Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 6/1

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
June 1, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 6/1

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

June 1, 2020 8:00 am

Enjoy this program from Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path Radio!

COVERED TOPICS / TAGS (Click to Search)
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg

Welcome to sit. We are on for an hour each week. The afternoon my name is Steve Greg always take phone calls while were on their you like to call with questions about the Bible of the Christian faith, or to disagree. The host, feel free.

We'd be glad to have you on their the number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 first call today is Jacob calling from Lakewood, Washington Jacob, welcome to the neuropathic for calling health and my question in Matthew 517. 19 and I live and Metro network. That movement is bad bad when you benefit that Matt ended well yeah but that's not plagiarism see this the historic church do remember is the view held by the entire church up until the 1800s when predators hold it, but so do lots of other campsite because there's lots of camps in the Christian church and they all held that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ death and resurrection so that they're no longer binding and that's why we don't offer animal sacrifices anymore have to keep the holy days or clean foods or whatever and I live in Pampa and in kind of a madman. Well, there was some overlap in terms of practice of the Jewish Christians, but there was not any overlap in terms of, you know, one covenant, both companies being binding.

For example, it says that in Hebrews 813 says where there's a new covenant, the old covenant is obsolete now.

The right of Hebrews said, although the old covenant softly said it's not yet totally vanished.

That is to say, the temple had not been totally destroyed and and the system you know abandoned by the Jews. But it was over, is obsolete, so the Christians never after the resurrection of Christ or Pentecost would never have any requirement to go to the temple.

However, the Jerusalem church because it was comprised of people who were born and raised in Jerusalem in many cases and who are always in the temple is the center of Jerusalem's life.

They had always had the temple as the center of their life and I think that it was very natural for them to continue attending temple services and doing temple things and keeping the holy days as they had all their lives. There's really nothing about doing so. That was anti-Christian and I think they did. In many cases they can fully understand what the relation was between the temple and the new covenant because Jesus was of course the Jewish Messiah, and all his original followers were Jewish people, so they were the remnant of Israel. It was not obvious I think to them that now that you have the Messiah that you no longer have to identify yourself with the Jewish religion and practice.

So I think they overlapped in their practice until the temple was destroyed and God made very clear. Hey you don't need those things anymore.

Now the Gentiles, even before 70 A.D. were not required to keep the law of Moses and Paul got into disputes with people who thought that that they should.

So what we have is simply that when the new covenant came, it made the old one obsolete but it's unlike when a person becomes an evangelical Christian. They know Jesus as their walk with Jesus if they come out of less a Catholic background there used a lot of Catholic practices and so forth, and they might even like the whole ambience of the of a Catholic service, so they might still go there, but they but if there really evangelicals. They realize that they praying to Mary and Prange Sansone. You know, certain beliefs of the Eucharist, and so forth are not necessarily true, but there still a tenant worshiping Jesus and worshiping God in and in environment where they have felt comfortable doing so, it may not be the best environment for but it's not evil in my opinion from to do it.

So I think that's how the Jewish believers where they had been accustomed to temple rituals and they felt more comfortable with. I mean if you were raised eating kosher food and you're now an adult and you become a Christian and someone would tell you why doesn't matter if you kosher food or not will use your taste are still acclimated to what you were raised with. You probably would still be inclined to keep kosher and seems strange not to. But this eating kosher food is not a sin.

Although it's not required so they did. They did continue in Jerusalem to act like Jews and Christians that would've been a very, very difficult thing for them not to do so because the entire city in the entire culture was based on the temple and sequester the gates, the city would close all shops and pleasant Sabbath and inventor and all these pilgrims to be there for a week at a time three times a year to be very hard to live sort of aloof from all of that and so that I think the for that reason, the Jerusalem Christians simply continued to go to the temple and to those things although they were not Christians but the fact that God destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. was certainly his way of saying hey, this is necessary, more so, that would be my thoughts about that.

Yeah it has some and there are people. Of course, many people who believe the research temple in Jerusalem. I don't know of anything in the Bible predicts that an and the rig and the red accomplished end of that time. I believe it's the Jesus Jesus said he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it or that it would be fulfilled, and he said not one jot or tittle of the law would pass before all of it was fulfilled that we have to consider if if all of it has not yet been fulfilled. Then, not one jot or tittle could change because you said not one jot or two of the law can change until it's all been fulfilled so if we can say well we don't have to offer animal sacrifices anymore.

