Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 10/12

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
October 12, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 10/12

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.


October 12, 2020 8:00 am

Enjoy the best of The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg!

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

The thing being hosted by the start of the studio today, so called from the lobby of the usual format we put together some of the best calls for past programs cover a variety of topics important to anyone in the Bible and Christianity in addition to the radio program@outbackhaswebsitewww.narrowcast.com where you can find hundreds of resources will be downloaded for free. I doubt please enjoy this special collection calls to Steve Greg and the narrow path was talk to Daniel from Sacramento, California Daniel walking to the neuropathic light. But I really didn't get it.you give me an answer, but I would like but Dennis and and how they say that Jesus Christ is my Michael the Archangel, and he went to a lot of Scriptures proving that was Michael Martin but I do be when he read Scripture didn't say that it was Michael the Archangel, so I don't remember a previous call and surprise your saving your answer because I have answered this question on their number of times for college, but the what you told me last time was they believe that it came as a message really didn't make Scripture and try to prove it was Michael the Archangel. First of all there's not a lot of Scriptures that can be used about Michael the Archangel, because he's not mentioned that much.

In Scripture, there is a mention of Michael the Archangel in Daniel, but not much is said about them, and certainly nothing to identify him directly with Jesus.

Then we have in Judah reference to Michael the Archangel, disputing with Satan over the body of Moses.

Again, there's nothing in that passage that would identify with Jesus and then in the book of Revelation chapter 12, you find Michael and his angels making war against the Dragon and his angels so again, that doesn't necessarily identify with Jesus now. There have been Christian commentators over the centuries who have believed that Michael is supposed to be an image or a representation of Christ. The argument that I've heard is that some of the name Michael means, who is like God and therefore it's actually question who is like God is make meaning of any Michael and so suggests this is Jesus is like God that that would be a codename for Jesus more than that if one would object that Jesus can't be Archangel because he's not an angel that he is, instead, of course, the creator of the switch. I would agree here is that I get the word Archangel doesn't necessarily have to apply to someone who is an angel.

The word arche in the Greek, which is at the beginning that word join with uncle means chief of the Angels it could it could be the chief angel, in which case it is targeted angel or it could be that it can be translated chief of the Angels and Archangel consent to be the chief or the, the ruler of the Angels now in the book of Joshua.

I think it's at the end of chapter 5.

If I recall, Joshua encounters a person that most Christians identify with Christ and angelic kind of creature with the sword drawn and and Joshua approaches and says are you with us if our enemies and and he says no on the commander of the of the hosts of the Lords host is what he calls himself most would understand the Lord toasting the Angels and therefore the person appears to to Joshua identifies itself as the commander of the Angels now Archangel could certainly refer to the commander of the Angels is not impossible though. Actually, we are told anywhere whether this person that Joshua it really is Jesus or not, that most Christians find no difficulty with the suggestion that Joshua encountered Jesus there in a pre-incarnate state. What we call theophany and that he was light he identified himself as the commander of the Lord's house, or of angels of God. So if other writers refer to Jesus as the chief of the Angels doesn't he's an angel himself, and he could be God and be the chief of the Angels and he is the Lord of lords and King of Kings and he could be the chief angel, chief of angels, or should say therefore there's really nothing heretical about the suggestion that the few occasions in which Michael is mentioned in the Bible could possibly be a reference to Christ. But I don't think there's any evidence that that is so, there seem to be angelic hierarchies and that Michael seems to be an important one.

After all, he is mentioned in Daniel chapter 10 when this messenger came to a Daniel and said that I was sent 21 days ago with this message for you, and I was resisted in the sky by this being that he called the principality of Persia which is currently demonic power and was detained there until Michael your prints came and he is up there wrestling with the Prince of Persia now and I'm gonna go assist him in a moment I'm done talking to you now that would suggest that Michael is one of the beings that fights against the demonic powers in the heavenly's, but he needed help. He doesn't seem like he's an omnipotent being. If it was Jesus Christ. He all he has to do to demonic powers, rebuke it, as we saw in Jesus ministry so I'm I really seriously doubt that Michael is supposed to be a representation of Christ, though again, there are Christians not not only Seventh-day Adventist but other Christian commentators of mainstream evangelicals have held this view, it's not a majority view, and most evangelicals, including myself would not identify Michael with Christ right. I guess I'm sorry that I'm sorry you got you got on hold. I'm sorry I didn't need to hear what he said yeah he went to the Scripture in the New Testament when Jesus comes with a shout, with the voice of an aikido. He was that one. Then he went to Moses on the mountain will undoubtedly when he perceived no doubt Bush buddy use Valentine's Day that was Jesus and I was Michael the Archangel to well is no suggestion in essence that is Michael the Archangel is the burning bush is just that, but that's how because of the angel of thought yeah that just because of the angel of the Lord, which is not the same thing, necessarily is the Archangel, many, many Christians probably most Christians believe that when you find the appearance of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament that it is our theophany of three parts of Christ.

