This installment of The Narrow Path takes the audience on a journey through the discomforts of spiritual life and relationships. Host Steve Gregg apologizes for a previous broadcast’s technical mishaps, ensuring today’s uninterrupted session. The broadcast is an open invitation for individuals with biblical questions to engage in enlightening discussions. Steve tackles various concerns and queries, including the intriguing phases of the Kingdom of God and what it means to partake in this divine process. The episode takes a heartfelt turn as a listener shares a personal story about a potentially adulterous marriage, which has spiritual and emotional implications.
SPEAKER 1 :
Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and I want to apologize for yesterday. We started out the program live and the internet connection I had cut out very early into the program. My apologies to the first of all the caller I was talking to when I got cut off and also to those that were waiting in line. We had to end up playing a recorded show because I wasn’t able to get reconnected. This was one of those occasions where I was broadcasting remotely and not depending on my home Internet. And it was a great frustration. Anyway, we are live today. And so if you want to call, we have a few lines open. We have an hour together, commercial free, no interruptions of that kind. And if you want to call in with questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, that’s the kind of thing we talk about here. You’re also welcome to call in if you have a disagreement with the host and want to say why. We’ll be glad to talk to you about that. The number to call is 844- That’s 844-484-5737. By the way, tonight is the first Wednesday of the month, and therefore we have our monthly Zoom meeting tonight. We only have this once a month, and it’s always the first Wednesday of the month. And so that’s tonight at 7 p.m. Pacific time. And you’re welcome to join us. It’s a Q&A time. You can ask questions or you can just listen in while others do. But to log in, you simply need to go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. That’s thenarrowpath.com. And under the tab that says announcements, you’ll find tonight’s date, June 4th, and you’ll see that log in for the Zoom meeting tonight. Again, that’s 7 o’clock tonight. I look forward to seeing many of you, as we do once a month in this format. All right. We’re going to go to the phones. Let me just remind you, the phone number is 844-484-5737. And I’m looking at two open lines. So if you want to call now, you’ll probably get one of those. All right. Our first caller today is Jacob from Tacoma, Washington. Hi, Jacob. Welcome.
SPEAKER 06 :
Hi, Steve. Can you hear me all right?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yes, sir.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay, I was thinking about, I’m an existentialist, and I know you’re not a full preterist, but I have some verses I’d like to read and get your comments. Okay. In Luke chapter 22, verses 14 through 16, it says, When the hour came, he reclined and the apostles with him, and he said to them, I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I say to you, I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. I left out the parts that are in italics. But I’m wondering if that would be future to this time when he ate the Passover with them.
SPEAKER 08 :
You know, it’s a good question. What does he mean he will not eat the Passover again with them until he eats it in the kingdom of God? Well, first of all, they were already in the kingdom of God in one sense. And they came to be in the kingdom of God in another sense when they were regenerated as we are. Paul describes in Colossians 1.13 that when we’re regenerated, We are delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his son. So when we’re regenerated, we actually enter the kingdom of God in another phase that they had not yet entered into at that point because Jesus had not yet died. risen, ascended, or sent the Spirit. But we are, you know, we are in that sense in the kingdom of God now. There’s another sense, of course, when Christ is present with us and his kingdom is universalized and all people everywhere, every knee bows and every tongue confesses that he’s Christ. So the kingdom of God, as Jesus said, came in phases. He said it was like a seed that that grew first into the form of a blade and then into the heads of corn or wheat on the stock, and then the ripened or matured corn or wheat in the head. So he’s talking about a development through different stages of the kingdom of God, he said. And so it’s hard to know which phase he’s talking about. Does he mean when he returns? Does he mean that he took Passover with them again once the Spirit had come, once they had been translated into the kingdom of God, as it says in Colossians, that he’s with us at the table every time we gather, where two or more gathered in his name? There is he in the midst of us, and as we eat and drink these things, that he does it with us at that time, maybe. It’s possible, even, that, I mean, he did say in this passage, What did he say? I will no longer eat of it, meaning the Passover, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. In some of the parallel passages, Mark or Luke, it says, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in the kingdom of God. So, I mean, this one specifically seems to speak of him Passover, having Passover with him. But he also says he won’t have the drink of the fruit of the vine. Now, he was… Remember when he was on the cross and he said, I thirst, they offered him some sour wine on a sponge and he rejected it. And then just before he died, they offered again and he took it and then he died. And I wonder, because even though it was sour wine, it would be of the fruit of the vine, I wonder if that was him saying, okay, the kingdom of God is now established, and now I’m going to have the fruit of the vine here again. I’ll taste that sponge with wine on it. It’s definitely a very ambiguous statement. And, you know, one thing that some could suggest about it is that what he’s saying is, I won’t eat the Passover again with you until the kingdom of God has come. And he’d simply be saying since the Passover is celebrated once a year, that he’s saying it won’t be another year before the kingdom of God comes. And, of course, that would be true. This is the last Passover he had with them before his ascension and before the coming of the Spirit and so forth. So I’m thinking there’s more than one possible meaning of this. I’ve found it ambiguous for all 50 or 60 years that I’ve read it. I’ve thought of all these different possibilities, and I really can’t settle on one. I’m not sure which one he meant.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. Well, that helps a lot. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. Good to see you tonight on Zoom.
