This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
May 27, 2020 8:00 am
Welcome to the narrowcast radio broadcast by Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week afternoon and were taking your calls.
If you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith or give a different viewpoint from the host want to talk about the we allow that here would be glad to have you.
I think right now, our lines appear to be full which means you can get through if you call right now that you can take this number down.
If you call in a few minutes. You may find on a line has opened up the number to call is 844-484-5737 that's it for four 484-5737. She is all right. Well, when you talk to Matt from Honolulu. First of all, hi Matt, welcome to the narrow path I got out anyway okay okay my daughters met you to talk again so my question and I have learned who got out at 239 to defend the view that God is only calling you in the ideas of predestination is one of your thoughts were on that. Well Peter said the promises for you and for your children and for all who are far off as many as our Lord God shall call right and how would that having to do is Calvinist God.
God calls everyone through the gospel who hears it and anyone who calls this promises for them.
I mean that Peter was just asked by the Jews in Jerusalem. What must we do and he told them what they must do. He said repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Reason for the promises for you, your children, anyone far off and everything.
Anyone who God calls so the general call of the gospel goes out to all people, and this promise pertains to all that if they will repent. If they'll be baptized if the become followers of Christ.
In other words than they will receive the gift the Holy Spirit. That's a promise and its for everybody who gets called now the Calvinist believes in what they call the effectual calling. They believe in the external call into believing an internal or effectual call. They believe that God in a sense, calls everyone who hears the gospel. But that's just an external call in because if they're not elect they cannot respond to it. If they are not elect they are dead in trespasses and sins and and we are the fall. It's like you know match flame on on wet tender just doesn't take but they believe there's also something called the effectual call which got issues only to the electric and and they consider the elect to be the called in that special sense in the effectual call. They say is irresistible.
So if God calls somebody in that sense, they will inevitably come now. The only problem we have in a with that particular doctrinal problem I have with the is the Bible doesn't teach anywhere, there is no reference to an effectual call in the Bible and there's no reference to any kind of call that separate from the external call so all are called and I may not ever has heard the call because not to return. The gospel preached whatever who hears the gospel is called by through the gospel to become a follower of Christ. Some will and some will not. But there's nothing in the Bible speaks of anyone having received an effectual call, which guarantees their response so there's no reason to think that Peter would think that I mean Peter lived 400 years before there is any Calvinist doctrine of the church and so he wouldn't be expected to have specific Calvinist definitions for the word Sears since it certainly is nothing that the words he uses that imply anything that specifically Calvinist to think about thing everyone called created a group naturally of those that are not called unnecessarily as there are people who've never heard the call but if you hear the call. You called in armingof the gospel has not been preached to every human being and therefore the world has a great number people and who've never been called in that sense, seek she's assuming the word called means elect and and and. In other words, somebody is elect to be saved and if in that sense called is used.
You know that that's almost doesn't matter where they live on the earth are they for the gospel or not. If God knows where they are and he's elected them than they are part of the called and they will get saved but there's no reason to assume that that word call has that meeting. It's strictly a Calvinist idea. It's not even in the Bible.
That's why nobody who ever read the Bible believed it until August. Thank you very much. Okay. Alex is okay To send you okay or next caller is Sherry from Detroit, Michigan hi Sherry, welcome to the narrow path. That's the calling I have a question my Bible study instructor taking care of the book of Daniel, and I questioned her and the word antichrist, and since it does not, since neither neither expression appears in the book of Daniel while we went. We were in Second Thessalonians because the study now had a cross reference.man of lawlessness, and I know that word antichrist only first John second John and Matt corrected Tommy to look up the word origin for the man of lawlessness versus antichrist because I think she thinks administrative thing thing and I was wondering if you could expand on what you think because I'm not seeing it exactly in my my Bible app as part of well she's been talking yet she's been taught that there are several different expressions in different parts of Bible that refer to the same person who is popularly called the antichrist as you pointed out the word if you will write you and anomaly dispensations. There are others besides dispensations who tend to think that the man of lawlessness, and in second Thessalonians 2 is the same person that is called the beast in Revelation 13 and is the same person is called the, the willful King in Daniel chapter 11 and is also the little horn in Daniel seven never got all these different expressions on the assumption of a great many is that each of these is target the same individual ends and for some reason they choose.