But I don't know of any. There's no place in the Bible. I know that identifies Michael as the angel of the Lord Jesus comes with a shout, and with the voice of the Archangel to be accompanied by armies of angels. The Bible says we write suggesting he's the Archangel.

Yeah. So go on that teaching their no noise was saying the book the belief that Jesus is that the market Archangel Michael supposed to be Jesus is not heretical.

Many evangelicals commentators throughout history have held that view.

But I don't think it's correct so you say are the heretical.

I would say I think there I think the mistaken but there's a big difference between mistaken heretical okay because I like how you Seventh-day Adventist are Trinitarian, unlike, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses not Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity and they don't believe Jesus is God, and they also identify the Archangel Michael Jesus and that they would say the Archangel Michael is not God and therefore by identifying the Archangel Michael Jesus the same Jesus is not God but the seventh evidence to believe in the deity of Christ, therefore, even by identifying Michael the Archangel was Christ there.

They're not diminishing fact that they believe is okay okay kid, I have equipment I suppose you get your foot in the door. Doug attacking her tightly.when it is given the description it sounds it sounds like is compensated and I heard what you said last time, but what I was wondering is not the same thing as when Micah the nude at the New Testament work. Jesus talking to. I think Peter and he rebukes the devil so is he speaking to Peter or the devil.

Well, that's good. Good point. When waste experiences get behind me Satan. But he's not. He doesn't say it. He doesn't identify Peter a statement. Of course he's basically looking past Peter to the work of Satan that's been brought about through Peter if if the if Ezekiel 28 had addressed the devil, but he was really addressing the king of Tyre called him Satan that be similar to what perhaps what Jesus did speak to Peter call him Satan, but we don't have any reference to Satan and Ezekiel. Okay, how about all the diamond bead I died on the description to give him general pipes and all that stuff as well and be like that right well like what I means lots of humans have musical instruments and lots and have jewels that they wear remaining attachment all the Jew when I read I would like it netted him and him a big ticket. I don't know. I did not know don't know I don't feel you I don't feel bad about that. There's a lot of people who take it that way. I mean when it says that the workmanship of your temples and pipes was injured from the day you were created, says some people are taken that to mean that the temples and epoxies Ms. Griffis were somehow appendages to his body, that is not the least bit required by the wording in you.

In this case would probably mean entire and in the city of Tyre. They had in all this musical interest out most modern translations don't even translate that is temples and pipes and they insert the if you look at almost any modern translation. It will say something like sockets and settings to talk to other gems. He's as you bring your covered with all these gemstones and then it says, and in most modern translations and in the sockets and settings were in you meeting on you had the sockets and settings with you gems and the like of a ring would have a socket you for resetting Janet so judgmental translation.

If you read the older translations says temples and pipes which means musical arrangements. If you read the newer translations so sockets and settings target jewelry but that the principal thing, there is a socket about this King was covered with jewelry with gems and had and had an abundance of music to entertain and communicate. He was a festive wealthy king that when you say it sounds like a target.

