This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
October 8, 2020 8:00 am
Good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and were alive for an hour each week afternoon with an open phone line so you can: in if you wish to ask questions related to the Bible of the Christian faith or to express the difference of opinion. You might have with the host on any subject, will be glad to talk to you about whatever's on your mind in this coming out with no commercial breaks. We simply have an hour of Q&A and this would be good for 23 years daily. That's a lot of cues in Asian you know if you're interested you don't want to call in but you'd like, you have a question on the subject. You wonder how it might be answering show somebody has put together several people work together collaborated on a website called Matthew 713.com and they got there. A topical index of calls from the show, going back many years.
I think I've heard that there's now 10,000 calls on this index and you just go there and you can, I guess interact.
I haven't used it myself, but you can enter a topic and you know several calls usually on the topic that have happened on previous shows, there's a hyperlink right to the call itself. You can listen to it so you know, if you don't want to call them that you have a question probably in most cases, some of his audience to answer. The court asked the question and we've dealt with it before. Right now our lives are full and that I'm going to give you the phone number anyway because that within minutes somebody's life to open up and you can get through if you happen to catch it right.
The number is 844-484-5737 that is 844-484-5737 now I don't know how many people we have listening in Arkansas were not actually on in any stations in Arkansas but I'm I'm visiting one of my favorite my brother-in-law's here in Arkansas right now and bureaucracy from his home and were having a meeting in this home tomorrow night.
And if you are in northwestern Arkansas anywhere.
Want to join us as information about that. The time and place at our website. The narrow path.com under the announcements tab. Also, in the next several days will be in other locations. Winona or Wynonna. I don't know if it's Winona Wynonna Missouri to be on Sunday will have a meeting and remember to be up in Evansville, Indiana and later in Indianapolis Indiana later still often at Lafayette area in Indiana so we got a number of places, so we don't go to very often and we have meetings in those places in the coming week or two and if you are in any of those areas you might want to check our website. The narrow path.com and I look at the dates of her where we are and if you're anywhere near there, or you want to just fly in for the meeting. I said it was you joking that actually have people do that. I've actually on his teaching centers have people fly down from Portland Oregon to attend one of my midweek meetings. Not very many. But I guess I usually say if you're nearby that died with with airplanes and so forth. You don't have a very nearby guest. That's this week and next week and the specific dates and places you can find at the website. The narrow path.com. Make sure you include that the the narrow path.com or you get someone else already to go to the phone lines because they are full and talk to Everett from San Pablo, California, Everett, good to hear from you.
Thanks for coming to talk about work out your own salvation with fear and trim with me to work it out with fear and trembling. The other question is, out of the blue shifted hands with just a little Buckley humans are back, my soul shall have no pleasure in them.
My soul also speaking to him that the tickler context. Muscle tissue.
In my two questions okay well start with your first question in Philippians, Paul said 20 as you have always obeyed, so not only my presence but also my absence, work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, and then the his forte is God who works in you too willing to do for his good pleasure. Now obviously there's a reference to working out, followed by working in how we are to work out our salvation. Because God works in us too willing to do good pleasure. What this is saying is that the Christian life requires that God do a work inside of us.
In order for us to in any sense. Do the will of God.
But because God does work inside of us. He does alter our will. He does alter our limitations that he will. He works is too willing to do his good pleasure without. He doesn't make us do it.
He strengthens our sin and that resolve because we are Christians we do want to do the will of God that's in fact it's almost the very definition of a Christian somebody who surrendered to Christ and he is the Lord and we want to do what he said so God has worked in us to want to do God's will, but he also gives us the ability to do it so that ability is there is not automatic United non-Christian. At some point in your life who did something that probably was the Lord's will, that doesn't mean that God wasn't working and that means that he didn't work out what God is working in God moves in us, to strengthen us in our resolve to to obey him and to enable us to do it but we could still sit on her hands and be lazy and not do it so Paul's encouraging the Philippians to continue as they have already been doing, living according to the love God as God puts in them there supposed to work it out in their outward affairs of life.
So when his work out your salvation. He doesn't say work for your salvation.