SPEAKER 06 :
I have Abaceti.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh, okay. That’ll be the first time you’ve missed it, I think.
SPEAKER 06 :
You’re usually there. Okay.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right. God bless you.
SPEAKER 06 :
Thanks. Bye now.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Mike in Cool, California. Mike, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 07 :
Good afternoon, Steve. How are you doing today? All right. Thanks. So, I have a question that’s been laying heavy on my heart for some time. I believe I’m in an adulterous marriage. And I’ve listened to you talk about this to a number of people, and the more I hear, the more I believe it. So to get down to the facts, I guess, when I got married, my wife’s marriage before me, her divorce was about as far from biblical as you can get, in my opinion, of course. And so her Ex is still unmarried. My ex is married. I kind of got stuck in a situation that the whole time bothered me spiritually tremendously, and I do believe God has chastened me because of it. So I don’t know what to do. If you want to know the truth, I know what I should do, but I’m not really sure.
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s a hard thing. How long have you been in this marriage now?
SPEAKER 07 :
Eight years. I found out about it a couple years in.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so her ex-husband has been celibate for eight years?
SPEAKER 07 :
I don’t know about celibate, but he’s not married.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah. Is he a Christian man?
SPEAKER 07 :
He claims to be. I know very little about him. All I know is they got divorced because he… Didn’t want to include her properties in a – oh, I’m having an old person brain fart.
SPEAKER 08 :
In a trust?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, not in a trust, but he was going to claim bankruptcy.
SPEAKER 08 :
I see. Now, she divorced him or vice versa?
SPEAKER 07 :
I don’t really know. I think he divorced her.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 07 :
But it was mutual. Let’s put it that way.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Yeah, this is, I mean, there are circumstances in which, obviously, a person who enters into an adulterous marriage should, in fact, restore the woman to her original husband. There are cases like that. In the Bible, for example, when Saul drove David out of Jerusalem, Saul, the king, legally married David’s wife, Michal, to another man named Paltiel. And when David came to power, he required that his wife come back to him because he had never divorced her. He had never approved of it. She had been legally married in a second marriage, but not morally so. She was still David’s wife. because he had never released her, he had never seen fit to it, so he required her to come back. Now, that’s a slightly different situation because in the Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 24, it says that if a man divorces his wife and she goes and marries another man, it says if the second man divorces her or dies, she cannot go back to her first husband. Now, that would suggest that that if her husband divorced her and he had no biblical grounds, well, then he was sinning about that. And if she agreed to it, she didn’t have the right attitude either. But the thing is, though, his divorcing her, In the Old Testament, which although we’re not under the Old Testament, it certainly does depict the moral code or God’s idea of what justice and faithfulness and so forth are with reference to this kind of thing. He said once the husband’s divorced her, if she’s married to someone else, she can’t go back to him. Now, here’s the difference. If she had divorced him, he might never have approved of the divorce. And if she divorced him illegitimately and went out and married somebody else like yourself, then she would be, in fact, you know, just cheating on her husband because he has never divorced her. He’s never renounced that, you know, covenant they have. And she’s obligated. It’s just like… It’s just like if a wife leaves her husband and goes off and lives with another guy for a while, and then she becomes convicted of her adultery, that, of course, when she’s repentant of her adultery, she’ll go back to her husband because you can’t just repent of your adultery and keep doing it. On the other hand… It sounds like your wife was divorced by her husband. He put her away because of some differences. And while she may or may not have objected to it, it sounds like it was his decision, his action. Now, that being so, you know, I’m not so sure that she could go back to him. Now, the way I would understand it, the only reason a woman in a second marriage should go back to her first husband is A, if he is not, the first husband has not in any sense reneged on the vows. For example, he’s divorced her or maybe he’s just been with other women since or something like that. That kind of thing would mean that she’d be free, I think. But if he had remained faithful and really wanted the marriage still, then I think she’d be obligated to go back to him if he’s not ever violated the vows. But the fact that he initiated a divorce was his violation of those vows. And so it strikes me, and some would disagree with this because there are a lot of different opinions out there about divorce or marriage among Christians, but it strikes me that she was not in the wrong to remarry because, I mean, maybe she, you know, I don’t know how long she was single, but maybe she shouldn’t have married quickly to see if her husband would repent. But the point is that they are, there’s no wrong being done to him in this case. You know, he gave up on the marriage. He released her. And there are situations where in which such a man might want her back. But the law of God said he can’t have her back once she’s remarried. Now, the Bible doesn’t forbid her to be remarried. Now, I realize that in Jesus’ teaching, he said that if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. And it’s not entirely clear in what sense he does that. Some might say because he drives her into a second marriage, and a second marriage would be adultery, in which that would seemingly impact your marriage. But it would be very different than what the Old Testament says about the same subject. It could mean that she’s driven back into… a desperate attempt to support herself through prostitution or something like that. It’s hard to know exactly how Jesus means that. But I will say the wording is different in different passages. I think despite the specific wording, the principle is that when people get married, they make vows to be faithful to each other. Those vows can be violated and end those covenants. by two things. One would be adultery on part of the spouse, and the other would be a non-Christian deciding he doesn’t want to be married to the Christian anymore. Now, I didn’t ask you. I probably need to just to get a better grasp of what your situation is. Was your wife a Christian at that time when the divorce took place?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, let’s just say a lot of people claim to be Christians but don’t live that way. Sure. And the part that’s really bothered me is I have suffered… with my health in a major way ever since that happened. And I wonder, is God chastening me for the decisions, well, I made without knowing, and then after I found out, for not putting an end to it? And there’s lots of things that, reasons why I didn’t, but, you know, reasons are excuses. Well, I just don’t know what to do.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right.