Satan you know it does if we've already been fitted with a particular idea about Satan but and and if we have this idea about Satan, that he was a cherub that he was in the garden of Eden that he was covered with gemstones or whatever and that is perfect until he fell if we had that picture of Satan from somewhere, then that passage sounds like it's time for him, but the interesting thing is we don't have that picture of Satan anywhere except unless we read into that passage. So all those ideas always argues that Satan come from that passage, and they come from somebody identifying that as Satan, but the passage gives no indication that his target site is for American okay thank you so much. All right good targeted and wonderful place your call calibration okay Jeffrey from Los Angeles, California look into the narrow path is for calling. Thank you for taking my call today. I had a couple question there related first John a defect going to be great, but the first wanted to first John chapter 2 verse 27 and it says, but the anointing which you have received from him abide in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you but at the same anointing teaches you concerning all things vanish true and is not a lie and get at it has taught you, you will abide in out. I'm assuming the anointing is the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but it said it at the end he said and did as it has taught you, you will abide in him and that you conduct on the other that well the translation is that if they get it referring to the anointing on my that it refers to the anointing and the anointing is to be identified with the Holy Spirit that the word it is a pronoun that degrees in gender with the word anointing. So basically he's saying you have an anointing of the Holy Spirit and it that anointing of the Holy Spirit is what teaches you that resort like of some of said you have received the gift of the Holy Spirit and it enables you to you worship God internally or whatever by saying it it's free if you refer back to the gift of the Holy Spirit can.

In this case is referred to as anointing and other passages could be called the gift of the spirit. There might be other words that are used that are essentially modifiers of the Holy Spirit and they are neuter and so to speak about the gift of the Holy Spirit or the anointing of the Holy Spirit would be to use the pronoun that goes along with word gift or the word anointing rather than the pronoun that would be used if you just said the Holy Spirit because that would be okay. Not one of grammatical grammatical nature. Okay I will. The other question is, is also in second John first John chapter 2 about the antichrist and in verse 18 it says little children. It is the last hour and as you have heard that the antichrist is now the new King James attended the antichrist but it I believe it said the year have been was is not in the other manuscripts are the newer men. The older manuscript that's Clintonesque Alexandrian text doesn't have the words just as you've heard that antichrist is coming, but in the King James and the new King James. It's as you've heard that the antichrist is coming to take away a bit from that I get the position that the that the antichrist would be someone posted a antichrist and we and you also state that I'm reading it and I'm also thinking that he goes on to explain that those who deny that you think the Christ.

The Messiah do you think he was dealing with the I guess that Gothic. Those not, it probably wouldn't hurt for them primarily, but without scholars agree most scholars agree that he was referring to the Gnostics here because in chapter 4.

He also speaks about the spirit of antichrist, and he says that whoever denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. The same is the spirit of antichrist, so denying that Jesus came in the flesh was something that the DOS addressed, which was one branch of Gnosticism taught that Jesus was not really a physical being.

He was more about phantom beings and so almost all scholars agree. I think that John was writing this letter to counter these Gnostic intrusions into the theology of the church and he does refer to them as antichrist and that denying that Jesus is the Christ. But I think maybe your question about this. The antichrist in inch. First John 218 says little children. It is the last hour and as you've heard that the antichrist is coming, even now there are many antichrist by which you know that it is the last hour. Now is basically saying you've heard that in the last hour antichrist or or either antichrist or the antichrist and the texts don't the manuscript on agree the oldest text do not have the word the which means that in the older mistresses you've heard that antichrist is coming, not necessarily saying it's an individual and then he goes on to make sure we know it isn't.

Now many antichrists have come in, they says, anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist. In verse 22 so clearly John's definition of antichrist is anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ. This would include the Gnostics, who have the spirit of Christ, and that there are many such antichrist in the church and he says this is how we know that the final hours come. Which means that saintly that writes that even if the or simply antichrist events, and strength is not an individual but is a lot of individuals there's a lot of them and that's how we and they're already here and that's how we know that were living in the final hour so in my understanding that the the article the probably wasn't originally in it because he's not talk about an anti-reassignment antichrist generically as anyone who denies Jesus Christ so I think that the is it really doesn't really belong.

As part of the text, but that's of course a textual dispute that helpful. Just wanted to know, like, it's like a regular thing like a person or if it people like a plural use is that that that turn right. Well it does seem more plural been an idea what he thinks of it as if antichrist is plural because he says there are many antichrist, and thereby we know that it is the last hour so he saying whatever antichrist you are expecting to come in the last hour that's happened here they are.

So he's clearly identified antichrist with not one individual, but with a whole theological heretical movement representing many false teachers and in so that those those who believe in a singular antichrist might favor the King James in the new King James horses if you're expecting the antichrist to come.

That sounds like you and protect one particular antichrist is mine and make a fit for contact with.

With that right there yet inherently not gay. I would think not. It's it's it's awkward. It's awkward from say now you been looking for the antichrist singular and that your your anticipation that look no further is essentially saying is look no further. We know are in the index because many antichrists have come so he's not looking for one is stressing anyone who denies Jesus Christ as antichrist which is a lot of people taken my call today.

