain in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withered. And they gather them and burn them, which does not sound like a saved condition. But Paul has the same kind of discussion in Romans 11 about the olive tree. And he says that those who have faith are branches in the olive tree, which is a way of saying they’re saved. And he said that the Jews who didn’t believe have been broken off and Gentiles who have believed have been grafted in. And so he’s talking about, of course, the body of Christ. That’s what believing Gentiles are part of and believing Jews, too. That’s what the unbelieving Jews have been removed from. So he’s talking about the body of Christ as the olive tree, just like Jesus spoke of himself as the vine and were branches of it. But Paul says about that in Romans 11, 22, he says, behold, therefore, the. So there’s very strong warnings. about people who are said to be saved. They’re connected to the vine. They’re connected to the branch, to the olive tree as branches, and they have the life of that organism in them as long as they remain. But they’re warned that if they don’t remain, they’ll be cut off. And so this is something that, you know, you’ll find almost every writer of the New Testament, and Jesus, who didn’t write anything, but his words are recorded there, repeatedly. giving this warning that if you’re a believer, if you’re a Christian, you better make sure you don’t fall away because that’s a possibility. Now, when we talk about people who have fallen away, it remains to be decided, and I’m not sure we are the ones who have to make that decision. We may be curious, but I don’t know that we have to conclude anything. It remains to be decided whether they were ever really saved or not. I do believe the church has a great number of people in it who never have been converted. they have been evangelized with a very different gospel than that which Jesus and the apostles preached. It’s a kind of a come and get it, easy believism gospel that doesn’t require anyone to do what Jesus said, namely to deny oneself and to take up a cross and follow Jesus and be faithful to death, which is what all the apostles knew was what you have to do, and that’s why they did it. And that’s what they preached. So, you know, that being so, there’s a lot of people in the church who have been given a a denatured gospel, and they are, at best, denatured Christians, if they’re Christians at all. They think they are, but if they don’t have love, they’re not, the Bible says. If they don’t obey Jesus’ commandments, well, they’re not, the Bible says. I mean, just read 1 John, it says these things. If they don’t have the Spirit of Christ, they’re not, according to Romans 8, 9, and several verses in 1 John. So, there’s a lot of people who would be called Christians because of their being members in good standing in the church. But they’re not Christians by any definition the New Testament would recognize. And they fall away. And this doesn’t prove that a truly saved person would fall away in their case because we haven’t proven whether or not they were truly saved. On the other hand, the Bible does seem to say that a truly saved person has to beware of falling away. There is a danger of it. Therefore, if you know somebody who has fallen away from the faith, there’s a very good chance that they never were saved. Jesus said there would be many in that category on the judgment day who will say, Lord, Lord, we did these things in your name. And Jesus will say, I never knew you, which suggests that they weren’t saved in the first place. John talks about people like that in 1 John 2. He said about certain people who left the church, he said they went out from us, but they were not of us. So, you know, there’s lots of people in the church who aren’t really saved. part of Christ at all. They’re there for the wrong reasons, and they’re self-deceived. Maybe the preachers have deceived them into believing they’re saved, because there’s a very strong urge in evangelical circles when somebody has simply mouthed a prayer, a formulaic sinner’s prayer, to then tell them, well, you’re saved, you’re saved, you’re saved, and try to encourage them to have assurance of salvation. Well, unfortunately, this allows people to have assurance of salvation sometimes who aren’t saved. And that’s what Jesus himself said. And John. And it’s very clear that many people have never really had the experience of conversion or commitment or been disciples of Jesus. On the other hand, some have been and have fallen away. I have known people like this. It’s very discouraging. People who were very close to me that I knew for years who followed Christ for decades. And for whatever reason, they fell away. I read a book recently about a pastor in Texas who served God for decades. But then he just gave up the faith, partly because of his compromises in his life and his discouragement and things like that. But the thing is, there’s every reason to believe he really was saved in those decades that he served God faithfully and honestly. But he just kind of decided to give up on it. He got fatigued. He got tempted and so forth. Now, I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that you lose your salvation when you sin. In fact, the Bible teaches that all people apparently sin sometimes. But there’s a difference between saying you lose your salvation when you sin, on the one hand, and saying you forfeit your salvation when you abandon Christ. Now, what does abandon Christ look like? It’s kind of the opposite of embracing Christ. You become a Christian by embracing Christ as your Lord and Savior and King and living to show that that is a sincere thing you’ve done. but when you decide you don’t want him to be your Lord and Savior and King, and people have made that decision sometimes, that’s when they would certainly not be Christians anymore. But anyone who’s pretending to be a Christian now or thinks they’re a Christian now or maybe even is a real Christian now, I can’t really say for sure, but, I mean, obviously when you get to know someone really well, you get a fairly… You know, you have varying degrees of confidence about that with various people you know. But, you know, it’s not mine to decide who’s really a Christian, who’s not. And it’s not really mine to decide who’s lost their salvation or given up or not. That’s what God will decide. I don’t really have to know that. People who insist on knowing that are usually the backsliders themselves or the parents and loved ones of the backsliders. They want to know if that person can still be saved, even though they’ve abandoned the faith. The answer would be if they have, in fact, abandoned the faith. No, they’re not saved. You can’t. If you’re saved by faith, you obviously can’t be saved when you don’t have any faith. I mean, that should be an obvious kind of a thing for someone to know. I appreciate your call very much. I need to take another call. We’re running out of time. We’ve got a lot of people behind you. Thank you. You can call again sometime, and we can tease that out a little more if you’re interested. Let’s talk to James in Palmer, Texas. James, welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi, Steve. How are you doing? Good to talk to you again. My question has to do with open theism. My understanding of their premise is that the future hasn’t been established, therefore God doesn’t know it. And if that is the case… How did they account for the prophet’s declaration of the future, or even Jesus’ claim that the Son of Man will be handed over to evil men in Jerusalem and be crucified on the third day and he’ll be raised? So if the future hasn’t been established, how could open theism work?
