Menu
Join us as we explore profound questions about the mystery of godliness, salvation, and the idea of God’s anger toward individuals. Steve Gregg provides insightful answers, drawing on scripture to help disentangle the complexities surrounding Calvinism, and whether Jesus’s atonement is limited or available for all. This episode also delves into the Jewish Roots Movement, discussing its implications for both Jewish and Gentile believers within the faith. You’re in for an enlightening journey through the theological landscape.
SPEAKER 05 :
This is the best of the Narrow Path Radio broadcast. The following is pre-recorded.
SPEAKER 04 :
The following is pre-recorded.
SPEAKER 06 :
Welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Program, hosted by Steve Gray. Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be able to be taken. In the place of the usual format, we’ve put together some of the best calls from past programs. They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in the Bible and Christianity. In addition to the radio program, The Narrow Path has a website. You can go to www.thenarrowpath.com, where you can find hundreds of resources that can all be downloaded for free. And now, please enjoy this special collection of calls to Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
And we’re going to go to our full lines now, and we’re going to talk to, first of all, let’s see, we’ve got Timothy from Ontario, California. Timothy, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 10 :
Hey, how you doing, Steve? Thanks for taking my call.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, good to hear from you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, um, quick question and then I gotta get off the phone because I’m at work. Um, scriptures are talking about, uh, in the, about Jesus being tempted, uh, led by the spirit going into the wilderness but then it says in James God does not tempt anybody. How do you, how do you reconcile that? And thank you for taking my call, Steve.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, thank you, Timothy. Um, Well, yeah, the Bible does say that in James, let no man say when he is tempted, I’m tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt any man. Well, what it’s saying is that God is not the tempter. God is not the one who draws us towards sin. Now, of course, he does place us in a situation where we will be tempted, but it’s the devil that’s the tempter. And the Bible identifies the devil as the tempter. Now, temptation is something that we are supposed to face, but the word temptation simply means testing. But God does not tempt us to do evil. God does not want us to do evil. For example, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden were tempted by the devil, but God did not want them to fall. In fact, he specifically warned them, not to do the very thing they were going to be tempted to do so they had no reason to have to be mistaken or fall. He didn’t want to draw them into evil. When James says God does not tempt any man, what he means with evil, he’s using the term temptation there to mean to seduce somebody or to induce somebody to do the wrong thing. God doesn’t do that. Now, does he put us in situations where we’ll be tested by the tempter? Yes, he does. Job was tested by God’s permission. Adam and Eve were tested by God’s permission. Jesus was tested, as are all of us. We’re all tested. And that’s just part of what God has in mind for us. He wants us to go through a testing. But he doesn’t want us to fall. It’s the devil who wants us to fall. It’s the devil who’s really trying to induce us to do wrong. But the devil wants us to do wrong. God doesn’t. But God does want us to face the tests because that’s what you do when you’re in a school, when you’re learning something, when you’re qualified for something. You have to go through the exams. I have a friend who’s studying to be a pilot right now, and he’s gone through ground school. He has to take some tests. They’re not going to let him go up in the sky if he doesn’t pass those tests, and it’s a good thing, too, because if he doesn’t pass the test, he doesn’t know enough to fly safely. If you’re going to license somebody to do something that’s dangerous, you want to make sure that they know all that they need to know to take on that risk. And God wants to license his people to rule with him. That’s what he made people for, to rule with him. But you don’t want to put people in charge who have never been tested, who have never learned the lessons, who you don’t know if they will do a good job or not. And so, of course, this earth, this life, is the testing time. It’s the next life where we’ll reign with Christ if we pass these tests. So the testing is part of the program. The testing is part of the education. And the devil is the examiner who administers the tests. But God does not draw us to evil. This is something very specific that James means when he says God does not tempt us. In the context, he says God cannot be tempted with evil, nor does he tempt any man by implication means with evil. God allows us to be tempted. but he doesn’t tempt us. And there’s a huge difference there, I think. And so, I mean, a lot of people don’t see a difference. The fact that God lets us go through it, they say, well, he’s responsible for it then. Well, there’s a level of responsibility that he has in that he could have prevented there from being a test at all. But he’s not the one who’s drawing us to do the evil thing. He’s not the one who’s inducing us to do what’s evil. James begins that statement by saying, don’t let anyone say when they’re tempted, they’re tempted by God. In other words, I can’t help but sin. How can I help but sin? God himself is inducing me to sin. Who can resist God? No, God doesn’t induce you to sin. You’re drawn away by your own flesh at the temptation of the enemy, but God is not trying to induce you to sin. If you fall, in other words, it’s not God who made you fall. It’s not God who wanted you to fall. It’s not God who tempted you to fall. Though, it’s another question. If you ask, did God want me to undergo testing