Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 8/26

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
August 26, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 8/26

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.


August 26, 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
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
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 the narrowcast radio broadcast my name Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week. The afternoon we have a phone line open for you to call if you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith you'd like to ask and discuss here on their maybe you have a difference of opinion from the host would like to discuss that. You're welcome to do so. The number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and for those of you in Southern California. Just want to know that this Saturday night. I'll be speaking in Buena Park in Orange County and obviously about the book of Daniel will be having a an introduction and a thorough overview of the book of Daniel Riley's overviews. Generally speaking, though they don't deal with every verse. I do attempt to handle the difficult passages that you know that the controversy or whatever those things at least try not to leave out of my consideration. So will have that talk this Saturday night in Buena Park, California, and that's at 6 o'clock but to you go to our website. The narrow path.com look under announcements and you'll see where the time and places for that gather all right, let's talk to John from Murrieta, California John, welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling I Steve I have a question I hear you referred to many times.

John 15 five I am the vine, you are the branches. If you remain in me and I you will you will bear much fruit and I want to know when you talk about remaining in me or when he says do you think of it in the sense of play. GS you know what I mean remain in and of myself while Pelagius allegedly did not put much stock in the grace of God or in the need for divine assistance. I have to say I've I've never read Pelagius.

I do have his comments on Romans never looked up a few key passages. Just curious to know what he said and I really couldn't see it in his in the passages that I read you know where his errors lay here.

He didn't have a but I didn't read much. Allegedly, Pelagius taught that the people have sufficiency in themselves to live a perfect life just according to their free will and of course Augustine was his great opponent on that point and I think I hope most of us realize that the Pelagius was wrong about that. If that's what he really taught now when it comes to abiding in Christ. I don't really think that we do anything in this life without the what do I guess what Arminians recall pre-venial grace of God previewing grace means that God has given us graciously has given us opportunity. He's given us ability. He's given us the choice and therefore when we make a choice. It's because he is given us the grace to do so, he hasn't made the choice for us.

He's given us the has graciously given us ability to make a choice and so this is assumed, I think in all of the commands of Scripture. Not just abide in me and John's 15 five but every time God makes it any kind of a command to to sinners to repent or whatever. I believe it presupposes that they they can do executives commanded them to do nonsense, commanding people to do something. If they can't do it so I you know I don't. I'm not Palladian. If in fact Pelagius had any doubts about pre-finance of grace Arminius, who is not Palladian but was certainly not Calvinist, he believed, improving a grace and and so I think we have to we have to believe in that because God has graciously given us a revelation of himself has given us. You know there's no good gift that is.

But from above. James said all every good gift every perfect gift comes down from above, which is gracious so not not Palladian but I do believe will fit that we are required to make choices. Of course, for me that's why there's responsibility.

That's why we can be judged at the end of the age for what we did because we made a choice and we had the ability to make a choice and had no ability.

There'd be no occasion for us to be judged or condemned for things that we couldn't do. You never condemn somebody for something they didn't do if they were absolutely incapable of it.

And so the very commands of God imply that God considers us capable of making the decisions he's calling on her stomach so I sent abide in me, he must think that we can do that okay I have one other quick comment.

The last time we spoke, I was making reference to create a knowledge of good and evil.

And if they would eat of that tree they would live forever.

Otherwise, why did God drive them out. I'm wondering if it only takes one bites of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil die.

They didn't have to continue to eat that one to stay dead.

Why would they have to continue to eat the tree of life to stay alive, well I believe that mortality is the natural state of all created beings, including humans. Immortality is available on conditions but mortality is natural and the reason I say that is because, for example, it is more than one place of substance but first Timothy 616 especially mentions God as the one who alone possesses immortality. So when a sermon immortality using only God has that created beings don't have that we can receive it as a gift. Whosoever believes in him will not perish, which is die but have everlasting life, which is immortality and we receive it. Not in the sense that now somebody else besides him has it but we come to be in him in Christ like the like. The branch of the vine were talked about the branch in the vine is part of the fire.

The vine has the eternal life branches don't innately have eternal life unless there in the vine.

They have it in the 500 not in the vine. Their natural tendency is to wither and die. I think animals that way to. I don't think God ever gave animals eternal life. I think that if man had never sinned animals would still have not been immortal. Animals are not immortal.

