As the conversation unfolds, Steve shares his reflections on the Jesus Movement of the 70s, and evaluates the recent film ‘Jesus Revolution’ for its historical accuracy. Listeners are then guided through a complex discussion on the three views of hell, probing whether any of these diminish the terror traditionally associated with it. The episode continues with passionate debates on contemporary evangelism tactics, specifically the practices of street preachers, highlighting both the fervor and the potential misrepresentations in spreading the gospel. Concluding with a personal touch, Steve wishes to contribute an affinity for engaging with notable Christian influencers, underscoring the
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 02 :
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 or as in the case of our first caller who’s in Germany late at night. It’s after 11 o’clock p.m. where he’s waiting on the line here. But where I’m sitting, it’s two in the afternoon in California. And if it’s that same time in your, you know, if that’s when you’re listening, then we are live. And you can call in if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith. Or if you disagree with the host and want to say why, I’d love to hear from you. The number to call is 844-425-7000. We have some lines open right now if you’d like to call. That may not be the case in a few minutes. Before I take any calls, however, there’s been sitting on my desk for a few days a question from a prisoner. We have a lot of people who listen to the show in prison. and we get letters from some of them. Cody wrote this one, and we got it a few days ago, and I can answer it rather briefly, I think. He says, my question for the radio is, quote, could the thousand years have been the last 2,000 years of the advocate being with us, And Christ will come in the clouds and we will go up with him to a new heaven and a new earth. Thank you. Yes, it certainly could be that the thousand years. And by that, he means the thousand years mentioned in only one place in the Bible, which is Revelation 20, which refers to a thousand years of Christ reigning with the saints. And, you know, it talks about Satan being bound and so forth. Most people are familiar probably with the pre-millennial view which holds that this thousand years will be inaugurated when Jesus comes back and it will run its course before the coming of the new heavens and the new earth. That’s the pre-millennial view that when Jesus comes back he’ll set up a thousand year reign on earth with his saints. At the end of that thousand years there will be a new heavens, new earth. He is asking could the thousand years refer to the present age, the last 2,000 years, the church, the age of the church, from the time of the first coming of Christ to the second. And it will end with the coming of Christ and our entry into the new Jerusalem and the new earth. Yes, it could be. In fact, that’s what I believe. As I said, the premillennial view is probably more familiar to the average radio listener today, but And since the late 70s, I’ve held to a view called amillennialism, which is the view that has historically been held by the largest number of Christians in history. And at least those who in the Middle Ages and so forth had any view of this that they could enunciate. It is one of the views. And to my mind, it has merit. I don’t have time to go into that in detail right now, but if you ask if that’s a possibility, it certainly is from my point of view. And, by the way, anyone who has access to my website, thenarrowpath.com, can go to the tab that says the page that says Topical Lectures. And there’s a series called When Shall These Things Be that talks about eschatology, including the millennium and that kind of stuff. And you’ll find a much developed biblical argument on the subject. All right, we are going to talk next to John Culler from Stuttgart, Germany. We do still have some lines open, which is advantageous for you if you’ve found it difficult to get on in the past. The number is 844-484-5737. John, welcome to The Narrow Path. Good to hear from you again.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, thank you. It’s an honor to be on here again, and I really – Love running ideas by you and seeing what your thoughts are, so I hope you don’t get fed up with me.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, that’s what people generally do with me. I enjoy it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah. Well, listen, tonight I just wanted to ask you about this. In John’s gospel, you know, it’s the only gospel that Lazarus is mentioned in. And But in the Synoptic Gospels, his sisters are mentioned, but he’s not. And I’m curious about that. There’s some other things. You know, John is referred to as the one that Jesus loved. And, of course, when Martha sent word to Jesus when Lazarus was sick, she said, Lord, the one you love is sick. And he also, this disciple got Peter. into the chief priest’s home when Jesus was on trial. And I’m just wondering, I’ve heard some people say that it’s possible that Lazarus could have been the disciple that Jesus loved. What would your thoughts be on that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, that is a theory that has been floated around, and you’ve presented a pretty good case, at least the case that people make for that view. If I could summarize it, John’s gospel is the only one that refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved. Most scholars believe, and I believe that’s a reference to John himself. We know that it is a reference to the author of the gospel because the end of the gospel of John speaks again of the disciple that Jesus loved and said this is he who testifies of these things and wrote these things, meaning right there in the gospel that he’s the one, the disciple whom Jesus loved is the one who wrote it. Now, if John is not the disciple whom Jesus loved, then of course the church tradition that John wrote the fourth gospel would have to be revamped. If Lazarus is, in fact, the disciple whom Jesus loved, then he’s the author of the fourth gospel, according to that statement. And so we’d have the gospel according to Lazarus. Now, you know, I don’t know why this would be the case and the church would have forgotten that and would have thought that John wrote the gospel. But whoever wrote the gospel, is declared to be the disciple that Jesus loved. Now, the arguments