and temptation? Yes, he does. But he wants you to not fall. That’s the point. And Jesus didn’t fall. He passed the test perfectly. And that was entirely necessary for him. He had to go through the same testing as all of us do. The Bible says he was tested or tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin. And that was part of his qualifying, just like it’s part of ours. So that would be, as I see it, the tempting. is done by somebody other than God. But God certainly allows it to happen. God certainly allows us to… It’s like, you know, if somebody commits a crime against you and you suffer for it. God didn’t commit that crime, but he allowed it to happen. He allowed you to face that trial because, again, trials are going to be potentially good for you. Trials are supposed to be good for you. They are supposed to make you stronger, and they’re supposed to show… what you’re made of. And God does want us to go through trials, but he doesn’t want us to fail them. And he didn’t induce the person who killed. For example, he gave Jesus over to Caiaphas and to Judas to be crucified. He gave Joseph over to his brothers to be abused. But he didn’t abuse, God didn’t abuse Jesus or Joseph. It was those who did that God did not deliver him from them because he wanted peace. joseph to get into egypt he wanted jesus to as it were you know suffer for our sins and that being so god permitted and even we could even say ordained that jesus and joseph would go through those kinds of trials and that kind of testing but the trials were actually administered by somebody other than other than god Some people would just think that’s a fine point, almost a niggling point. But it’s not. I mean, what James is saying is it’s not God who wants you to fall. It’s not God who’s trying to get you to sin. That’s something else. You can’t blame God if you sin. But you can say, God has allowed me to be tested. God has allowed this temptation to come upon me. He has not stopped it. And the reason he hasn’t stopped it is because it’s going to be good for me to be tested. At least it potentially is. Of course, I could fail the test. in which case it’s not good, or maybe it even will be. Maybe I’ll learn something from the failure and do better next time. In any case, God has reasons for me to be tested, and yet he doesn’t tempt me to do evil himself. He has another agent who does that. If that’s not satisfying, and that answer isn’t satisfied to everybody, it is to me, and so I guess people have to look for another answer if that one doesn’t work for them. Harry, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yes, I was listening to a program last night, Coast to Coast, and they talked about someone who does regressions in past lifetimes. And he was talking about a person who was regressed, a person who had chronic back problems. He regressed him to another lifetime where he was a soldier. someone ran a lance through his back, and he got in touch with that, and when the regression was over, he was totally healed. He had no more back problems. So I called into the program, and I asked this gentleman who was doing the therapy, I said, is reincarnation real, or Is it when you go through hypnosis, you bring an event that happened to one of your ancestors? I also added that Christianity looks at, does not believe, adamantly is against the theory of reincarnation. And I wanted him to expound on that. And He said that reincarnation was part of the Church for the first five centuries. Origen believed in it, and John the Baptist was supposed to be reincarnated from previous prophets. And the limited knowledge that I have of the Bible, I remember a passage where God said, and I knew you before. So I was just wondering… what your take is on it, and also, in fundamental Christianity, my understanding is there’s Jesus in the Bible, and everything else is Satan. And I do believe that the show, Coast to Coast was legitimate, this person was legitimate, and this person who was eventually healed, was healed. I believe that is true and not a put-on. And so the question is, the person, he was healed, was this Satan or what? And I’m just wondering what your thoughts are.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Well, first of all, the idea that Christianity taught reincarnation for the first 500 years is not exactly correct. Origin did teach in the pre-existence of the soul. So, Origen held a view a little bit like what the Mormons would hold now, although they don’t believe in reincarnation, and neither does he. And by the way, Origen was not like the Mormons in most respects. It just happens to be a doctrine that he taught, which also the Mormons would teach today. That idea that people existed before they were born in heaven… seems probably to have come out of Plato’s idea of there being forms in another realm that everything on earth is a copy of, and that perhaps that when people were born, they were copies of a platonic form previous to that or something. I’m not really sure how he was reasoning, but I don’t believe he taught reincarnation in the sense that it’s taught in Eastern religions. If he did, then he was apparently mistaken. because there’s certainly nothing in the Bible that would support reincarnation, regardless of what origin or anybody else may have thought. There were a lot of early Christians who taught that Jesus was not God. They were called Aryans. They were, I believe, mistaken. What early Christians believed is not going to be the final source of our knowledge about these kinds of things. The Bible itself is what we have from God, from the prophets and the apostles. And though God did say to Jeremiah, you know, I knew you in the womb before you were born, that doesn’t mean that he was reincarnated from another lifetime. I believe that God knew all of us when we were in our parents’ womb. I think he knows us as soon as we come into existence, and no doubt beforehand, too, and by his foreknowledge. So that’s not really any kind of a declaration of reincarnation. John the Baptist was not a reincarnation of Elijah. Some of the Jewish rabbis believed on the strength of Malachi chapter 4 that Elijah would