I think they would've died.

Likewise, I think if man had not sent man's still would be capable of dying, but he would have to he has the condition of access to the tree of life which God said if he ate of it hid live forever, so, so your question is why could one remain dead after eating of the tree of the knowledge good, evil, only one time or that's because they would now have met and they have failed to meet the conditions to have eternal life.

God told him in the day you eat of it dying. You shall die. And so their dying condition would result in death. Now, because they would not have access to the tree of life. And so my only point was that it seems you. You imply that you have to continually eat of the tree of life.

Although I just went yes the news that you know when we did talk about that the other day I mentioned why I say that because we see the tree of life.

In Revelation 22 three and it says that it bears its fruit 12 times a year if personally had it once and never needed again.

Then once everybody was in the new Jerusalem and saved there'd be no need for the tree of life either to exist or some certainly not keep producing more fruit that it produces fruit monthly would appear to suggest that it was something that was to be eaten monthly. What why produce fruit announcement stated. God doesn't create waste.

So I you know it certainly is the case that we have to continually eat of Christ to have eternal life. After abide in him and we have to be eating of his flesh and drink of his blood. He said, which is simply a figure of trusting in him and follow him.

Okay yeah I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I very good.

Thanks okay John, thank you, alright Abraham from Spokane Washington is next.

We have lines open if you'd like to call the numbers 844-484-5737 and I know a lot of people want to, we may want to listen for info on see if you can get the nerve to call and then what usually happens is like at times like this for.

There's actually lines available at the beginning of program. Once they get there nerve they get in line or maybe don't even get online because the lines for the call and sometimes usually the program ends with people still waiting. That's unnecessary you could call early and this is a good time to get through Abraham from Spokane. Welcome to the neuropathic for calling. Thank you very much for your questions answered and excited about your new book on the kingdom of God that you're going to have published as to an interesting application and with those pages you were going to address the dispensational view of the kingdom. That's my first question question. I left a little bit more, a session that I asked you on another broadcast with respect to the witness of Christ being that he was according to Scripture and Christendom. He was completely man and he was also God in the flesh.

Being that he was the son of Mary who human beings and slaughter of Adam and his physical body, sinless as a result of his being completely human and questions okay yeah as far as my book on the kingdom sensing you asked that because I just got that information today. The publisher has so let me know that it should be out and about 50 days which will be the middle of October almost the exact middle of October. Do I deal with dispensationalism and the look yes at many points at many points from target the kingdom of God. I have to contrast with the Bible since with what with the dispensation say since their views are popular, so there's quite a bit of interaction with dispensationalism throughout the book but is not a book is not a book written to refute dispensationalism. I'm it's it's a positively presented teaching biblical teaching on the kingdom of God and that I do interact actually with quite a few views that are out there that are incorrect, not just the dispensational view but it does seem that dispensational view comes up for correction. More often than probably an interview. The name of the book is empire of the risen son and it's to be the first book of two. It's about 430 pages and the other book which has the same title but different subtitle is probably coming out about a month later and it's about the same size so I've got to I've got it finished to but I sent the first of the publisher first and so they just today in Italy middle of October/expected to be on Amazon or Barnes & Noble now all your other questions about the sinlessness of Jesus having us a sinful mother. How did he avoid having a sinful body will first of all, I don't know that we have sinful bodies we have sinful tendencies which are natural tendencies and therefore we could call that a sinful nature.

I suppose the Bible doesn't use that terminology, but it does speak about our flesh.

As you know what we are by nature and what we are by nature, according to Paul is weak what what the law could not do do because the weakness of the flesh Christ is done by giving us a spirit are our flesh is weak. We may want to do what is right. But though the spirit is willing, the flesh is in fact weak as Jesus also said so we have, like all living creatures have certain biological cravings. We crave food. We crave sex. We crave sleep. We crave drink.

We crave comfort and and so for this is arming even even animals crave those things and security and and so of these are not sinful cravings. These are natural cravings of the all of them have a legitimate outlet but the problem with us is that if were not governed by God's spirit.

We do not have the power to reign in these cravings, so that we only express them in legitimate ways. If we don't have the spirit of God.

These cravings rule us and and, therefore, in addition to the legitimate use of them.