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, they would agree that many things about the future are indeed established because they’re on his calendar. They are things that he has determined he’s going to do. From the foundation of the world, he determined he’s going to send Christ to be the Savior of the world, to die for our sins and so forth. That’s something that was a plan. Now, many Christians feel that God can just stand at any point and view the whole of history, past, present, and future, and see it, and therefore he can predict it that way because he can see what’s going to happen. But I think we all agree, whether people have open theological views or more standard views, that there are some things that God determined to happen. He determined he was going to deliver Israel from Egypt through plagues and things like that. And he did it. He determined that he was going to send the Babylonians to take Israel into captivity, or Judah. And he did it. And he determined he was going to bring them back, too. And he did that. He determined Christ is going to come and suffer, and that happened. We can see that there are things that God had in his plan, and God is sovereign. He can carry out his plan. But what the open theologians say is God is not ignorant about what he is going to do. What he is ignorant about, they would say, is things that have nothing to do with what he is going to do, but what we are going to do. That is what any free moral agent is going to do. Now, they would also say, even many of the things we’re going to choose, God probably has a pretty good idea of them because he knows us intimately. They would argue, I don’t, that when Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him three times before the cock crows, God was able to predict that because he knew Peter well. He knew that Peter would face this temptation three times. And that, of course, those temptations, those circumstances where people ask Peter, do you know him? Those circumstances could have been orchestrated by God providentially. And knowing Peter as he did could say, you’re going to fail three of those times. Then you’re going to repent. Now, that’s what they would say. I don’t say that to my mind. That doesn’t solve anything because their concern is that if God predicts and knows, even knows what people will do in the future, what choices they’ll make, then it’s not going to happen any other way than the way he knows it’s going to happen. And therefore, we could argue that when Jesus predicted that Peter would fall, it couldn’t happen any other way but that he would. Because if Peter didn’t deny Jesus three times before the cock crew, Jesus would then be a false prophet. And that’s not so. He’s not a false prophet. So, in a sense, once Jesus said it, it was certainly going to happen. The question has got to be, it’s a philosophical one, why did it necessarily happen? Was it Peter or God that determined it to happen? If Peter was going to determine it to happen by his own weakness, and Jesus simply knew it and predicted it, yeah, it was definitely going to happen when he predicted it, but Peter is going to happen because Peter was definitely going to do that on his own without being made to do it. How would God know that in advance? I don’t know. The openness people say, well, God doesn’t really know that. And I think they have a few passages like that particular one. that would challenge their position. But much of the prophecies you’re asking about, how did God know, how did the prophets know, how could he reveal things to the prophets if he didn’t know the future? Most of the things that he revealed to the prophets have more to do with what God was going to do than what people were going to do. Yes, some of it involved people doing things, but God also reserved the right to make certain influential people do things, like when he hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that the whole ten plagues would run their course, when Pharaoh might otherwise have chosen not to put himself through that. The Bible says that God’s going to draw Cyrus to come and release the people from Babylon. He says in Isaiah 10 that he’s going to put a hook. No, actually, he’s going to draw Assyria to destroy Israel. But in Ezekiel 38-39, he’s going to put a hook in the jaw of Gog and Magog and draw them into battle. So, I mean, God has the power and the sovereignty, that is the right, to manipulate geopolitical circumstances. To move upon kings, the Bible says the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water. He turneth it with us over he will in Proverbs 21. So, I mean, God can manipulate and does manipulate kings and he can predict what he’s going to do. But the argument is that he doesn’t know whether I’m going to do a particular sinful thing or not. He doesn’t know if I’m going to believe God or cave into temptation. That’s what they would argue. I don’t agree with them, but that’s what they would argue. And it does not preclude God being able to prophesy, certainly the majority of the things that we find prophesied in the prophets. So that’s, I’m just speaking how they would answer that, I think. Okay, James. Hey, thank you, James, for that call. I don’t know if we have time. I’m afraid we don’t. I was hoping to get some more calls, and we have several waiting. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to take another call before we run out of time here. So let me just urge you who are waiting, call in tomorrow. Call in tomorrow early. If you call early in the first half hour, certainly, if you call in, you’ll definitely get on the air before the program ends. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we are listener-supported. I mentioned that earlier. Everything we offer is actually free. We have no commercial sponsors. We don’t sell anything at our website or over the air. We actually kind of have convictions about that. We’re not running a business. We will not charge for the Word of God, and that’s what we feel we’re offering. So everything at our website is free, and that’s a lot of stuff. thousands of things, including, what, 1,500 or more of my lectures for free, and other things, too. If you want to go there, it’s thenarrowpath.com, thenarrowpath.com. Everything’s free, but we do count on donations. If you want to, you can donate from that site also, thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk tomorrow.