I read Jeffrey good talking to you all right or next caller is Brandon from Martinez, California Brandon, welcome to the narrow path lexicon HD, I also appreciate your ministry and anything at first.

My question today actually got a John chapter 2 and in the first verse that the wedding happened on the third day, and I would like to explain what that third day might be a reference to, and on and on the radio okay thanks for your call, you know, when I was young I heard a teacher would suggest that this was like a coded message on when Jesus is going to come back because it says on the third day there was a wedding and he said let's talk about the wedding feast of the Lamb. When Jesus returns in the third day, a day to the Lord like a thousand years and so you know when two days have passed since 2000 years passed and Jesus time announce the third day when 2000 is coming up. It was coming up at the time. He said this is still 30 years off but that that you know he was trying make some kind of cryptic prediction about the coming of Christ. As if this wedding feast was somehow telling us something about eschatology and so he made. He gave a very specific meaning to the third day as if it was extremely important to understanding the passage. Actually, there's two ways you can extend the third day. One is that in the Bible of course they didn't use the words Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and so forth. But Sunday with what we call Sunday was called the first day of the week course that Sabbath was the seventh day Saturday and when they spoke of the days the week. They simply give your number so that the third day would be Tuesday if that's how is being referred to. If it's using the typical reference to the days of the week it would be seen on the third day of the week Tuesday that this wedding took place on the other hand, he may not be using it as the name of the day because if you look at the previous chapter, John is at pains to mention the chronology of several events. He talks about how in chapter 1 verses 19 through 28. John the Baptist had to give an answer to people who came from Jerusalem about who he was. But, verse 20, nicest the next day John saw Jesus coming to behold the Lamb of God, and so forth and gives his testimony about Jesus in verse 35.

He says again the next day John stood with his disciples and look at Jesus. Behold the Lamb of God, and they followed him there. Then in verse 43 says the following day.

Jesus wanted to go to Galilee and found Philip and so forth then and on chapter 2 verse of the third day there was a wedding feast so it sounds like she's been counting the days not master the days of the week like Monday Tuesday Wednesday type counting, but rather that the days from a starting point, the starting point was when John the Baptist began to testify about Christ after this is after Christ. Baptism after Christ temptation the wilderness when Christ come back to the region where John was baptizing. John started testifying about it and said the gospel is telling us it. This happened on that date in the next day.

This time, then the next day. This happened in the following did this happen then three days.

On the third day this happen. It's probable that the third day is just another way of counting up chronology here in relation to a starting the previous day. Basically that's what I'm thinking. But the other alternative is that he's using the term the third day, the way that people use it if they're talking about what they of the week it was. And that would be a reference to Tuesday your tongue next to a Danny from Carlsbad, California.

If it takes a little longer will have to cut you hold you through the break.

That was just a Hellenistic Titanic stayed okay. I have someone close to me and she she's a Christian but she's already using the word hate for different thing, and particularly people and other family member and now I was listening to K by a few days ago and I couldn't remember what I was in the Bible.

I don't know Billy Jesus are John, Janet.A talk about hate and compared it with Cain, Mike Cain killed Abel is out of the barrel that's John first John chapter 3 and in verse 15 it says whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding so this friend of yours who is a Christian uses the word hate and apparently says that she hate certain people members.

The family and so forth.

What I can say one of two things about that either. She's using the word hate differently than Johnny's or if she's not that she's not really Christian because John said, we know that whoever hates his brother does not have eternal life in him which means are not a Christian. So Christians do not hate, not in the sense that John is talking about now. When she uses the word hate. She may not be using at that same sense John is referring to. Hate is the opposite of love that would be malice and hostility and things like that place when I say like I cauliflower as many of malice and hostility toward just makes you really don't like work. The word hate sometimes is referred to. I really don't like this at all I dislike is not the same thing is I don't love it because our people. I don't like very much.

I love them I died that I die for his expert Christian supposed to do but doesn't and I would like we don't have to like people with love and so I would say if she's using the word hate the way John does and she's not a Christian. If she's using differently than it may not really reflect negatively.

This we need to take a break and were to come back. We have another half hour ahead of us.

You listen to the narrow path.