SPEAKER 07 :
You have a terrible marriage, that’s all I can say.
SPEAKER 08 :
You say you have a terrible marriage?
SPEAKER 07 :
Terrible.
SPEAKER 08 :
Oh. Well, what’s her attitude toward all of this?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, most of the time she’s screaming at me to get a divorce. And then when I say, okay, fine, her attitude changes. And… Okay. Yeah. Not good.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, there’s a couple of things here. It seems to me your conscience is bothering you about the whole legitimacy of the marriage, and you have a case. I can think of scenarios where your marriage could be legitimate, though we don’t know enough of the facts, but we don’t know what her husband’s been doing in his sexual life in the past eight years. So without knowing that, the answer to that could have a lot to say. about whether she was free to marry you or not at this point. But it sounds like she’s the one who wants a divorce now, although she chickens out, I guess, when you discuss it. What I would suggest, it sounds to me like you don’t have an intimate, warm marriage as it is.
SPEAKER 07 :
Not at all.
SPEAKER 08 :
Do you have children together?
SPEAKER 07 :
Old as two stones.
SPEAKER 08 :
No. What I would suggest is that… What’s that? You’re both elderly?
SPEAKER 07 :
We’re elderly.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. You know, what I would suggest in a case like that is you’ve got some ambiguity in the situation. I would suggest that you explore living separately. You know, with or without a divorce, you can live separately. It may be that she will divorce you. Okay. I would just suggest that you don’t divorce her because you don’t know enough of the situation to know the background and so forth. But, I mean, if she divorces you, I would see it as a case of a Christian divorcing, I mean, a non-Christian divorcing a Christian. And Paul did talk about that, you know. But I would think that, now, does she depend on you financially?
SPEAKER 07 :
No, it’s actually the other way around.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so would you be in a position to move out at all?
SPEAKER 07 :
that’s been the problem. That’s the only reason I stayed. I got hurt in a workman contact event where I became disabled.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, let me suggest this. There is moral ambiguity in your situation, okay? And your conscience bothers you about that. And therefore, I think you guys probably should, and it doesn’t seem like this would be a great sacrifice in your marriage as it is, should sleep separately, you know? You do. Okay. And I don’t know that you have to get a divorce in the situation since you’re kind of de facto divorced. not living like a married couple anyway. But it’s hell. What’s that?
SPEAKER 07 :
I hate to say it. I said, but it’s hell.
SPEAKER 08 :
It is hell, yes, I’m sure it is. Well, if you could, I don’t know.
SPEAKER 07 :
You don’t know all the information. I will say this.
SPEAKER 08 :
As long as you are not sleeping with her, you are not committing adultery, even if she, I mean, she may be legitimately your wife in God’s sight. But she apparently isn’t wanting to be intimate with you anyway, so you’re not wronging her to remain celibate. And if she, in fact, in God’s sight, is another man’s wife, then you’re not committing adultery by being celibate. So it seems to me like celibacy would be the way for you to go until you know more about the situation and have a clear conscience in it. And, you know, continuing to live, whatever, if you’re sharing resources or the house or whatever. Chris, I don’t know you. I don’t know her. I don’t know the situation except for this short conversation we’ve had. But I would say that, you know, in your situation, which has some ambiguity – I would think that since you are not sleeping together at this point anyway, to continue being in that until you have more moral clarity about the situation. And if you continue in this situation until you die, then that’s what happens. I mean, I have to say, I know of marriages where there’s no sex. And sometimes it’s not because they don’t love each other. It might be because… There’s mental illness or there’s a physical handicap or something. Something prevents it.