This is not working to be saved. You're working because you say, because God has worked in you, there is now an appropriate outward behavior that Christian should have and that's what he's referring to there. I believe now you asked also about Hebrews chapter 10, where it's it's actually quoting from Habakkuk I believe chapter 2 and Eddie says you know the just shall live by faith. But if he if anyone draws back my soul shall have no pleasure in him. The speakers God, God is speaking to the prophet himself because the prophet is so nil. He's concerned the prophet is living at a time when the Babylonian forces were menacing. His own country.
Judah and the prophet inquired of God about that and God explains it well.
It is your fault. Judah is going to be conquered by the Babylonians and the prophet complained about this and said that doesn't make much sense because they're worse than we are. The Babylonians that pagans went we might be good but they're worse than we are. How can they be used punish us in God's response and was essentially well, you're right, they are bad and there to be judged to, but not until you are. Be judged first and there the instrument that at a later time. They will be judged as well, but the just person in case you're wondering, the righteous person will live by his faith. Now that's how it reads in the Greek and the Hebrew. It actually reads the just man will live because of his faithfulness or his fidelity or steadfastness.
People were there, and Habakkuk. I think it's 24 offhand on not looking at it but the Hebrew word says the just shall live by his fidelity and when this is translated into Greek, but in the Septuagint and quoted from the Septuagint in the New Testament.
The wording is a little different than they had to choose a word in Greek to represent the Hebrew word help faithfulness or fidelity, and they chose a red pestis in Greek, which can mean faithfulness or faith.
It's the ordinary word in the New Testament for faith. Although in some cases it's translated faithfulness. For example, in the list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5, pestis appears and it's always translated faithfulness rather than faith. I think it should be transitive that we also Matthew 2323 when Jesus taught that you've neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and pestis which I'm pretty sure that, along with justice and mercy of faithfulness is more likely to be what is Targum as opposed to faith itself. Also, there's some other places at least two other places in the New Testament where the word pestis means faithfulness, but it's also the word Paul uses when he talks will be justified by pestis because Paul uses Habakkuk 24 and the word pestis faith is used in the Greek Old Testament but it is translated Hebrew. That means faithfulness. It raises questions as to whether whether Paul is really saying Christians is so is saved by faithfulness now course Christian is paid. Saved either by faith or faith. Does he say by Christ. Christ is the Savior, but a relationship with Christ involves our faith in him and are faithfulness to him and it may be that the Septuagint translators pick that word and Paul approvingly quoted from the Septuagint in order to save this is more than just you having a mental belief in God. It's a relational thing where like like friends are like married partners are faithful to each other and they trust each other. If there's a relationship here's a covenant relationship so he saying the just will live by that basis, but if anyone draws back meaning from pestis from faithfulness in the Hebrew, the defendant drove back from being faithful, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. God says now that doesn't tell us whether they live or not.
But of course in the Habakkuk. It's not clear what live means were taught in a situation where is in the Holocaust. This movie a Babylonians slaughter of the of the Jews and the faithful and live by it because of his faithfulness would simply be saying there's a faithful remnant in Israel and while history general slaughter that God is going to see to it that the faithful ones that the remnant survive which people like Jeremiah was about remnant and others who did survive that that slaughter so to say those who aren't faithful, God will have no pleasure in them.
I mean, it probably means that they're not survive. After all, or at least if they do survive the public care to win captivity.
As most of them were so that's what the reason that the writer of Hebrews is courting is because he's facing the same situation. Habakkuk was the nation of Israel is about be destroyed by foreigners and Habakkuk's David Babylonians and the writer of Hebrews 8. The Romans to Jerusalem is about to be destroyed and the road right of Hebrews mentions that a number of times in various ways, and so I think the reason that the right of here's quotes Habakkuk is because he's in a circumstance very analogous to that of the back Habakkuk twice in history. Jerusalem was destroyed by foreigners and Habakkuk's day, and frankly, the days of the right of Hebrews and he saying of the righteous remnant they will be preserved and they were historically we know that before the Jewish war began in 66 A.D., according to Eusebius, the faithful in Jerusalem fled. They got away to Pella. They were the Christians in Jerusalem. Of course, the believing Jews and and they escaped so they they survived and I'm not saying that Habakkuk 24 can make no reference to eternal life.