The word antichrist. Note the book of Revelation never uses the term Daniel never using Thessalonians of you are Jesus never even used it only John does in first John and Anne Sexton. As you pointed out, but for some reason they've decided that all these expressions mean the integration of she said look at the original words I want help you and you and Daniel. The words behind the English words little horn are simply Hebrew words in a little horn and the other words that refer to the King shall reign and prosper in Daniel 11. It's just ordinary word mollusk for a king landed a look at birth and Lawler well you can do so if you want to but the word it where the word antichrist appears it's anti-Christos so it's the word Christ Chris Dawson, the Greek with the word anti-before which means it anti-can mean either against or instead of depends on the usage and in the context anti-coming against Christ or command instead of Christ. But you and people have their own opinions as to which is which.
But but the etymology of those words are totally unrelated with the etymology of the expression man of lawlessness in second Thessalonians. As she says she has been told that they are the same.
They refer to the same person. She must assume that there is a basis for that somehow in the language of the Bible and she doesn't realize there is no basis for that anymore. There than there is in English the word antichrist in English is one word, the expression man of lawlessness is a different phrase that doesn't have the word antichrist and and there's it's the same and in Greek, what chefs understand is those who told her this is the same individual have assumed it and maybe they're right.
You know they may be right, but the Bible doesn't say it all we know is that there's a lot of bad people mentioned in Bible prophecy, and it's not necessary to assume that all time with the same bad person. For example, there's a king in Daniel 10. That's a very bad King, and he sets up the abomination of desolation suffer so many dispensations at all.
That must be the antichrist but almost all scholars agree is referring to Antiochus epiphanies who did that in 138 BC 168 BC so he's a bad guy, Antiochus 50 is a bag and source mother gives her some real bad guys in the Bible. And so to just say okay.
Second Thessalonians 2 talks about a bad guy, and Revelation 13 talks about and the word antichrist refers to a bag I would you say okay let's just make it easy is it always the same back that were talked about. Even if the context doesn't support it just makes it simpler, I guess, but simple isn't always the best way to do biblical studies and I would say this is the man of sin with an analog system might not be an individual. I'm I don't know if it is or not, but it could be used to speak of something an entity so I could say that the president of the United States as an office and in in in referring to the presidency or in the constitutional touch of the president of the states is not part of any particular one present it's talking about generically any president of the United States and so the majority view throughout history has been that the man of sin is referring to a an office that is occupied by many different people throughout history and of course the most popular view among the reformers was that was the papacy but the beast in Revelation 13 certainly doesn't appear to be a man. It's it's constructed of the elements of the four beasts in Daniel chapter 7 Daniel seven sees four beasts, and components of those worries are put together a like a composite drawing in in Revelation 13 of another big smell the beasts in Daniel are not individual men. They are kingdoms or empires solid be very strange if Revelation, which is borrowing the images from Daniel would use the word beast to refer to an individual rather than an empire and more than that. The beast in Revelation 13 has 10 heads to the seven heads and 10 horns, and in chapter 17 of Revelation says the seven heads are seven kings and the 10 horns are 10 kings, so here's a an animal that has at least 17 kings is not one man that's an empire that the political system so you know when people say wildebeest is the antichrist.
Well it depends if you're making the answer has been individual will then than the language of Revelation certainly wouldn't support that imagery, but we do have, even when the word antichrist is used in the Bible it doesn't speak of that of an individual. It says that whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. This is in first John chapter 2 verse 22 who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ, he is antichrist who denies the Father and the son who who is antichrist.
Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ, so anyone who denies that Jesus the Christ. John said is antichrist a doesn't say to just one man of sin might not be one individual could be but doesn't have to be the beast certainly doesn't look like it's an individual has all the characteristics of Daniels beasts who are not individuals. So in this idea that all these send all these villains in these different passages in the Bible, must all talk about one person and always the same person just does make sense to me there's very famous dispensational Christian broadcasters been on the air since I was a child is on every day they go through the whole Bible. And I remember when he was going through Psalms. I was listening to them once or listen to many times and in the Psalms is talking about some song that talks with the wicked will do this in the but the righteous will do that and he said well the righteous here are the tribulation saints during the tribulation. The wicked is the antichrist is not there's not one thing in the Psalm to point to tribulation times or end times or antichrist is just a generic statement of the wicked and the righteous, and yet this teacher.
He just said while the wicked here.
Is this a reference. The antichrist well that's kind of what lotto dispensational is due. They just have decided there's this figure that they've they've got in her mind and then whenever they find a reference to the wicked person.
If it if if it's not absolute, and asserted see it otherwise legislates antichrist and that's me that's not a response way to biblical studies.
I think we should probably try to figure out. In each case, what it is or who it is discussed anyway yeah if she's concerned that if you look at the roots of the word she's go see that that you can see that the antichrist is the same as the man of lawlessness when I'll just type it is so I mean they nameless, and you will get it that way. So now than I thought okay thank you Sherry for your call publishing by okay next caller is Don from Oregon city, Oregon on welcome to the neuropathic circling actually John China not my call screener made made me a little hard of hearing and measures couple names you no problem.
Sometimes it's hard to go ahead and you go I called you that you are good because looking up all passages that would be of my point of view and just let you know in your list was no my tautology collected so yet will quite so I was very much struck by your coverage of the group 14.
In fact, I just listened to it yesterday, very difficult passage and I could see what it would be.
But what I want to add you to share a little bit how inverted dispensational to millennial take maybe a few minutes and share my kindness. I went into your position as a halfway house.
A lot of people do a lot of people who go from dispensationalism to millennialism the first thing they give up of dispensations is the pretrip rapture, and they become historic premillennialists like yourself like some of the church fathers were and but then, in many cases they go beyond that and they learn more about the millennium to that. That's what happened to me.
I I was a dispensations and a dispensational teacher and I was challenged on the pretrip rapture by a student, not who he he didn't disbelieve me.
He just wanted he had some questions wanted some wanted me to give him some ammunition to to actually talk to another historic premillennialists to disprove the pretrip rapture and and as I went through the case and I did about art, 19 or 20 scriptures for the pretrip rapture is not there. I noticed they really didn't say it, I thought I realized I was imposing the pretrip rapture onto the passages and then using them as support for it and that that shook me up a little bit.
I've been teaching the pretrip rapture for about six years.
At that time and eventually I die, I didn't immediately abandon it, but it certainly shook me up and then as I studied more, especially the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.
I realized that the resurrection the rapture take place at the same time, which is when Jesus comes back. So I gave up the pretrip rapture. Why didn't put together at that time but I did later is looking at the doctrine of the resurrection.
Jesus said that the wicked and the righteous are to rise at the same time. So did Paul. Jesus editing in John chapter 5 verse 28 and 29. He said the hours coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth, some to the resurrection of life, and some to the resurrection of condemnation and Paul said very similarly in acts chapter 24 in verse 15 he said, I I hold the same view. The Jews do on this.
He said that there will be a resurrection of the dead.
Both of the just and the unjust certain a resurrection that involves both the just and unjust. That really I didn't know immediately. I haven't thought it through how that impacted my view of the millennium because the premillennial view holds that the righteous will be resurrected when Jesus comes back and that's before the millennium, but there's a resurrection at the end of the millennium, which it doesn't say it's only the wicked, but it does say that all people be there so that would include the wicked, so there's a thousand years between those two points.
