As the episode unfolds, listeners are drawn into a heated conversation sparked by Michael from Denver about the controversial figure of Jimmy Swaggart. From there, delve into complex theological interpretations as Steve tackles questions about Revelation and the association between Lucifer and Satan. This thought-provoking session challenges you to reconsider preconceived notions, encourages theological reflection and underscores the importance of basing faith on personal spiritual experiences rather than the fallibility of human leaders.
SPEAKER 03 :
Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for an hour each week the afternoon. The reason for being live is so that we can take your calls in real time. We can talk to you. You can talk to us. Essentially, the program is about your questions. The questions you have about the Bible, about the Christian faith. If you call in and raise a question, we will discuss it, try to find you an answer from the Bible. You can also call if you disagree because there’s very few things more frustrating, I have found, than listening to a radio show where you strongly disagree with the host and you don’t have any way of, you know, giving feedback or responding. And that is not the case here. If you are frustrated by something, you hear something you don’t like, feel free to call. I’d be glad to hear from you. The number to call, well, I’m just going to have to say the lines are full, but take this number down and call later. Lines will open up. 844-484-5737. That’s 844-484-5737. One announcement I have to make is that tonight we have our monthly Zoom call, Zoom meeting. It’s a Q&A time, usually an hour and a half or so, maybe two. And you’re welcome to join us if you’d like to. It’s at 7 p.m. Pacific time. Obviously, if you’re in a different time zone, it’ll be different for you, but it’ll be 7 p.m. p.m. Pacific time, in any case. And you can log in by, well, just go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Once you get there, click on the tab that says Announcements. And then if you find today’s date, which is July 2nd, You will find the login information to get on to Zoom and be with us for that event tonight, 7 p.m. Pacific time. All right. We’re going to talk, first of all, to Peter in Bedford, U.K. Hi, Peter. Welcome to The Narrow Path. I assume since you’re calling me now, you won’t be staying up late enough to be on the Zoom call tonight, as you sometimes are.
SPEAKER 09 :
No, I’ll be on the call tonight, Steve, on the Zoom call. It must be a night owl. Yeah, I have my days, Steve, where I don’t sleep much, but yeah, I’ll be on. All right. I wanted to ask you a quick question regarding Acts 15, where the church in Jerusalem gave, I guess, in terms of the dispute that arose regarding circumcision, they gave for the Gentile Christians just four things in terms of abstaining from idols and from things, from blood, and from sexual immorality and from things strangled. And I understand regards to sexual immorality and abstaining from idols as a moral issue, and even in regards to not eating anything with blood. But with things strangled, I don’t, yeah, I struggle to understand why that was also mentioned. And also in terms of like, You know, Jesus said that all things are clean in terms of, you know, anything that you eat or, you know, it’s eliminated. But it’s what comes out of a man that is considered unclean. So, yeah, I guess my question is, I just don’t understand why being strangled was mentioned.
SPEAKER 03 :
Sure. Well, we have to realize that what’s going on there is they’re not just discussing circumcision. They’re discussing conversion to Judaism. The Gentiles have always been accepted into Judaism on the grounds that they become circumcised and become what’s called a proselyte. Now, a proselyte had to keep the whole law, just like a Jew, but if they did, they would be considered to be just like a Jew. And so, even from the time of Moses to the present, even from the time of Abraham, from Genesis 17 onward, a Gentile could become part of the family of Abraham by being circumcised. And a person who’s physically descended from Abraham could be excluded from the family by not being circumcised. So when they gathered to discuss, should the Gentile Christians, who are Gentiles, and therefore not circumcised people, should they become circumcised? They’re basically saying, do they have to convert to Judaism to be followers of the Jewish Messiah? We all acknowledge Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. And until these Gentiles started coming in, all the converts who were following Jesus were Jews, and therefore they were circumcised. But now when Gentiles began to be converted, the question is, do they have to become Jews first? And that means, do they have to accept the law of Moses, including circumcision? Now, the answer, of course, as you point out, is no. The apostles decided that that was not necessary, but they did say, why don’t we write a letter to them telling them they don’t have to keep the law or be circumcised or become Jewish, but that we request that they abstain from these four things, from meat that was sacrificed to idols, from things strangled, from blood, and from fornication. Now, what a strange group of things that is. I mean, if you’re going to include things like fornication, why not include things like murder or theft or serious moral crimes like that? Why include fornication? Eating blood, especially as you say, Jesus said it’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, what comes out. So Paul said elsewhere in Romans 14, 14, that all things are clean except to those who regard them to be unclean. So eating blood shouldn’t be an issue or even eating animals that were strangled or even eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as you’re not worshiping idols. Because remember the Corinthians, they lived in a town where most of the meat that was for sale was was the remnant of an animal that had been sacrificed in the temple of Aphrodite. And therefore, some Christians, and certainly Jews, felt like they should not eat that meat, even though they’re not going to the temple, they’re not worshiping Aphrodite, but this meat came from an animal that was. And so, eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols was a controversial thing. Now, when Jesus said, what goes into your mouth doesn’t defile you, that should mean that eating meat, whether it’s sacrificed to idols or not, whether it’s from an animal that’s strangled or not, or whether there’s blood in it or not, shouldn’t be an issue. So why did they bring this up? And along with fornication. The reason is because they were not saying that we are under laws about these things. They