And when Paul talks about the just shall live by faith. He's actually quoting from Habakkuk in Romans and Galatians, he is no doubt speak of what we consider our salvation the right of Hebrews might however have been using it exactly who and Habakkuk was. He might be saying the only people to survive this are those were faithful and not necessarily be talking about survival into eternity. Although the same people who were faithful and would survive. That would also have eternal life so there's there's layers of meaning that one can see in this passage on your path. Okay, great, ever good to hear from you All right. Red is from Marin County, California, high-res welcome to the narrow path for calling all of the program. In the Bay Area with a company called Nadal that hopefully I just lay on her work.com: my voice puts a lot of people to sleep actually very calming in a good way exactly very good for a long while… You will point people you don't hang up on the body, you get a question comfortable answering that fund. Most people try to stay so politically correct answer question sometimes hang up on people that only when there been extremely rude or disingenuous, but I never hang up on someone because they disagree with me or asked me an uncomfortable question. Go ahead. What is your question will one comment one public on my first question was regarding your opinion was in regards to programs compatible Christianity structures like the landmark forum topic program executes bringing out quote important authentic self. Whether or not it compatible Christianity is not from that particular program.
So I'm not sure what the teacher say but but I will say this, that any Christian program that advertises itself as bringing out the best in yourself.
While there's there's something to be said for bringing out the best in yourself, so to speak, but it sounds like a self-help kind of things are like your best life now situation.
It's you I think Christian program should not be focusing you on yourself. I think that should be focused on Christ and if you focus on Christ. You deftly can bring out the best in yourself to. I think the problem we have in our society is I don't think people aren't sufficiently focused on self improvement.
I think they are overly focused on self and and I think that is a Christian ministry would do more service of a sort that we really need. If they said let's talk about how great Jesus is no. Now not saying there's no place for counseling ministry or whatever you to help you help you get over the addictions or problems in your life but I'm just I have to say I don't know if they describe themselves what you just described them, but we have a very self oriented culture which is why I think our church is ours because they are I think even the gospel has been made a self-help kind of appeal and so I can't speak about the particular group you mentioned ministry because I've never never heard of it but if you ask about that kind of thing where it's sort of a Christian self-help deal. I guess I'll say I won't say they can't do any good. My mind it's very much, very much like 12 step programs. I know that they do some good in my opinion, though they're not really the same thing as of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit through the gospel.
If they were, we would hear something about them in the Bible, and the fact that Paul talks. For example, in first crickets.
Chapter 6 about how certain kinds of people will not inherit the kingdom of God, images, idolaters, and you know adulterers and fornicators and and homosexuals. He mentioned all these kind of people drunkards and he says these people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Then he says in verse 11 of the first crickets six and such were some of you that you have been washed. You've been just like you been in no you been changed by the gospel through Jesus. So they didn't have the either advantage or disadvantage heavyweight Mama look at a self-help program serving 12 step programs. They just had genuine conversion which I think is not as common in the churches today as as it has been that sometimes in the past and should be. I think a lot of times people don't understand what needs to be converted. They make sort of a sympathetic response to Christianity and then that they haven't been delivered because they haven't really become disciples haven't really met the conditions of the gospel, you know, the first condition, Jesus said if anyone come after me, let him deny himself and others. Let's let's get let's get self out of the picture here and let's just take up your cross and follow Jesus that people do it. Jesus said, they often find they do get delivered from a great deal of stuff that other people end up hooked on programs to to manage. That's one of the problems I have with self-help things. If they're not strictly with the gospel preachers is that they the kind of addict people to the to the program to make them almost perpetual dependence on the program. Now there's nothing wrong with me to perpetual depend on Jesus that'll be but I don't think any program is the same thing as Jesus. Anyway, this loud noises on our line here and Derek yes I can but I mean I don't over the noise or commission might be a bad deadline, but I know it was better what I what I heard your well before fine but I do. I do need to take another called it was or something else you needed, it will quit to the listeners as well. That's regarding your December 24 22 story of Jesus's birthday actually go back and look at the actual date of the store deftly have and what it was all in the sky goes back 17 to 9 months of actual conception.
Conception date of nine months to come up to the date of September 11. So, my comment was, why don't you work office in the church's teachings because you know the answer that.
If I can think we don't hear more about it because it's not considered be very important.
For example, if I was a passive church. I would not consider it important enough to mention I don't care when Jesus was born.
I don't if you're implying that September 11 911 you know an attack. It happened on the World Trade Center has anything to do with the birthdate of Jesus.