SPEAKER 07 :
It’s not the sex that bothers me. It’s the screaming and yelling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah. Well, if you can get a room somewhere else, then I’d suggest that that might be a wise thing for you to do. Your finances sound like they’re somewhat dependent on her, so I’m not really sure how to work that out. Yeah, exactly. She might be open to it, too. She might even be willing to help finance that. I don’t know. Anyway, it sounds like she doesn’t enjoy living with you any more than you enjoy living with her. And so whether you lived under the same roof or under two different roofs, I don’t know that that would make a difference.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. Well, thank you so much.
SPEAKER 08 :
I’m sorry for your situation. By the way, I’ve definitely known some situations like that very close to home. I’m sorry to hear about it.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, you have a blessed day, and thanks for listening to my woes.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, brother. Sorry.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. God bless you. Thank you. God bless you.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thanks. Well, let’s talk to Jimmy from Staten Island, New York. Jimmy, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thanks, Dave. Thanks for taking the call. How are you doing? What I wanted to discuss is the difference between God birthing somebody, the new birth, John chapter 3, being born from above and being saved. And I want to start with John 10, 9. And I want to ask you a question. Jesus said, I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved. That’s part A. What is Jesus talking about? Entering into what?
SPEAKER 08 :
Into Christ. Into the kingdom.
SPEAKER 04 :
the kingdom of God, right?
SPEAKER 08 :
Oddly so, yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, when you go to John 3, Nicodemus, he didn’t ask Jesus, what must I do to be born again? In John 3, 5, Jesus said, truly, truly, I say unto you, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. So even though Jesus said in John 10, 9, by me, if any man enter… if any man enter… he shall be saved. Now here he’s saying in John 3, you can’t enter until you’re born of water and the Spirit. So then if you drop down to verse 8, Nicodemus didn’t say, he said, how can these things be? He didn’t say, what must I do to be born again? And he didn’t say, what must I do to be saved, like in the Philippian jail? I believe that somebody is saved once they become born again by believing in Christ, and it’s two separate events. The first one is totally dependent on the mercy of God, giving some birth to somebody. And in John 3.8, he said, the wind blows, actually he says, the spirit breathes what he desires. And now here is the sound thereof, but cannot tell from whence it cometh and whither it goeth. So, the word so means in this manner is everyone born of the spirit. So there’s nothing that he did. I know you’re going to drop down to 316, but that’s a separate issue. You know, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, when he put the serpent on the pole, everybody that looked were healed in the same manner when Christ was lifted up. But the only ones that will believe are the ones that, unless you’re born from above, you cannot even entertain the thought of the kingdom of God. You can’t perceive. You can’t understand. That’s why he said, except a man be born again.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, let me jump in here. Yeah, you’re paraphrasing that in a way I don’t agree with. You say unless man has been born again, he can’t even perceive or have an interest in the kingdom of God. I don’t see that stated anywhere. A man doesn’t enter it except through being born again. So, you know, to my mind, you’re looking at him as unless he was born again, he can’t see the kingdom of God. But the see in that sense is used in the sense of experiencing. For example, later in the same chapter in verse 36 says, It says, he who believes in the Son has everlasting life, but he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life. Okay, it means he won’t experience life. It doesn’t mean he’ll never see it. He’ll see other people who have it, but he won’t see it himself. He won’t participate in it. That’s just a manner of speaking. And he won’t see the kingdom either, which in verse 3 he says they won’t see the kingdom. In verse 5 he says, says will not enter the kingdom, which I believe is another way of saying the same thing. Both statements, I think, are identical in meaning. Now, for those who wonder what you’re getting at, I’ll have to get to this one after our break. We have a break coming up here briefly, and then I’m going to get back to your question and talk to you about it. So please stay on, and we’ll get back to it. You’re listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg, and… We are a listener-supported program. We have been on the air for 28 years daily, and we pay a lot of money to radio stations every month to stay on. But we’ve never sold a product, never offered anything for sale, never had a sponsor. We’ve just depended on people like yourself. If you’d like to help us stay on the air, that’s how we stay on the air. If you’d like to write to us, the address is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730. Temecula, California, 92593. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Hey, I’ll be back in 30 seconds. Don’t go away. We have another half hour coming up.