were saying that these are things that Gentiles do all the time that offend Jews. And they’re saying it’s not as if you have to join the Jewish religion, and get circumcised and keep the law, but we would like it if you would avoid those kinds of things which are particularly offensive to Jews. Not because God cares whether you eat blood or not, but because, it says, because every Gentile city has a synagogue where people have been taught the law of Moses for generations, is what James said there. And in other words, there’s a lot of Jews in every Gentile town who are conditioned to to be sensitive about ceremonial cleanness, and the particularly disgusting behaviors of Gentiles, if followed by Christians, could be a serious turnoff to the Jews in terms of making them open to the gospel or not. So this is really given more as a suggestion, and we know that because when Paul took this letter from this council to the churches, for example, to Corinth, he had to explain to them that it doesn’t really matter if you eat meat sacrificed to idols. It does matter if you’re an idolater. You can’t do that. But eating meat sacrificed to idols is nothing, Paul said. Now, in a sense, he seemed to be contradicting the letter that came from Jerusalem about this. But what he was saying is, if it’s going to stumble somebody, don’t do it. That’s what he told the Corinthians. And that was the concern of the council, too. It’s not that God cares whether you eat those things or not. It’s whether you do it in such a way that’s going to turn people off and make them less open to the gospel or stumble people. So Paul recognized that the concern of the council was to not do things that will stumble people and prevent them from coming to Christ. Now, the Corinthians made the mistake of thinking that this laxity would apply to fornication also, because that was on the list. And Paul had to write to them in 1 Corinthians 6 saying, no, what you eat doesn’t matter, but fornication does matter. That’s a moral issue. You’ll defile the body of Christ if you fornicate, whereas eating meat doesn’t defile you. So he had to clarify to the Gentiles that, you know, these were a list of things. One of them, fornication, is absolutely a moral issue. The other three are not. But they are all things that Gentiles were famous for doing, which made them disgusting to the Jews. And you don’t want Christians or Christianity to seem disgusting to people that you hope to convert, especially, you know, they wanted to reach the Jewish people. So that’s what that’s about. Now, things strangled. It’s interesting. Some people really misunderstand this. And some like Hebrew roots kind of people who think we should keep the Torah, they say, well, look, this is what James is saying here is that the Gentiles don’t have to keep the whole law of Moses like Jews do, but they do have to keep the Noahide laws. Now, by Noahide laws, they’re referring to laws that Jewish tradition came up with. And the Jewish tradition was that Gentiles don’t have to become proselytes. They don’t have to become Jews. But if they want to be okay with God, they have to keep another list of laws called the Noahide laws, named after Noah. Since all people, including Jews and Gentiles, came from Noah, they say these are laws that apply to every human being. And fornication was to be forbidden. And idolatry was to be forbidden. And several things. And there’s different lists of these Noahide laws in the Jewish tradition. Some have, I think, seven laws. Some have like 30. There’s a lot of different lists. But an animal, eating an animal that had been strangled is not even one of the laws in the Old Testament. There’s nothing in the Old Testament that says you can’t eat an animal that’s been strangled. But an animal that has been strangled is still got its blood in it. The Jews had to slit the throat of an animal with its heart still beating. So the heart would beat the blood out. They’d bleed out. But if you strangle an animal, you cut open an animal that’s strangled, it won’t bleed. I mean, only a beating heart will cause an animal to bleed. So if you strangled an animal, you couldn’t really get the blood out. And if you ate the animal… then you’d be eating blood with it. So it’s kind of the same thing as, you know, eating blood. I don’t know why they made separate issues of it. But the point is they’re not really saying this is something that Christians and Gentiles of all times have to follow these. They’re saying this is something that we’d like to recommend to the Gentiles since they’ve been wondering, do we have to keep the Jewish law or not? Our answer to them is no, you do not. But we don’t want you to go hog wild and do crazy things because you’re not under the law. We want you to avoid those kinds of things and be sensitive about those kinds of things that offend Jewish people especially. And that’s the actual explanation that James gave because he says in Acts 15, 20, and 21, that we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, meaning food, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, Now, here’s the reason. Here’s why we want to give this reason. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. So they’re saying there’s been generations of Jews in those cities that have been sensitized by the teaching of the synagogue, the law of Moses. And because of those sensitivities, let’s ask the Gentiles not to, you know, do things that will offend them. If that isn’t the concern, then Paul was wrong in telling the Corinthians that they could eat and eat sacrificed idols as long as they didn’t offend anyone. And also, if they’re saying that Gentiles need to do these things, why even mention the synagogues and the Jews and Moses? If they’re not putting the Gentiles under Moses, why even mention it? Why give that as the reason? The reason is because Moses’ law has conditioned the sensitivities of Jewish people for generations in every city. And therefore, when a Gentile becomes a Christian, they should be conspicuously sensitive to people’s concerns about those things. It’d be like telling somebody, and I would tell this to somebody, there’s nothing in the Bible that says you can’t drink a glass of wine. But there are people who would be very stumbled if you did. And I’d recommend that you don’t do it. to avoid stumbling people. Or if you do it, make sure you don’t stumble people when you do. That’s the kind of situation that’s parallel.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, the heart of it is walking in love. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. Now, I know you’ve got other callers, Steve, so thank you for taking the time to answer my question. And, yeah, I guess I’ll speak to you later.