The resurrection of the righteous. When Jesus comes back at the beginning of the millennium, and the resurrection of the wicked at the end of the millennium a thousand years later and yet I was and so I was a supposing that to be true because of my interpretation of Revelation 20. Everywhere else in the Bible that spoke about the resurrection indicators only one day of resurrection one day of Christ Jesus. Get a raise them up on the last day. He said, and he also said that we could be judged on the last day so eventually I began say okay the only the only thing in the whole Bible that suggest maybe more than one resurrection would be Revelation 20.
And that's only if I interpreted and premillennial way. But if I look at all the teaching of resurrection throughout Scripture. I find it there's only one resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous at same time and therefore I must have to look at Revelation little differently in chapter 20, which I did not like I never met a millennialist up to that point and I had totally eventually changed my view on the whole millennial question before ever knew there was another millennial's on the whole planet or in history. I didn't know anything about that.
My teachers are never told me there were other views, so I became what we now call in all millennialist without knowing there was such a thing. I just knew I didn't believe what I've been taught anymore because the scriptures I found would permit. It sounds like that's the nutshell version okay all you have a traditional Christian college or no I don't. I have been someone just recently gave me like an honorary degree from a Christian, seminary, but I have five never starve never studied in a Christian college or something.
I don't need to. I got all the books by people who did I read them to do it how you concluded you went to college and got a degree in film 10, no, no, actually it's exactly as I said I wasn't hiding anything.
I didn't go to school. I read my Bible and over. Several years I began to see flaws in premillennialism and gave it up and again by the time I was fully millennial. I still didn't even know there was a second person on the planet in history who never held this guy was just a few. I came up with comparing Scripture with Scripture. I was course, very relieved to learn that it was the historic view of the church through most of church history, and that there still off a lot of people who hold you know that initial position and reformed churches. You and the reform and Lutheran copier, and many others question okay excellent.
Thanks your call John.
We'll talk again by okay Jim from Monterey, California hi Jim P very quickly when I originally called amounts on the millennial situation. My dad in the southern Baptist pastor and we became aware around 1952 that millennial would be peaking prediction of billing date seminary, the Southern Baptist seminary and nine Mill Valley, Marin County, California did nothing and dad and many other many other colleges you know I read somewhere that in the year 1900 there was not one premillennial seminary in the United States. All the all the premillennial seminaries have ever have been established since then. I'm not sure if that's true, because I don't know when Dallas theological Center was founded by thinkers in the early 1900s but yet one, one book is being said that's it wasn't until after 1900 that there were any seminaries in the United States that were premillennial, they all mail or personal, some personal notes or question from Jim. We got got a break and up to give me argument? I getting cold by the way to your day. That is, that's not a question of English and ask how old I am I believe you're coming up on 57 or you are right you are right. By the way for our listeners. Jim is no me for a long time, but he he also never forgets a date of anything that ever historically happened. You can save the dates of everything that I don't I don't I'm not inviting you to Jim, but you know my age know my birthday. I'm an open book to you, but I know I was headed north to Dallas theological seminary was founded in 1924, so I guess that what I had registered and that the seminary from which my uncle Paul got his doctorate in theology in 19 yeah, and probably another day to bless you have a questionable thing and I believe went back to that impacted dad seminary and millennial of them in the thinking I get the book of Revelation is in fact a letter from John to the seven churches in Asia minor.
Now we can actually say Morag is a letter from Jesus to the seven churches of Asia minor. Yeah, because of course Jesus dictates it to John. The John wrote it and and that makes it like so many other books in the New Testament almost all the books of the New Testament are our epistles, the Gospels and acts would be exceptions, but everything else in the New Testament. Our epistles, including of the book of Revelation.
So you only the second did you want to make a further point about that. Okay, I guess not appreciate your call.
Jim given you listening to the narrow path to take a break here and will come back for another half hour so don't go away.
We have some calls waiting in some lines open but I give out the number again at three after the break.
The narrow path is listener supported and you can write to us at the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593. Our website is the narrow path.com and if I should be hearing the music, but since I don't I'm good have to guess that this is where we take a break.