Our website is the narrow path.com.

We are listener supported. Please listen for 30 seconds and will be back for another half hour calls again to nearly is the path that leads to life into the narrow path. Steve Greg has nothing to me today that everything to give you the radio show is over. Go to the narrow path.com you can study and enjoy the three topical audio teaching blog articles teachings and archives of the narrow path radiation. Thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path that Steve Greg see when narrow path.com all right we are back welcome back to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg, we have another half hour together. Tony from Iowa is Ernesto Tony. Welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling. Thanks about the book Revelation, Jesus talked about the Nicollet it and 3813 that I didn't know exactly who they were and what their work. Yeah, the Bible doesn't really give us much information about the Nicollet since, but fortunately the church fathers did some of the early fathers in the second third century were very familiar with the Nicollet attends and knew they were. They said that the term Nicollet attendance was derived from the name Nicholas apparently those who followed Nicholas Yahoo is Nicholas well they said the church father said that this Nicholas is one of the seven what we were called deacons that were appointed in acts chapter 6 when the apostles found that the doing all the leadership of the church alone was getting to be too much. They delegated some of the practical service. The distribution of food and so forth to seven men who were selected and and their names are given there in acts chapter 6 and the last one is referred to as Nicholas. Now the church fathers believed that Nicholas was the name that gave name to the Nicollet attends and then it was that Nicholas either. He backslid her became a heretic or or a later generation release believed he didn't follow what heresies they thought he taught. I we don't really have much information but the argument goes that that the Nicollet attends were one of the many sects that broke off of mainstream Christianity and taught some form of Gnosticism, and that seems to agree with what it says to the church of Pergamum's are Pergamum is that they had their those who are teaching the doctrine of the Nicollet since, and also the doctor Valen and they said that Jesus says that they they taught people to worship idols or eat meat sacrificed to idols, which was like a form of worshiping idols and to commit fornication of these were things that certain Gnostic sects were saying they're basically saying it doesn't matter what you do. They wrote what we call antinomian in the view that they don't believe that keeping any rules is a necessary part of being religious. They felt like as long as you believe or know the Gnostics that your to know certain things and if you knew them. You could get away with the doing anything you wanted to, as some people think the same way today about your accepting Jesus that you said Jesus and how you get away with having you want to subserve a modern form of antinomianism. But the Nicollet attends apparently taught that and Jesus did point out to the Ephesian church and to the church apartments that Nicollet can influence were in those churches and both times he says he hated it so that's what it apparently wasn't for Chuck trust the church fathers.

If we don't trust the church fathers then were left only to speculate and side rather trust them than speculate but some teachers say well Nicollet at him comes from the words Nicholas and Laos, which means conquest of the people and so some people have argued some teachers have argued that the Nicollet attends were teaching that some people could could have could have conquest or authority over other people and and they argue that the Nicollet attends were those who first taught a division between clergy and laity in the church.

I've heard this from a number of sources including one of the pastors I sat under when I was a young man and I assume that was correct.

I think I think J. Vernon McGee also teaches this, but this is something that none of the church father support and they have, of course, a very different explanation for the term Nicollet things comes from. It will transiently I love it. The girl in Omaha great.

I'm sure glad you listening how much Tony published by Mike from Whidbey Island, Washington. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling a state of, you know I'm I'm from Kelby Chapel yelled under Chuck's muscle while really love David hockey and I was raised in the Catholic Church. I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic Church.

I went through all the sacrament added at right out through eighth grade, taught by nuns everything, but I never received the Holy Spirit. I never got saved, like the Catholic Church says you when you're baptized in the baby, your Savior born again.

No, that's not true. So I agree that it ought I will save as a baby, but fortunately Bible club Christian from a doctor from New Zealand through the Bible right my faith and challenge Mr. G God, look at right here while his challenge was a real good thing for me to hear because I three years later I went to Bible study led her to versus Scripture Matthew 24, 35 Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. So that was my conversion. I got converted and born-again at 34 was and what is requested. Yes, I question it.

Like I called up Catholic radio today and I heard that only think first of all treat that the that Paul thought that he could lose his salvation.