I will be drawn into much illegitimate use of them, because our bodies are granular ER glands when your glands make you feel like you have sex. They don't nationally distinguish your glands that distinguish between your wife and any other woman who may attract you your spirit distinguishes that and God's spirit is needed to give you little control over your natural tendencies now are these natural tendencies sinful will not in themselves do not sinful, but they become sin. If we disobey God through following them and it's the disobedience of God that is sin that Jesus had all the drives that we have. He was a man like we do. He got that from his mother, and of course God gave him the other aspect of his identity as God but but he had a human nature. We know he was hungry. We know he will needed rest.

We know he needed sleep. We know that he is sought security events. He he hid from people who were trying to kill them, and so forth. I had all of those things that, but he never use them in a wrong way. He never use them in a forbidden way. He never sinned, he had all the same cravings redo the Bible since he was tempted and always like we are but did not sin. So it's not a question of him being born center are born not so now I realize it.

Most of us are familiar with the Augustinian idea that everybody is born guilty of sin because of Adam because Adam's sin somehow was surpassed along to us genetically or something so that we now are bidden from the time were conceived and are in the womb are already sending or we've already send with Adamson at this doctrine is not taught in Scripture anywhere. Augustine himself only had two scriptures that he used, to support it.

He used Psalm 51 five David said in sin. My mother conceived me and he also uses Romans chapter 5 verse 12, which says death came in the world through Adam and and a pass on all men, because all sinned. Well does say that Adam was the first to sin and that all aftermath sin but does not say that his guilt of his sin was ever passed on to anybody that's not stated in Scripture and anyplace and and David statement so he doesn't say that with any clarity, and by the way, if that was a true doctrine it be a very important one and you'd think there'd be some fairly clear statements of Scripture, not to very ambiguous statements, but several once it would be pointing in that direction forever fairly unmistakably the play should especially expect to find it is in Genesis 3 when Adam fell, and God recited data.

Many of what the penalties were what the consequences were to be for the fall.

He never mentioned anything about, you know, the sinfulness being passed down to his offspring. Now, I believe, as I said, we are all born with drives and in our flesh with no power to control them.

And so we inevitably sin very early on everyone.

Since no one has any choice about the matter in the sense until they come to Christ in which God in that case, God gives the power to resist. So Jesus had that power to resist, and he didn't sin so that I mean I'm kind of thinking when you rendering this very nicely and answer about that of John Wesley and and kind of the perfectionist idea that a Christian can through the power of the Holy Spirit, the perfect themselves in more at the way that they that they effectively can no longer find in the right Wesley Wesley and his teachers that you can experience entire sanctification in a moment. Frankly, in a in a crisis that's as much of a moment as a moment of conversion and but it's the second work of grace they say. So they would say that that when you're saved you not fully sanctified, but you can be fully sanctified through second work of grace and the older Wesley writers used to say that this involve the eradication of the sin nature now notice the Wesley hands just like the Calvinists they they believe in that there was born with this sinfulness, but that's but they don't believe that you have to live under the power of sin, the power the Holy Spirit can sanctified numb those who are not Wesley hands but ordinary Christians who I think are simply instructed by with my license says I'm not against Wesley to love Wesley and spent have to say that this idea of eradication is and is not found in Scripture, in my opinion, but what is frontage you definitely great idea than what that's that's that entire certification doctrine of Wesley is in the of the second work of grace.

Yeah, I doubt I believe there's a second, third, fourth, and hundreds work of grace. I believe every day is to be a work of grace in our lives. I believe that sanctification occurs step-by-step. Not once and for all so so Paul says that we aces the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit that's a Romans eight for he also says over Galatians 516.

He says walk in the spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, so, so we we actually can overcome sin in our lives, but it's not.

Once for all, in a crisis action. It's actually through a walk it step-by-step as we are walking in the spirit we are not sinning. We are not fulfilling the lust of flesh, but when were not working is what we are so course, the great the great challenge is first walk in the spirit at all times and that the more we do that, the less Rossini center lives and that's not at least education as we do that steadily throughout life. I think that we are changed in such ways that certain temptations that once were great in our lives are simply not really interesting to us anymore.

I mean, the Bible does say that we will be changed.