return. And many thought John the Baptist was Elijah, and then later some people thought Jesus was. They were wrong in both cases. First of all, their belief was not that Elijah would be reincarnated, but rather that he’d return. He was taken up alive to heaven. To be reincarnated, you have to die and then be born on earth again. that’s not what they were believing Elijah would do. They believed that Elijah, who was taken up alive, would come back down again. And this would not be anything like what reincarnation is. Now, when John was asked if he was Elijah, he said he was not. Now, Jesus said if you can receive it, he is Elijah who is to come, which means if you can receive it, John is the satisfaction of the prophecy about Elijah, but he’s not literally Elijah. The prophecy about Elijah coming was not about the literal man Elijah, but rather John came, as we are told in Luke chapter 1, in the spirit and the power of Elijah. He was not Elijah, returned. So it is a misunderstanding of verses like those that have led some people to believe that the Bible teaches reincarnation. Some think that Jesus taught reincarnation when he spoke to Nicodemus, because he said you must be born again. And what sounds more like reincarnation than that? Being born again and then again and again and again and again. However, if anyone wishes to read what Jesus said on it, they can disabuse themselves of any mistake on that. Because, actually, Nicodemus took him to mean something like that. He said, can a man go back into his mother’s womb and be born again? In other words, does a man have to go through another physical birth like that? And Jesus clarified. He says, no. He said that which is born of the flesh is flesh. that which is born of the Spirit. You have to be born from above. You need to be born of the Spirit. And Jesus made it very clear. He’s not talking about another physical birth, which reincarnation would be. He’s talking about a spiritual birth, which you have as a result of believing in him, as he went on to discuss when he talked about Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, so also the Son of Man lifted up so that whoever believes in him will not perish but will have everlasting life. So receiving a new life is being born again, an everlasting life. But he said that’s a spiritual rebirth, that’s not physical. So there’s actually no correspondence between any of the things the Bible says and reincarnation. Now, the man’s experience of being healed and being regressed to a past life, do I think that was demonic? I think it could be. I don’t immediately chalk everything up to demonic if I can’t understand it. But I would say this, if he thinks… that he lived at an earlier time as a soldier and was having physical problems in this life because of it, I think he was superstitious. I don’t believe that the Bible would support that worldview at all. I don’t believe people from previous lives come back and live second lifetimes or third or fourth, a hundredth lifetimes as reincarnation teaches. And therefore, whatever experiences man had, it could be demonic. I wouldn’t rule that out. There are demons and they can do things. They certainly can deceive people, and they would have a vested interest in deceiving. So if this man was deceived by his experience, then it could be just the kind of thing demons would wish to do. On the other hand, it could be that he had psychosomatic problems. It could be that it’s power of suggestion. I mean, there’s lots of different things that can account for people’s experiences with hypnotists. Some of them perhaps could be explained best by appealing to the demonic. So I’m open to that possibility. Okay, we’re going to talk next to Michael from Pittsburgh, California. Michael, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, thank you. I’ve got kind of just two short questions. You think, as a born-again believer, that if you did something wrong and God is angry at you, you sort of feel it or sense it? And the other question is Romans 2. I deal with a lot of people that are Catholic Christians, And they said they’re born-again believers. If someone lived a righteous life and he never got to really hear the gospel, is that verse in there that his righteousness will become a law unto him and would he be saved?
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, well, on your first question, if you do something displeasing to God, can you feel his anger towards you, you said? Yeah. I’ve certainly done many things wrong as a Christian. I’ve been a Christian for more than 60 years now, or approximately 60 years now. And I’ve done plenty of things wrong. I can’t say I’ve ever felt his anger. There have certainly been times when I knew very well that he was not pleased with what I did. But I knew that not because I felt some subjective awareness of his anger upon me. I’ve never felt his anger. But I have known from what his word says. that there are things he disapproves of. And when I found that I had committed those things, I knew he was not pleased with that. But I didn’t know it because of feeling some kind of foreboding or, you know, I’m not sure how you’d feel somebody’s anger. I mean, you could feel the anger of somebody who’s actually visible in the room sometimes because they may be looking at you angrily or something like that. But But since you can’t see God’s face, I don’t know how you feel his anger. I don’t think that’s how we know whether God’s angry or not. I think we know God’s attitude about things by what he has said about them. I can’t say nobody has ever felt his anger. I’m not sure if they have or not. Sometimes God may take disciplinary action against the person for something they’ve done. And they can feel that. They can feel the disciplinary action and recognize that that’s God’s disapproval. That’s happened to me because I did the wrong thing and God’s not pleased with it. I suppose they could feel that. But what they’re feeling then is the discipline, not the anger. But anyway, I can’t speak for everybody, but I can’t say that I’ve ever felt God’s anger against me.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, okay.