What event that's a major part of law that has in fact changed and therefore it must have been fulfilled in others. If any part of the law has changed Jesus as it's only because the whole thing is been fulfilled, and until the whole thing is fulfilled, not any part of it will change know and I believe it's all been fulfilled is often filled by Christ came. Yet he said he said he came to fulfill it.

So unless he failed and what he came to do. Then he did fulfill. Remember in John chapter 17 I think verse four. Jesus is praying. He says father I've accomplished everything that you sent me to do so if he said I was sent here to fulfill the law well you must've accomplished that Mr. Thompson and Beverly Bass, rightly, that the law the word Torah means instruction. I know it's translated law most the time but the actual meaning of the word Torah is instruction when Jeremiah said that God would write his instructions in her heart he is not specifically saying what those instructions will be a Jew might assume there to be all the same instructions that were given under the old covenant, but it doesn't say so. It says Anglican new covenant.

That's not according to the old covenant made with them so I said to be different and and and one difference is that he can put his instructions in a heartbeat doesn't say how different those instructions might be from the instructions.

The previous government. In other words, the previous covenant required a lot of animal sacrifices well. God hasn't put on my heart to go and offer animal sacrifices and he's not going to because East basically said that's not necessary or useful, but on the other hand, you know he does want me just deliver a godly life and he has given instructions in the sermon on the Mount and other places in the New Testament that are for my instruction and that some she writes that in our hearts, but to say he's the right his Torah in our hearts. Unfortunately, a person whose Torah observant might say whether Torah elects the five books of Moses when it can be that the word itself actually just means instruction selling guns as I write my instructions in the heart. He doesn't say to me the same instructions to give Mount Sinai thought anything of a call, but I appreciate your call. Jacob Mark from Vancouver, BC, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling your physical exercise program consist of and I don't have a consistent exercise program. I usually walk about what when things are normal and I normally walk about 5 miles a day. I don't I don't do very much in the way of bodybuilding when you were younger only if you've never seen me happy to say that like in the general sense to have you done with know. I constantly training, switching, and I never really know my body and my time and is very skinny all my life lately, but you will wait for him not know at one time will not heavily know. I mean I've had, like most people have a gym membership. I have a gym membership that means several times a year. I actually get off deaf and going and do some exercise, are you wondering just tricks that I know that what I've always been into fitness, not like it that way. Religions where Elizabeth thing is I've always been a boy so I got led me to know that you can shake like buying a weightlifting money when I was younger walking later on you Christians think it's important to keep in good health and I I personally think that it's you know that we have a stewardship we have we have. If God is given us good health that he's given us a fit body. Then I think it's a good stewardship to keep at least healthy. I don't know yet what we were there. I wasn't even close to straight A's, to 3.6 coming think about 3.6 I can do well in school and I am in Army that's not a bad grade, but I was not. I had no exceptional great.

I would like to be B+ them right. Did you ever encounter William and Walt in Oregon 30 years ago four years ago and I don't remember them okay and Christ like. I know that that like a lot of people leave that the universe what you said unless you believe that I am he will die in your sins. To me it seems like you just saying that unless you believe that I'm the Messiah, the son of God. Read further into that thing that you have to believe that I'm eternal God, would you say that that's a bit of a stretch. I actually do think it's a bit of a straight shot. It is true that in that passage, he says, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. That is, of course, the John 824, the term IM is a go a knee which is the same term used at the end of the chapter I said before Abraham was, IM, and so that that that I am at the end of the chapter is usually understood nothing properly to be claim to deity, but the expression Aco Amy doesn't always mean I am in the sense of duty and often means I am he, and you don't need the additional word he to make a go a knee mean I am he, in fact, in the next chapter in John 99 when the blind man that Jesus healed. It is seen by his friends and their speculators. It's the same guy or not.

In John 990 says I am he that is that the blindness is on the guy you remember on he and yet in the Greek it's a go. Amy, it's so so Aco Amy can simply mean IM or it can mean IM he actually Amy even without the ego just Amy means I am a go means, and if you have Aco Amy is like saying I IM but in in the usage of it. In the Greek language and going becoming IM or coming.