We are being changed from glory to glory into the image of Christ over. Second Corinthians 318 and so we are being changed and that changes to be more like Christ. I believe that when Satan tempted Jesus by saying bow down to me and worship all the nations, and I'll give you all the nations the world. I don't think she's any interest in that. I mean, some men would and it was a genuine offer, but I don't think I don't think I don't think that struck dry tender in Jesus.

I think he had no interested in and bowing down to St. on the other hand, of course, when when center attorneys rocks into bread and Jesus was starving to death after fasting 40 days, there's a good chance that he had that probably did resonate in some of his desires, but he rejected so you know will will we will always be subject to temptation, but we are not slaves of sin. We can walk in the spirit and when we do our lives will be what will will not be sending thank you very much again for taking the time with me today state Sherry Brenner governorship.

Thanks for your call Bino. Okay Tim from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to the neuropathic circling, good afternoon. You I'm well thanks think my first question is left family photograph what you thought were on Christian and been listening to secular new vehicle watching secular film and had a great response to that, first question the longer line or the thought of Christian to have friends that could be secular or perhaps they claim to be Christian, but clearly they are not walking Christ?

Second question is it possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit, yet not feel anything. Okay, so I was a stripper not feel okay let me take the first one.

What I think about having secular friends. I think it's a great idea to have secular friends.

I don't think your best friends should be secular friends. I think you should be friendly toward a great number of people.

I think it's the fact that people are not as friendly. For example toward their immediate neighbors in the neighborhood as people were, you know, two generations ago or three generations ago where they really knew all their neighbors and kind of lengths things to each other and and were friendly with each other.

I think the loss of that sense of community even even with the unsaved neighbors has made it much more difficult for us to preach the gospel because it's through the link of friendship any times that people become interested in knowing what first on the get to know you well enough to know that you've got something that they don't have and it's also the case that through that friendship avenues of communication are naturally opened which are much more difficult open with a total stranger. So I think friendship with having secular friends is fine, but I believe your best friends should be Christians.

I believe the people who have an influence on your life should be Christians. I believe that friendship should be seen as an opportunity to steward opportunity steward for the kingdom of God. Now, if you have friends were very godly spending time with him is a good stewardship because it builds you up and help should be strong in a world that's not very encouraging to Christians on the other hand, if your friends are unbelievers.

You can steward that to as a means of seeking to get into their hearts and their lives enough to speak redemptive leaked air to them and and have an influence on the friendship as it is a tremendous influence you your good friends can influence you for good.

And if you're good Christian friend to a non-Christian, you might influence them in the right way for good.

I would think so.

I'm for it. I just don't think it's a good idea to spend most of your time with secular people. If you are getting more time with the believers so when I say best for your best friend should be believers of possible I mean the people that you you would spend the most time with the people who were there be the most impact on your life should be believers of course now as far as it possibly filled with the spirit and not feel anything. I think well it depends what we call feel when I got filled with the spirit. I didn't feel what I thought I'd field and what many people had either felt or told me that I should feel a bit.

Some people said when you give Phyllis, are you feeling warm warm honey sport over your head.

That didn't happen to me. Some people feel like you'll you'll fall down or speak with tongues or be filled with you know ecstatic joy those things and happen to be either but then my temperament is apparently different than theirs. The Holy Spirit is a personal spirit who deals with our personal spirit bears witness with our spirit, there were the children of God, but our temperaments being different from other people's temperaments. We will experience that differently and I will say this though, I didn't feel any of the things that people had led me to believe I would feel I did have an experience it was not sensational in any way, but it was more like peace coming over something I wouldn't describe as a feeling, except that it is I guess if you feel peaceful and distant.

It didn't seem necessarily supernatural because you could feel that peaceful even if you weren't a Christian at times but it was a lasting peace. It was a difference in my life that I sensed I sensed the presence of God, not in a not enough emotional way, but more like an awareness.

It's hard to know how to explain it like if you know that someone came into the room but you didn't hear them coming near the presence of somebody I had that I would want people to judge their expense by mine anymore, judge mind by those who told me what to expect.

I think the your own walk with God will bear its own fruit to if your children spirit will see it and that you love people and you'll be more Christlike. That's the main thing I could say I'm for some time to say it.

I appreciate your call were coming back in about 30 seconds for another half hour, don't go away you're listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. I'll be right back again to nearly is the path that leads to life into the narrow path.