SPEAKER 03 :
Okay, see you tonight, Peter. God bless.
SPEAKER 09 :
God bless you, Steve.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. Our next caller is Michael calling from Denver, Colorado. Hi, Michael. Welcome.
SPEAKER 01 :
Steve, thank you so much for taking my call, and a very happy Fourth of July in advance, first of all. Very nice to talk to you again. Yeah, I just had kind of a quick question today, and I apologize in advance if anyone already brought this up and I missed it. But, you know, I honestly, I just wanted to ask you about your thoughts on the death of Jimmy Swaggart and, you know, what you feel he kind of, you know, brought to the public consciousness as far as like teaching the Bible and kind of people’s, you know, overall view on Christianity with the assemblies of God and all of that kind of.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, you know, I have to say, who am I to judge another man’s servant? I mean, as far as I know, Jimmy Swaggart died a believer and repentant of his scandals. You no doubt remember that he was not only a preacher on television for decades, and I’m sure there are people who probably came to Christ through his ministry, but he also, in the 80s, was exposed. has been involved in prostitution and things like that. And he was scandalized. He actually had to step down from ministry for a while. Not long enough, I think. But nonetheless, he claimed to have repented of that, and he did go back into the ministry. And I have not followed his ministry since then, and that was in the 80s. By the way, even before this happened, his style of ministry didn’t appeal to me. I didn’t necessarily assume he was a fraud or anything like that, but I just did not. I was not a fan. I didn’t care for his style of preaching and such. So, you know, I’ve never been a defender of his. But there are Christians of many different styles and different descriptions, and I’m not going to say he was not a Christian. I did hear that he died. What was it, yesterday? And, you know, he did a great harm to the body of Christ. Not necessarily through his preaching, though maybe that way too, I don’t know, because I never followed him, but through his scandals. Now, of course, there are plenty of Christians who do scandalous things and are not caught and not exposed. And his problem was not that he did more scandalous things than other people have done, but that he got caught. But more than that, that he was very prominent in the Christian media, which means there was a greater responsibility on him than on most other people. Although we’re all very much responsible for the sins we commit, and if we get exposed and it brings reproach on Christ, shame on us. The Bible says those who teach will receive a stricter judgment. And I would assume that the more the teacher or preacher’s name is a household word, and therefore his scandal is the more notorious, the more stricter judgment there is for that. But I do believe in repentance. I do believe in forgiveness. And if he truly repented, and he said he did, God can be the judge of that. I don’t know. then I would expect that he is with the Lord now. Though I would think he also is extremely ashamed of having done so much harm to the body of Christ. Because this happened to Jimmy Swaggart in the same general time period that Jimmy Baker, another prominent television Christian, also was exposed for financial and sexual misconduct. And he went to prison. Jimmy Swigert did not, but Jim Baker did. And both of them, of course, around the same time, gave, as Nathan said to David, when David’s sin with Bathsheba was exposed, Nathan said, you’ve given the enemies of God occasion to blaspheme. And that’s the case. When a minister falls, they give the enemies of the gospel blasphemy. occasion to be cynical, to blaspheme, to say, see, that Christianity, it’s all fake, they’re all hypocrites, and so forth. Now, of course, Christians are not all hypocrites. In fact, generally speaking, real Christians aren’t hypocrites, but real Christians are human, and real Christians do stumble, but the Bible, as I said, makes it very clear, if you’re in public ministry, you really need to be careful. Even though you’re a human being, you You bear more responsibility if you cause shame. And I do believe there are probably thousands of people who were following his ministry, who not only gave up on following his ministry, but may have given up their faith, too. If so, their faith was weak indeed. I mean, nobody should fall away because some minister is shown to have feet of clay, or even if he falls away. I mean, I remember back in the Jesus moment, some preacher said, at Calvary Chapel once said, what if Chuck Smith and Billy Graham and Bill Bright and all the famous evangelical leaders, what if they all got up here on stage together and said, hey, everybody, we’ve decided to come clean. Christianity is fake. We’ve been pretending. It’s just been a big scam. We don’t believe any of this stuff. We’re just going to come clean and let you know that. This minister said, what if that happened? What would you do? Well, I know what many people would do. They’d say, oh, they say it’s a scam. It is. But see, the whole point is your faith shouldn’t be affected by that because you’re supposed to have a relationship with God yourself. If you know God, you know it’s not fake. And if a bunch of people who say, well, we’ve all been fake, tell you, well, we’ve been fake, that doesn’t tell you that Jesus is fake. It tells you that people are fakes. And the same thing with Jimmy Swaggart. If Jimmy Swaggart even, let’s just say he, now he didn’t renounce the faith, to my knowledge, but he appeared very fake in the eyes of many because of this. But even if Jimmy Swaggart was a fake, it doesn’t mean Jesus is a fake. So anyone who would really fall away from the faith because some minister fell is a person whose faith in Christ is weak indeed and possibly non-existent. A lot of people… They pretend to believe and they think they believe, but if the slightest breeze of affliction or confusion or stumbling block comes along, they go running for the hills and leave God behind. Well, yeah, they weren’t much of a Christian to start with. But they can be. I mean, someone who’s fallen away can come back better. And I don’t know how God’s going to judge. you know, Jimmy Swaggart about those things. But if he is repentant, if he did repent before he died, and I’m going to just take his word for that, I don’t know, then I would expect to see him with the Lord.