I am not section 89 months after I guess I guess the reason churches don't make more of this I and I probably wouldn't recommend that they do is that it would have very little to do with walking with Jesus.
To me the purpose of teaching in the church as Jesus put it is to teach them to observe all things he commanded and that a person could believe that we 365 date people in a church, each one believes Jesus was born a different date of the year. And obviously, 364 that would be wrong, but I would make a difference make a difference in their lives.
I would know so I think that's probably why you don't hear more about it. There's some people get off on things that are very interesting to them things I would consider the matters of curiosity merely and damn. Unfortunately, some churches do get into that kind of thing but I think that the church should be focused very powerfully on making disciples because that's what has made the church week of the lack of disciples in an fairly modern times.
So I appreciate your call and thank you very much for joining us and if you listen to me tonight as you going to sleep. You'll hear your own voice for change that he might be interesting to any friends telling a high let's talk to him.
John from Jackson, Wyoming John, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling you a few days ago about divine healing in years. Brought more questions in my mind. I enjoyed your answer but you were talking about Paul and the others that he left unhealed because of their thicknesses. Now I understand Paul had the gift of healing.
He he healed different people in the course of his ministry, so I was just wondering how that came into effect. I thought the gift of healing with would be something that you would have if you had to gifted you had it all the time and write about Paul never actually said he had the gift of healing his gift he said was that of an apostle and he spoke about signs and wonders which must mean healings at least including them.
He spoke of those in second Corinthians 1212 as the signs of an apostle. So he did perform healings and other signs and wonders. Apparently, which he said were marks of his apostleship. He never really referred to as a gift of healing.
You know it's interesting and I don't mean to be controversial here because I do believe God heals, but the list of the gifts of the spirit in first crickets. 12 were you suck certain gifts. Nine gifts are listed does not actually mention a gift of healing, it mentioned gifts of healings, plural, and it leaves open the possibility that what he's calling. Gifts of healing is not really referring to somebody having the power to heal so much is God granting a healing in this case are that case. Another case I don't get healed has received this gift not the gift of healing others the gift of being healed and in the word healing is used in in the Scripture number places in places where it could refer to something that somebody has received and not something that someone else has delivered to them or or minister to.
Now I clearly Paul and the apostles did have super natural signs and wonders, including healings associate with their ministry, but the New Testament nowhere guarantees that everyone is going be healed, even if encounter somebody who has something called the gift of healing, if anyone, as you say if anyone had a gift of healing pulsing to have one.
And yet there are people like Timothy that had stomach problems apologists to take someone for batteries that left her optimistic and bullied him or he had his friend Aphrodite's effort -itis who is so you almost died, and Paul himself had his thorn in the flesh, so I just correct the idea that Paul ever said he had a gift of healing or their people of the gift of healing which when they have it means they can heal everybody they wanted God heals when he wants to heal and he doesn't supernaturally at times, but I don't know that there's certainly nothing in the Bible speaks of someone having a gift of healing which unambiguously means that they can heal people.
There are gifts of healings, which might be referring to individual healings that are God's gift to the people who are healed.
It's ambiguous. I need take a break, but I hope that helps your brother listen to the narrow pathway of another half-hour coming up. Don't go away. Our website is the narrow path.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds. You know the narrow path radio show is the final radio that has nothing to sell you everything to do the right thing and share with your family and friends. Tell them to tune into the narrow path on this radio station narrow path.com where they will find topical audio teachings blog articles in verse by verse teachings and archives of all the radio shows you know listener supported Nero With Steve Greg share what you know that Marilyn had radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and where live for another half-hour taking your calls as we did the previous half-hour. If you have questions about the Bible Christian faith thing related to those kinds of things with your Christian or not. If you have a difference of opinion from those of your Christian many Christians certainly have differences of opinion from this house and of course non-Christians have even more differences of opinion. You're always welcome to call in and to discuss those matters.
Unfortunately, if you are calling right now. You can't live full, but there will be lines opening up the next few minutes so if you call in a few minutes and you have this number I'm about to give you. You may very well get in the number is 844-484-5730 7F 844-484-5737 our next call today comes from Kevin in Nick one Wisconsin item a from pronouncing the city right welcome hoops yet. I have a question.