Steve Greg has nothing to me today but everything to give you the radio show is over. Go to the narrow path.com you can study, learn and enjoy the three topical audio teachings blog articles teachings and archives of the narrow path radio show. Thank you for supporting the listeners the hooded narrow path for Steve Greg see when the narrow path.com Steve Greg and were still taking it out calls for another half-hour. If you have questions about the Bible or issue of difference of opinion with those feel free to call.

However, this is not a good time for you to copies the lines are full but there are good times to call in some of them will arise in the next half-hour. Actually, maybe one line is just opened up just as I'm speaking. Anyway, if you get all if you call all eyes are busy you should get a busy signal and you just called back a few minutes later and just like happened just now, you may find a light has opened up the number is 844-484-5737 and I want to remind you that this Saturday night.

I'll be in Buena Park California speaking on the book of Daniel, and for those of you in the area.

Feel free to join us to be glad to see you there.

Those who come regularly know where that is, if you don't know where that is.

You can go to our website and you should know where that is. That's the narrow path.com and look under announcements and you'll find that information about the Saturday night and the book of Daniel.

Okay John from Oregon city. Welcome to the narrow path expert on high statement yeah uncle means you do to make it down the cool I like to see Stevie again. That would like that yet. I don't know.

I question today is so Matthew morning for 21 correlate with Daniel.

Well, one, Matthew 24, 21 is about the tribulation and Daniel 12 one is also about a time of great trouble and in both of them.

Jesus says our Daniel and Jesus say it'll be like none before like nine after now. You can't always assume that when that kind of hyperbole is used in Scripture that it literally is the case that there's been nothing worse before, after, because for example, Solomon was said to be the group.

The wisest man who ever was in the wises who would ever be. And yet Jesus came along and said he was one greater than Solomon of the locust plague that came to Egypt and the exact Exodus chapter 9 said to be the greatest locust plague ever none before or after be so great and yet Joel chapter 2 talks were locust plague that says the same thing about it so these are hyperbole and can't always be taken to be exactly the same thing context would have to decide now the case of Daniel 12. I think the context does decide and I do believe that the time of trouble in Daniel 12 one is the same time of tribulation. Jesus speaks of a Matthew 24, 21 side.

I think they are targeted same event the same time located. You could.

Jesus is pointing to this region. Daniel distant future. How can you say it is fueled by then takes it to his question years ago you said well that's just proof that you not referring to you I don't I don't believe that Jesus is referred to Antiochus epiphanies.

I don't think the Daniel chapter 12 verse one is either Daniel chapter 12 verse one is not in Chapter 11. Chapter 11 is for Antiochus epiphanies suspensions and and then after him. Daniel 11 closes with a section on another king who is extremely hard to identify. Many scholars believe and I think have good reason to think that that King may be Herod, or at least the Roman power and then at that time you have this great time of trouble, which did happen in the Roman period and that Jesus didn't say it can be a long way off Jesus and it would happen in that generation. So I you and I don't see and I think you understand my position to object to it will in different chapter.

Chapter 12, but those chapter headings were put in years ago. I know it and if you if you follow Chapter 11 through to chapter 12. It's entirely chronological. You're right, you don't need a chapter division right so what's the problem being there. So talk about the same. And when you look in inverse for Chuck 12 verse four. The book is talking about that book starting at chapter 10 but Chuck doesn't have a narrative just about how Daniel was praying and fasting for three weeks and then how the industry is trying to reach him with the message right is evil spirits were so it is actually Chapter 11. And so the narrative. That's what field you said a few days ago that the book again was not the whole book of that passage because the book workbook safer and and and he delivers you up that school and I believe it and how do you know that that scroll only contain those chapters. Remember the chapter divisions as you say are not inspired. The scroll could've contain the whole school of Daniel but let me just let me that's a debate that because that cannot be decided let's go with your position.

For the sake of our let's say it is the scroll of simply chapters 10 through 12.

That's not a problem to me that scroll covers a period of over 300 years because it starts with Alexander the great, which is 330 years before Christ okay and indented his four generals.

Chapter 11 talk about Alexander the great, he dies his four generals divided his kingdom. That was again by 300 years before Christ, and then it goes through the respective leaders of the Syrian and the Egyptian kingdoms under the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, and it does that which cover several hundred years of the last of the Syrian kings it covers is Antiochus epiphanies and then it talks about something that's very difficult identify as I said it could be Herod or the Romans and I think it probably is.