SPEAKER 07 :
Now, the other question you had was if somebody’s never heard the gospel, you wondered if Romans chapter 2 says, has something to say about those who’ve never heard the gospel because you’re talking about, I assume you’re talking about Romans. Let me turn there here. I know the version.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, Romans 2.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, Romans 2, 12. Romans 2, 12 says, For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. And as many as have sinned in the law, they will be judged by the law. And then he says, for not the hearers of the law are justified in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having a law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else accusing them. That’s the passage you’re thinking of?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, well, I don’t know that this passage is actually referring to people who’ve never heard of God or his law or of Jesus. He does talk about Gentiles who don’t have the law. But that doesn’t mean they’ve never heard of the law, in my opinion. And I realize I have a different opinion about Romans, too, than most commentators give. Most commentators do feel like Paul is saying something about pagans in general, pagan Gentiles, that even they have a conscience. Even they reflect in their behavior sometimes an awareness of right and wrong that’s agreeable with the right and wrong standards that we find in the law. So that… You know, the law says you should not murder, you should not commit adultery, you should not steal. And many times among pagans you’ll find those same laws in their code, or their conscience tells them that they shouldn’t murder, or shouldn’t commit adultery, or shouldn’t steal. You don’t have to necessarily know the law in order to have some kind of moral conscience about such things. And that’s what most commentators say Paul is saying. They say that Paul is… recognizing that even the heathen have some conscience of right and wrong. And that’s what he means when he says the Gentiles who don’t have the law, they nonetheless keep the law. But the truth is that he doesn’t say some Gentiles keep the law. certainly if he was talking about the pagans in general, he wouldn’t find very many pagans in general that keep the righteousness of the law, even if they don’t murder. Pagans in general were pretty rotten people because their religions were rotten. Actually, they didn’t condemn adultery. In some cases, they didn’t condemn murder. The pagans in Paul’s time, the Romans, would leave their babies out to be exposed and die if they didn’t want them and things like that. The Christians had to collect them up and save them. But, I mean, the pagans really did have wicked ways that no Christian would call righteous. Now, if Paul was saying there’s occasionally here and there a Gentile who seems to know what’s right and does the right thing, that would be one thing. But he’s not talking about this rare case. He’s talking about Gentiles who are showing the work of the law written in their hearts, he says. Now, the law written in the heart… is something that is promised in Jeremiah 31 as part of the new covenant. What I believe Paul is saying is that the Jews who thought that circumcision was what made them all right with God, Paul says, you are circumcised, but you don’t keep the righteousness of the law. Now look, over here there are some Gentiles who do, namely the Christian Gentiles. They have the law written in their heart. They actually keep the righteousness of the law. Their own internal… tells them that some things are right and some things are wrong, and they actually do fulfill the righteous deeds of the law. And therefore, he says, they who do that will judge you, who are a Jew and don’t keep the law. He says that later on in the same chapter, Romans 2, 26, he says, therefore, if an uncircumcised man, meaning a Gentile, keeps the righteous requirements of the law, Will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? Will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you, who even for your written code and circumcision are a transgression of the law? Now, what Paul is saying is there are Gentiles who are more righteous than the Jew he’s talking to. He’s talking to a hypothetical Jew who, though they have circumcision and status as a Jew, which in their mind means they’re God’s people and good people, He says, listen, you guys don’t keep the law that well. There are Christians who do. There are Gentiles who do. Because they are followers of Christ, they actually do fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. Now, how do I know he’s talking about Christians doing that? Well, because he actually mentions this very thing in Romans chapter 8 and verse 4. He says that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Now, Paul is talking about Christians who have the Spirit of God, who are not walking according to the flesh, but walking according to the Spirit of God. This is a Christian distinction. And he says the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in those of us who are walking in the Spirit. So when in Romans 2.26, Paul talks about if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, he’s thinking of a Christian man, an uncircumcised Gentile who’s a Christian. And what Paul is talking about here, Paul is not specifically talking about people who have never heard of God. When he says that Gentiles who do not have the law, what he means by that is that he doesn’t mean they’ve never heard the law. The Christians have heard the law, but we don’t have the law because we’re not under the law. The Jews had the law. The Gentiles did not. The law was given to Israel and not to the Gentiles. But as far as people who have never heard of God, whether they’ll be saved or not, I’m sure that has to do with what God sees going on in their heart. and he’ll have to judge them as a righteous judge would. Listen, I need you to take a break now, and we’re going to come back and take some more questions after the break. We have some stations leaving our network right now, so I just want you to know that The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. If you’d like to write to us, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593. The website is full of free resources, but you can donate from there if you wish. The website is thenarrowpath.com. Again, that’s thenarrowpath.com. If you’re staying with us for the second half hour, please stay tuned for 30 seconds, and we’ll come right back.
SPEAKER 01 :
Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. Steve has nothing to sell you today but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to thenarrowpath.com where you can study, learn, and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse-by-verse teachings, and archives of all The Narrow Path radio shows. We thank you for supporting the listeners supported Narrow Path with Steve Gregg. See you at thenarrowpath.com.
SPEAKER 05 :
This is the best of the Narrow Path Radio broadcast. The following is pre-recorded.
SPEAKER 06 :
Welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Program hosted by Steve Gregg. Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be able to be taken. In the place of the usual format, we’ve put together some of the best calls from past programs. They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in the Bible and Christianity. In addition to the radio program, The Narrow Path has a website. You can go to www.thenarrowpath.com, where you can find hundreds of resources that can all be downloaded for free. And now, please enjoy this special collection of calls to Steve Gray and The Narrow Path.