There's a verse of Scripture. You brought up where it says Paul said that he could lose his salvation. I'd like to know her that that's in the first Corinthians 9. In all likelihood, and I think that Paul did believe that was a theoretical parts that I don't think he had a fear that was really going to happen, there's no need for that to happen, but I think he realized that if he departed from Christ. Of course, the department Christ. Salvation is in Christ, so if you depart for Christ department salvation, but the way Paul put it in first Corinthian's nine verse 27 he said but I discipline my body and bring it into subjection last when I have preached to others, I myself should become reprobate. Now the new King James says disqualified the Greek word is the word reprobate so he saying all I have preached to others, but I don't want to having having once preached to others, I want to become a reprobate myself so I maintain control over over my body. That is to say, is not going to be. I'm not going to be letting my smart body run in rebellion against Christ. You know the Street today. We had eight products that Catholic and an end to end The guy and then boat the product of that current Catholic is on these answering the question is why bring up Hebrews 10 Chad I say hey I believe that Jesus died once for all.

In Hebrews 10 Chad the priest to the Gentile priesthood of Catholicism is null and void. It's not even valid.

I agree with you, and he goes on the Protestant tried to say oh no, no, that's not true.

The Document. Is this a listen listen and justify it all and I never even get a word in edge wise, but he's not a process out so he saying the same with the Catholic doctors. What was that Tim Staples manages to staple it with somebody else on 11 o'clock. Seattle argued that she had it bad that I never I don't think that this person that was raised a Protestant knows the Scriptures really well on. I don't think you born-again. I think that that's the real issue here because because the bottom line is it's all about Romans 321 about the gospel and and they don't have an understanding of the gospel… I feel like the Catholic Church of the cult more than ever now Melissa. Not a lot of people who would share that opinion is Martin Luther. For example, I think with. And so the great number Protestant people. I think the part I think the Roman Catholic Church can be called a cult because it has a cultlike loyalty to your other church leaders other than Scripture you know that is what I would call a cult would be a group that has that allows somebody either a person or an organization.

Do your thinking for you that you actually surrender your responsibility to think and know the truth to somebody else. Let them do that you not.

I just let them do the thinking and I'll just say what they say and that'll be fine. That way I don't have to think things through myself. I don't have to be critical. Where's Paul said it's our responsibility to to test all things he said in first. That's when it's 521 test all things, and hold fast to that which is good, so we hold fast what is good after test things an elf if were not grotesque things are just say well my priest or the Bishop or the Pope or the councils or someone before they tested things they thought. For me, I'm good. Just I'm just go with what they think is good. That's what Paul told us not to do when I spoke to surrender our thinking faculties and responsibility to someone else said to let them do it for us. I agree with you. All right, let's talk next to Caleb from Seattle, Washington hi Caleb, welcome to the narrow path. I think it will need where quite dated good people of the light quality. I think he's referring to his own disciples or two or two people who know God. He saying that the children of the light are not as wise as the children of the world are in their generation.

Bye-bye wise in the context he seems to be saying they're not as adept at managing affairs and things like that that we it's it's at the end of the parable about a man who was told he should be let go from his work and he used the few days that he left before his termination to manage some debts in a way that would obligate people to help them out.

When he was out of work so he is very clever and looking out for himself. I think Jesus is saying that we help people who are godly children of the light are often not as adept at that as others and it may well be because children like don't place same priority on that worldly people do. I know I don't. You know, for example, when it comes to raising money or promoting career.

My career whatever I don't know anything about it but I don't have any interest in it either. You know that there are people who that's that's what they're all about and so they get really good at it, you know, I think that's what Jesus is suggesting planted and noted that most people do like their kind, so the wicked one, and the right one sorted disciples are the people of the light right Jesus you are the light of the world so clearly that they are the light and so that the children of the light as opposed the children of the world. Some of the world are in the fall, the Prince of darkness and quick question with Dr. out of Atlanta, Georgia first step feeling about him going in knowing what you and I listen to him a lot.

This is a Baptist and he has Baptist theology. I was raised at this myself some pretty snotty Baptist theology and I I think a lot of it is pretty good.

A lot of Baptist theology is good.

I agree with a lot of it but I don't recall if it one of the things he believes it would be a difference of opinion that he and I would have is he believes in unconditional eternal security in which I I don't believe the Bible teaches that anywhere.

I think it teaches against bots that the one difference between him and me that there probably be others to. On the other hand, he's one of the guys I like to listen to once in a while you Army I don't listen to radio that much except remember car.