I'll be back in 30 seconds.
Narrow is the path that leads to life, narrow path. Everything in today's media show is over and enjoyed my visit in the narrow path.com find free topical audio teaching blog articles 1st, teachings and archives.
The narrow path video shows we think you for supporting the listener supported narrow path that Steve Greg remembered the narrow path.com welcome back to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and were alive for another half hour taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith. You can call us today. The number is 844-484-5737 lines just filled up but if you want to call if you let you make it line opening up for you. 844-484-5737 all right our next caller today is Everett from San Pablo hi ever good to hear from you again. Chapter 2 the and all articles talking about and that the medicine was an God and God is the chest. Equipment defined against the actual work on behalf of got to get your take on it.
I didn't examine but that would be my personal well I see it's precisely the way you've suggested that the Bible makes very clear. God does not dwell in temples made with hands, there is no purpose in having future temples. It's very common belief mainly a dispensation is belief that there will be 1/3 temple in Jerusalem.
There have been to Solomon built the first one and Zerubbabel built the second one which was later embellished by Herod, but was the same temple and simply believe there's 1/3 temple which will be the common popular view is that the antichrist will set up an image of himself in this third temple, and that will be the abomination of desolation that marks the middle part of the tribulation. That's the idea of dispensationalism on the incident thing is under several inches events. One is the Bible never talks about anyone putting an image of himself in addressing temple. It is true that the man of sin is said to sit in the temple of God and declare that he is God.
But that's not saying the same thing as an image of himself and put in the temple to hit. He himself sits in the temple of God and in Revelation 13. It does say the second beast makes an image of the first piece and requires them to worship him. But there is no mention of geography. There is no temple, there is no Jerusalem in the passage so on one hand we have an image is made of the first beast in one passage.
An entirely different passage. It says the medicine will sit in the temple of God, but no images mention so so I guess it's for like what is talking about our first half-hour about how people just take all these passages about a bag I'm and meld them into one bad guy. This is much of the scenarios that you been taught about the tribulation. Are simply man-made attempts to combine scriptures that are not like each other and then they can read things into them now you are right that when Paul uses the term temple of God, and that's what he says he uses the and second cousins to use as the medicine will sit in the temple of God and claimed that he is God.
Paul hasn't Paul never uses that expression temple of God for Jewish temple. He does use the expression into other places. One of his first Corinthians 316 and the other is second Corinthians 616 both places. He says do you not know that you are the temple of God is heart of the church.
The church is the temple of God. That's the same expression uses insect investments to he only uses it three times in the Bible the first two Corinthians both places. He makes it very obvious what he means by the term when he uses it in second Thessalonians. He doesn't he doesn't explain what he means by the temple of God, but since he has identified the temple of God very distinctly and first and second Corinthians. There's no reason to assume that he would use it differently.
In this case, so there's no no reference in second customers to to a Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
In the end times. Nor is there such a reference in Revelation, anywhere, nor is there in the all of the discourse so I think that the man of sin.
If we take Paul consistently for the way he uses terminology is something Paul predicts he'll sit in the church in the temple of God, and that's one of the reasons why the reformers were all convinced that the Manson was the papacy because after the Rome fell.
The papacy was not only the ruling power in Europe, but it was also the ruling part of the church and what Paul said that the the man of lawlessness would do. Actually, the papacy is done all those things. So I'm not saying it is the papacy but the truth is, papacy fits the description very well, but the future future antichrist.
In a Jewish temple. There is no suggestion of that anywhere in the passage that is its greatly obscured regardless okay regardless you to.
Good to hear from you today all right. Our next caller is Rodney from Detroit, Michigan hi running welcome to the narrow path hello Rodney McCall, Revelation 1711 and Revelation 1919, both clearly state that the beast is definitely a man or a cane.