I am he with me. It was obviously the most well represented group was neutral with opinions among Unitarians like to say that you worship.

That is idolatry is that their position I think that's a position I can understand. I don't agree with that because I believe Jesus is God, but I can understand someone saying what if Jesus isn't God, which is what they're claiming then worshiping him would be worshiping someone other than God. So I would say that would be idolatry and that would be the position. I think it's consistent with their overall theology. All right, let's talk next to Waldo from to macula water welcome to the narrow pathway for calling Steve Ewell, 39, first starting at 28 to the end and they will know that I am the Lord your God, for though I sent them into exile. Among the nations them to their own land not leaving any behind. I will no longer hide my face from them for I will pour out my spirit on the people of Israel and declares the Sovereign Lord, Lord, to need to collective find out if this is already.

If you feel like it's already happened words were about to happen and how to command software okay thank you very much. Well first of all, it reads a little differently and in the translation you use than what I'm accustomed to. Says then they shall know that I am the Lord their God who sent them into captivity. Among the nations also brought them back to their own land and left none of them captive any longer. So actually that's how the new King James redistribute left none of them there a lot longer, but it means there in captivity. I believe this is talking on two levels as all of the Old Testament prophecies about the return of the exiles is in the Old Testament there were two times when Israel was taken away from their land in this country was didn't exist and and they were captives in foreign lands with Gentiles, and in both cases, God supernaturally ordered things that they were released and they were able to go to Israel and to build their country and start from scratch.

Really the first time was on the came out of Egypt with Moses and the second time was when they came out a babbling with the Zerubbabel and both times they had been several generations in captivity somewhere else in God release them now because of that the release of the exiles from babbling, which is the context of Ezekiel. Here, the release of the Exodus from babbling is seen as sort of the second Exodus and both of them together both both events are seen as a type and shadow of the salvation that is in the Messiah.

Now I know this because the New Testament writers make many references from the Exodus and apply them to our salvation today, including first Corinthians 5.


Christ, our Passover is sacrificed for us which it refers to the Exodus and and Paul in first against him.

Talk to how the Jews came out of Egypt I went to the Red Sea and so forth in this is a type of us being saved so even Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration in Luke nine are talking with Jesus about the Exodus that he's going to accomplish this throughout the New Testament the Exodus of the Old Testament, and to a lesser degree the return of the exiles from babbling are seen as types of God salvation of his people from their sins in Christ. Now they do. The New Testament also makes reference to passages in the Old Testament that are talking of the return of the Exodus from babbling and applies them to our salvation as well and therefore what we have to see is that the Holy Spirit showed to the New Testament writers that the looking back on the exits from the prophets point of view in the looking forward from their point of view to the return of the Exodus and babbling both of them were in principled kind of the same thing. Both of them were picture of God the Savior redeeming them from captivity as the Messiah would do now because of that.

When you read passages in the in the prophets about the return of the Exodus from babbling. They often just kind of blend in prophecy about spiritual salvation through Christ. Even though the.

The two events happened 500 years apart. It's nonetheless in God's mind part of the same event that God's saving of his people has its precursors in the Exodus and in the return of the Exodus babbling, but it's ultimately in the Messiah, and this is true not just music and many other prophetic books and therefore here I see him talking about the return of the Exodus from babbling initially but also I believe that he has elements there that point to the ultimate salvation of all his people through the Messiah, but some people think there's another physical return of the Jews in the end times, back to their land.

I don't see that as for these are talking about this if if so that they don't mention the all the prophecies about the return of the exiles to Israel are found in prophets who wrote either before or during that process. So in others, Isaiah and Jeremiah wrote before that I may talk about God bring the exiles back. And of course that was fulfilled in the return in excess from babbling. Ezekiel lived at the time that it was happening and close to it and Daniel and Zechariah had I lived at the time of it and they do mention this but think they give the spiritual spinning to find that when the New Testament writers quote passages from prophets like this about the subjects they always apply them to the spiritual reality of being saved from our sins in Christ, so it's it's it's difficult reading the prophets. They are probably the most difficult part of the Bible to read and understand because the Holy Spirit blends together one you a natural event which is a type and shadow of a of a future spiritual event and and there's other kinds of blending stew for example, the servant of Yahweh in Isaiah is sometimes Israel.