SPEAKER 02 :
Do you find that reading the Bible leaves you scratching your head with more new questions than you had before you read it? but don’t know where to go for answers? You may be interested then in Steve Gregg’s many online lectures, downloadable without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com. There’s no charge for anything at thenarrowpath.com. Visit us there and be amazed at all you have been missing.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. Our lines are full right now, so I won’t give out the phone number. If they do clear up or some, well, a line just opens, I will give you the phone number. If you want to call, the number is 844- 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. And again, I want to remind you that we have our Zoom meeting open. It only happens once a month. Tonight, 7 p.m. Pacific time. You don’t have to be in the same time zone with us. You can call from anywhere in the world, and people do. I say call. You can log in. And you can get the login information at our website, thenarrowpath.com. There’s a tab that says announcements. And look under today’s date, June 4th, and you’ll see the login codes to be in the Zoom meeting tonight at 7 p.m. Pacific time. Now, before the break, we were talking to Jimmy in Staten Island, New York. And, Jim, you were bringing up, some of our listeners may not know what you’re getting at. I do because we’ve had other conversations. And Jimmy takes a Reformed view, a Calvinist view of salvation. And the Calvinists believe that you cannot believe or repent unless God first regenerates you. That is, you have to be brought from death to life. They say… before you’re regenerated, you’re dead in trespasses and sins, which is a phrase Paul used in both Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2 to describe what his readers had been before they were Christians. And as one who’s dead in trespasses and sins, they say, of course, a dead person can’t do anything, can’t repent, can’t believe, can’t do that. So God has to choose Christ. unilaterally to bring some of these people to life, some of the dead who are spiritually dead into spiritual life. And once he has done that, they are free to believe and to repent. And they inevitably will because they were elected by God to do that. He’s got something called irresistible grace. He will draw them irresistibly into faith. Now, on this view, this means that a person has to come to life or be born again before they actually become a believer. Now, the opposite view to that, and the one that I hold, is that you don’t get born again until you become a believer. In fact, that being born again is a result of becoming a believer. So the Calvinist view and the non-Calvinist view differ on this point. To Calvinists, regeneration precedes faith. To non-Calvinists, faith precedes regeneration. Now, to some people this might seem like a very minor niggling point and might say, well, why even discuss it? Well, there are ramifications. There are ramifications in these doctrines. However, I would say those ramifications do not necessarily have an impact or they don’t have to have an impact on the way you live your Christian life. In other words, you could hold either of these doctrines and still live the same Christian life. So, in that sense, it’s not very important. But it is important to know what kind of God we are worshiping and serving. Because if this is in fact true, then not all people can be saved. Only those that God chooses to regenerate. And when He chooses that, it will happen. It’s not like He chooses to reach out to them and then they have a choice in the matter. No, in Calvinism, If God has chosen you for salvation, you will inevitably and irresistibly, once God has regenerated you, you will become a Christian. So all he would have to do is regenerate everybody. And God is sovereign, so God can do whatever he wants. If God wished, he could regenerate everybody, and that would result in the salvation of everybody. But the fact that that doesn’t happen means that God doesn’t want everybody to be saved. Because if he wanted to, he would. And this is where it differs. The character of God in Calvinism is that of a God who doesn’t, he could save everyone, but he’s not particularly interested in doing so. If he wanted to, he would. Nothing stops him. He’s sovereign. So if he wanted everyone saved, they’d be saved. That’s as easy as that. And the fact that not everyone’s saved means he doesn’t want everyone saved. Now, the non-Calvinist view, which was held by the church up until Augustine’s time, which is the first 400 years of Christianity, was that God wants everybody to be saved. And he’s willing to save everyone and able to save everyone who will turn to him. But that people do have the ability to turn to him. They do have the ability to believe and repent. they’ve had that ability. In Old Testament times, they have that ability now. And that being so, God does want to save everyone, but the only reason not everyone is saved is because not everyone wants to be. So the question is, does God want to save everyone, or does he really want to save only some and send the rest to eternal conscious torment? And he made a choice about individual fates in that respect before anyone was born. On this view, every person born was either chosen to go to hell and they have nothing they can do to change that. It’s just not an option because God won’t regenerate them and they can’t believe or repent unless he does. they’re going to be saved because God, again, inevitably required that that would happen, and he makes it happen. So the historic Christian view, of course, is that God loves everybody, wants everyone to be saved, and the only reason everyone isn’t is because people rebel. And the Calvinist view is, no, God saves all the ones he wants to, but he doesn’t want to save everybody. Now, this is the upshot of the idea that You can’t believe or repent unless God first regenerates you. Because it means those who do not repent or believe, it’s not really their choice. It’s God’s choice not to regenerate them. Now, what you’re saying, Jimmy, is that Jesus is saying that you have to get born again first and then you can believe. No, you have to get born again to enter the kingdom of God. And you pointed out in chapter 10 of John that Jesus said you can’t be saved unless you enter in. We presume he means to the kingdom of God. So, fine. That’s right. But you brought up the idea that That when Nicodemus, who was told this, said, how can this be? Jesus said, well, it can be just like it was when Moses raised up the serpent in the wilderness. Well, what happened there? Well, people had been bitten by snakes. They were dying. They were going to die. But God said, anyone who looks in this direction at this snake, on the pole, this fake snake, they’ll be healed. And everyone who did that was healed. Now, the Bible doesn’t insinuate anywhere that the people who looked at the serpent were predestined to do so and that God determined who would look and who would not. The offer was given out as a bona fide offer to everybody. You look over here at this snake and you’ll be healed. Now, Jesus said, so also the Son of Man will be lifted up that whoever believes in him. Okay, that’s the requirement. shall not perish, but will have eternal life. Okay, so they’ll have eternal life. That’s the result of being born again. If you believe in him, just like if they looked at the serpent, well, you’ll have eternal life, just like they had their healing as a result of looking. The Bible actually nowhere states that believing is a result of regeneration. And it says in many places that being regenerated or receiving eternal life comes as a result of Of believing.