So how could you say that the beast is not a man. When we know that the beast of the kingdom represented by the 7-10 horns. Revelation 1711 and 1919. Clearly state that the beast himself as a man. We wouldn't think that I can't think of any major kingdom that never had a cane. So how would you respond to that. Well, it says in verse 11. The beast that was and is not, is himself also. The eighth and is of the seven and is going to perdition.
The previous verse is where it says that his seven heads are seven kings so whose seven heads the kick the beast seven heads the beast is is described as having seven heads of the beast has seven heads, but each of these heads is the beast and its tone turn. As I understand it, the beast represents a series actually I believe it represents a whole, the whole sum total of governmental powers that Satan uses to persecute the church so each one of them is the beast in its own time though, is that he doesn't let me let me answer you.
It does say that because it says the seven heads are seven kings does not doubt this is the seven heads are part of what creature the seven headed creature the base of the beast has seven heads. The seven heads are seven kings now do things happen in sequence. Yes they do. He says five are fallen, one now is another ship to come in and then he'll last for love and there's an eight so each of these kings. Each of these heads is the beast in its own turn date. They are sequential.
That's why five have fallen, one now is another's coming summer looking at a series of political entities, and combined they make up the beast, and of course each of them is the beast in its own turn because the beast is simply a concept that is manifested in many many different political systems that to persecute Christianity. That's how I understanding that fits the past eight. I mean, I don't see how you did any different – BA, I don't read it differently. I'll tell you what, where are the seven kings that it mentions before the fiber fallen or are in the paddle in one and what are they on that what our Asian Rodney Clardy back into the fallen what it is that I past five past cane that it fallen in the long run. It was raining his okay let me just get something straight here.
I don't think were talking past each other. These seven kings are said to be seven heads on one animal that one animal is called the beast okay so all seven kings are the beast and the eighth one is also the beasts of the seven is not a literal number I think because seven in Revelation very commonly is used to speak of the totality are a complete number so the seven heads I bite understand to represent a total number and the eighth one is the same kind now there could be hundreds of them, perhaps, but the point is, all of them are part of the beast. Now you know if you know something's come back saying I don't know. He can read that way. I just told you how you do if you don't agree with that. You don't have to.
Nobody nobody in the whole world has to agree with me but I use my my common sense and I read in and I say okay here's a beast Scott seven heads. Each head is a cane and it also is 10 horns, and were told in chapter 17 that the 10 horns are 10 kings. Now they're all part of the beast unless you want to say that the beast is something apart from his heads the beast is just it goes from the tail up to the shoulders and the heads or something else of the whole organism whole monster is includes the 10 horns which are 10 kings and seven heads, which are seven kings and if if you have trouble with that okay but I'm not give us any clearer than that. Okay you want to point no okay is I doesn't look like you hung up the targets all go on to another, Paul from blowing up Vista Colorado. Welcome to the politics, recalling Michael to I read that you note dated Christ died for that.
I don't have the Bible include, without memory with the propitiation for the things of all mankind.
All time that what you did to read since he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world that sounds exactly like recent right and so I mean our past and well court and why we were yet sinners and court before we were even created this world a you came to earth 2000 years ago and we know the story that in my understanding would be path resident in futures then would it not all sins of all time. Role-play development okay and make sure that we were in agreement on that date is like the central theme of the gospel.
We when we we preach and teach the gospel because my hardest to really have the gospel ironed out some make sure I don't make mistakes when I teacher share with people that I don't want to mislead anybody that isn't the gospel, but it certainly part of the whole Christian message the gospel that Jesus and Paul and Peter preaches the gospel of the kingdom of God, which is different in focus, but the truth is that Jesus died for our sins and rose again.
That's a very important part of the whole story here right now that's what I'm doing, died, got one thing that we do not show, but as I share with people and make sure that that's correct because it really important to me that losing set me free and made me realize how what an incredible method gospel of good and really screwed the world today and I can try to get the media thing going for the last they harvest left date harvest day. We don't know how I could be great come to court but that's my heartbeat.