SPEAKER 01 :
Thank you so much, Steve. And I was just going to ask, do you feel that God uses, you know, examples like Mr. Swagger for examples of repentance to show, look at all he did, but then he went on TV and was crying for repentance. Some people say that wasn’t genuine when he did that. I mean, I’m a big fan of history. I wasn’t alive at the time. I’m only 29. But I feel like, you know, God can use that as an example of, you know, repentance and the power of, you know, asking for forgiveness. And that’s just a thought.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, he can. I mean, certainly we see that in Paul, for example. Paul was an enemy of Christ and he repented and it was dramatic. And what a powerful testimony he had. And so have many other people. The problem with Jimmy Swagger’s repentance, because I am old and I do remember it, he got on TV and he blubbered and wept and stopped. Of course, he kind of did that when he preached sometimes, too. It was, you know, it’s just kind of his emotional style. But he talked about how repentant he was and so forth. And the leaders of his denomination told him to step out of ministry for a year to see if he could be restored. And after six months… He said, I don’t want to stay out of ministry for you. I want to go back into my ministry. I repent, and you should let me back in. I’m thinking, okay, that makes me question his real repentance, honestly. Because, you know, Jesus described repentance, for example, of the prodigal son. The guy said, I’ve sinned against heaven and your son. I’m no longer worthy to be your son. Make me just a slave. In other words, he’s saying, okay, I not only repent. But I’ll be happy if you just make me a slave. I don’t deserve to be a son. I don’t deserve to have the privileges of sonship. Now, actually, God, the father in the story, restored the son to that status. But the son didn’t feel like he was worthy of it. And the problem here is that Jimmy Swaggart was told to step out of ministry for a year, which, by the way, due to his age, that’s a very tiny portion of his life to be sitting aside. And he said, no, only six months. In other words, he said, I deserve to go back in the ministry after six months. A person who’s really repentant and realizes how much damage they’ve done with their sin would be saying, hey, I don’t know if anyone should ever trust me again. I don’t know if I’m worthy to stand in the pulpit and speak for Christ again. I have brought such shame and reproach on the name of God. You know, if no one ever trusts me again, if no one ever lets me preach again, I can’t complain about that. That’s on me. I mean, that’s what real repentance would sound like. And it didn’t sound like that. I mean, there’s a lot of blubbering, but blubbering isn’t repentance. Having a real brokenness and change of heart is what repentance looks like. I don’t know that he repented deeply. Maybe he repented as much as he knew how or something at the time. But I have to say, I don’t know that his was a great example of repentance. He’s more an example of someone who got caught. And he needed to say some things to make it possible that his career would not be over. I mean, I’m a little cynical about that, but Brother Swagger gave us some occasion to be cynical. All right, so I appreciate your call, Michael, and call again sometime. Right now we take a break. We have another half hour coming, so don’t go late. The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. We’ve been on for 28 years daily, a long time. And we pay for the radio time. And we don’t have any sponsors or commercials or sell anything ourselves. So if you’d like to help us stay on the air, you can write to The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Or you can go to our website. You can donate from there, though everything on the website is free. It’s at thenarrowpath.com. I’ll be right back. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 02 :
Are you aware of the wide variety of teachings available without charge at the Narrow Path website? In several hundred lectures, Steve Gregg covers every book of the Bible individually and gives separate teachings on approximately 300 important biblical topics. There is no charge for anything at our website. Visit us there and you’ll be amazed at all you’ve been missing. That web address again is www.thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we’re live for another half hour taking your calls. Once again, the lines are full. So don’t call right now. But if you want to call in a few minutes, lines may open up. You may be able to get through before we’re done. The number is 844-484-5737. And remember, tonight is the Zoom meeting that we only have once a month. It’s the first Wednesday of every month at 7 o’clock p.m. Pacific time. If you want to join us for that, it’s a Q&A for an hour or two. If you want to be on that, Just you can get the login information to the Zoom meeting at our website, thenarrowpath.com, thenarrowpath.com. Under the tab that says Announcements there, you’ll find the Zoom login, and you can log in tonight, and we’ll be glad to see you and talk to you. All right. Let’s talk to who’s next here. Daryl from Sacramento is next. Hello, Daryl. Welcome.