SPEAKER 04 :
I agree 100%.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Then we’re good.
SPEAKER 04 :
No, we’re not good because I’m going to ask you a question. I believe in the law of causality. In other words, you were brought into this world by no choice of your own. It was God’s sovereign will to create you and me. As we were created by the sovereign will of God the first time, the second time we’re also created by We’re made a new creature. It says in 2 Corinthians 5.17, Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation or a new creature. So how did you become a new creation? Did you self-create? No, you didn’t. God created you. He made you a new creation. Once you became a new creature, once you became born in the flesh, the first thing you wanted to do was get fed. You cried. You breathed. You had signs of life. And I believe 100% salvation comes by believing. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. But in order to get there, Jesus said, like to go back, we agree that in order to get in, you have to be born from above. Except a man be born of the Word and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. So when you’re outside, what enemies have God in their mind? And it says in Ephesians 2, and you who were dead in trespasses and sins have be quickened. It doesn’t say anything about you believing to get quickened. It says that God… Well, wait, wait, wait.
SPEAKER 08 :
It does… No, no, no. You’re wrong about that. John does say that you have to believe to be quickened. Let me show it to you. It’s in John’s Gospel in John chapter 20. Okay. And in John 20 and verse 31, it says, These signs are written in this book, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. That as a result of believing, you’ll have life. Eternal life. Exactly. So as a result of believing, you have eternal life. And he says, so I wrote these things so that you’ll believe. Well, how could they have a choice about that if they weren’t elect?
SPEAKER 04 :
I’m sorry. Go on.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah. I mean, the readers… on the Calvinist view, were either elect or non-elect, because everybody is either elect or non-elect. Now, if he is writing to people who were not elect… then writing that they might believe is kind of a fool’s errand, ridiculous. If he didn’t believe that they could, why should he do this to help them believe? But if they were elect, of course they’d believe inevitably, and they’d have life. In fact, on your theology, they’d have to have life first. They’d have to come from death to life and be born again, and then they could believe. But he says, no, I’m telling you these things to allow you to believe. and that by believing, you’ll have life. Everywhere, I believe that having life is a result of believing.
SPEAKER 04 :
In Romans 10.9, it says, If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in your heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. That’s an ongoing action. I see that as assurance. God has given assurance. If you’re doing these things, that you will be saved. That’s the same with the Philippian jailer. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. He’s already regenerated. He’s already a child of God by listening to them praying and singing hymns. He got exposed to the word of God while he was in the jail.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Hey, I’m going to have to butt in here because I have full lines and I’ve given you about a quarter of the hour to talk to you so far. That’s not very fair to all the people waiting behind, and you call a lot. But I would say this. I don’t think you have listened to my lectures on God’s sovereignty and man’s salvation. Maybe you could just let me know. Have you done that? Have you listened to my lecture series, God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation? Oh, he hung up. Okay, I think I’ve recommended it before. If you listen to my series, God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation, everything you’ve said is answered there. Now, I can’t answer every theological nuance in a call on the air when I’m trying to get a dozen people who are online to get on. We only have an hour. But if you’re interested in the subject, interested in my answers to your objections, and not simply interested to have an argument on the air, you can get those. You can get those with or without the argument on the air. You can go to my website, thenarrowpath.com. Look under Topical Lectures, and there’s a series called God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation. Everything you brought up is discussed in great detail, an amount of detail that there’s no possibility of going into in a phone call on the air. I’m sorry to say, because I’d like to. I enjoy it. But it’s just not a possibility in this format. All right, let’s talk to Mark from Hillsboro, Oregon next. Hi, Mark. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Hi, Steve.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thanks for taking the call. Hey, a bit of a personal question. I’m wondering if you can share with us in your experience, in your growth over the years, and when you’ve transitioned from, as you say, from one theological perspective to a different theological perspective, did you find in that journey that as you were enlightened with the truth that brought you to what you believe today, was it like going from complexity to simplicity in some ways?