that you gave are interesting because it does say that in John 11, when Martha and Mary sent Jesus news of their brother’s sickness, they said, Lord, the man you love is sick. And so Lazarus is actually the first person in the gospel of John to be referred to as the one whom Jesus loved. And it’s also prior to any mention of the disciple whom Jesus loved in later chapters of John. So some have thought, well, okay, the first mention of someone who Jesus loved is in reference to Lazarus. And then there’s this. repeated reference later on to the disciple whom Jesus loved. And they say, well, isn’t it reasonable to suggest that that’s referring to Lazarus? Well, it could be reasonable, if not for some other considerations, it seems to me. For one thing, John 11 does not simply say that Lazarus was the one that Jesus loved. It says that Mary and Martha also were loved by him. It says Jesus loved Lazarus and Mary and Martha also. which suggests that there’s not just one person mentioned that Jesus loved, but Lazarus was among those that Jesus loved. And then, of course, later in chapter 13, it says at the beginning of the chapter that Jesus loved his disciples, meaning the twelve, and he loved them to the end, it says. Now, in other words, Lazarus is not the only person that is said to be loved by Jesus. His sisters are said in the very same context to be loved by Jesus. And then the disciples are said to be loved by Jesus. So it becomes more complicated to say, well, then who is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved? Now, the synoptic Gospels tell us that the upper room Last Supper was a meeting with Jesus and the Twelve. And yet the disciple whom Jesus loved, according to John, was there leaning against Jesus at the table. So the synoptics do not indicate that there was anyone at the table there. or in the upper room, except Jesus and the Twelve, which would suggest when the Gospel of John refers to the disciple whom Jesus loved leaning against Jesus, it’s almost certainly one of the Twelve. And Lazarus was not one of them. Now, if Lazarus was indeed so close to the disciples that he was in the upper room with them on the Last Supper, then he was indeed extremely close to the apostolic band. It almost makes it questionable why Jesus didn’t choose him to be one of the twelve if he was that close, and why it is that those who wrote the other Gospels didn’t mention him at all, like you say. In fact, the only mention of Lazarus at all is in the fourth Gospel. And it’s always associated with the fact that he died and Jesus raised him from the dead. In other words, it’s a miracle story. And it’s on the same level with the raising of Jairus’ daughter or of the only son of the widow at Nain who died and Jesus raised. So he also raised another man. And John tells us that this happened to be a man that Jesus was close to. Not only close to him, but his family too. But not really making him out to be Unique in that respect. Now, you mentioned that the disciple whom Jesus loved was able to grant Peter access into the court of the high priest. And it is sometimes argued that a John who was a fisherman in Galilee would hardly have had any pull with the high priestly or Sanhedrin families. How would he know the high priest? And therefore it’s suggested maybe it’s unlikely that John would be this disciple. whom Jesus loves, since it’s very unlikely that he, as a peasant fisherman from the other end of the country, would be acquainted with a high priest or his family. Then they suggest, well, maybe that argues for Lazarus. Of course, we’re not told any reason why Lazarus would be considered to be related to a high priest or a friend of the family. In fact, we’re told that the Sanhedrin sought to kill Lazarus after his raise because people were believing in Jesus because of Lazarus. being raised, that being the case, it seems very unlikely that Lazarus would, you know, be able to have some pull at the high priest’s house when he was, you know, there’s a contract out on him by the very people that we’re talking about. So I don’t think that Lazarus had a pull with the high priest any more than John would have. The question about why would a fisherman from Galilee have any such connections with high priest family is not too difficult to imagine, though we can’t say with certainty. It’s merely a speculation. But we know that John and James were the sons of Zebedee. And Salome is said to be the wife of Zebedee. So she was the mother of James and John. There’s a passage in the Bible that suggests that Salome was a sister of Jesus’ mother, Mary. So that Mary and Salome being sisters, their children would be cousins. and therefore John and James, the sons of Zebedee, were cousins of Jesus and his siblings. Now, we know that that family had some connections with the priestly families, because Elizabeth and Zacharias were relatives of Mary’s, and therefore of Salome’s also. There would be exactly the same relationship between Salome as there is between Mary and the priestly family. And Elizabeth, who was some kind of a cousin of some sort of Mary’s, is said to have been of the daughters of Aaron, which puts her squarely in the priestly family, and her husband was a priest. It’s very possible that in the 30 years of Jesus’ lifetime, the families might have been in contact with each other. We don’t know that they were, but… it’s not impossible. I mean, these are, these are people related by blood to each other in some way, not, not described in detail, but, uh, it’s not impossible that John and Jesus and, you know, other members of the, of the family who were related to Elizabeth, who was a, of the priestly families might not have been, uh, you know, acquainted with many of the priests, including the high priest. Hard to say. Um, All I’m saying is we don’t know anything about Lazarus that would suggest that he would have any connection to the high priest family. But at least John would have some relationship to the priestly families. I mean, we know that. So, you know, I don’t see any reason to substitute him with somebody else as the one who was able to gain admission for Peter into the priest’s court.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I appreciate you sharing these things with me because I’ve been curious about this. There is a guy who wrote a book. Let me think the name of it. Well, he was one of the editors. Stricken by God. His name is Michael Harden. Are you familiar with him?