SPEAKER 04 :
Hello, Steve. Brother Steve, how are you?
SPEAKER 03 :
Fine, thanks.
SPEAKER 04 :
I have a question about my identity in Christ. I got a lot of information from this BibleQuestions.com website. And it repeatedly says, you know, you should live out your identity in Christ to avoid these other things you live in, sin and so forth. But what is your idea about living out your identity in Christ?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, living out your identity in Christ simply means you live under the headship of Christ. You are in Christ because you’re part of his body. Just like the organs of your body are part of you. They’re in you. You’re in Christ. Christ is a corporate body made up of all true disciples who have his spirit and who follow him. So if you have identity in Christ, it means you live as a person who’s in the body of Christ, which means you follow the head. That means you obey Christ. And you walk in the spirit. You have the spirit of Christ and you have Christ as your head. Those are the two things that identify you as being in Christ. And therefore, living that out means you obey the head and you follow the spirit of Christ. Now, some people want to make a distinction and say, well, is your identity, are you a sinner or are you a saint? In Christ, you’re a saint, so you don’t want to think of yourself as a sinner. And sometimes there’s discussion along those lines. Is my identity that I’m a sinner, saved by grace but still a sinner? Or is it that I’m totally clean and sin has nothing to do with me anymore? And I think this is a false dichotomy. And the Bible would never discuss that particular issue. The Bible does say that in Christ we are righteous, we are accepted in the beloved, we are raised up with Christ and seated in heavenly places in him. In Christ we have life, and that more abundantly and so forth. So we’ve got all of that. It’s also true that we have a past. of being sinners. And when we’re born again, though we are forgiven of that, it doesn’t end the struggle. I mean, a person is kind of out of touch with reality if they think that once they become a Christian, they don’t have to think about the issue of sin anymore because it’s still wrong to sin. Even if you’re forgiven, it’s still wrong to do it. And yet, we still have tendencies in that direction. The Bible indicates that we have kind of two identities going on at once one is what we are in the flesh and one is what we are in the spirit so that you know Paul says I know that in me that is in my flesh there dwells no good thing okay well sure okay in my flesh if we’re thinking of me that way then yeah there’s no good thing in me there but do I have any good things in me yeah Jesus is in me God’s spirit is in me But that’s not who I am in my flesh. That’s who I am, of course, in Christ. But both things are true. Both things are true. I have existence in the flesh. There’s no good in that. But I have my status in Christ. If by identity we mean status, then my status is in Christ. But if by identity it just means who I really am, well, I’m both. I’m a person of flesh personally. who’s been forgiven and born again, and therefore I have parallel existences. Like Jesus said, making a slightly different point, in John 16, 33, he said, these things I’ve spoken to you that in me you’ll have peace. In the world you have tribulation. But be of good cheer, I’ve overcome the world. So he says, in me you’ll have peace, although in the world you’ll have tribulation. You’re living both places. You’re living in the world where you have tribulation. You’re also living in me where you have peace. Though you are in the world, you’re in me too. And it’s likewise that in the flesh, I don’t have anything good about me. Though in Christ, well, everything that’s good about him is credited to me, it seems to me. In Philippians, or not Philippians, Philemon. In Philemon, the short letter Paul wrote to his friend Philemon, which is only one chapter long, He says that Paul’s prayers for Philemon include this prayer in verse 6, that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgement of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. Now notice, the sharing of your faith will become effective, which is certainly better than it being not effective. Well, how will it be? By the acknowledging… of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. Now Paul said, in my flesh there is no good thing. But apparently in Christ Jesus there are good things. So is there anything good in me? Well, which part of me are you talking about? In my flesh there dwells no good thing, but in Christ Jesus there are good things. God has changed me. His Spirit is in me. There’s character development. There’s transformation into the image of Christ. There are godly traits in me in Christ. There are certainly, you know, gifts of the Holy Spirit in me in Christ. So those are good things. So, you know, when people say, well, what is our identity? Is it we’re sinners saved by grace or that we’re saints? Well, why does it have to be either or? I’m a sinner who was a former sinner. I’ve been saved by grace, and that makes me a saint. But being a former sinner means that I still have a flesh that’s infected and accustomed to sinning, which still allows me to be tempted, which still allows me to be subject to sin. the pull of sin. And if I just say, no, I’m a saint, I’m not a sinner. Well, in one sense, I’m not a sinner. If by that I mean there’s no condemnation to me. If I commit sin, I’m not condemned because I’m in Christ. There’s therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. We’re justified, not condemned in Christ. But we don’t want to underestimate the power of sin and even of our habits. and of our past to continue to reach into our present and try to draw us back. Let’s just be realistic. We don’t have to be reductionistic and say it’s just one or the other. Both things are real, and the Bible doesn’t encourage us to go looking for more of a narrow reduction in that area. I don’t think. Michael from Englewood, California, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, Peter, how are you doing?