Sometimes it's the Messiah and sometimes blended in the prophets did not write in the easiest manner to understand but I think that for the most part, the New Testament writers when they quote them, give us a key to understand how the Holy Spirit who opened the apostles understanding to the Scriptures actually meant them so my answer view is that I believe it's partly passed in the sense that it does target the return of the Exodus and babbling, but in the passage, there's the elements of the second layer of meaning also of our salvation through Christ right now he must be on okay. Let's talk next to Steve from Pismo Beach, California Steve, welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for going to take my questions so I've been reading this book by William Barclay.

About Jane and anyway so this is a question that I've been reading about a lot of rabbinic style of thinking about where sin originated from my question to you is where you think it originated from, because basically the Berkeley book is saying one of the standpoints is that if God created all things and he must have lost a created sin. Now he's not agreement that everybody's disdain is one of the many theories that I've read so far and I just want to get your feelings on it.

I can take my answer off year. Okay. Thank you for your call. Well, actually I kinda like reading William Barclay though honestly is a little bit on the liberal side when it comes to miracles and things like that. He he waffles on the miracles of Jesus and such, but he's got a lot of insights about Jewish culture and rabbinic things and backgrounds and his commentaries on the Bible is very helpful in most respects, and is a vigorous writer who's easy to read it very enjoyable to read. Now she said that some people say that God must be the creative sin because God created all things. I have heard people say that I don't believe it's true because first of all, God neither is tempted with evil. Neither does he tempt any man, the temptation comes from our own nature and from the devil and from the world those of the way the places that from which temptation comes sin is not a created thing so disabled God made everything same estimate sin less making out like sin is some kind of an object some kind of you know, liquid, or something that they came into existence. Sin is not an object. It's not a created thing. It's an action.

Sin is in an action, a chosen action.

Now, if God chose to send the night and then I guess he would've made the first sin with his own sending but he didn't. God doesn't sin.

So I have to say the enemy created sin when estimates of the devil creative sin, because he was a good angel. He fell and if that story is true, then you had the devil didn't get the beginner of sending.

I'm not sure the Bible teaches that the popular view about the fall of Satan.

But if it is true that he was an angel who fell before Adam and Eve did. Then Satan invented sin. He was the first one to do it some assessment. How could he do if you didn't already exist. That's talking to it.

Existing is something there. It's a sending and evil are simply descriptors of certain kinds of actions. If you if you commit a sin. Suddenly a sin exists.

If you don't commission it doesn't exist so it's not a created thing. God doesn't create sin. Where did sin come from. It came from the free choices of morally free beings who whom God made capable of choosing right or wrong, and they chose wrong. That's hardly and that's pretty much I think supported by everything the Bible says on the subject to further help I Joe from Mountain View, California. Welcome to the narrow path lexicon hi Greg, thanks, great talking with you. I would like your help in answering a an argument weakness in our minute my many Armenian yes or no on Calvinism and it goes for that Arminianism undermines praying for the salvation of the lost because Arminians want to preserve the economy of human freedom. On one hand but they don't want God to override anyone creative vision to divine okay can you hold onto the great okay I need to take a brief break and then will come back to your question, get as much time as much on hold, but do stay with all right well we we need take a break. At this point, every every day.

We've got a half-hour of another half hour ahead.

Don't go anywhere still calling and get on the air today. The narrow path is a listener supported radio ministry and we don't have commercial sponsors will have advertisements we don't break for those kinds of things we just take a whole hour talking college but we are listener supported. If you'd like to help us pay the radio time is very expensive for us. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or website is the narrow Albert back to your family when you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to send everything to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's radio show in Denver go to your social and send a link to the narrow, one can find free time on your teaching blog article teachings and archives of the narrow path radio show and tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing. Listener supported the narrow path. Greg back to the narrow path radio broadcast like an estate Greg and we are live for another half hour taking your calls.

If you'd like to join us asking a questions about the Bible of the Christian faith will discuss them. How you can call if you disagree with the host will talk about that to the number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 that we are talking before break to Joe from Mountain View, California and die.

His question Joe if I could just restated is that some Calvinists say that the non-Calvinist view the Arminian view is weakened by the fact that it would make it an ineffective or unnecessary to pray for the lost to be saved is that we set right makes sense to pray for the lost its way. Praying for God to coerce or influence or change the unsaved person decision choice. Well, I am not sure that would be true because even we can change people's minds and certainly God has power to their influence also.