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, it certainly was on a lot of issues. Yeah, I would say so. I mean, like certainly, for example, when I gave up dispensationalism, dispensationalism is a highly complex, highly complex eschatological view. You know, you’ve got all these different epochs. You’ve got these different events. For the most part, To become a master of dispensational eschatology, you mostly probably need charts, you know, pointing out this goes here, this goes here, this goes here, this goes here, this goes here. And that’s why dispensationalists, as far as I know, they’re the only theological system that leans heavily on such charts because they’re like timelines where they insert each of the details. They’ve got a highly elaborate thing. Now, when I left dispensationalism, I found, oh, it’s not that bad at all. It’s not that complex at all. There’s one day coming. It’s called the last day. It’s called the day of Christ. And on that day, there’s going to be Jesus comes. He resurrects the dead. He raptures the living. He burns up the heavens and the earth, and he creates a new heaven and new earth. And all on one day. I don’t need charts for that. You know, it’s like there’s the last day. And up until that time, there’s really nothing predicted that be noticeable. I mean, I won’t say there’s nothing predicted because before Jesus comes back, I think he’s waiting. I mean, I can’t speak for him, but he did. There are a couple of things he was desiring to happen before he returned. One is the evangelization of the whole world, and the other is the maturing of the church. Both are mentioned as goals that God has. Now, those are kinds of things that are hard to quantify. Has the whole world been evangelized? Does every last person have to be evangelized? What percentage is he waiting for? Or how mature does the church have to be? You see, there’s things that are not… punctiliar events that you can say, oh, okay, that’s happened, now Jesus has come back. It’s more like a process, two processes that have been going on for 2,000 years, and we don’t know at what point it will have reached, both of them will have reached the point he’s waiting for. But apart from those, there’s nothing really observable. That is predicted to happen before Jesus comes back. That’s why he said it would be like the days of Noah. They would eat, drink. They’d do normal things. They’d act like life was going to go on forever. And they’d be surprised because he’d come at a moment they didn’t think so.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. Well, I appreciate that. I find that that’s my experience as I’m growing and gaining comprehension. I’m finding, and it’s not just regarding dispensationalism, but it’s regarding several other things that had an element of complexity to them. And I’m sitting there on my couch and reading, and I’m going, oh, it’s like a light bulb goes off. And it’s like, oh, there’s a simplification here. There’s a distillation that takes place. So I want to be careful not to advocate that to your listeners, to say, hey, let’s keep it simple. But there’s a part of me that thinks that that’s true. I’ve heard you also, I believe, and I agree, say, The idea that most of us in our faith are a bit lazy. We don’t take the time to seek out and to screen things. And I agree with that, so I’m not advocating simplicity for its own sake. I’m just saying that my experience mirrors what you just described in that as light is gained and understanding is gained, there is a de facto simplification of it, and I really appreciate that.
SPEAKER 08 :
I appreciate your call. Yeah, I would apply that also to the subject of our previous call about Calvinism and Arminianism. Basically, there’s all kinds of complexity in the Calvinist system that I think the biblical teaching just boils down to this. If you’re trusting in Christ and faithful to him, you’re saved. If you’re not trusting in Christ’s faithfulness, you’re not safe. It’s really quite simple, it seems to me. And yet, theology can get all complex. And by the way, I’m acquainted with and comfortable with the complications in the debate. But when it comes down to it, there’s a very simple message. All that we really need to know. It’s relatively simple. Or get into the whole issue of even the deity of Christ. I believe in the deity of Christ. But it’s a rather complex thing to say, in what sense is he God? And they got into all kinds of debates about that in the early councils of the church. Which debates were not found in Scripture? The Bible didn’t debate those things or explain them. All I know is the Bible says that God took on flesh and dwelt among us. I believe that. So I don’t need to know all the other doctrines, though I’ve certainly studied them and can say something about them. I just think… Okay, once all is said and done, it all boils down to this God became flesh and dwelt among us. So that’s kind of how, you know, that’s where I’m at about those kind of things. Thank you for your call. We need to try to get another call or two at least in if we can. Anthony from Denton, Texas. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for your call.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you, Steve. Hey, I’ll try to make it quick. So in Romans 8, I just had not heard this taught before, and the more I look at it, Our pastor taught it this way. When Paul quotes from Psalm 44, verse 22, go ahead. In verse 36, yeah. Yes, sir. And so in the context where he’s talking about who shall separate us from the love of Christ, shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword, as it is written, And the way he taught it was, he was saying, well, of course this passage is all about God’s love for us, but this particular verse is about the very first commandment that Jesus gave, that to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. This verse is harking back to Psalm 44, which is about Israel’s persecution, and the psalmist saying that he was not going to stop pursuing God. And so this is about That particular part of this passage is about our love for God. What shall separate us from the love of Christ, that’s talking about our love for Christ, not his love for us. The later part of Romans 8 is about Christ’s love for us, God’s love for us. I just want to know if you have ever caught on that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, so what you’re saying is when Paul quotes this verse, for your sake we are killed all the day long, We are counted as sheep for the slaughter. That’s Psalm 44, 22. When Paul quotes that, many people think it’s talking about that this whole section is about how much God loves us and therefore that we can’t be separated from the love of God. But in the psalm, the context is they’re saying, we are faithful to you, God. We’ve been faithful to you. Things have happened to us, but we have