SPEAKER 03 :
Good.
SPEAKER 06 :
So, Sorry, I’m in a library. My question is not really corrective. It’s more curiosity. On page 123 of Empire of the Rift, book one, it talks about the time frame of the dragon being cast out. I think that’s from Revelations. And the first one says it could refer to, sorry, the three different views. The first view says it could refer to the fall of Lucifer prior to Oh, my question, is this loose?
SPEAKER 03 :
Wait, wait, wait. Your phone is cutting out. Are you in a bad spot? Because your phone cut out and I lost a whole half of your sentence.
SPEAKER 06 :
Oh, man. Okay. Maybe I’ll try another day.
SPEAKER 03 :
You can either just call back or you can just try to say it really briefly. We might get enough of it that we can answer you.
SPEAKER 06 :
Okay. You stated… it could refer to the fall of Lucifer. So I was wondering, why would you use Lucifer? Because it kind of seems like the devil is not Lucifer, or are you using that because people know him as Lucifer?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, the reason I say it the way I do, you may recall, we’re talking about Revelation 12 there, verses 7 through 9, where the dragon is cast out of heaven. And what I point out is there are three different ways that people have interpreted this. I’m not suggesting that they’re all valid ways. In fact, I mentioned very clearly only one of them is valid, but there’s still people who hold the other two ways. I say one way is that people think it’s talking about the fall of Lucifer at the beginning of time. That’s the terms they would use. They’re referring to Lucifer and thinking of that as the dragons. I don’t think Lucifer is the dragon. I don’t think Lucifer is Satan. The Bible never identifies him as Satan. Lucifer in the Bible is identified as the king of Babylon, not the devil. But the truth is, there are people who believe that that is talking about the fall of Lucifer. They’re getting the name Lucifer from Isaiah 14, 12, obviously. But they’re identifying that with the devil, and that’s their interpretation of Revelation 12. And then I mentioned another view. is that it’s talking about a fall from heaven of Satan in the future, maybe in the tribulation period of the future. So some people interpret that Satan being cast out of heaven as taking place thousands of years ago. Other people see it as taking place in the future still. And I said the one view that makes sense is the one that fits the facts and the context. The context is the woman… Israel gives birth to a male child who’s going to rule the nations with a rod of iron. That’s Christ. the child is caught up into heaven to the throne. That happened at the ascension of Christ. And at the same time, the dragon was cast out and his angels with him. Okay, so that happened when Jesus ascended. And then verse 10 says, and at that time, a voice in heaven said, now salvation has come. Well, certainly that’s associated with the death, resurrection, ascension of Christ. That’s when salvation came. And so the voice in heaven said, now salvation has come and the kingdom of our God a God and the power of his Christ because the accuser of the brethren has been cast out who accused the brethren day and night so the idea here is that Jesus the male child is caught up into heaven sits at the right hand of God and as a consequence the dragon is thrown out of heaven and the announcement is made with a loud voice in heaven saying salvation has come the kingdom has come Well, that, of course, happened when Jesus ascended and sat on the throne at the right hand of God where he’s been for 2,000 years. Now, there’s confirmation for that view also because John, who wrote Revelation, also wrote the Gospel of John. And he records a statement that Jesus made just before his crucifixion in John 12, 31. Jesus said, now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the ruler of this world be cast out. Now, the ruler of this world is a term Jesus used for Satan. And he’s looking at the cross. He says, now the ruler of the world, Satan, is going to be cast out. Well, that’s exactly what happens in Revelation 12, verse 9. The dragon is cast out. So Jesus himself identified the casting out of Satan with his own death and resurrection and what he’s about to accomplish. And, I mean, we could have gotten that from Revelation 12. Just the information in the chapter alone would have told us that. But we have further information. confirmation from the same author, John, recording that statement of Jesus on the same subject. So I think we’re good there. But when I mentioned that some people see it as the fall of Lucifer, that’s how they would describe it. They see Lucifer as Satan, and they see this as a reference to the fall of Lucifer to become Satan. As you know from listening to me, I don’t see it that way. But I’m recording, you know, an alternative way that some people have seen it. I mentioned there’s three ways people have taken this, and that’s one of them. All right. Let’s talk to James in New York City, New York. Hi, James. Welcome.