They how can I really get the gospel simply profoundly dated as quickly as possible. People when I'm standing in line at the grocery store or when I'm at the gym working out or your work in the course of my life since now we got that verse on the table.
How does that inform you.
In terms of how you share the gospel. In those situations, what, what would you say now is that something that would, you know, I might lead in with that date.
Are you did you know or you were the actually took care of all the sin debt for all mankind for all time. The first day what you talking about or or maybe the yeah you know, I've heard that that really what you really think that that's like a really huge that it is drawing correct ever met. When I first Apple I'm surprised I guess I guess I was raised knowing that verse and it's it's it's made part of my theology, Christian, longtime yeah I have something that I never really internalized realize until I cite that in for 40 years. I mean I caught it here and there, but it didn't think you like the Holy Spirit like to be like with how you I can share this with people just in passing in and laid on the labor cards on the table and fit because that's my heart. I just want people like you and you know, now that's great. You go ahead and go do that and you I love it when you read the Bible and you see something as if it's the first time you saw it that happens is the Holy Spirit will you know a tune you to something that you hadn't really thought of before and seen for. That's great.
Okay, let's talk to David from Sacramento, California hello was noisy, good time and money to go back in November and December time to question about marriage and have been absolute and that suggestions about family servant and worked out well that them.
Thank you for your ministry you do and how you do it and make this transition from equipment welcome. Thank you for your call. Congratulations on your marriage is quite a bit of stuff at the website. Of course related to marriage is an article I've written called what is marriage and there's a number of lectures. One, there's three lecture series called.
I think what you absolutely need to know before you get married before and after you get married and there's other.
There's other lectures about marriage. I'm not sure which ones help you most.
But I'm glad I'm glad you said that works is working out well because that's we need we need more marriages that do that that workout Mike from Orange County from Orange, California. Ashley hi Mike, welcome my statement first is that when I read a revelation about the seven churches.
I asked myself all those questions have I left my first love and my lukewarm halide league pennant is Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior and I read through that there's a couple of questions. I do have about this bill and knows that it is metaphorically speaking.
The merely attend and then Jezebel okay so for us to the woman Jezebel Bill, I believe that you can know chapter 2 yesterday on the churches and modern day will you have any description of those two well the Nicollet and since were a apparently agnostic leaning sacked that were named after Nicholas and it's surprising. It's the same Nicholas that was one of the seven deacons chosen in acts chapter 6 Nicholas the proselyte, and he was yet according to the church fathers.
He had followers who named themselves after him. At one point and they held views that were sort of anti-know me and Gnostic views which would mean they they taught that it really doesn't matter what you do as long as you believe, and so there were people in the church there, both in the church of Ephesus and the church are compartments both had a Nicollet since there the. The church of Ephesus hated the doctrines of the Nicollet Thames and she said he did to and church apartments had had those who had the deeds I think it was of the Nicollet since and the Nicollet since apparently were teaching that it's okay to compromise us in terms of sexual morality, and in terms of idolatry.