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I’m not.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Did he take the view that Lazarus was the disciple that Jesus loved?
SPEAKER 08 :
He did not. But he did say it could not have been one of the sons of 70.
SPEAKER 02 :
And what was his argument for that?
SPEAKER 08 :
You got me because I’m 72 years old and I can’t remember the details.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m 72 today. This is my birthday. Happy birthday to me.
SPEAKER 08 :
Happy birthday.
SPEAKER 02 :
Now no one else has to say that. No one else has to say that today, please. So I’m 72 today. Okay.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, you know, I got saved when I was like 18, and I was in Germany. And, you know, you talked about the Jesus Revolution. I think that was also the charismatic movement, and I think it was happening all over the place because ministry to military was strong back then.
SPEAKER 02 :
You want to know something, John? I went to Germany. When I was 19. So right around the same time you were there. And I went there as an agent of the Jesus Movement. I came from Calvert Chapel, Costa Mesa, and was invited over there by a youth leader at a Baptist church to come and share about the Jesus Movement. And I spoke there. about three times a day in schools and churches of all kinds for about five weeks in 1972. And I was in Germany myself. So you and I were possibly there at the same time.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I was there from November of 71 until November of 75.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, then you were definitely there when I was there. That’s interesting. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, yeah, you do. I went to this thing in Ramstein Air Base back then, and it was a group that came over, and they did this stage play and musical about the Jesus movement.
SPEAKER 02 :
Really?
SPEAKER 08 :
It was real good, yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m not familiar with it.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, brother, it’s good to hear from you. I probably ought to give someone else a chance.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, you do. You should. Thank you for taking your time with me.
SPEAKER 02 :
And I’ll give you a chance to get to bed because I know it’s about 1120 where you are.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, my wife’s over here dozing off right now.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay. Well, you can join her now. All right.
SPEAKER 08 :
God bless you, brother. God bless you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Bye now. All right. Kerry from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, Steve. It’s interesting that you were talking about the Jesus movement today. I have a couple of things I’m curious about. One of them is concerning that. I got to watch the movie for the first time the other day. The Jesus Revolution? Yes. And it seems like the movie portrayed that there were some pretty strong egos involved, and I just wanted to know if that was depicted accurately. And then the other curiosity I have is, When it comes to the three views of hell, do any of them diminish the awfulness of going to hell?
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, that’s great. Well, let me just say about the movie. The movie was fairly accurate to my knowledge. I was not an insider. I was a teenager in the church in Costa Mesa in 1970 through, well, by the time I left there, I was probably 20. But I was there from 70 to 74. And that was the earliest stages of the Jesus movement. And that was during the time of immense growth of Calvary Chapel. And I did know Chuck and I did know Lonnie. And I knew Greg, Laurie, not extremely well. I actually knew Lonnie and Chuck better than I knew Greg, but I did know Greg. Now, the movie, you know, is not 100% accurate in its biographical information about Greg Laurie or his wife. For example, in the movie, his wife played a vital role in his coming to Christ and coming to Calvary Chapel, where in real life he didn’t even know her before he was a Christian, Kath, his wife. He met her at a Bible study he was teaching after he was already in the ministry. So I don’t know why these details of his biography were altered so much. But from what I know of Chuck and Lonnie, I think the depiction of their, let’s just say their conflicts were fairly accurate. Now, fairly accurate because I was not in on those meetings, those conversations that are depicted in the movie that happened just between Chuck and Lonnie privately. I do know that the issues between them were of the sort that the movie depicts, that Lonnie was more interested in Pentecostal style of ministry than Chuck was a recovering Pentecostal, had been a four-square pastor for years, and was, although still a charismatic, he was wanting to get away from Pentecostal, what he considered to be excesses. And so that was the, as far as I know, that was the difference between Chuck and Lonnie that caused them to part ways. And that’s how the movie depicts it. Now, the movie depicts Lonnie as maybe having a bit of an ego problem. And he may have. I don’t know. I didn’t know him well enough to judge him about that. I can say it wouldn’t be surprising if he did because he had only been saved for a couple of years out of a hippie background. where he hadn’t even known anything about Christ, and then he became a worldwide evangelist with thousands of people following him, and he’s on the front page of many international news magazines and so forth. So, I mean, when a person’s a very young, immature Christian, and they suddenly are thrust into worldwide fame, yeah, it’d be rather surprising if they maintained their humility in their younger years. Now, I would say… if he had continued in the same ministry and grown spiritually more, he probably would have been able to handle that kind of fame, hopefully. But he never really got the chance. So, you know, I wouldn’t give Lonnie a pass if he was, in fact, rather egotistical, though I can’t really say that he was, just from my limited knowledge of him, but But if he was, it’s kind of understandable. I also knew Keith Green. And when Keith Green had been saved only a couple of years, he told me that he was the best-selling Christian artist in the world after being saved for only two years. And he said, frankly, and he told me this privately, he said, it’s kind of hard to stay humble. Kind of hard to say how I’m not very I’m not a very mature Christian. And he said, and, you know, everyone’s fawning over me and I’ve got this huge success. And so, I mean, you know, Keith Green knew that about himself and was honest about it and was struggling against that. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lonnie had the same struggles. As far as Greg, I can’t really comment about, you know, his ego. You know, I don’t know him well enough. I will say this, that if he was an advisor on the movie, and I think he was, then it’s surprising how he kind of is depicted as the main hero of the Jesus movement in the movie. And I would never have thought that that would be an accurate depiction. Greg did become a very powerful and famous and influential preacher, of course. He’s a crusade evangelist. He’s very successful and very effective. And I actually love his evangelistic preaching and his success. I’m glad for it. But I don’t know anything about his ego or anything like that. Not personally. I’ve heard things, but I wouldn’t pass along anything that might seem negative. from somebody without two or more witnesses. Anyway, so that’s that. Now, about the three views of hell, you said, are there any of the three views of hell that would diminish the horrors of hell? Well, I would think, in a sense, only… Only the first view would really maintain the complete horrors of the traditional ideas of hell, because the first view is that it’s a place of eternal, unending, conscious torment from which there is no relief in all eternity. I’d say there’s hardly anything that could be imagined more horrendous than that. Now, the other views of hell don’t make it a pleasant place to go at all. One view of hell is that people are punished there as much as they deserve, and then they’re annihilated, which would be perhaps similar to being on death row and maybe living in some kind of misery on death row until you’re finally executed. I don’t know that anyone would want to trade their present circumstances for that one. So, I mean, to be annihilated after temporal punishment is not at all an easy thing to go through or anything anyone I know would choose to go through if they had a choice. So, I mean, the view of annihilation or conditional immortality is called is by no means a walk in the park. But it at least is not such a thing as depicts God as one who has unending vindictiveness toward people who had the effrontery to. not worship him. And so the fact that some of these other views may not be as terrible as unending punishment has sometimes been used as a criticism of them. But why should the idea of unending conscious torment be the baseline from which we decide whether something is horrible or not? Obviously, the traditional view is exceedingly horrible, but I don’t think it’s a very attractive view to say you’re going to be punished according to all your sins, and then the lights are going to be put out. That doesn’t seem quite as horrible, but it certainly doesn’t sound attractive. It certainly is something that a wise person would avoid if they had the chance. Now, the third view of hell, of course, is that hell will eventually bring people to faith, and they’ll be saved out of it, but There’s no suggestion that this would happen quickly or easily. The idea that hell is a place of torment is seemingly unambiguous in the Bible. What is ambiguous in the Bible is how long that torment would last and how it will end, if at all. So, you know, torment, I’d say torment’s pretty bad. I don’t know anyone who would choose it if they had a choice. For example, how many hours would you want to sit and have bamboo shoots shoved under your fingernails. Probably not very many, you know. I’d say if I had to go through that for a single hour, or I could avoid it, I’d certainly choose to avoid it. So all the views of hell are definitely unpleasant and horrible. It’s just that they’re not all equally horrible. And there’s certainly no reason to believe that a loving God, given several different options, would choose the most horrible one when he doesn’t have to. Hey, Carrie, I appreciate your call. I need to take a break, but we’re going to have another half hour coming up. You’re listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we are going to have another half hour, but we are listener supported. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to us at our website. You can find out our address or even donate from the website, which is thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 01 :
If you enjoy the Narrow Path radio program, you’d really like the resources at our website, thenarrowpath.com, where hundreds of biblical lectures and messages by our host, Steve Gregg, can be accessed without charge and listened to at your convenience. If you have not done so, visit the website, thenarrowpath.com, and discover all that is available for your learning pleasure.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we have another half hour ahead of us, and I’m looking at a switchboard with a number of empty lines, which you could occupy if you give me a call right now if you have questions about the Bible. or the Christian faith or disagreements with the host that you’d like to discuss on the air, here’s the number to call, 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. All right, our next caller is, let’s see, our next caller is Kelly in Orange County, California. We had a caller on longer who apparently just hung up. Kelly, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hello, my friend. Thanks for taking my call. I have a pretty short question. What’s your opinion on street preachers? I see them up front at, like, sporting conventions and other conventions, and I’m just kind of just, like, arguing with people on casting division in Christ and not really embodying them when they preach, arguing with gay people and trans people and kind of not bringing the crisis-causing division, I have my opinion. I mean, what do you think? of how they preach and what do you think Jesus is going to say to them when they sit in the judgment seat of Christ?