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hi. Yes. Hi, Steve. I got two questions. One is that David’s kingdom was taken away from him for reasons I understand. But, I mean, Saul’s kingdom was taken away from him. for reasons I understand. And David then, I think, did more of a grievous thing than Saul by having, I mean, we know the story about having Bathsheba and having her have a baby, and then Uriah went to the front lines. I mean, everyone knows the story. Why was David’s kingdom restored and not Saul? I mean, I just thought Saul, what he did was To me, again, that couldn’t have been, you know, it was very greedy compared to Saul. I hear you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Saul, you know, Saul was habitually disobedient. First of all, when he was anointed by Samuel to be king, he was reluctant. And we think that’s a charming trait to say, ah, shucks, I’m not worthy to be king. You know, give it to someone else. But when God says, I’m calling you to be king, You are the king. I’ve called you to do that. You say, ah, no, I’m not good for that role. That may seem humble, but it’s really just disobedient. You know, if God calls you to do something, you say, well, I can’t imagine why he’d call me. I don’t think I’m very good at this, but I’ll trust him. I don’t think God makes mistakes. I guess if he thinks I’m going to be the king, that’s what I’m going to do. Yes, Lord, be it according to your word. You know, that’s what he should have done, but right from the beginning. At the inauguration, when he was supposed to be publicly installed, he was hiding. He didn’t want to do it. He got exposed and got installed. And then later, of course, he didn’t kill all the Amalekites when he was told to. And also before that, God told him to, or Samuel, the prophet, told him to, wait for him to offer a sacrifice before going out to fight against the Philistines. And Saul didn’t wait for him and did it himself, which, of course, only the priest or Samuel was qualified to offer the sacrifice. And so Saul kind of just intruded into that and did it himself disobediently. So Saul was kind of a habitual disobeyer. And, of course, when Goliath is challenging the people of Israel, It’s the king’s responsibility to defend his people against invaders and stuff that Saul was hiding out with the rest of the people. David, who, of course, was God’s true anointed king, just stepped right up and said, hey, I’m going to do this. God’s going to help me. Saul just didn’t have faith. He wasn’t very obedient. And then, of course, when he became aware that David was God’s choice, he spent the rest of his career trying to kill David, trying to hunt him down and kill him. So I think God didn’t make a mistake in bumping Saul out of that position of king. Saul was not qualified at all in terms of his obedience to God and submission to God. David, on the other hand, was. David was a man after God’s own heart. Did David do a horrible sin? He did. He did. In fact, most people in the Bible have done horrible sins. In fact, most of us have done horrible sins, if you comb through our past enough. God doesn’t exclude you because you’re flawed. And David, it was rather late in his life, after he’d been a very obedient and zealous for God servant, that he fell to his lusts. He fell to temptation, and then he fell to another temptation to try to hide it. And, you know, bad, bad on him. And he came to realize it was bad, and he repented. And he suffered for it. His kingdom was not taken from him, but it was diminished. You know, the glory was gone. The sword never departed from his family. His sons killed each other off in rivalries and things like that. And those are all said to be because of what David did with Bathsheba. He didn’t get away with anything. But not getting away with it doesn’t mean his kingdom was taken from him. That’s probably because much, much earlier in 2 Samuel chapter 7, God had promised David that he was going to raise up David’s house to be a perpetual dynasty. And he said, even if he’s disobedient, I’ll discipline him, but I will not take my mercy away from him permanently like I did from Saul. So God had already promised to David that even if you go bad, which was not given him permission, but he says, if you go bad, I’m going to discipline you, but I’m not going to withdraw this promise that one of your offspring will be the Messiah, essentially. And, you know, Saul was a man who was just not of good character, not very spiritual at all, and except when the demon came into him that he was very spiritual of a negative sort. So that’s why Saul was different than David. David actually lived most of his life as a very obedient, worshipful follower of God. But he did later in his reign have that notable failure, which was a very bad one. Probably as bad as anything you or I have done, or maybe even worse. But how bad our sins are is not really… a determiner of how easy it is to be forgiven. But how bad our sins are might be determinative of how bad the consequences are even after we’re forgiven and the things we suffer as a result. And David did suffer for the rest of his life because of the results of his sin. All right.