There are mentions their permitting people to worship idols and the meat sacrificed idols and and to commit fornication and Jezebel was teaching the same thing in another church. I think Susan -type tire. If I remember correctly, but but that maybe it was purpose but she was outside teacher fights are you okay and he was also teaching similar things basically to eat meat success idols and to commit fornication. The difference being that she was obviously a woman teaching and prophesying in that particular congregation, whereas it would appear that the teachers who were teaching false doctrine in Pergamum and also the ones that didn't really get a foothold in Ephesus will try to put Nicollet since that they they were probably meant for the most part, but what makes Jezebel different is that she was more about this not be her real name to exact family, Jezebel. Of course we'll test it was one of those wicked women described. It's hard to imagine anyone would describe would name their daughter that and it's not likely that big. It's very quite similar to if her name really was just well because she was promoting in the church. The very same things that Jezebel in the Old Testament is promoting in Israel, she is promoting idolatry and and lacks morals and so I think that the woman who was doing it in the church of Thyatira is left really on. She's anonymous and the books we don't know her real name, but she's called Jezebel just like Jerusalem is called Egypt and Sodom. Revelation 11 eight and there's a lot of symbolic names given to people and places in Revelation. So I think it just was not her real name a lot of teachers they talk to Jezebel spirit. The Bible does never talk about that Jezebel spreads a real popular term in charismatic circles and some others and they usually use it to describe a woman that they think is a little uppity or maybe just maybe a lot more like Jezebel than that, but the Bible doesn't use that expression. It does not indicate that Jezebel is a prototype of a certain kind of women in the church is other, she could be, but rather she was actually a prophetess who is teaching false doctrine in the church especially promoting immorality and idolatry. So that's that's what she's about today's church. Though some of that, really, reading loud and clear because the override repentance with grace and to which you don't have to repent, you know, you're right. Go up and take a lot of churches have communion and they don't request any repentance and and I said that's that's against the Bible right there by right you're right, it really is. I need to move along because I'm on a couple minutes left. Nurse my lines are fall under try to get Lisa more in there but I agree with you.
Many churches are very weak on repentance very soft on sin very anti-know me and so very similar to the Nicollet since, and even perhaps to Jezebel in the book of Revelation. Thank you Mike for your call. Appreciate it very much. Good have to take another collar now mystery Lorenzo from Huntington Beach, California Lorenzo, welcome to the neuropathic sculling. A quick click little type church in that state. Like you said about Jesus by Jesus and loved it when it was the also use it as Psalms nursing.
Yes, just like Psalms provided in a worship song manual for the Israelites. Yeah so Revelation contains tons of worship songs, especially those in the first five chapters that you were arming a lot of songs that you sing in church or even hymns are taken from these songs are sung by the 24 elders and the four living creatures and and so forth. In the hundred 44,000 and in chapter 14. A lot of these songs in Revelation are taken as prototypes of models for Christian worship meeting a long time to come back and it's good to learn to know that okay thank you for your call Paul from Bonavista Colorado.
Welcome this at the end of the answer you gave me for the last days harvest.
Talk about. I was thinking about being able to share that YouTube.
It also note that the harvest is great in the fields are white.
Paul I think you have a question and I have a lot of people waiting to have question so I'm going after move along. I appreciate what you're doing. I hope you're very successful.
Katie from New Hampshire. Welcome to the neuropathic sculling, sure we don't have much time, I'm afraid. Go ahead and keep all billing patient while on how I think that the health problem that'll check it well.
I actually have some lectures on that and I say that only because we cannot hear about a minute or so. If you go to my website.
The narrow path.com and to the topical lectures there's a series called spiritual warfare and there is there is there lectures there on demon possession or demonic bondage and deliverance and I do, I do explore that looking at scriptures from both sides.
It is a controversy.
A lot of Christians believe that if you're Christian you can't be demonized.
Others believe that that you can be. If you are certain compromises in your life but the point is that even if even if that is so not every time that a person has strange behavior wouldn't necessary be demonic. It might be because there certainly are demons and demon possession still and and when the Bible describes demon possessed people. They certainly this act in ways that we probably send them to psychiatrist today and if a person doesn't believe in him possession they would in the end they probably get some medications but but the truth is, the Bible says that these people were demon possessed, and so I have to say that there are probably some people who are viewed as mentally ill who actually are demon possessed, but that would be of different things and saying that all cases of mental disorder or aberrant behavior would because my demons. I would love to go to this as if you had got your call. 10 minutes earlier, I would spend the whole time or or even moronic, but if you go to the narrow path.com and look under topical lectures. Look under spiritual warfare and lectures on demonic bondage and deliverance will go into this in much greater detail. That's all I can do for you today. I'm very sorry that we don't have more time listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and we are listener supported. If you want to help us and the air you can write to us at the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 also possible to donate from the website though. Everything we mentioned the website makes free but you can donate email@example.com thanks for joining us and let's talk again tomorrow