And then it says and at that time, meaning at the time of Herod in the Romans, or at least time the Romans there be a great time of trouble, which I take to be 70 A.D. so so we have a proxy that scan expands from Alexander the great. 300 years before Christ, to almost 400 years later, 70 A.D. and and that that wouldn't even begin soon and Daniel's time is sealed up because it didn't apply to his immediate future. Now Revelation chapter 22 in verse 10, the angel told John the opposition was don't seal up the words of this prophecy, because the time is at hand. So Revelation, which I think is also about 70 A.D. and Jesus all of discourse which is about 70 A.D. are both about things that were soon and they were not sealed but Daniel's time 600 years earlier they were sealed up because they want to be immediately fulfilled so I don't think that big a problem I don't I'm not sure what the problem is that you raise it twice and I'm I don't think you really don't understand my position and you're thinking I'm saying something I'm not.

Or else or else I don't think you think of her clearly about okay that's my opinion.

Okay, let's talk to see who's next.

It's good to be Ian from Tallahassee, Florida and welcome to the narrow path encircling all I first want to give a disclaimer one.

I'm sorry to be asking something I'll also about Leviticus, like many have that I do also want to give the disclaimer that I do believe Hebrews, among other places does make a new covenant, abundantly clear, so I'm not asking about that that my question had to do with my recent reading in Leviticus.

I've often tried to figure out. Now why would God require all these moral and ceremonial laws and why would they be God's laws and your some thought I came up with that. I would like your opinion or critique. I was wondering if maybe it was a down to earth message on how human could be as perfect as possible, which would mean scan extends far beyond morality and to be perfect before God, and that if one actually tried to keep all of them, they would inevitably one or more festivals or other commands may be dying of starvation or the other.

So maybe Leviticus being a point that if you actually tried to check off all the boxes that go far beyond morality, but even if you try to check all the boxes you can do it anyway.

I don't know if what you think of that opinion that I'm not sure exactly sure exactly what it is you're getting at ear saying that the laws in Leviticus that you say would be impossible to keep them all and that it's either just a goal to aim at. Even though we all fall short or that perhaps it's it's him it's not a gold or a map, but I'm not sure with you or did you give me two options I can quite understand either, but I'm guessing that one of the options are.

They may be God essentially saying that our humans: this goes far beyond just our moral tendencies to include our physical nature and that Leviticus was at least in part, given to show how short we fall to God rather than giving realistic thing that someone really could keep it and hopefully iterating God how okay everyone, I think I'm great okay you're saying it's a lesson of how much we need grace because if we really consider all the requirements God made me realize how far we fall short. Is everything. Yes, that's what I've heard that I've heard that very same argument about the sermon on the Mount.

I mean there's quite a few people I heard in my youth who said yeah you not really supposed to live by the song that is spent just there to show us how much we need grace because the standard is so high. The standard is perfection and we can't be perfect.

So God has just given us the sermon to let us be into despair of our own ability and fall on the mercy of God. Well, you know, to the degree that we do fall short to yeah for sure we we need to follow the mercy of God and and that's always been under the case, David, for example, when he sinned with Bathsheba and killed her husband as a terrible Senate. Even the law didn't have a such a sacrifice would cover that, but he fell on the mercy of God and God forgave them so of the law of the law could have that effect, especially those who don't keep it. Now I'm not really sure is anything in the law of Moses that someone could not keep. Now that the sermon on the Mount is somewhat more difficult because Jesus expands out to go into the ghetto motives of your heart and things like that but I don't think I don't think it's impossible for a person who desired to do so to avoid worshiping another God other than God or would they rather than have to dishonor their parents whether they have to violate the Sabbath or that they'd have to murder or they did they have to commit adultery or have to steel. I don't think that I haven't done most of those things and I don't know that I would've done them, even if I wasn't a Christian in him insert those are things that most people don't do them simply because they no intention of keeping and and then of course their failure to attend to the will of will obviously condemn them and then I guess they could follow the mercy of God. That's they should do but I believe that God really intended for the Jews to keep these laws and in the same thing with the sermon on the Mount really, although we can't keep the sermon on in our own strength. He does we are supposed to keep it as those who walk in the spirit and don't fulfill the lust of flesh. God does work in a student to be obedient and Jesus himself as a conclusion to the sermon on the Mount said you know anyone who hears these words of mine and does them is a wise man who built his house on the rock, and he hears these words of mine that is in the summer and doesn't do them is a fool who built his house on sand so it does sound like you think these are words I'm giving you to really these are for you to do is a futile day. If you don't know your full and if you do, your wife, so you are in the salon. That's much more difficult I think are much more demanding. Leviticus a lot of the laws a ludicrous be perhaps boring to do some of the detail in the tedium, but I don't think they're impossible to think people are doing them all the time, offering sacrifices, keeping kosher and things like that but you are right that the failure to keep these laws leaves only the mercy of God first fall back on, and no doubt the law serve that purpose as well that you know it.