So for asking God to have an influence on people so that they are inclined to believe got there certain things God can do. Just like there's things we can do now in the ultimately I don't think that God could just for someone to be a believer. I think he would make everyone be a believer if he could do that. There is still an element of free will, but the irony is I think it's Calvinism that makes it nonsensical to pray for him to be saved because according to Calvinism. Everyone you know everyone on the planet who's ever lived, was predestined to be saved or lost and and that that fate is inevitable and it was a decision made before they were born before the earth was created so everyone you see who's not a Christian either predestined to be saved and therefore they will be safe of your prayer not all are there predestined to be lost and cannot be saved over how to pray for them because if God didn't predestined them according to Calvinism he doesn't want them safe. So what's the point praying for them and if he has predestined them according to Calvinism, they will inevitably be saved, that there's no avoiding God's sovereign election will will happen. So I would think it's Calvinism that makes praying for the loss to be saved is nonsensical.

Yeah, I greeted critique Calvinism.

I just wanted to know if we need we should we pray for God to save people in a way that doesn't violate the unsaved person. We got to give got instructions on how to do it. He's a lot like the mirror I am sure there were Christians praying for Saul of Tarsus and they had no idea that Rachel would take place in our God appeared to him on the road to Damascus Saul still had free will. But God, God kinda made an offer he couldn't refuse and away and Solomon got it's like like Jonah Gotshal Jonah go to Nineveh. John is not me and garnish it with the other direction. So God, since the storm. The guy gets on the water, fish, swallows and three days later fish vomits them out and got his two don't go to Nineveh. Same instructions as before and and for some reason John was much more compliant this time. Now he still had the choice. He could say again, not this time either.

You know he could go have another tour of the fish got synonymy God can certainly make it a hard thing to resist but people always have the power to resist and so but but if you if I pray for someone to be saved.

I do that regularly.

I'm praying that God will do what he knows is the best thing he can do to bring the pressures and and the influences on the you know right moments and to orchestrate circumstances so force of their hearts may be softened and and may be receptive. For example, when I when I pray for certain young people to be saved, often pray that God will bring you appealing, bright, Christian young people into their sphere of full friends.

You know now that might not delay God will save them but it might be mean like I should have every right to pray for that because that wouldn't violated was free will, so God can orchestrate many things you Calvinists I think even making a criticism show themselves incapable of of representing Arminianism. I think I can represent Calvinism pretty much because I've debated them. I've read their books. I've known my another pretext I know what they think of on on some things where they don't even know what they think or they don't agree with. I think I don't like I don't stay.

I still don't know what compatible is is because they say different things about it but anyway the point is they don't know very much better minutes and you know that because they say that the Arminian worships human free will.

Why don't and who worshiped him free will took to believe in human free will is not worshiping something I believe in my computer but sitting here to I believe it exists. And I don't worship it, to believe in the reality of human free will is not to idolatry the idolatrous or worship it and they simply they don't understand so I mean if indeed Arminians worship free will as Calvinists say they do within a single event occurring in Arminian would have said God would not touch it would not do anything to influence you free will because it's too sacrosanct.

It's not too sacrosanct God. God manipulates in and influences but he can't make the decision for you or else you have no responsibility in the matter.

I mean if if God forces you to believe when you didn't want to. And when if you were left yourself. You have refused well then why would he save you against your will and and if he forces you not to believe because your predestined to be lost will then how is that fair. How can you be blamed for that. You know I mean you have to have the ability to make that final choice that determines whether to be long to God or resist God or else there can be no responsibility upon you, for you can't be held responsible for that which is actually not your fault. I mean if the if a policeman told me to get out of my car and fly across the street by white you waving my arms. You know, he might be disappointed with me. I can't do it. He might even arrest me if you think I'm being insubordinate, but frankly I can't be really responsible for that I can't do it. I have no ability. You can't be responsible energy any genuine sense for something that you have no power to do and that's why.

And God knows that better than anybody you know saw me and for God to hold people responsible for not believing when in fact he's the one who made them unbelievers and he's the one who chose not to give them the ability to do anything else that soon the enemy that makes got out to be a strange kind of creature not not mean he certainly less fair and less merciful to humans if that's how he does things.