I was a fellow Christian who somehow got on the topic of homosexuality. What the Bible says and I'm actually mention one of the he talked about in a previous color today for 20 and 69 and basically that a Christian with staff.
They never heard of before. So basically they said the word homosexual for homosexuality was never sent hundred yet and that with pedophilia and I wanted to get your take on it was mistaken that person is mistaken, it may be that the word homosexual wasn't in the English language until the 1900 that has very little to do with the meaning of Greek words. 2000 years ago the Greek words real uses an adverse are words that refer to a man sleeping with a man that is basically what the Greek words meaning. How there are two words of Paul uses a most Greek scholars believe one refers to the the man who's in the mail role in that relationship and the and the other to the man who sorted in a female's role in the relationship.
So basically knows those who are advocates for you know normalizing homosexual behavior in the church.
They often raise this point, which is very poorly established. If you look at any of the major lexicons of the Greek language and because this has come up many times before. I have you'll find that there's no real evidence from the real Greek scholars that this is speaking of man boy relationships which which is what the course the LGBT people who are trying to normalize that behavior and in the church would suggest they I'm not saying there are no scholars who agree with them but the scholars are agenda driven in their scholars and universities that will sale kinds of things. The real question is what is the evidence and the evidence for the meaning of these words can be found in the very best lexicons of the Greek language which anyone can buy or many of them and they would not support the Pro homosexual interpretation of those words on the back some background sure I once made a file on my computer.
I can't find it right now because I'm online.
I'm on the air about the where I actually documented what the lexicons say about those words and prescriptive. Six.
Unrelated. If you have yet another moment actually regard it exactly that that the Second Amendment and I know you talked about this a little bit and I agree with you I think on the level it's very hard to use Scripture to use to be able to take forth upon somebody else to even protect yourself. However, I would. I would argue the fact that it used it to protect others in email, such as your family, then there is a little more. I guess you could more easily use Scripture to do that versus defending yourself. Would you agree with that. Absolutely that's what I say whenever we discussed I believe that some people think the Christian should not defend themselves against, for example, an intruder in the home or get somebody wants to do the mortal harm and and if they feel like they should just turn the other cheek in the situations they're welcome to do so.
I think if they do their misunderstanding Jesus teaching maternity of exegesis is first of all, not describing a mortally dangerous situation he's describing and insulting situations. Thomas was slapping your cheek and being humble enough to just you absorb it and not retaliate. Jesus does not ever describe the situation where someone is trying to kill you and you just say okay just kill me now. Now I'm not saying there would never be such a case, because often when it's persecution seduces isn't necessary. Assuming, and the term energy thing that is bigger been persecuted for righteousness sake, you just somebody is your enemy and they want to make you look like a fool and slap you in public. Let him do it, but when it comes to and when it comes to specifically yell being on trial made no arrested for being a Christian. There certainly is biblical precedent and maybe even teaching suggest you can run away from that. You just stand and let them take you. But, no, no Christian in the first century would've never believed in fighting the Romans when you're coming to arrest them and try to kill them or anything like that but you varies another point, and I raise it to and that is it. In situations where you might be trying to decide whether defend yourself or not, it might be not just you that's in trouble you might have a house full of people who are vulnerable for that person to kill you is just the first step toward getting to them. As far as they're concerned, and so the general principle for all Christian conduct is to what you would want done to you do that to others.
So, I mean certainly if your wife and children or your neighbor or your neighbor's wife and children are in danger and you're in some kind of position where you can rescue them.
I'm pretty sure if you are in their condition, wants him to rescue you. So I mean there's nothing about nothing there that would forbid you from intervening to help somebody else and I frankly I don't even think there's anything that says you guys you shoot you that you can't do something to try to defend yourself. That's not right.
Jesus discusses some of the amount right right you're trying to find a fight that you were trying to file on your computer you know something that similar on the.com about the you know, I'm sure you know I think I probably discuss those Greek words in more detail on some of the calls I've had over the years, you might email@example.com and homosexual, you might find not be discussing it more. There okay Kevin Thomas's all right, let's talk to Shea from Wausau, Michigan, Shea, welcome to the narrow path of the future Antichrist type question and lectures in church history with 21 amount that was hired to basically find evidence of the future Antichrist. You recall that no not that I think the only monk I would've mentioned with reference to the subject of the future, guys would be Francisco Rivera who was a Spanish Jesuit in the late 16th century who because the Protestant Reformation had identified the papacy with the antichrist.