It showed us how much we do fail, but I'd I don't disagree with people say we can't live that way because I think a person who wanted to can avoid murdering somebody and can avoid committing adultery or homosexual acts or been involved in witchcraft or bowing down idols. I think the laws as I say the only reason people locate Mr. don't intend to keep. But somebody who is truly a lover of God, as Jesus said this is all law hangs on love the Lord your God hurt someone in strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Those were Old Testament commandments which presumably God felt could be done… I'm not saying he expected that many people do it because he knows human nature. Same thing with some amount course of someone that requires that you not look at a woman to lust after not be angry at your brother and things like that, which require tremendous self-control not only of the B of the body but of the mind and the soul of these can be controlled by the part of the spirit.

But course, his disciples, and have that power you but again I think that he didn't give the commands in Orsay.

He'll never be able to do this so just take this as a blanket condemnation of your whole life and and and and know they need grace is how some people think Jesus intended the sum amount, but he made very clear you do these things your life you don't do these things are foolish and so to actually do what God commanded was required but that's the whole point of grace. Grace is given when we fail to do what's required and in Windows fail at some point in some way. Okay, let's talk to Deborah from Seattle Deborah, welcome to the neuropathic circling. I just go ahead and how you got Kreider did you get from okay much for the drive. Any resources about what I did.

Yet how I like to get out will help them meet their child. I actually Bible read that know the Bible doesn't mention the pyramids and therefore we don't know what methods were used to build them. There are tremendous building structures in the ancient world that the Bible doesn't mention which puzzle us arming Stonehenge and some of the some of the structures in the mountains and South America and so forth that some people think look like landing sites for your foes and things like that and you know it's easy to chalk up things we don't understand to UFOs and I'm not saying that there aren't UFOs. I don't know if there are not getting bottled also doesn't target those so just as the Bible doesn't tell us about.

It doesn't also UFOs of the if they exist. I don't know if I think a lot of times we assumed in ancient cultures were stupider than we are, where immunity this is what CS Lewis called chronological snobbery that we believe that because we live later were wiser and smarter than all who lived before. That's not necessary true everyone things obvious the general population of this country is not a smart as they were a generation or two ago so we should extrapolate that going back we may have lost a lot more technological knowledge or just even common sense than they had.

Some people think that before the flood, people were very advanced in intelligence, but I don't think the parents were built for the flood, but you know, people did live a long time and some of his early years.

Some people agree 900 years old.

Later, after floods from Louisville is 500 years old. You can learn a lot if you can live that long.

I figure I'm at the end of my life there so many things I'd love to still learn if I was had three or four lifetime sister do separate studies on things. I haven't had time to do but had 500 years out. Today I get my brain full of stuff and and who knows they may be lot smarter than we are. There might've been technologies they had, that we we can't imagine. It's also possible that there was supernatural or at least extraterrestrial help. I don't have any evidence for that in the Bible or elsewhere nights.