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Well, I have to say that not all street preachers are the same, but many of them are the same. And I could level some criticisms of some of the things I’ve seen. I want to say that when I first entered the ministry when I was 16, I considered that street preachers were doing faithfully the thing that Jesus and the apostles did and which we were commanded to do, but most of us are too timid to do, and I admired them because I was too timid to do it for the most part. There were a few times when I was with friends who did that that I would do a little bit of it myself, but I never felt comfortable with it, and I was ashamed. that I was so timid about it. I thought, boy, I wish I had the guts they had. Those guys are really courageous. And so I had only good thoughts about them. And as I went on through life and encountered more of them, for example, there’s a ministry in a major city in the United States that has a convention or a convocation of street preachers from all over the country who come and invade the city and preach on several different street corners for two weeks and so forth. And, you know, I attended that a few times and saw a lot. Of course, over the years, I’ve seen street preachers in many, many different places. rather than being embarrassed for myself that I wasn’t doing it, sometimes I’ve been embarrassed for them because I felt like they were not getting across, you know, a depiction of the message or the character correctly. of Christ. And, you know, although I couldn’t deny they were very courageous, of course, there’s certain, you know, not to make an equivalence, but there’s certain cultists and so forth that are very courageous to go door-to-door and have the door slammed in their faces. In fact, door-to-door salesmen would have to have that kind of courage, too, I would think. But the thing is that… However well-intentioned. First of all, they’re not doing what Jesus and the apostles did. I knew a man in the South, the American South, who ran a ministry. He was a street preacher himself, and he ran a ministry of street preachers. And he held street preacher conventions. And on his… organization’s letterhead, I noticed he had the statement, Jesus was a street preacher. And I had to ask myself, was Jesus a street preacher? And what do we mean by a street preacher? It is true that Jesus often preached in the open air, that is, on hillsides, by the lake, you know, different places, probably in the streets sometimes, too. And indoors as well at the synagogues and probably at certain people’s houses and so forth. So Jesus preached just about everywhere he went. But he wasn’t specifically one who made it a habit to preach on the street. And as near as I can tell from what we have on record, Jesus never just went out on the street and said, OK, everybody, listen to me. Here’s my message. What happened in Jesus’ life? was that people came to hear him. They either had heard of his miracles and they wanted to see miracles, or they had heard someone report that he might be the Messiah, and they came out of curiosity to hear him. And a lot of times he was trying to avoid them, but when they caught up with him, he had compassion on them and began to teach them, the Bible says. So, I mean, Jesus did teach in the open air and in other venues, but as far as we know, he only preached… in crowds that had gathered to hear him. Only one exception is known to me, and he didn’t say much on that occasion, and that is John 7 at the Feast of Tabernacles, where he was in the crowd while the priests were enacting a yearly ritual, and he simply cried out, If anyone thirsts, let him come unto me and drink. And he that believes in me, out of his innermost being, shall flow rivers of living water. That’s a rather short sermon and invitation. And to my knowledge, it’s the only time when people heard him preach who had not gathered to hear him preach. Now, on the other hand, they had gathered to focus on God. It was a worship time, and Jesus was addressing their spiritual hunger or thirst. So it was an exception, but it’s maybe not a very broadly different exception. Anyway, the point is that I don’t know that Jesus could be described as a street preacher. And Paul, I guess, maybe could be said to be a street preacher in that when he went to Athens in Acts chapter 17, it says that he reasoned with the people in the marketplace. We don’t know that he stood on a street corner and started shouting at people. He might have just struck up ordinary conversations and reasoned with them. But I will say this, that… I know of no case when Jesus the Apostle simply went somewhere where there were a lot of people and started annoying them by shouting at them, as is often done. Now, there may be times when this is a good thing to do. Jonah did that at Nineveh. It worked for him. But it doesn’t appear to be a normal practice in the New Testament today. And I would not be prepared to say that it was never done in the New Testament. It may have been, but it certainly isn’t anything that’s ever recorded as a normative thing to do. Therefore, I’m going to say, when you say, what do I think about street preachers, I’m going to say, well, it depends on the situation and who’s doing it and so forth. I think there are some street preachers. that are worthy representations of Christ, who aren’t trying to get in people’s faces and be annoying. They don’t seem angry and judgmental necessarily, but they have good news. That’s what the gospel is, and the gospel is good news. It’s the good news that Christ is the king, that there’s a kingdom now, the kingdom of God. And to announce good news shouldn’t be an angry announcement. It should