There's certain people and I just turn them off just like a lot of people turn me off on the hearing on the radio, but that I don't drink I turn I don't run I don't turn Charles Stanley off unless there's something else I'm looking all right got bless you to talk to you all right were talking next to Kim from Vallejo California and welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling me good calling is little while ago you were discussing the matter. The antichrist and I agree with everything she had to say on first John. Until Floyd antichrist in terms of the book of Revelation. Specifically, in chapter 13. Dealing with the letter individually or having both of those chapters 13 and 14 in my memory and going over to my memory. Many times I think I understand pretty well the particular place were talking about their particular man is the one who is called to everyone.

Everyone rich report for your bond and anything I think everybody listings familiar. That view, I certainly am, because I used to teach that stupid thing. Why don't I don't see it that way necessarily anymore, not invalids have a chance to speak up to one is that first of all, the word antichrist isn't found anywhere in the book of Revelation.

In fact, is not found anywhere in the Bible except for first John and second time and in the and the only place in the Bible uses the term antichrist is well. It's only John in first John second John and and he identifies antichrist is anybody who denies Jesus the Christ.

So we don't have the word antichrist in the bottle ever used to speak of an individual.

Now we do have the beast in Revelation 13 is what you're talking about something. Some people call him that some people call him the Antichrist. Although the Bible doesn't use that term for him.

Okay, let's call it that the beast is antichrist but but why would we think that the beast is a person is not described as a person is described as an animal that has seven heads and 10 horns, and the seven heads are seven hills and also they are seven kings and the 10 horns are 10 kings around. Talk about an individual here.

Talk about a political system that has a lot of kings attached to it is as part of it so I don't personally think it's very likely that we talk about a person. There is much as a system and and by the way, that the beast in Revelation is a composite of the four beasts in Daniel seven and on and on the time.

My point here, we would have to really tie this all in liquid currently going on. Now I have to refer you to the book by. Stone Revelation generation covered all the typically point by point manner up to here because there are tons of books by prophecy quote unquote experts who are trying to connect Revelation with modern times I read how Lindsay's book 50 years ago, almost, and he did the same thing and I've read Tim LaHaye and I've read other prosecutor. Plus I sat for years under Chuck Smith who did this several times a week.

He'd talk about the connection between modern developments and the book of Revelation. I haven't read Perry Stone, but I have no reason to believe that he knows the subject better than anyone else on the subject so I but the point is, I think they're all kind of taken a wrong approach.

You're saying that to understand Revelation correctly, you have to send in light of what's going on today will how do we know that you know people have Christians have understood Revelation various ways throughout the history and and and and it's all always been the case that they thought that their day was the key to understanding so why would our day necessarily be the key to understanding it.

This is what I refer to as newspaper exegesis, that is to say proper exegesis is when you read the Bible and seek to understand the meaning of it by drawing from the text itself and and comparing Scripture with Scripture that's good exegesis, newspaper exegesis is when you read the newspaper forgot what the Bible talking about. Well, that's not a very good way to do exegesis and those who have done so I share with you. I've read many books Michael who did so over the past 60 years that I've been a Christian and the you know after a few years there books are are out of out of print and in some cases, or they should be, because they been discredited. I read I read a book about Bible prophecy interpreting Revelation certainly that was written between World War I and World War II and the guy who wrote it, thought that that was the end times and then of course how Lindsay believe that he was a he thought the end had to come before 1988. He felt the rapture to come by 1981, EEs missed that by a fair bit.

We've had people like Harold camping who set dates based on what he understood Scripture to be saying that a lot of this is based on newspaper exegesis to and in fact, we've had the the blood moons phase which was taken from the whole.

The moon should be turned to blood prophecy and it was way off of the click click clearly had no validity at all. Get many books were sold based upon it.

You may not remember the fact during the deserts operation Desert Storm when Saddam Hussein was. You are a threat a lot of principle he's rebuilding ancient Babylon and he's wants to rule from babbling and so a number of Bible teachers wrote books that became big sellers during that very brief period of time trying to help. Babbling is arising because Revelation 17 says babbling to arise and therefore because no one had ever said no Bible scholar never believe the revelations talk about literal babbling in Iraq but when Saddam Hussein started the building I went. Everyone was in all of the Bible said I know this is can happen. It's amazing how the newspapers change the meaning of Scripture from year to year and you are not really interested in what personally think is happening in the world today because I've seen other people equally convinced and I'd rather you know, in interpreting Revelation, I'd rather take the same approach is taking to interpret the rest of the Bible that is understand what the words mean in the Greek what how the parallel with other things.