not defected from you. We have been loyal to you. In fact, it’s for your sake that we’re suffering all the things we are. So, you know, the psalmist is protesting that they have been good, that they have been faithful, that they’ve loved God, as you say. Whereas, you know, some people think that that section of Romans 8 is simply talking about God’s unconditional eternal security given to us without reference to our loyalty. Right. Where, you know, Paul, in verse 35, before he quotes that verse, says, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, nakedness, or peril, or sword? And then he quotes this verse, he says, No, they won’t. We will not have to defect from God in those circumstances. Israel, you know, suffered circumstances like that, and they didn’t defect from God. He’s talking about their faithfulness and ours. He says, who shall separate us from the Lord? Christ is not saying… You know, if we backslide, if we go back and worship idols, if we go into fornication, if we just deny Christ, well, God’s love will still be there for us. No, he’s saying who or what can break this relationship up that we have, this mutual relationship of loyalty that we have to God and he has to us, this love relationship. We don’t have to fear that tribulation and sword and things like that that haven’t happened but might happen. that somehow they’re going to tear us away from God. No, Israel had all those things happen, and they didn’t defect. It was for his sake they were killed all the day long and encountered sheep for the slaughter, but they still stayed faithful. So, yeah, I mean, if that’s what the pastor was saying, I do think that that is the nuance of the passage.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, it’s helpful to me because, you know, when I first came to faith, I got into some of the watch and the quietism, you know, or, you know, where it’s super passive, that my relationship with God is just kind of like what you’re describing. Although I do believe in the perseverance of the saints, but not maybe in the Calvinistic way, but I’m just saying that I just like that the greatest commandment is our love for God, and I just have never seen it in the passage before, because most pastors teach it in such a passive way, as if we’re just the recipient.
SPEAKER 08 :
I see, yeah. Well, no, this is definitely talking about the mutuality of our faithfulness to him and him to us.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. Well, I’m glad to hear it. So, okay. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay, Anthony. Good talking to you. Let’s see if we can get Mary from Oregon City into this hour. Hello, Mary. Welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Hi. Yes. Thank you, Steve. I have a question about 1 Corinthians 5, and it may take too long to answer it, but I just don’t know exactly how to interpret not having any kind of Association with believers who are involved in sexual immorality.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Well, yeah, Paul does say that we should not associate with the sexually immoral. And he says, however, I don’t mean that to mean people who are in the world, that is, non-Christians who are sexually immoral. He says that in verse 11. He says, I have now written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, that is, anyone who is called a Christian. That’d be, in that case, somebody who’s in the fellowship of the saints in the church with anyone named a brother who is a fornicator, covetous, or an idolater, or reviler, or drunkard, or an extortioner, not even to eat with such a person. Now, not to eat with such a person, probably, I’m not sure, but it might mean not to have communion with them because the church got together to eat together. you know, in their meetings and that that person should not be welcomed to the table, as Paul later calls it, the table of the Lord. In chapter 10, he refers to, you can’t eat at the table of the Lord and the table of demons too. So at the very least, he’s saying that a Christian should not have, you know, fellowship with somebody who calls himself a brother, but their behavior shows that they’re not. Now, if a person’s not a Christian and they’re behaving like a non-Christian, well, Paul says you don’t have to avoid those people necessarily. He says you’d have to leave the world to be away from those people. We’re not advocated to leave the world. And by the way, the person who’s not a Christian, doesn’t claim to be a Christian, and lives like a pagan, is not bringing the reproach on Christ that he would be bringing on him if he was living the same way and called himself a Christian. Because when you call yourself a Christian, You’re associating yourself with Christ. And the majority of people who have rejected Christ that I’ve talked to have had at least some experience with people who said they were Christians who were deeply disappointing. And in many cases, those deeply disappointing so-called Christians were behaving in ways that Christians who are following Christ don’t act. Which means, of course, that people calling themselves Christians but acting like pagans has been a stumbling block to very many people. It brings a reproach on the name of Christ. It sullies his reputation. So Paul said, don’t fellowship with such people. They shouldn’t be able to have… All this in heaven too, or they shouldn’t have all their sin and fellowship within the company of Christians too. The church should practice church discipline. And at the end of chapter 5, that’s what he says. Put away from yourselves that wicked person. So he’s advocating church discipline here. Now, what about if you have a so-called Christian relative… And they’re living in sin. Should you not have table fellowship in your home with them? No, I don’t think that’s what Paul’s talking about. He’s talking about the testimony of Christ. He’s not talking about family meals and things like that, in my opinion. I think he’s talking about the fellowship of the church. I can’t go longer on this because I’m going to be cut off here in 10 seconds. So I need to say, you’re listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