be a welcoming, earnest announcement. but it’s clear that there’s many people whose ideas of the gospel are you need to preach hellfire and brimstone at people, you need to shout at them if they’re ignoring you, if they’re walking by you on the street and they’re paying you no attention, that you keep shouting at them as they walk away into the distance. When you begin to see that people are crossing the street to avoid a preacher, there’s a good indication there that he’s not like Christ because people came to Christ. wanting to hear him. So I’m going to say I don’t, generally speaking, advocate street preaching these days, but I would have to judge on a case-by-case basis. I will say this. It surprised me back in the, I’m going to say it was the 80s. I was reading a book by D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, who I consider to be a great preacher in England of the past. And I don’t remember which book it was, but he shocked me when he spoke out or he wrote against lay preachers preaching in the open air. And I was surprised because, of course, people like Wesley and George Whitefield did that very thing and very effectively. But D. Mark Lloyd-Jones’ criticism was that many times people who don’t really know the gospel very well or not very mature Christians, they’ve got more zeal than they have common sense, or more zeal than they have expertise on the message they’re supposed to preach, they go out there as self-appointed preachers and bring shame on the gospel. And I’m going to say, while it surprised me to hear him take that position when I read it, I had to admit, yeah, I know what he’s talking about. You know, anybody can stand on the street and preach any gospel they want to, unfortunately. And to me, if the person is not a mature Christian, does not understand well what the message of Christ is, they may be doing more harm than good. So, I mean, those are some general remarks. I’m not condemning street preaching or endorsing it. I would say some people who do it probably are not doing the wrong thing. And in some cases, as in the case of Jonah, it may be exactly what God told them to do. But, you know, I kind of cringe a little bit or a lot when I hear certain street preachers, as apparently you do, too. It sounds like you have the same concerns.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah. Amen. And don’t buy their fruits, you know. Thanks, my friend. Thanks for my call. God bless.
SPEAKER 02 :
Amen. God bless you, Kelly. Good talking to you. Jose in Concord, New Hampshire. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you, Steve. God bless you. I have a question regarding the rapture of the church. I find myself in a difficult bind. My denomination is pre-tribulant. And I find myself now studying more about it and inclined of, more mid-trib to post-trib. What do you recommend for me to do in this case? Because I love my denomination and I don’t want to stray away from their teaching, but it’s making more sense to me now the more post-trib views of the rapture.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, what I would recommend to you is continue your studies and follow in your own convictions what you find to be taught in Scripture. and I believe that your studies are leading you in a correct direction, though I don’t want you to take that direction because I would endorse it. I think you should do what you’re doing. Just continue to study the scriptures and learn from them. Now, you’re in a church that holds a different view than that. Well, what I have learned is that some churches are threatened if the view they teach is enunciated or held by people in their church. And if that’s the case with your church, I would just not say much about it. Now, that’s not being deceptive because you’re under no obligation to say anything about it. It’s not as if they having the wrong view of the rapture somehow is going to damn them. And even if your view is wrong, it won’t damn you. Nobody is going to be saved or lost or favored or disfavored by God because of their view about the rapture. It simply isn’t on the list of things that God cares that you believe as near as we can tell. He’s certainly not going to judge anyone on that. But the church might judge you for it. And therefore, I would say just keep your views on it to yourself if it’s going to alienate you from the church. Because your relationships in the body of Christ are far more important than your agreement on the subject of eschatology. So, I mean, to me, when I get to know someone, I don’t ask them what they think about the rapture. And if they don’t ask me, we may never find out what each other believe because it’s not important. It would only become important if somebody is using their view of the rapture as an excuse to do things that Christians shouldn’t do. Now, I don’t think that most people who have the wrong view of the rapture probably are doing that. But there are people who feel… that if the rapture isn’t going to be before the tribulation, that they’re not going to bother being Christians anymore. Or they’re believing that the rapture is before the tribulation, causes them to take a cowardly approach to life in general, because they’re not prepared, as Jesus told his disciples to be, to face tribulation for the kingdom of God’s sake. Jesus said to his disciples, in the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer. I’ve overcome the world. And Paul said something very much like that when he was writing to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians chapter 3. By the way, Jesus’ statement is found in John 16, 33. But in 1 Thessalonians chapter 3, Paul said in verse 4, For in fact we told you before when we were with you that we would suffer tribulation. Just as it happened, and you know. So both Jesus and Paul told the disciples that they will suffer tribulation, that they should be prepared for that. Now, if somebody has learned a pre-tribulation rapture view, and due to that have come to expect there will be no tribulation in their lives, well, then they are not prepared for real life at all. Even if there is