SPEAKER 07 :
Nathaniel from Sacramento, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 09 :
My question to you today is, I am torn between… Unlimited Atonement and Limited Atonement by Calvinism. When I read the Bible, and I just read it in English, it seems to me that Jesus died for the whole world. And I know that the whole world is not going to be saved. But I recently read a systematic theology by John MacArthur, and he is able to prove by Scripture that It seems that Jesus died only for the elect. And I would like for you to elaborate on that because I’m still confused. In my mind, I want to believe he died for the whole world.
SPEAKER 07 :
I understand the problem. The Calvinist view is that Jesus died only for the elect and not for everybody. And, of course, what that would mean is that not everybody could be saved. only the elect could possibly be saved. But to them that’s not a problem because God only wants the elect saved. He doesn’t want anyone else saved. So why would Jesus die for anyone else? Now the Bible, as I read it, teaches that God would like all men to be saved. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But he’d rather that the wicked would turn from their evil ways and live. That he’s not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. So as I understand it, God wants everyone to be saved. Now, if Jesus died for all men, then all men might potentially be saved. It would be depending on their choices. They could repent and be saved because Christ died for them. And we could actually confidently tell every person who’s not a Christian, Jesus died for you, and therefore you can be saved. Now, if you’re a Calvinist, you can’t do that. As a Calvinist, you don’t know who’s elect and who’s not. You can’t talk to an unbeliever and say, Jesus died for you, because a Calvinist doesn’t necessarily know that he did. Because they would believe Jesus only died for the elect. And any given person you’re speaking to, well, you don’t know if they’re elect or not. Maybe they’re not. So you couldn’t with any confidence tell anyone that Jesus died for them. In fact, you couldn’t really with any confidence tell yourself that Jesus died for you. Because you might not be elect either. Now, Calvinists don’t go that far. They do go as far as I went up until that last sentence. They would say, for example, J. Adams in his book, Competent to Counsel, made it very clear. When you’re counseling somebody who says you can’t tell them Jesus died for them, they might not be wanting to be elect and then you’re lying to them. So that’s a typical Calvinist thing to say. But they don’t go as far as I did when I said you can’t even be sure then if you are one of the elect. They would say, oh, yes, you can. You can know you’re elect because you have this inner witness and because your life has changed and because they give you all these subjective ways of looking at yourself to know you’re saved. And I agree with them that you can know you’re saved by all those things. The problem is they believe that you can have all those things in you, all those changes in your life, and yet if you fall away before you die… and you die in a state of unbelief, then you never were saved. That’s the Calvinist view. What that means is, when we see people who have walked with God for decades, loving God, serving God, bearing fruit, delivered from sinful habits, leading other people to Christ, and so forth, and they’ve had every evidence of being a real Christian, but then they’ve fallen away, and no one can deny it unless they haven’t been around much. No one can deny that there’s plenty of people who fit this description. They had every evidence of being a true Christian, just like you or I have. And yet they fell away. I know people like this. I know quite a few people like this. According to Calvinism, they never were saved. Now, notwithstanding all the evidence they had of being saved, they weren’t because their falling away proved that they were never saved. Well, then how do I know if I’m saved? How does a Calvinist know if he or she is saved? Well, they do because they’re different. Calvinists, if they have assurance of salvation, it’s only because they have more confidence in themselves than they should. They believe that in their case, they’re different. They’re different than the ones who fell away. Sure, those people who fell away seem to be good Christians, as I seem to be. Sure, they thought they were saved, as I think I am. Sure, they lived a Christian life, as I think I’m living a Christian life. But the difference between them and me is they weren’t really saved. They were deceived, apparently. They thought they were saved, and they weren’t. And I’m not deceived. I really am saved. I don’t have any more evidence of it than they had, but because it’s me, I’m assuming it’s true. And to me, that’s not a very responsible way to look at the subject. The truth is, if you understand Calvinism properly, let me put it this way. If I believed Calvinism the way it is taught by the best Calvinist teachers, including John MacArthur, If I believed it, then I could never be sure of my salvation until I die my last breath as a faithful Christian. Because there are people who have been just as Christian as me, but to all appearances and to their own convictions, they believe they were. And they fell away. If they were deceived, how can I be sure I’m not deceived? How can I have any assurance? Now, as I understand the Bible, anyone who follows Jesus Christ and loves Jesus Christ and is trusting Christ is saved. And they are saved because Jesus died for everybody, and everybody who is believing in him will not perish but have everlasting life. But some people used to believe in him, and they’re not believing in him anymore. And they’re not saved. They were if they believed in him previously, but they’re not now. Jesus told the story in Luke chapter 8 of seed that fell on stony ground, and it sprang up. happily at response to the gospel, but it didn’t have deep roots. And so when persecution and tribulation came, it fell away. And Jesus said, those are those who believed for a while. Well, if they believed, that’s the condition of salvation. If they believed for a while, then they didn’t believe anymore. It means that they didn’t continue in salvation. This is a very obvious teaching of much of Scripture, unless we bring presuppositions that are contrary to it. And nobody in the church ever believed otherwise before. Until Augustine. It wasn’t until Augustine, around the year 400 A.D., that the first time some Christian came up and said, if you’re ever saved, you can never be lost. Now, every Christian before Augustine believed that Jesus died for the whole world. At least as near as we can tell from what they taught. Certainly the New Testament teaches that. Now, you mentioned John MacArthur’s book, or at least it gives a convincing case for limited atonement. How do Calvinists defend limited torment? There’s two main arguments. One main argument is they believe that whoever Jesus died for must necessarily be saved. They believe that Jesus did not die to make salvation possible, but he died to make salvation actual. That is to say, whoever he died for is actually saved by the fact that he died for them. Whereas, A person who’s not a Calvinist says Jesus died to make salvation potential for anybody. And the Calvinist simply doesn’t believe that. I do. I do believe it. They don’t. And they have a couple of verses they use that don’t prove their point. It’s just their conviction. But see, if it’s true, if Jesus died 2,000 years ago and made, let’s say, my salvation actual 2,000 years ago, then I’ve never been an unsaved person. In fact, no one who ever gets saved was ever unsaved because their salvation was actually accomplished and made real 2,000 years ago when Jesus died. So none of us who ever got saved were ever really unsaved because we got saved 2,000 years ago when Jesus’ death actually saved us. It didn’t make our salvation possible, but saved us.