They reformed people to this day generally would say that the rise of the papacy was the rise of the Antichrist and that the Pope in any generation is the is the antichrist of that generation and that was the universal view of people. People like Luther and Calvin and John Knox and Zwingli all the reformers as well as some people before them like John Huston Wycliffe and Tyndale lived before the Reformation is a widespread view and so obviously with the reformers spreading the view throughout Europe that the Pope is antichrist that somewhat tarnished, you know, the Pope, so dignity of his office, so that the Jesuits were movement that rose up to defend the Pope that's that's the specific reason for the Jesuit woman stood to defend the Pope and and they started inquisitive. It was they who ran the inquisitions twitch if they felt someone was. Not being adequately respectful to the pulpit and tortured him until they learned their lesson. Now it was a Jesuit in Spain named Francisco Rivera who wrote a commentary refuting the reformers and identifying the antichrist, not with the institution of the papacy, but as an individual man who would rise up in the last days not have to say before there was a Reformation. The early church fathers also spoke about coming antichrist and may very well been thinking in terms of an individual man because there's nothing much said in the Bible to guide them on this event.
First saw the word antichrist is not found in any eschatological passage, you will find that word antichrist in the book of Revelation. You'll find it in second Thessalonians were the man of sin is talk that you'll find it in Daniel, the word antichrist is only found in the Bible in book of first John and Ann in second John, and John is not a eschatology that affect one at one point. At first John chapter 2 John says as you have heard that, and the antichrist is coming there already many antichrists by which we know it is the last time he says whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist, and then he says later whoever denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. That spirit is not of God, and that's the spirit antichrist, which already is in the world would you were expecting so John the only writer who ever use the word antichrist. The Bible and he didn't use it in Revelation. Strangely, but in his epistle said anyone who denies the Jesus the Christ is antichrist and he says you are expecting a crystal he's here. That's how we know it's the final hours so obviously John wasn't talking about some individual antichrist at the end of the world unless he thought he was in the world, which is a possibility, but he he did affirm that many antichrists are coming to him. That was the fulfillment of expectation of the coming of antichrist. Now the church fathers, some of them said they looking for the antichrist to come in and they probably did think of him as an individual but they didn't have much Bible to go on.
They had probably Revelation 13 about the beast. No doubt Daniel ate about the little horn that would rise up out of the 10 horned beast that have second Thessalonians to about the man of lawlessness. None of those passages. First of all, none of them identify the person under discussion as the antichrist and it's not altogether clear that all these passages are target the same entity.
Even if some are convenient to take all the passages in the Bible about some horribly evil person and say what this is all found in one horrible evil person within the world but that's something that I likely doesn't specify the early church fathers, many of them believe that would be the case with the fall of the Roman Empire to the church fathers believed that when the Roman Empire would fall and they all knew it would because they understood Daniel ate and actually for the second pestilence to that what they believe Paul was referring to that which hinders the man of sin will be taken away, but they all said that's the fall of the Roman Empire, but these church fathers lived before that event so they were at liberty think anything he wanted well with the medicine would look like an individual are not. The thing is that when the Roman Empire fell.
What did rise was the papacy and that's why after the fall of the Roman Empire Christians. Looking back on history and so forth like the reformers they also dwell always right.
The Roman Empire signally enterprises the man of sin in the temple of God, which is Paul's expression for the church elsewhere. So, so they you know, this idea that the man of sin is not one man but an entity's are like Jesus is a bought the body of Christ is corporate if I Paul refers to the body of Christ as a new man that God created from to Jew and Gentile, so they believed that after the fall of Rome and when they saw what happened. They believe those prophecies have been fulfilled so after the fall of Rome. The church fathers were not talking about a future Antichrist. They were people eventually begin to suspect that the papacy was that which Paul is spoken of in Daniel and Eve, even Dave and thought that was the beast of Revelation, which I I think they made the mistake of thinking all these entities of same thing. My own interpretation Revelation 2nd Thessalonians would lead me to suspect that were not tarred with the same entity. In those cases, nor is there any indication in those books.