a pre-trib rapture, there may be plenty of tribulation in their life before that, And if they’re not prepared for that, they may fall away. And remember, Jesus talked about the seed that fell on shallow soil in Matthew 13 and in the parallels in Luke 8 and Mark 4. The seed fell on shallow soil where there’s rock underneath. And he says it sprang up, but it died when the sun came up because it didn’t have roots. And Jesus described that as somebody who, when they hear the gospel, they receive it joyfully initially. But he said when tribulation… and persecution come because of the word they fall away so it’s obvious that those who fell away were not prepared to face tribulation and persecution because of the word and they didn’t have roots in jesus at all they uh they did not count the cost uh they did not deny themselves and take up their cross which means they probably uh you know i mean it’s hard to refer to them as normative christians but uh But there are people like that. They will fall away when tribulation comes, and Jesus said that, even though Jesus warned us to be prepared for tribulation. Now, again, even pre-tribbers, people who believe the rapture is before the tribulation, may, in fact, properly prepare themselves and others to suffer tribulation. I know that when I was pre-trib, and that was the case for several years in the beginning of my ministry as a pre-tribber, I was willing to die for Jesus. I had read Fox’s Book of Martyrs. I had read Richard Wormbrant’s book. I’d read Corrie Ten Boom’s books. I’d read other books like this about Christians in modern times who, even though the tribulation had not yet come in my eschatology, they were still facing tribulation. And I just, to me, I was realistic. I realized that even if there is a pre-trib rapture, I may have to I may be martyred. Who knows? And I was ready for that. And so being a pre-tribber did not have that adverse effect on me that it seemingly does have on some people I’ve heard. But again, until somebody starts behaving wrongly or talking irresponsibly because of their belief in the pre-trib rapture, even though I don’t believe in it, I wouldn’t see a need to correct them. And so, yeah, if it’s going to endanger your relationship with your church, and it’s too bad that it would, then I would just say be quiet on it. In a healthy church, it wouldn’t. In a healthy church, pastors and leaders would know that not all good Christians believe in a pre-trib rapture. and that you want good Christians in your church, not necessarily people who are defined by a homogeneity of their beliefs about end times. A correct belief about end times does not predict for good Christianity. It may. A person who’s a good Christian may have correct views, but the two… The idea of having a correct eschatology and being a solid disciple of Christ, they are not bound at the hip to each other. They are not correlative. They are separate issues. So a healthy church and healthy church leadership would be delighted to have a dedicated Christian. in their membership, even if he doesn’t have the same eschatology they do. But, you know, it’s an unhealthy thing that many denominations have, is this fear, fear of people who don’t share their views on little issues of no importance. And if your church is like that, it’s a shame that it’s like that, but you no doubt do have important relationships in the church, which I would not jeopardize by getting into discussions about this question. All right, brother. Thanks for your call. Okay, let’s talk to Sherry from Detroit, Michigan. Sherry, welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Just a quick question with the passing of Phil Robertson on Sunday this week. Have you ever met him or anyone in his family? What do you think about them, or do you know anything about them? And would you ever go on the Unashamed podcast that Phil started? because your teaching lines up with pretty much everything I’ve heard on their podcast. I was just wondering if you’d ever go on their podcast.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’d love to. I’ve never been invited. But, you know, I have to say that I never met any of the Robertson family, but I did wish I could. I read his book. What was it called? Something about politics, Jesus and the Kingdom.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, Jesus Politics. He’s got a lot of books, but yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Yeah, that book he had about the kingdom of God, I thought, well, I resonate with this guy. I’m glad to hear him taking his stand. And I actually went to – I was at Payne’s last time I was in Tennessee to find out what church they went to. Now, they aren’t in Tennessee, but I was a lot closer to where they were while I was in Tennessee, and somebody there had been there and had met him there. And I thought, well, maybe I’ll visit that church sometime. This was before his dementia or Alzheimer’s was publicized. I was hoping someday maybe I’d go down there and meet him because I, you know. Yeah, it’s in Louisiana, his church. Right, right. And I even don’t know what church it was, but I never got down there. Anyway, if they wanted me on their podcast, I’d be glad to be on it. But I don’t know them. They probably don’t know who I am. And so I don’t necessarily expect to be invited.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, I think somebody ought to reach out and get you on there because you’d be awesome on there. And I think they’d like to have you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, I’d love it. I love it if someone has a connection with them or wants to just recommend to them.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, Whites Ferry Road is their church, but it’s in Louisiana. Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, thanks, Steve. That’s all I got.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. Thanks for your call. God bless you. All right. Let’s see. Joyce from Topsham, Maine. Welcome to The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hello.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hi. Hi.