Nothing I say are you how dare you answer gives God. God has the right to do whatever he wants. True, he does have the right to do it in our God grant that I've never doubted that. But to say some has the right to do whatever they want doesn't mean that they do evil things in lesser evil individuals. God is not an evil individual and therefore he doesn't do evil things. In fact, he can't do evil things because he can't violate himself. The Bible says and so you know that. I think Calvinists just make up strawman arguments because they don't have any real biblical arguments me. They have Bible verses, but are not biblical arguments because they don't execute the verses very faithfully what I really enjoy your lectures on God's sovereignty and man's salvation very important lecture series.

I enjoyed listening to you and listen to your pre-broadcast archives of the road to find out radio show. I like the results as a great, good talking to you Joe God bless by the way he mentioned the rebroadcast of the show called the road to find out you notice it's a another road kind of name the shows called the narrow path and essential for Christians. I had a show for a year on a secular radio station called the road to find out and the Cat Stevens song by that name was my theme music and I told the audience. I didn't want any Christian scholar. I wanted non-Christians to call and wanted to talk about Christianity with them and I did that for about a year and we got some interesting calls and we got some very boring calls to the worst part of it was. It was broadcast only on a station in Santa Cruz, which means a large number the listeners were stoned out of their heads when they called and blood and couldn't put two sentences together sensibly but some could and there were some good talks. If you ask, and that the road to find out program.

I think we have a years worth of the archives. It was only weekly at our website.

The narrow If you can't find it there, you can find

It's called the road to find out. This program is called the narrow path. Don't confuse him all right.

Let's talk nexus.

He has been there the longest. It looks like it's going to be it's going to be Everett from San Pablo hi Everett, welcome letter and let them be up to be okay, well, accursed in the Greek is anathema, which almost certainly means to be lost or to be damned. I suppose it could have the meaning I don't think it does but it could have the meaning of even if they were Christians they would live under God's disfavor and in troubled circumstances that that reflects the curse of God upon them, but I think Paul's using the strongest language she can to suggest that there they're not saved their accursed by God and should be now what does it mean perversion of the gospel. He says there preaching another gospel is not really another what he means by that is, the word gospel means good news, but with her preaching isn't really good news at all.

It's not alternative good news.

It's actually bad news so it's not really even another gospel. It's it's their group representative as a gospel is a different message than what Paul preached. But he says it's not really worthy to be called a gospel because it's not really good news and that is he's referring to the fact that the Judaizers were adding requirements upon the converts that God does not require as a requirement of that God makes is that we surrender to Jesus Christ as our Lord and King put our trust in him and follow him, but the Judaizers was a will, in addition to that, you need to be circumcised. You need to keep the Sabbath you need to keep the holidays unity to kosher diet and Paul spent the whole letter arguing that that is not so, and those who say it is arm making it a different message there actually making it a form of an older religion called Judaism which is now defunct, and as far as Paul's concern. And as far as the New Testament concerning the Jewish religion is defunct, what is been replaced by his Jesus. Jesus has come in. We no longer live under law. We live under a lord, and in which he teaches us we must do so. Following Jesus is the road to discipleship. It is the discipleship of the Christian and it doesn't involve being circumcised doesn't involve doing any rituals, but the Judaizers were trying to bring the Gentile converts under that Nessus necessity of keeping those rituals, and positive.

That's not the gospel that's a corruption of the gospel to those who teach that should be accursed. Now of course in observing the Paul said that we might ask ourselves, are there any Judaizers around today Judaizers in Paul's time. Of course were living before 70 A.D. before the temple was destroyed, so they were actually trying to get the Gentiles to be under all, the whole temple stuff go to the temple and keep the festivals and offer the sacrifices and things like that which was we could see easily. In hindsight, that that would be a real corruption, but there are still people who call themselves Christians and say they preach the gospel. They are saying that we are under obligation to keep these ritual laws, the very things that the Judaizers said, I think a lot of them will say well you don't have to to be saved. You just have to do it in order to please God you to be saved without doing what pleases God. But you have to if you can please God gives to that, however, of course, if God is telling you to do some things that are knocking to do it then you not really a follower of Christ at all if if God tells you do something you say I won't your rebel against God and not a Christian. And so really if God really wants us to keep Sabbath and get circumcised and keep these vessels and eat kosher if we don't do it were rebelling against God and rebellion against God is the opposite of being a Christian. So I think that there's of people hundred Hebrew roots movement and who advocate the keeping of these laws are very much in danger of being condemned under Paul's statement now also. Unless you are at that time and that name.