SPEAKER 05 :
I have one more question if it’s possible.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, we have a lot of people waiting. We have a lot of people waiting. Only a few minutes left. No, no. Call me back tomorrow because I have a lot of people waiting and we only have a few minutes left. Let’s see. Our next caller is George from Covina, California. Hi, George. Welcome.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hi, Steve. You know, there’s a certain famous pastor here in Southern California whose last name rhymes with fibs. And he’s made a public declaration to his congregation that if Israel were to be wiped off the face of the earth, then God cannot be trusted and we have no salvation. So based on that, on his interpretation, I mean, can a person’s salvation be affected in any way by believing in a dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible?
SPEAKER 03 :
You know, I think any theological system that is wrong can be dangerous or relatively harmless depending on what kind of a mistake it is and how people react to it. For example… Some people have said, well, the doctrine of once saved, always saved has caused so many people to go to hell. Well, I can see if someone believes in once saved, always saved, they might feel that they can take advantage and sin and go to heaven and find out otherwise. Yeah, on the other hand, when I was younger, I believed in once saved, always saved. I still wanted to serve God and I don’t believe that doctrine anymore, but if I still did, I’d still follow God. So, I mean, the doctrine itself may be dangerous depending on how people respond to it. Now, this pastor you’re talking about, I’ve heard him make that statement that if Israel, you know, loses this present war, if Israel is defeated or whatever, then the promises of God are not true. The Bible is not true. He has said we don’t have any basis for believing we’re saved because God is unfaithful. And, you know, a pastor who says that is just being, well, how can I put it delicately? Stupid. I mean, it’s a very stupid thing to say. To say, hey, I have one view about this. My eschatological view is one out of like a handful or a dozen views. But mine is so true. Mine is, I’m so sure I’m right that if mine turns out to be false, you’re not saved. You can’t even be saved because you can’t believe the Bible. God’s lying if I’m not right. Now, The truth is, I disagree with that man’s view. I don’t think he knows his Bible very well. I think he knows his view well. I think that he spent his entire life and ministry as a Christian in one camp. And I don’t think he even knows about the other camps. If he knows they exist, he has no idea what they teach or why. He’s a very ignorant man. And I know because I’ve listened to him quite a bit, as much as I can stand. But the point is, for him to say, if my view… of the end times is wrong and that’s what he is saying if Israel is wiped out his view of the end times is that Israel won’t be and can’t be so if he’s wrong about his eschatology then God isn’t true the Bible is not true wouldn’t a man who had any humility of any kind say if Israel gets wiped out then my understanding of eschatology has got to go back to the drawing board I’m making a mistake here But instead, he’s going to put that on God. Even though many people, including myself, have addressed him and told him there are other views than his and that his really don’t have very good biblical basis, he doesn’t have the ability to even consider that. So, yeah, if he, let me put it this way, if Israel should be bested by her enemies in any sense in the near future and, you know, Hundreds of people, thousands go to his church. If hundreds of people say, okay, brother, we believe you. The Bible’s false. We’re out of here. And they deny the faith because he told them to. He told them that they have to not believe the Bible if he’s wrong. Well, then their blood is on his head. I’m surprised that a shepherd or a man who thinks he’s a shepherd wouldn’t care more about the sheep than that. It reminds me so much of Harold Camping, who you remember Harold Camping. Was it back in 2011, I think, or I’m not sure. I think it was 2011. He said that Jesus was coming back on a given date that he provided. He had figured it out, like hundreds of other people have done on other dates throughout history. Well, he had the right date. He was sure of it. And Jesus was going to come back in 2011. And he actually said, if it doesn’t happen, the Bible’s not true. Now, where do these people get the brass to say, you know, if I’m mistaken, God is mistaken? That’s outrageous. And, you know, if I ever hear a pastor say something like that, I’m never going to step foot in his church again. In fact, I’ll do what I can to expose him because he’s obviously setting up people. Well, first of all, he’s totally arrogant to think that, you know, he can’t be wrong unless God is wrong. I mean, he and God are about on the same level of infallibility, you know. So that’s outrageous. And then, of course, if he turns out to be wrong, and notably, then… then his congregation has every reason to walk out the door and say, thanks, buddy, we’ll find another religion to believe. Maybe Buddha will have us, you know?
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, yeah. Well, this is why I was thinking… I asked how would that affect someone’s salvation, but there you put it in that answer. So, yeah, I get it.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think the very arrogance of that statement is going to make it very embarrassing for him on the Day of Judgment, even if no one loses their faith. Now, of course, he does take the chance of causing people to lose their faith by doing that, but if no one ever loses their faith because of him… He’s at least going to stand before God as one saying, I’m as right as God is. And if I’m wrong, God is wrong. You know, that’s as scary a position as any man who’s supposedly a man of God could take. Hey, brother, I’m out of time. I appreciate your call and the rest of you who won’t get on today, but I hope you’ll call back tomorrow. We are out of time for today’s program. You’ve been listening to The Narrow Path. My name is Steve Gregg. We are listener supported. If you’d like to write to us, The address is The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. Our website, thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.