They are so the reformers were holding the view which is widespread even the Franciscan order long before the Reformation through Catholic princes and orders of the Pope is Christ so this didn't just arise with the reformers but Francisco Rivera is the one who I guess kind of popularized the idea in later in modern times that the antichrist will be an individual who will rise up for a brief period. Near the end of time so he couldn't be the papacy.
By the way Protestants when they read Rivera. They knew he was covering some Pope and no Protestant would accept that view for about 300 years after it was written. It was a Catholic view, the idea of an individual antichrist rising in the end times was first brought into Protestant circles to a guy named Samuel Maitland who was the librarian for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the British church and he actually read said Francisco Rivera, and frankly, the Anglican church is not very far removed from the Catholic Church and and he was the first Protestant renewal of to adopt in modern times, the idea of future individual antichrist and Darby picked up on that in his dispensational eschatology. Actually, Maitland accepted in 1827 is around 1830, the Darby brought in dispensationalism and incorporated the idea of individual antichrist in it so that's kind of the history of it.
In modern times, but sometimes he was a well Steve you say that the yield Darby or someone invented the idea of the future when it Francisco Rivera invented the idea of a future antichrist individual note. There were deftly church fathers who believe that, but their view was the view of the church was altered with the with the actual events taking place that they they felt that when the Roman Empire falls.
That's when you see the man of sin and when the Roman Empire felt a very anti-Christian movement did arise institution did arise within the what Paul refers to as the temple of God, which is the church. Anyway, that's a short course.
I have a lot of calls only a few minutes left and I hope that's helpful. You get all that, of course, from the website okay thanks for your call. All right, let's talk to Mark from Vancouver, BC, Mark will come to the narrow path. As you know, the Bible clearly. The New Testament clearly indicates that Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah of Israel and of the world. One of the birds and live the sinless life was resurrected and glorified as far as you know even one verse in the New Testament that would exclude a person from the Christian faith simply because they believe those things I just mentioned, but if they do not believe that Jesus is coequal with God the father with her be as far as you know even one verse in the New Testament that with the scooter person who doesn't believe in Jesus is coequal with God the father, even weekly troubles of aftermarket things okay just say I there's no verse in the New Testament that would clearly say that if you don't believe Jesus is coequal with God the father you are not a Christian. I have course do believe that Jesus is God and I do believe in the Trinity, but I don't find any of the Bible that says that that specific belief is mandatory for salvation. Certainly, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses, David did not have Trinitarian views near as we can tell, nor did the Jews of Jesus time, nor did the disciples themselves when they began to follow Jesus stated they came with the Jewish Unida Trinitarian view, the idea of the Trinity I think was teased out of the Scriptures through Christian theology, especially after Pentecost and I believe it's true, but it's not something that's lying on the surface for some to just trip over them as well. There is the Trinity doctors really rather complicated doctrine which I think again is a correct synthesis of a lot of scattered data in the Scripture which for some reason was never laid out in any one verse or passage of the Bible which might mean that it wasn't the most important thing for people to really understand if it was you think someone would explain it in the bottle. I am pretty sure that the disciples from the first and following Jesus didn't have Trinitarian view.
I don't know what it would've gotten it and we don't read of Jesus ever teaching it to them, but we also know that he told them that there are things that he could not tell them in his lifetime with them, but when the Holy Spirit would tell them when this Holy Spirit completely them a dull truth in my opinion there.
Later writings suggest that they believed something along the lines of what we believe on the Trinity. I have to say that the Trinity doctrine existed very early on, but it wasn't universal in the church, well frankly, until long after the Nicene Council.
There were Aryan Christians and very nice. There are Trinitarian Christians and that's why there is a counselor had holder counselors Christians were at all sure about this. It hadn't really been established as a universal norm in Christian theology, so they had to decide whether it should be and once they decided it would be even then there were Christian churches that rejected it all the German churches still were Aryan for another century. After Nicaea is hard to believe that just because they accepted the view that had been widespread and among them before the Council that they somehow had denied Christ and in I guess it seems to me that if if a person is not recognizing fully the full deity of Christ would exclude them from being saved in God's side that there be something much clearer about it and Scripture you know I have friends Christian friends who you know they don't get on the real bias against Jesus being God. But there confused by the date of Scripture. They think when when the fathers mentioned separately from Jesus. Orgies of the father's grave and I just haven't figured out how to process that night I work through all that in my own biblical studies and I was much younger and I don't find any difficulty with Jesus and those kinds of things and still believing he is God in the flesh, but I think to say that Jesus is God and to say that he is the son of God and that he is distinct from the father and distinct from Holy Spirit as he himself said, then something just very puzzled over there and I can't blame them.