SPEAKER 05 :
The other day, a man was on there and had a question about the multiplying of the loaves, why there were 12 baskets left over one time and seven another time. And I’d like to comment on that. I heard in a whole separate sermon, somebody said that there were seven Gentile tribes. And then I checked out the towns where these happened. The 12 loaves happened outside Jerusalem. a Jewish town. And I mean, the seven baskets left over and the seven, the 12 baskets left over were outside a Jewish town. The seven baskets left over were outside a Gentile town. And I was thinking that meant that there was enough of Jesus for all the 12 tribes and then enough of Jesus for all the Gentile tribes.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, as I said to the caller, You know, the number 12 and the number 7 are so frequent in Scripture that one is tempted to see some kind of symbolism in that, especially when Jesus reminded his disciples. You remember when I said the 5,000, how many baskets were there? And they said 12 baskets. And then he said, and when I said the 4,000, how many baskets? They said seven, as if that was an important thing. And in fact, he said, do you still not understand? So it sounds like there was something he was getting at there. And the numbers 12 and 7 being, as they are, very common numbers in Scripture, I said it’s very possible there was a meaning that I’m not getting there. And I don’t know what it is now. That would be what you suggested would be a very, you know, an edifying meaning. I can’t I can’t put my stamp of approval on it without knowing whether it’s the correct one. I will say this, though. There were not seven Gentile tribes. There were in the Jewish mind. There were 70. Gentile nations. They got that from Genesis 10, what’s called the table of nations. It was the belief of the Jewish rabbis that there were 70 Gentile nations and not seven. But, you know, I mean, what you’re suggesting may, there may be some connection that I’m not picking up. Anyway, yeah, I can’t really confirm or deny that particular interpretation, but I appreciate you sharing it with us. Daryl from Los Angeles, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hey, Steve. Good to hear from you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hey, good to hear from you, Daryl. Great to hear from you again.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes, sir. Real quick. So the faith of Enoch and Abel, I’m not quite seeing the act of faith, what was needed for the offering that was accepted by Abel and for Enoch to be translated. That’s question number one. Then question number two real quick. is when David counted the people in 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24, why didn’t God just punish Israel for whatever he was angry at them about? Do we know that? Because he worked with Satan to move David, but why didn’t God just punish Israel for whatever it was that they did?
SPEAKER 02 :
All right. All right. So as far as Abel and Enoch, what you’re referring to is the fact that Hebrews 11 tells us that by faith, Abel offered more excellent sacrifices than Cain. And then it also says, by faith, Enoch walked with God and was not because God took him. So you’re saying, well, what was it, where is the faith involved here in Abel’s offering the better sacrifice and in Enoch walking with God and being taken? Well, you know, the Bible says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. So there’s no way that anything Abel did would have been said to be by faith unless there had been a word from God commanding it. And, you know, Jesus in Luke 11 tells us that Abel was a prophet. He doesn’t just come out and say Abel was a prophet, but he said that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah will come on this generation. So he included Abel among those that he called the prophets. And if Abel was a prophet, that means he spoke the word of God. prophetically. Now, I’m going to have to assume that since he did what he did by faith, he did because he trusted in the word that God had given to him. And Cain, lacking faith, did not take seriously the word of God. And so, doing what God said to do because God said to do it is what the author of Hebrews is saying was the manifestation of Abel’s faith. As far as Enoch… We’re not told that he was caught up because of his faith, I don’t think, but he walked with God because of his faith. So, you know, a person who walks with God has got to do so. And so, you know, that’s why both those men are included among those who had faith before the time of Noah. Now, as far as why didn’t God just punish Israel instead of having David go through the census, I can’t answer that question because I don’t know why God does some of the things he does. It may well be we know that the devil seeks occasion against God’s people, and it may be that the devil came and sought this occasion to tempt David, at a very moment when God was just primed to bring judgment on Israel, and so he used this occasion to do so. Apart from that, I wouldn’t be able to know the answer to that. We’re not told. There’s many mysteries about that particular story, like even why was it wrong to number the people. That’s not at all clear, but it was clearly the case. Anyway, I’m sorry I’m out of time. I wish we could talk more, and we will, Daryl, sometime. God bless you. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. We are listener supported. You can help us out if you want to find out how. Go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let’s talk again tomorrow. God bless you.