It's not my first impression you know I wouldn't rule it out, but I don't think it's things and we confirm with any confidence as Christians appreciate your call. Okay, looks like this because it is arise from Detroit all recent okay high risk hello hello how are you I'm fine thank you and God bless my marriage is sacred to my heart and the belief rather learn that he already knows that through the study of knowledge that we are bonded to a woman all nominated bonded to a man as long as we and I know that Brandon get what we have to do it on the instructions of divorce. We have to endure being new itself.and not Christ. I am involved in Death by Mary, all warm and even it is not taken just not of getting alone and not marry another woman in the fuel of any right should I have to endure thing that God loves you because we are borrowing in detail. We we have not like to change enough for teacher change the morale of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and I am bound and I have to live in bondage when I have to thirst for more building my application okay well I also want to marry each and have a living towels whether certainly a lot of people think that, let me jump in here before run out of time or negative program so I put you on hold because you're running. I believe that marriage when we take marriage vows we enter into a covenant that has no legitimate exit that is to say when we say that we will forsake all others in Cleveland are spouse for better for worse, in sickness and health, for richer, for poorer, until one of us is that as long as long as you both shall live. I think we are obligated to keep that covenant.

On the other hand, I also believe that sometimes people break a covenant, in which case the other covenanted party is released and and then that's how God sought with Israel.

God made a covenant with Israel and they broke the covenant. They broke the covenant broken and he kept the cabin as long as he felt he could but eventually when he realized that they were incorrigible.

He also made a new covenant with someone else without the remnant of that mitigate he gave up on the nation and so the old covenant was scrapped and there's a new covenant now with a new marriage, as it were, because God was married to the nation of Israel. Now he's married only to the remnant of Israel and buy a new covenant, and therefore the old covenant is obsolete.

That's it says in Hebrews 813 where there's a new covenant, the old one is obsolete now what that means is, of course, that the unfaithfulness of Israel to the covenant relationship which was likened to marriage in the Bible. They were married to God by covenant because of their continual unfaithfulness. They God was free to to go off and seek another and he said he would. In Deuteronomy said if you if you go off and worship other gods make me jealous. I'll go off and take another people make you jealous. In other words, it's like has been saying to his wife and a few sleepover men I'll be done with and I get someone else who won't do that and God said he would do that so that it's the nature of a covenant that it is lifelong you know obligatory on both parties.

But when one party destroys the covenant and and smashes it the other parties free. Not that they wanted to be free, but they were made free by the other person leaving. That's why Jesus said that if a man divorce his wife for any cause other than fornication, and marries another is committing adultery but he implied that fornication on the part of his wife, which means unfaithfulness to the covenant would be a grounds for him to divorce and as far as we know to remarry because if your divorce anyway you can be legitimately divorce as if the account is broken and is no more.

If you can't be stuck with a covenant that the other person is not involved in covenants two ways. So if you're if you're spouse has departed from the covenant will then put the covenant doesn't exist between you and your spouse and them you can hold on. You can say I'm not releasing them I'm I'm gonna wait for them to come back because I don't want to be 50s come out to objects will hold the door open for them to come back and be involved again but but if a person is not like I do that I'm going to gonna divorce this unfaithful person and go on with my life was that divorce if it's legitimate based on the immorality of the spouse then that's a legitimate divorce under snow covenant marriage. There is note no bond anymore and so so Paul says, for example, in first seven verses 12 to 15 that it's also the case with the Christian who is married to a non-Christian, they should stay faithful to the covenant unless their partner does not as if their partner departs.

It says then the brother or sister, meaning the Christian who is in the marriage who was staying faithful. This is the brother sister in such cases is not under bondage may not under bondage to the covenant marriage now if if you have a covenant that is is still in force, then you cannot get a divorce legitimately. So any legitimate divorce would signal that the covenant there's a current doesn't exist anymore. And if the original company does exist in more than you're not married anymore and your single person, and there can be no adultery in remarriage. If you're not married to somebody else already. What makes an act of adulterous is when you have a covenant with one partner and you're breaking that common sleep of somebody else and but if you don't have a covenant relation with one partner, then your single and to remarry can't be adultery because there's no spouse who's been cheated on that spouse is gone. So that's how I would understand the whole issue.

It's some people find a little competence mixer is a rather simple matter.

If you have a if your spouse is keeping the covenant. You have to keep the covenant if they break the covenant and end the marriage then you're not in the covenant anywhere you're married and married or single single you can remarry if you want somebody else. Anyway, that's how God acted and that's I think held the whole subject of covenant should be understood scripturally listening to the narrow path radio broadcast my name Steve Greg and we are listener supported.

If you'd like to help us down the air. You can write to the narrow pass PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or you go to our website.

The narrow path.com. Everything is free. There you can donate@thepast.com.

Let's talk again tomorrow


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