It's not exactly the easiest thing in the world to understand and I don't believe that salvation comes from the level of sophistication of your understanding of mysterious things that even theologians can hardly really honestly claim to fully understand. I think salvation comes from embracing Christ for who they as far as I can tell from his claims. They know him to be and do and following him and you know when you take his yoke upon you and begin to learn from him. In my opinion, the Holy Spirit will guide you into truth and I think if a person doesn't understand Christ to be God, but they begin following which is I would say like the case of the apostles themselves in the first met you eventually come to that knowledge, but in the process of reaching that understanding. I don't think you lost, it is after all essay very difficult. Dr. for many people if if you're interested in me talking explain it. Conserving more I can't do so now that I have a lecture in a website that you would probably be interested in.
It's called well it's in the series called knowing God, and there's a lecture about the deity of Christ is a lecture about the Trinity. There's a lecture about the father God and and I you know I deal with the detention between the different kinds of statements that confuse people about that some of those lectures I would recommend it's at the narrow path.com the lifecycle publisher to and for any other out there besides the caller who are struggling with this doctrine I would suggest you at least listen to my explanations at the website which I can't take the time to hear if you go to the narrow path.com look under topical lectures and there you'll find among others, a series called knowing God, and you can tell by the titles of the lectures there which ones are relevant to a retirement right now and if you list of everything free everything at the website is free so you can just go there and use it.
You can also get the narrow path.com app for your iPhone or for your android and you can listen those lectures on your phone that way to whenever you want to talk to the CEN from Tallahassee Florida and welcome to the narrow For calling me cool. If you knew you were something that would describe what laws pertinent in the days of Jesus because some of those you mentioned to me and others before hundred laws based on where they are living in their living in different time. I'm just curious if there was a source where at that time they said, okay, you do belong. They considered the eternal that Jesus would be refilling blank segments in the Talmud statements and Talmud you will know why.
I don't know the Talmud's many volumes long and I certainly am not. Version 1 of clinic exacerbate group delineated those laws physically or if no more new cars. I know when when Jesus was on the earth.
I believe the Pharisees at least believe that all the laws of the 613 laws that were given by Moses were binding upon Israel.
They they may have had to make some provision for Jews of the Diaspora who lived hundreds of miles away and can come to the temple all the time but they but for those who are able and who lived in Palestine. I think they thought all the laws including all the temple laws were mandatory. It was only after the temple was destroyed that a group of rabbis got together to sort of modify what we now call Tom is a more orthodox Judaism and they had to find some way to have a to continue the Jewish faith without the sacrifices in the temple of the priesthood which I mean not to be unkind. I think that's a fools errand because the Old Testament is all about the temple and sacrifice so forth.
So what happened is God having sent Jesus to complete that system and to be the final sacrifice, God did away with sacrificial system. Just as if to say, hey, it's over now.
The temple is gone and they should have. I think gotten a clue. Hey, if God has taken away from us. The old covenant, and these Christians are synagogues made a new covenant certainly the destruction of the temple would would seemingly confirm that God is done with the old covenant. There's a new one and maybe Jesus is the Messiah.
After all, they didn't reason that way and therefore they thought, okay, we can't keep the Jewish law anymore in an attempt but we can make up some rules and call that Judaism and that's what they did and that's what telemedicine is orthodox Judaism is Talmage and many Jews are not Orthodox there's there's Reform Judaism verse with the conservative Judaism which is really quite liberal Orthodox Jews are the ones that we would have most in common with our beliefs and yet that of course they reject Christ and they follow a lot of man-made rules to manage religion based on atomic, I'm out of time. I'm sorry to say I appreciate all who called around again soon so listen every day, and you'll be able to: her list to the questions that may interest you inform you use the narrow path is a listener supported ministry. You can go to our website. The narrow path.com to find out how you can donate online or from an address you can send checks to.
If you wish.
The narrow path.com talk again tomorrow