It is not just a believe on Christ only well I think you're mistaken. But on the other hand, they at least have this in their favor, and that is that the Bible does the New Testament does command us to be baptized now. Those who say like yeah I so it's not quite the same. It's not like they're advocating a totally different religion there just giving baptism which is really part of the Christian religion somewhat of a higher station than I think it possesses in terms of salvation but yet you know if they if they start judging people have not been baptized in the way they think they should as unsaved. They may be, they may be judging people who are in fact saved and have been baptized in a different way baptized, not in the name of Jesus in the name of the father-son Holy Spirit, which is more common in evangelical circles. I realize that the Jesus only sorta oneness Pentecostals may do so you happy, baptize only in the name of Jesus, but I don't really see anything in the Bible says it has to be that formula and certainly we have be baptized into Jesus we have been baptized in Jesus, but that doesn't mean that the words have to always be the same. In fact, when you read of the. The baptisms in the book of acts which these two always .2. It's interesting that the wording isn't always the same. Sometimes they say they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Other times, his baptized name of the Lord Jesus. Now Jesus Christ is the same person as the Lord Jesus butts different formula different words.

You know, so I mean if if God bless people on a technicality like what what words were spoken then even the people of the book of acts must bloat you know because they can always use the same words and if someone says well I I'm baptized in the name of the father-son Holy Spirit and most most evangelicals are because of what Jesus said in Matthew 28, 20 or 2019. But but even though Jesus only sells they will, the name of the father-son hose.

What is the name of Jesus. Right.

It's the same thing. So in other words house it hasn't different if if it's still the same Jesus, you talk about were baptized into Jesus. It's the person, not the magical formula you know that were not saved by a magical formula saved by a person and be baptized into Jesus might happen without exactly the same words as long as we understand its Jesus on a follower of the infant being baptized into him means you become his follower just like Paul when in perspectives one people said well we are of Paul is not my followers.

You were baptized in the name of the Paul you know and that likewise in perspectives 10. He said when the Jews are when Israel left Egypt went to the Red Sea said they were all baptized into Moses. What that means is they became the followers of Moses, so been baptized in some links you become your declaring yourself to be a follower of that person and so you can declare yourself a follower of Christ using a number of different expressions and solitude to be so legalistic is certainly you know we ask is that a different gospel. II don't know if I would say it's a different gospel, but I wouldn't I wouldn't feel very safe being in that group because they are certainly making making salvation much more of a technical matter, rather than a personal relational matter. No limit is not baptized but thatů To me in my mind that not making a fully accepting salvation. While some may so maybe thinking of it that way, name, and you may view it might be a true criticism of some, but he really is and what they're thinking when they say it. I mean if they're saying when you get baptized. You have somehow earned your salvation. Well, then obviously they're not saying the Jesus death was sufficient to propitiate but if what they're saying is okay yeah the propitiation of Christ on the cross is sufficient for everyone, but not of it has it and the ones who don't have failed to do the thing that's that involves receiving it.

Now most of us would say you have received by faith. Okay, that would mean if someone doesn't have faith.

They won't receive it. Jesus still died for them, but they didn't get saved if they add that while we think what what you need to do to receive that is to repent and believe and be baptized instantly. That doesn't mean they're saying the that the death of Jesus wasn't enough purchasing. This is how you appropriated in the Bible just like you and I might say, well, you appropriate by believing in Christ, I mean frankly there's an awful lot lot of evangelical so you get it by saying the sinners prayer and that's an entirely on the art family so the current it's it's one thing it's one thing to say is on what merits are we forgiven and the answer has to be on the merits of Christ. It's another question. How do I appropriate that benefits myself and some might say by faith alone. Some I said by repentance and faith like like Peter did. Peter said, but repent and be baptized, you know. So all those things are important things and have a different opinion about it shouldn't be a problem because frankly every Christian should have repented and believed and been baptized and received the Holy Spirit that's that's the norm for conversion and if someone says but what about the baptism thing can we be saved. Without that part will you show why would you try when the Bible commands to be baptized. Why would you even speculate about what you can do about it. Are you not planning to follow what Jesus said to do if you're not planning to do it.