The Bible says on similar subjects, and so forth and I will I've reached somewhat different conclusions than yourself. However, I grant every man the right to believe whatever he wants to about the book of Revelation. That's fine with me but I'm not and I can follow up a book connecting thanks to modern times. Why should I do that I've lived too long to trust that kind of a method that Dr. Michael from Phoenix, Arizona. Michael look into the narrow path to calling you very much. I'll try to get bottle wanted the duration of time. If you were to go back to the analogy that an agreement today that dinner out early from anatomy probably 5000 year period of time that about your statement about the genealogies and go back. From the time of Christ to Adam. Usually you come up with a date like 4004 BC and Mike Mike real question from thank you how to lie, put that in perspective, we may say that they have been covered, no awful remains of human backdated far back of the hundred 90 years old, felt the I think that was as much of a grain of salt as the scientist to say that the dinosaur bones are 65 to 70 million years old and yet they find them with soft bone marrow and other soft tissue and even blood vessels and things like that that are stretchy in others are not fossilized they're not there not millions and millions of years old.

At least they aren't acting like stuff that settled you know, I would say when we say scientists say this or that. We have to realize that scientists are people and not all scientists have the same opinion about things.

There are many scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old and there are many scientists there. Certainly the minority of the moment they used to be a majority but now they're a minority substance. A lot of them out there who believe the earth is thousands of years old I don't I don't care healthier for us to tell you the truth, but it's impossible to say science has proven this or that because there's it's it's really quite scientists say, and scientists are not the same thing as science. Science means knowledge. Scientists are people who have subjective opinions and there is no such thing as proof that the earth is a certain age.

What there is is evidence that can be pressed into the service of one theory or another and there are some scientists whose worldview compel them to see all the evidence necessarily in terms of of a naturalistic way of looking at the universe which requires that evolution had to happen over billions of years and therefore everything that all the evidence this evening have to press it into the mold of a of the world is billions of years old and now whether the Evans actually supports that are not is you know something for a specialist are smarter than me to really decide but one thing is clear this scientists are not the evidence doesn't prove something. The evidence supports one theory or another and there are guys on both sides and women who were expert scientists who believe that they have evidence for their position and so you know it. It sums as well. How can you believe the Bible is true in science says such of such what you saying who are you who you calling science what human being is called science.

You mean you me, there are scientists who say that yeah there also. There are scientists who are Hindus and are scientists who are Jews and are scientists or Muslims under scientists are Christians or scientists were atheist and a lot of markedly different things about stuff because their worldviews are different from each other. We happen to be living at a time where Western civilization is dominated by what's called the naturalistic materialistic worldview and so all the data is very popularly interpreted through that worldview. But we don't have to worry about that because the worldview is not supported scientifically, that is to say there's you don't you don't derive it in a worldview through science you you interpret science through worldview. Now they have atheistic materialistic world. I don't think there's any support for that at all. I think reality supports materialistic world. I think there's a lot more reality that fits better with the supernatural's worldview and in most scientists don't even consider that, but the real questions gotta be. Has God told us anything about it.

If so, where might we find his words about that. And Christians believe that the Bible is that place where God has revealed himself to Moses and the prophets, and through Christ and the apostles and that the biblical authors writing by revelation from God deftly came up with some different ideas than those which are popular among atheists, but even if the only difference between them was one was atheist. One is believing God, I have to go with those who believe in God as being more reliable. Now if those who are atheists also have to press every bit of evidence in nature into the service of their atheistic theory. Well, I'm not respect that approach strictly but if I have a word from God, and I think that that probably is more authoritative than any man, then I think that's a respectable position. It's only if there's no God, and he hasn't, or there is a God who has revealed that we would be in the position that ask scientists to tell us everything is God has told us important things. I personally don't have it from the same. I appreciate your call to router time listening to the narrow path radio broadcast.

My name is Steve Greg. As I mentioned earlier were listener supported. We pay for the time on radio stations run quite a few stations and cost a lot of money like to write to us.

You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593. You can also donate from the website that everything at the website is free. It's the narrow path.com and I hope your tennis again will talk someone –


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