SPEAKER 09 :
And since the Scriptures can’t be broken… then I can believe the Scripture where he says, go out into the world and preach to all preachers.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. Well, they would say that too. But if you say, well, why should you preach to every creature when only the elect can be saved? They would say, well, you don’t know who the elect are, so you’ve got to preach to everybody. And then those who are among them who are the elect will get saved. The others won’t. But this is, again, this is special pleading. They’re arguing a case that isn’t argued in Scripture. They have a particular philosophical standpoint that they have answers, not biblical answers, but just answers that seem reasonable to them to almost every objection. But one of their two main arguments for the limited atonement is that, first one, that the atonement made salvation actual, not potential, for the redeemed. I don’t believe that. I believe the atonement made salvation possible. which is why you or I could be unsaved at one point in our lives and become saved later. Because we weren’t saved 2,000 years ago. We were saved at the point in time when we believed in Christ. And if we hadn’t believed in Christ, we would not, in fact, have been saved.
SPEAKER 09 :
Do you have material to support what you’re saying? Because I tend to believe what you’re saying.
SPEAKER 07 :
Absolutely. Well, yes. And let me give you the second argument they give next, and then I will tell you about my material. The second argument they give… There’s several scriptures that talk about how Jesus died for the Christians. Jesus said the good shepherd gives his life for his sheep. Jesus said that Christ purchased the church with his blood. Jesus said greater love has no man than this that he laid down his life for his friends. And so there’s a lot of scriptures like that. where it says Jesus died for his sheep, he purchased the church, he died for his friends. And they say, well, listen, his friends, the sheep, the church, that’s the elect. It’s telling us that Jesus only really died for the elect. But it’s not really telling us that he only died for the elect. He died for his friends. That’s true. It does not tell us whether or not he died for his enemies. The truth is he did die for his enemies. Because it says in Romans chapter 5, when we were his enemies, Christ died for us. In this, the love of God was demonstrated that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And if while we were his enemies, he did this for us, Paul says. How much more now that we’ve been forgiven?
SPEAKER 09 :
I remember that.
SPEAKER 07 :
So Jesus didn’t just die for his friends. He did die for his friends and for his enemies. He died for everybody. But when he’s talking about his relationship to his friends, he says, listen, I want you to know I died for you. No one has more love than that than to die for their friends. although that’s not denying that he died for everybody or that everybody might not potentially be his friends. There’s a story that Jesus told in Matthew 13 about a man who found a treasure in a field, and he hid the treasure where he found it and went out and purchased the field so he could obtain the treasure. Now, I understand this to be a reference to Christ purchasing the world with his blood so that he could have the treasure, which is his people, in it. But in order to have the treasure, the man in the parable had to buy the whole field. And, you know, what he really wanted was the treasure. But the field had to become his completely before he could take the treasure as his own. And so I believe Jesus died for the whole world, purchased the whole world. And we could say he died for the whole world. We could also say he died for that treasure. We could say that man sold everything he had to buy the field. Or we could say he sold everything he had to buy the treasure. which would be true also. Both would be true. One is being more expansive in the statement, and one is being more narrow in its focus. But the truth is, Jesus died for the whole world so that he could have that treasure, which is comprised of whoever will believe in him. And that’s what I understand the Bible teaches. Now, as far as materials on this, at my website, thenarrowpath.com. If you go to the topicallectures.com, you’ll find a series called God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation. God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation.
SPEAKER 09 :
God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation.
SPEAKER 07 :
Right. And if you go there and you look up that series, God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Salvation, you’ll find that there’s a series that goes through every Calvinist argument in great detail. And it’s a 12-lecture series, but it goes over every point of Calvinism, every verse that they use, and exegetes it and deals with it, including, of course, the issue of limited atonement. That’s lecture number nine is the limited atonement.
SPEAKER 09 :
God bless you, and thank you. I am going to do that. You have really explained and expanded my mind so that I can understand the what they are saying and what the Bible is saying. I’ve always believed that Jesus has died for the world. I just did not know how to fight Calvinism.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, well, as I said, if we don’t know that Jesus died for everyone, then we can’t be really sure that he died for us.
SPEAKER 09 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right, Nathaniel, thanks for your call. Good talking to you, brother. All right, bye-bye. I appreciate your call. Bye now. All right. Let’s talk to Gary from Torrance. Gary, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey, thank you. You know, I was reading about epistles from Nicodemus, and I read that it was part of the New Testament at one time, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on it, and why did they take it out?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, who said it was part of the New Testament at one time?
SPEAKER 08 :
I just read an article one time that it was originally part of the, not the New Testament, but part of a Bible that they read back in the old days. And I just wondered what you thought of the epistles of Nicodemus. Is it worth reading or whatever?
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, I have not read it myself, but I can guarantee it was never part of the Bible. Yeah, it wasn’t included. There were many writings that we call apocryphal writings that emerged in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, which were religious in their themes and talked about Jesus. We have the apocryphal, what we call the Gnostic Gospels. They’re written in the 2nd and 3rd century. They are also what’s called pseudepigraphal writings. Pseudepigraphal means written under an assumed name. So that you have from that same period, for example, you have the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas. But Peter and Thomas weren’t even alive at the time those Gospels were written. Whoever really wrote them never gave away his own identity and claimed to be somebody more famous than himself. And that’s, I believe, the case with the Epistle of Nicodemus as well. Now, because these books circulated, I’m sure that a lot of Christians read them. But anyone who told you that they were once part of the Bible is exaggerating considerably. The New Testament books, the final decision as to which books actually would be in the New Testament was not actually made until the late 4th century. Before that, there were a lot of books that were popularly read and which some people would have liked to see in their Bible, but they were never accepted generally by the church as authentic. And the Epistle of Nicodemus would have to be in that category.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. Hey, thanks a lot, Steve. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right. Good talking to you. Thanks for your call. John from Vancouver, Washington is next. John, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thank you, Steve, for taking my call. My question today is from 1 Timothy 3, verse 16. It’s that first phrase that says, Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. There are a couple of options about what this godliness is, and I’d like your ideas. Maybe it’s another one that I haven’t thought of. It could be that it’s a mystery how Jesus, though tempted in all points like as we are, could be yet without sin. So it could be talking about Jesus’ godliness, or else it could be talking about our godliness, the mystery of how we, born into sin, could become saints. So is it one of those options, or is it something else, or both right or both wrong?
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah. Well, the expression, the mystery of godliness, certainly could go either way on that if it’s not found in a particular context that would give us any ideas. Because godliness could refer to God’s godliness or ours. And therefore, you’re suggesting a couple of different options that would see godliness one way or the other. I think that Paul himself expands… and explains what he’s referring to by the rest of that verse, which most scholars believe is citing an ancient hymn. Now, whether it is an ancient hymn or not is not very important for us to decide, but it is the general opinion of scholarship that what Paul cites here in verse 16 is a hymn or a creed of some kind, a very old creed of the church. Just because of the way it’s laid out, it doesn’t look like ordinary sentences. It looks more like a statement of faith. Now, what he said is, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. And then here I think he explains what he means. What is the mystery of godliness that is great? Well, he says God was manifested in the flesh, or in the Alexandria text it simply says he was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up to glory. Now, I suspect that the mystery of godliness that Paul is talking about there is the first line of that which he quotes from this creed, that he, Christ, or God, was manifested in the flesh, that God… who is not human, could be manifested among us as a human. That is the first affirmation that Paul gives after this reference to the mystery of godliness. And it would be referring, I think, to the mystery of the incarnation. There are other things that are following in this, that he was justified in the spirit, seen by angels, and so forth. Not all of those are equally mysterious, but certainly that God manifests himself on earth in the flesh. which is an amazing and mysterious thing, because God in the Old Testament manifested himself in different ways, in a pillar of cloud, in a burning bush, in what we call theophanies, where he appeared in a human-like form. But we have no reason to believe that he was actually a human when he was in a human-like form. That is to say, the man who wrestled with Jacob all night, or the man who appeared to Abraham, in Genesis 18, who was God. We don’t have any reason to believe that man was born somewhere on the earth as a baby, grew up, and then appeared to Abraham on that day as a man, but rather that God simply took on a human-like form for that particular encounter, but did not take on human flesh, just human appearance. But Christ took on human flesh. God somehow became human. And that is a great mystery indeed, how God, who is not human… could become man, and man is not God. But Jesus was both man and God, and I think this is the mystery that Paul is… Certainly there are other mysteries associated with godliness, and both of the suggestions you gave would truly qualify as mysteries of godliness. I just think in this particular case, Paul is referring to what he expands on after he uses the phrase, and that would be my opinion on that.
SPEAKER 12 :
Okay, thank you, Steve.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay, John, God bless you. Thanks for your call. Okay, Thomas from Euless, Texas. I don’t know if I got the name of that town right, but welcome, Thomas. Thanks for calling.
SPEAKER 03 :
Hello, Steve. I wonder, would you please comment on the Jewish Roots Messianics, please?
SPEAKER 07 :
Sure. What would you like to hear about them?
SPEAKER 03 :
I’d like to hear your opinion about that movement.
SPEAKER 07 :
Okay. Okay, well, the Jewish Roots Movement… basically has more than one branch. It’s more of a collection of movements. And some of them means very little else than that there are Jewish people who have become Christians and want to preserve their Jewishness. That is to say, they want to continue to practice some of the Jewish distinctives, like circumcision and a kosher diet, and they want to meet on Saturday because that’s the Sabbath, and they want to do some of the traditional Jewish things. because they want to continue to celebrate their Jewish identity, which they had even before they were Christians, and now as Christians they see themselves as completed Jews, and continuing as Jews in the faith of Christ. And this is one aspect of the Jewish Roots Movement. Another aspect that is very common, and to my mind far more controversial, is people who are saying we who are Gentiles who become Christians need to celebrate the Jewish roots of our faith. So that even though Gentiles never have been previously put under the law of Moses, we are put under that law by becoming Christians. That we never had to keep a kosher diet because God never commanded Gentiles to do that. But now we are commanded to do that because we are Christians. We never had to circumcise or keep Sabbath as Gentiles because God never gave such commands to Gentiles. But now that we’re Christians, we have to do all these Jewish things. Now, this movement, I think, is very dangerous. In my opinion, it’s exactly what Paul wrote at least one of his epistles to debunk. And that was the epistle to the Galatians. He makes it very clear that we’re not under the law. He even said that if you Gentiles get circumcised, you have fallen from grace and you’ve been alienated from Christ. And you’re basically not trusting Christ. You are not putting Christ in the position of lordship of your life, but rather the law is now guiding your life, not Christ. And this is something that Christians throughout history have understood to be a heresy. It was called Judaizing. And it’s just in fairly modern times, there’s been some groups, some of them very cultic, some of them don’t even believe in the deity of Christ, though I don’t want to make it sound like that’s mainstream. Many of the Jewish roots Gentiles do believe in the deity of Christ, but there are some groups that don’t. And there’s all kinds of different varieties of these people. But the main thing is, it’s, in my mind, a distraction from Christianity. Christianity never did call Gentiles who become Christians to begin to live like Jews. In fact, Christianity doesn’t even call Jews to live like Jews. Paul, when he rebuked Peter in Galatians chapter 2, said to Peter, If you, being a Jew, do not live like a Jew, but you live like a Gentile, then why do you expect the Gentiles to live like Jews? Now, it’s interesting. Peter was a Jew and a Christian. But as a Jewish Christian, he didn’t live like a Jew. Paul said, you live like a Gentile. Until, of course, these men from Judea come and you get scared and intimidated and you start living like you’re a Jew again. But he said, why would you do that? When you yourself know we’re not under the law. When you normally, being a Jew, don’t live as a Jew. And he’s not rebuking him for not living as a Jew. He’s rebuking him for starting to act like he has to live like a Jew. That was the context of the passage. And the Apostle Paul also, as a Jew, did not feel himself obligated to keep the laws, which is why he said in 1 Corinthians 9, when I’m with Jewish people, I keep the law, but when I’m with Gentile people, I don’t. Because I want to win Jews and I want to win Gentiles. In other words, I’m culturally sensitive. I will… You know, just because a Jewish person would perhaps be offended by me eating a ham sandwich, I won’t eat one in front of a Jewish person. I’ll put myself under those restrictions of those who are under the law for the sake of reaching them. That is, for the sake of not offending them unnecessarily, so I can still reach out to them. But he said, but when I’m with Gentiles, when I’m with those who are not under the law, I don’t live like one under the law. In other words, living under the law was strictly an option that Paul could take for an evangelistic strategy with Jews, but he didn’t live that way when he wasn’t with Jews, and most of the time he wasn’t with Jews. Paul’s mystery is among the Gentiles. So neither Peter nor Paul, who I would think are the most exemplary Jewish Christians in the Bible, neither of them live like Jews. I mean, they might have taken on Jewish practices when they’re around the Jews to avoid offending them, as both Peter and Paul, we see, did that. But when they weren’t around Jews, they didn’t see any need to do that. They didn’t see themselves as being under the law or under any obligation to keep the law. And so if the Jews weren’t, certainly the Gentiles aren’t either. You’ve been listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg. As I mentioned earlier, we’re a listener supporter. We pay for the time on radio stations. We’re on quite a few stations, and it costs a lot of money. If you’d like to write to us, you can write to the Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730. Temecula, California, 92593. You can also donate from the website, but everything at the website is free. It’s thenarrowpath.com. And I hope you’ll join us again. We’ll talk some more. God bless you.