You said to do.

You have been converted because been converted means he's your Lord now and if he said baptize you to be baptized in Isis.

Ridiculous. I mean, I don't think that baptism propitiate for my sin. I don't think that baptism cleanses my sin and therefore I believe there are people who are to be in heaven who were not baptized but on the other hand, if there's a command to be baptized. How can a person's claim claims to be a follower of Christ not keep his commands -6 more cosmos at a time ever get talkative rather thank you so much.

All right, let's talk to Eddie from Dearborn, Michigan Eddie, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. You take the wonderful you believe in this night and I think it's a silly problem of original sin is passed on to humans of Adam and Eve.

If so, please backup to your statement with some proof not back that up with some proof as well to go think you okay thank you so much for your call. Well original sin is a doctrine that was formulated by Augustine from some statements that Paul made and David made this one statement in David's writings Psalm 51 or David says in sin. My mother conceived me, which is a far cry from declaring the doctrine of original sin. It could easily mean that his wife, his mother was sending when he was conceived that he she was.

He could've been illegitimate. I'm not saying it means that it doesn't, it can't be ruled out that it means that it certainly doesn't say that when he was conceived. He inherited Adam's sin from his mother. In fact those people who believe like Augustine said, you get from your dad not your mother. So when Linda Davidson in sin my mother conceived me. I don't think it means that she passed along to me, Adam. Sinful nature of the other verse that's Augustine uses in Romans chapter 5 which talks about how all have sinned and in the Latin it says all sinned in Adam and in the Greek it says it doesn't say all sinned, just as all sinned, but Augustine didn't read Greek.

He only read the Latin selling his Vulgate Bible. He was reading it said that all sinned in Adam and so he formulated from that. The idea that all people when Adamson became sinners in Adam and were all simply the extension of Adam and and his sinfulness in our own nature. Now the doctrine has been developed to have two aspects. One is that when people are born there born already guilty of Adamson as if they were alive and they ate that for themselves because they were in him when he did it.

They did it in him, so that when you're conceived you're conceived as a sinner, not just someone who's inclined to send someone who's guilty of the sin that you never committed personally but you and Adam were like identified and so his sin is yours. So that's one aspect of the doctrine that people are born guilty of Adam's sin. The second aspect is that people are born with a sinful nature, which means that people are inclined to sin just like it's the nature of the pig to roll in the mud so it's our nature to sin. Now that's a different thing than being born guilty of sin, because it's, it may very well be that we were born inclined to selfishness and sinfulness without having any bearing on the question of whether I'm guilty of what Adam did that suited to totally separate issues. I personally believe that there is no indication Scripture that we inherited the sin, guilt of Adamson.

That's one of the parts of the doctrine of original sin is that we all inherit Adam Adams guilt the Bible doesn't say that anywhere, and since it does frankly it seems like if that was true that be an important thing to say because it certainly counterintuitive.

I don't feel guilty for my great-great-grandfather did and Ezekiel says that her son won't be held responsible for his I don't it would be certainly counterintuitive to believe that because Adamson on the guilty come guilty of what he did. It may be true but if it is true you'd expect the Bible to say so somewhere and it doesn't, and since it doesn't.

I suspect it isn't true now as far as having a sinful nature we have to really discuss what that really means. I believe were born with selfishness. Now selfishness is ill animals are born selfish to they look out for themselves that the survival instinct are hungry to go for food when the unity there is a selfishness and all living things. Richard Dawkins and spoke with the selfish Gene that even the genes that that choose what we will evolve into it, which I don't believe they are so officer selfishness shot right through us and we do see selfish behavior, but it's not quite the same thing as saying that a pig is sinful because it wants to go roll in the mud but the thing is, we are born with a tendency to serve and please ourselves and that certainly leads us to sin very early in life, so that we do then become in bondage to sin. Jesus said, he that commit sin is the slave of sin. So I think that when we commit our first sentence. We can't snatch we get we get trapped in it and that would be my understanding that we so we all grew up with a sinful nature or in bondage to sin. We need to be set free.

Christ, I'm out of time. I do have a lecture at my website on the original sin. You can look for them you listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. We are listener supported. You can find out how to supporters by going to our website.

The narrow Thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime