The Narrow Path 10/21

Music Playing Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon. We have an open phone line. You call in with your questions and we talk about them.

If you have a different viewpoint from the host, feel free to call in and we'll talk about that as well. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Darryl calling from Portland, Oregon. Darryl, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hello, Darryl. Are you there? Yes, how you doing?

Okay, I'm doing really good. My son was referencing that there was possibly spiked wine in the New Testament churches of that time. He referenced the Corinthians that they're saying that the cup of drinking from the cup of demons was a reference to that.

Do you have any information on that? You mean wine that was spiked with drugs or something? Yeah, that's what he's verifying, yeah. Well, I don't know what the customs were of the heathen. I don't think I would get that information from what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10 there where he talked about you can't drink and eat at the table of the devil and at the table of the Lord at the same time. I don't think he was talking about the contents of what they were eating and drinking so much that they were at the feasts of idolaters eating food sacrificed to idols that were served up to the public as a usually as in honor of the demonic gods. And so just as Christians would take their love feast, their agape feast in honor of remembering Christ, so the idol temples would have these feasts honoring their gods. So it was the fact that some Christians were actually doing both.

They were participating in the church and in the Christian love feasts, and they were also going to these public feasts in the idol temples. And the problem was not really what was served there. I mean, I don't know if they had spiked wine or not.

They might have. I wouldn't deny it, but I don't think that'd be the significant point. I don't think he's saying, you know, this is the devil's table because they're spiking the wine. He's saying, this is the devil's temple because they're worshiping the devil.

And so that would be my treatment of that particular verse. What they may have put in the wine at these feasts, I don't know. I haven't studied that out, and I don't think it would make a difference to Paul's point. Yeah, he was even referencing that Uranus was saying that he was chastising some churches for love potions and stuff like that. He referenced that being spiked wine too, but I don't know.

Well, I don't know. It could be. I mean, is this whole discussion intended to point out that the Bible would see it as inappropriate for Christians to use drugs or something like that?

Is that the issue here or the concern? He's trying to validate that validating that his drug experiences and that Christianity takes part of the same. So, yeah. You mean he's trying to say that the Bible is teaching that it's okay for Christians to drink spiked wine?

Is that the point? Well, that he can drink spiked wine or use drugs because Christians used it in the first century. Well, Christians did a lot of things. There were some Christians living—there was a guy in the Christian church who lived in sexual immorality with his stepmother.

That doesn't make it a right thing to do. In fact, the Bible says that he had to be brought under church discipline for that. When Paul talks about Christians eating at the table of demons, he says, you can't do that if you're a Christian.

So, there's no sense in which that would be approved. So, I mean, if you could historically find that, in fact, some Christians were drinking wine that had some consciousness-altering chemicals added to it, that would in no sense say and therefore it's okay. Not everything Christians do are okay. And especially if Irenaeus was speaking about that, I'm sure he's expressing his disapproval. Paul was certainly expressing his disapproval of eating at the table of demons in 1 Corinthians 10. So, you know, the whole practice itself is not endorsed. If anything, it would be condemned. But again, I don't think it has to do with drugs. I don't think Paul's talking about that.

But if somebody said, yeah, I think it is about that, well, it's a condemnation of whatever they were doing. It's not an endorsement. Okay. Thanks a lot. Okay, Darrell. Thanks for your call. John from Jackson, Wyoming. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Hey, Steve. Would you explain the position of pre-millennial, post-trib people and why you reject it? Well, that's a position I actually transitioned through on my way out of dispensationalism. For those who don't know, pre-millennialism is the idea that there's a millennial or a thousand years of Christ reigning on earth that will occur after Jesus comes back. That is, He will return before a thousand-year millennium. And so it's a pre-millennial return of Christ. They call it pre-millennialism. Now, among people who are pre-millennialists, there are two different major groups. One is the dispensational group, and one is the historic pre-millennial group. The historic pre-millennial group would be those who hold a form of pre-millennialism that was held actually by some of the Church Fathers in the first three centuries. Some of the Church Fathers were, in fact, pre-millennial, but they didn't hold to the distinctives of the modern system called dispensationalism. Both systems, the historic pre-millennial and the dispensational pre-millennial, have something in common, and that is that they believe that Jesus will set up a thousand-year reign on earth when He comes back. But the differences between them—you mentioned one of them—is that the historic pre-millennialists do not believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. That is, the dispensationalists, the modern system, have created an idea that there's a seven-year tribulation before Jesus comes back, which is preceded by the removal of the Church from the earth, that God's going to take them away—take us away—before this seven-year tribulation. And then Jesus will come back at the end of the seven years and set up the millennial kingdom. That's the dispensational view. There's the rapture, and then there's a seven-year tribulation, and then there's the coming of Christ and the establishment of the millennial kingdom.

That's the dispensational program. Now, the historical pre-millennials did not believe in this pre-tribulational rapture. They believed that the Church would be raptured, of course, and resurrected, as the Bible teaches, but they believed that wouldn't happen until the end of time—that is, until Jesus comes back. But they still believe that when Jesus does come back, He will set up a millennial kingdom. So both views are pre-millennial, but one of them is pre-tribulational rapture. That would be the dispensational system, and the other would be post-tribulational rapture.

They believe the rapture happens at the end. Now, I was raised as a dispensationalist, so I believed in a pre-tribulational rapture and a future millennium. As I was studying on my own, one of the first things that changed in my view was the pre-tribulational rapture. I moved my position from being pre-tribulational to post-tribulational because, I mean, at this early stage of my studying, I was realizing that nothing in the Bible predicts a pre-tribulational rapture.

In fact, it says the opposite. It says that Christians will go through tribulation. It says that Jesus will raise His people on the last day, not seven years before the last day. So it became clear the Bible nowhere teaches and, in fact, denies a pre-tribulational rapture, so I adopted the post-tribulation pre-millennial view. That is what we call the historic pre-millennial. But I hadn't studied the millennium question yet.

In fact, I didn't even know there was a question about it. I knew from the beginning that some people didn't believe in a pre-trib rapture like I did. But I didn't know that any Christians didn't believe in a future millennium.

My teachers never informed me of that. And as I studied the millennial question later, after I'd already become a historic pre-millennialist and I'd given up the pre-tribulational rapture, my further studies led me to see the whole millennial question differently. And by the way, I changed my mind entirely on my study of the Scripture. I was not aware when I was making this transition in my view about the millennium that anyone had ever doubted that Jesus will set up a millennial kingdom because I figured that's what the whole church always believed. And yet, as I studied the Scripture, I began to have some problems with certain parts of that doctrine. And then as I studied further, I had problems with other parts of that doctrine and then others. Eventually, I had to abandon the pre-millennial view altogether, but I didn't know that I had embraced now something that anyone else had ever held. I just thought, maybe I'm the only person who just can't see the pre-millennial view in this passage or in the Bible at all. And then later, some years later, I encountered another person who had the view I had come to, and I was informed. This view is called amillennialism. It's the view that the church held for at least 1,500 years. And so I was a little relieved because I thought maybe I was a heretic, but I couldn't not believe what I saw. The Scripture is fairly plain against pre-millennialism and for what I now know to be called amillennialism. So I became an amillennialist without knowing there was such a thing, and I was relieved to learn that there was not only such a thing, but it was the majority view of the church throughout history.

So that's what I went through. And so I fully understand the ethos of historic pre-millennialism. But for me, historic pre-millennialism was just a transitional point between my dispensationalism and my amillennialism.

I've heard you reference F.F. Bruce before. Was he amillennial?

You know what? He was not technically amillennial. He was actually dispensationalist, but he didn't believe in dispensationalism. He was Plymouth Brethren.

Now, the dispensational view was created in the Plymouth Brethren movement, and the Plymouth Brethren movement has been officially dispensational in their viewpoint. And he was a lifetime Plymouth Brethren, but he did reject a lot of the things in dispensationalism. And when he actually would exegete passages, he exegeted them just like an amillennialist. But he didn't ever call himself a dispensationalist, because he didn't agree with much in it. But I don't think he ever called himself an amillennialist. In fact, I think I've read his treatment of Revelation 20 before that gave me the impression he still thought that it's talking about a future millennium, but he didn't talk eschatology very much. F.F. Bruce talked more about theology in general, and a lot of the things that amillennialists say about theology in general, he said in his commentaries.

So he never sounded very much like a dispensationalist or a premillennialist at all. Well, thanks, Steve. All right. God bless you, John. Thanks for your call. Abraham from Spokane, Washington.

Welcome to The Narrow Path. Good to talk to you, Abraham. Thank you very much, Steve. The honor of mine. Thank you.

So a couple of technical questions here before I ask my biblical question. Sometimes when I hear callers phone in to the broadcast, I hear an echo. And I don't know if you hear it. Just as a I mean, if I could be so bold, a friendly reminder to all the callers, when you call into the radio broadcast, please turn your radios down. I don't know if that's the cause of the echo that's coming through on the radio. Sometimes it may be.

Yeah, sometimes it might be, and preventing people from either hearing the caller's questions or hearing your responses. Anyway, second question. Donations through the website. Do you utilize PayPal for that purpose?

Well, there is. Yeah, there is a PayPal option. Yeah, I mean, at the website, there's a link that says a tab that says donations. And it basically gives our mailing address if people want to send donations.

That would also give a few options. PayPal is one of them. QuickPay, I think, is another one, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not familiar with these. I don't really use these payment options. But the creator of our website was able to include them.

So, yes, I believe we get a substantial amount of the support for the program through PayPal. Thank you for that. So on to my biblical questions of the mesa. So Revelation 22, verse two, and if you've covered these topics before in your audio lectures on the website, just direct me to them and I'll leave room for other people to call in and ask their questions. Revelation 22, verse two. What do you think regarding the resurrected, glorified members of the body of Christ? Will they need to eat to live in the world to come after the second Advent?

That's the first question I had. Second unrelated question in Matthew seven and verse 23. And then Matthew 25, verse 41, where he's speaking about those he asks to depart from him. Is this part of the same group? Is there actually a third group of people that are, I mean, there's only the sheep on the one side and the goats on the other side as listed in the great final judgment passage of Matthew 25. But is there a group known as the lost, a group known as the hypocrites, and a group known as the seradors, or is it just two groups? So Matthew seven and Matthew 25 talking about the same group of people who are asked to depart. That's my second question.

Third question. In the glorified state, what does serving look like in the glorified resurrected state in Revelation 22? What does serving the Lord look like, in your opinion? All right. Now, I was trying to understand your first question from Revelation 22, too. You were saying, is it necessary to, what, live in a glorified body?

What was your question there? Yes, sir. No, it talks about the, you know, of course, you know this passage better than I do, about the leaves of the trees being for the healing of the nations and so forth.

Yeah. Is it necessary for, will it be necessary for Christians to eat, to live in the resurrected glorified state? Well, I don't know the answer to that because much of this is symbolic. We are certainly described as eating, you know, with Christ in the kingdom and, you know, eating at His table and the wedding feast and things like that. A lot of language of eating is found in these descriptions, but frankly, most of these descriptions are in very highly symbolic passages where it may be that what we, you know, what the function of eating for us might be a different function in our new state, but I don't know.

I just take it for granted we probably will eat, but I guess I'll have to wait and find out. I take, you know, I recognize the symbolism of Revelation, but when I don't see any reason to necessarily take it symbolically, I by default take many things fairly literally, but with an open mind that maybe this is not going to be as literal as we might think of it. As far as the people at the judgment, whether the hypocrites and the goats and so forth are all the same, whether it's just two groups or more, I don't know the answer to that either. The sheep and the goats parable obviously separates the fates of the sheep from that of the goats, and we only have those two mentioned, but there's also mention in the parable of his brethren. He says to the sheep, inasmuch as you did this to my brethren, you did it to me, and to the goats, inasmuch as you did not do this to my brethren, you did not do it to me. Now, I generally assume that the brethren are the same as the sheep. That is to say, Christ's brothers are those who have God as their father, and therefore they are part of His flock.

But one could argue—I wouldn't do it myself—but one could argue that there's actually three categories there. There's the brethren, and then there's the sheep who treated the brethren well, and then there's the goats who did not treat the brethren well. So, you know, we're only told what happened to the sheep and the goats, and therefore I think there's really only two groups. But one could argue, not necessarily very persuasively, I think, that there might be a third group that are the brethren, and their destiny is simply not in the picture. It's not discussed. And your last point was— What does serving look like in the glorified state?

Right. Again, we'll have to see how that is, but it's this idea that forever people are going to sit on clouds with halos playing harps is certainly not a biblical picture. It's more of a parody based on some of the symbolic visions of John in Revelation, chapter 4 and 5, but Revelation 21 and 22, where the saints of God serve God, that's also a highly symbolic passage, so it's hard to know—I mean, we're not given a description. The interesting thing, maybe perplexing to some, is that the Bible speaks very little detail about heaven or hell. There's just not very many passages that even talk about it, and the ones that do talk about it are very brief, usually undetailed, and the details that are given are usually couched in a lot of symbolism. So it must be God's intention that we don't know a lot about it yet.

It's not His intention that He bribes us with descriptions of glory and so forth. We're told that there is a destiny like that, but most of God's communication to us has to do with how He wants us to live, and because of that, He doesn't really describe what serving Him will look like. In some of the parables, Jesus describes it as His servants who have been good stewards will reign with Him over cities, you know, one over five cities, one over ten cities in the parable of the minas in Luke chapter 19, but that, too, is a parable, and it may not really connect in a literal one-to-one sense with what we're going to be doing. So I honestly don't—I don't know that I could give you a description because I don't think the Bible does, but there will be a creation to rule over, and there will be other living creatures, animals or what.

I don't know. I mean, I don't know what's going to be there, but something is to be ruled over. God's original intention in making Adam and Eve was to rule over the animals, and perhaps in some sense over nature in general. Whether that's going to be how we serve Him in the new earth or whether it's going to be greatly expanded to ruling over other people, I don't know. We just aren't given enough information.

As I say, the information that we do have is usually not in passages of the most literal sort, so even if we would collect the information that's there, it's not always possible to know if the information is stated in terms that, you know, that are literal, and it might simply represent something very unlike what we're familiar with. As always, I really appreciate your detailed answers and your patience with all of your callers. Thank you so much again for your time this afternoon, sir. Thank you, Abraham. Good talking to you. God bless you. God bless you. Bye. All right, thank you. We're going to talk next to John from San Diego.

John, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Thanks for taking my call, but I'm not as prepared as I thought I was to call. You're not prepared, you say?

No, not completely. Okay, that's fine. Just call back when you're more prepared. I appreciate that.

It's good to be aware of that. You know, some people, when they call, they're not at all prepared, but they don't seem to realize it. They just kind of ramble on. By the way, I'm trying to hang up that call to go on to another call, but my equipment is not responding very well. If you're listening yesterday, my equipment cut out altogether, and that was really a bad thing, but I'm on the road. I'm traveling, and therefore, I'm not really using my home equipment. I'm using remote equipment, and it depends very much on the Internet, and I'm using a portable Wi-Fi device from Verizon, and sometimes it's really hard to get steady service out of it, which is a bad thing for a radio program. Okay, we're working now a little bit.

I think it's a little slow. Michael from Sacramento, California is next, and once again, my computer's not responding. So, studio, would you put on Michael for me? Michael, are you there? Am I on?

Yes, you're on. Thank you. Hi, Steve. Hey, great. Thank you.

Hi. So, my question is about 2 Peter 3, 10 through 13. You know, most treatments of that I've read hold this passage to be clearly referencing the end of the physical universe, the literal destruction of all things, the world and such, and there are so many examples in the Old Testament of apocalyptic language, very, very similar to that.

Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, we can go through lots of those, where God comes in judgment, and mountains melt like wax, and the collapsing universe language, the destruction, it looks like the stars are falling from the heavens and so on, but what happens is God is judging the nations. So, is there any reason why the 2 Peter passage should be taken differently than those passages? Well, I take it more literally, and I am a partial Preterist, which means I recognize that a lot of passages, which we might think are about the Second Coming, actually, because of the apocalyptic imagery they use, are really talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 7 AD. Now, there are plenty of Preterists who believe that Peter, in 2 Peter 3, verses 10-13, is not describing the end of the universe and the creation of a literal new heavens, new earth, but they see it as the end of the old order. The reason I don't is because, it's rather complicated, but I realize that new heavens, new earth is a term that Isaiah used, actually, I think, for the new order, the New Testament system, and the passing of the Old Testament. So, some people think, well, to be consistent, you should see the same terminology that way in 2 Peter, and in Revelation, and things like that. Well, to tell you the truth, the reason I don't is because I take every passage in its own context, and in terms of 2 Peter, I just don't think that the people that Peter was writing to, which was Gentile region churches, I don't think that they were as conversant in apocalyptic language as we would require them to be, and as Peter would require them to be, if he was not speaking literally. He said, what we're looking forward to, as Christians, isn't a new heavens, new earth.

Now, Paul said, on the same subject, and I think Paul and Peter would have addressed their Gentile audiences with similar theology, and probably similar clarity. In Romans chapter 8, Paul said that, you know, the creation was subjected to futility, but only temporarily. It groans and travails, awaiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, and he says, for, you know, it's going to be delivered. It says the creation is going to be delivered from the bondage of decay when the sons of God are manifested, and Paul says that's going to be at the redemption of our body, or our adoption. Now, of course, preterists often will say, well, all of that is language referring to the change from the old covenant to the new, but I think that he's talking about the fall of the earth being undone, and in 2 Peter, same. He says the earth was destroyed with water in the past. The heavens, the earth, and a new heaven, the new earth came after the flood. He says, and we're looking for the destruction of the present heavens and earth with fire. Now, I think the flood actually destroyed the real world, the real world of human society, and I think that Peter is making a comparison there. The world's going to be destroyed again, and it's currently, since the flood's been, it's been kept by the Word of God until its destruction.

I just feel like the whole flow of thought from Peter fits better into the traditional way of understanding it than to the preterist way. I'm going to keep you on hold here and come back to you. I need to take a break right now. We have a half hour coming up. Don't go away.

I'll be back in 30 seconds. Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith you want to ask, or if you have a different view from the host you'd like to bring up, feel free to do so. I'll give you the phone number, but our lines are full at the moment, and so you won't be able to immediately get through, but if you call in a few minutes, perhaps you'll find a line opened up.

The number is 844-484-5737. And just before we took our break, I was talking to Michael from Sacramento, and his question was, and Michael, you're back with me, I guess. In 2 Peter 3, when Peter says in the day of the Lord that the heavens will be dissolved and the earth will be burned up and the elements will melt with the fervent heat, and then in verse 13 it says, and we, according to his promise, look for new heavens, new earth, in which dwell righteousness. What Michael has asked here is why do I not see that as a symbolic, rather apocalyptic description of the fall of Jerusalem, the end of the old order, depicted as the old creation of the old heavens and earth, and the coming of the new creation, the new heavens and the new earth, which is the new covenant. Now, this is the way many preterists understand 2 Peter 3, and I understand some of that language the same way in other passages, notably in Isaiah chapter 65 and 66. I tend to see that as referring to the transition of the old order to the new order, when it talks about the new heavens and the new earth and so forth. And full preterists, if nothing else, they are consistent. I mean, that is, they insist upon it.

In fact, that's full strength. They believe that if you find that some passages use certain terms to mean something in one place, well, then any time you find the same term somewhere else, it's necessarily talking about the same thing. And to do otherwise, like I'm doing, I'm doing otherwise. I recognize the passage of the old order for the new in the language of new heaven, new earth, in Isaiah, but I don't see it that way in 2 Peter 3 or in Revelation 21 and 22. And so Michael's asking me why I don't.

And I was kind of rushing there because a break was upon us. Both Paul in Romans 8 and Peter in 2 Peter 3 tell us that the hope of the Christian is to be delivered from the effects of the fall. He said the whole creation was subjected to futility, Paul said in Romans 8, but it's looking forward to the time when it will be delivered from that bondage to decay at the time of the redemption of our bodies, which I take to be the resurrection from the dead. And I don't believe that, I mean, it's very clear that what Paul's talking about is the same creation that was unwillingly subjected to futility, which has to refer, I think, to what happened in Genesis, that that same creation was looking forward to being delivered from that. And that'll happen when Jesus raises us from the dead, so at His second coming. So Paul sees the end of this creation fallen and the removal of the curse taking place when Jesus comes back and raises our bodies.

That's how I understand him. I think Peter's talking the same way. Peter says, you know, the earth, the heavens, the earth that were before the flood were wiped out with water, but the world that's been ever since is being held and reserved to be destroyed by fire. Now, he talks about it being the same world, the same world that was flooded by water is the one that's going to be burned up. That didn't destroy the whole world, even the flood didn't completely annihilate the entire universe or, you know, full destruction, it flooded the whole world. So if you're comparing the flood to the fire, if they had the same result, you know. Well, yeah, I think so, but it's the same world.

That's the thing. He says the world before the flood was wiped out with water, and the world since then is being reserved to be wiped out by fire. I'm not arguing that the flood brought about the total annihilation of the world or the cosmos. No, no, I'm saying it didn't. I'm saying it didn't, yeah.

Right, and I'm not saying it did. What I'm saying is I don't think the fire necessarily is the annihilation of the whole cosmos either. I think that as the world was cleansed by water and all sin and evil society was washed away by water, that that's the same thing that fire will do. It says in 2 Thessalonians 1 that Jesus will come in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who don't know God and who don't obey the gospel. Now, of course, predators would say that, too, is about the destruction of Jerusalem. And, you know, if Paul was talking to the Thessalonians who were in Greece about what's going to happen to the Jews in Jerusalem, then I guess that would be a possible way of understanding Paul. But, see, the full prejudice doesn't take into account that some of the people Paul's writing to are Gentiles, fairly newly converted before he wrote to them, and probably not very schooled in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and therefore they would not naturally take these words in the way that a Jewish apocalypticist would. And knowing that, I think that these writers would write in words that their readers should understand, and so I think they're writing more literally. I could be wrong, but that's why I believe it.

That's why I believe it. Likewise, the new heavens, new earth in Revelation 21, it comes at the end of a thousand years, which we call the millennium, but I take to be the age of the church. Full prejudice usually say that thousand years just represents the period from the death of Jesus until 70 A.D., and then, of course, the new heavens, new earth came.

But this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible doesn't teach that the new creation came in 70 A.D. Paul wrote all of his letters before 70 A.D., and he said if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. So there is a sense in which the new order is a new creation, but it didn't come in 70 A.D. It came in 30 A.D. So, I mean, to me, there's an artificiality about full preterism that's a wooden literalism, which is the hobgoblin of small minds, I think Emerson or someone said that.

But the point is that you can be too consistent because you're insisting on a universality of meaning of a certain term when there's no reason the authors should have felt themselves bound to such a universality. So you would apply the Matthew 24 to being A.D. 70 based on the fact that it was to a Jewish audience, because clearly that has very similar— Right, versus 30 through 32 there where it talks very apocalyptically. I do tend to see that as being about A.D. 70, but I'm not 100 percent sure about that even. I mean, I'm open to the possibility—I do believe the tribulation of those days begins in the Jewish war, but I'm not sure that the tribulation of the Jews ended in 70 A.D. I think when Jesus said there would be great tribulation, he didn't say how long it will last. It could be argued that the tribulation of the Jews is not finished yet, that the tribulation, you know, is that which began in 66 A.D. with the Jewish war and has not yet been ended, because there's no mention of how long the tribulation is in the Bible. So one reason I say that possibility exists for me, because then in Matthew 24 Jesus immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be dark and the moon should turn to blood, the stars will fall from heaven, and so forth. That could be entirely apocalyptic.

It could be entirely about 70 A.D. I know the cross-references in the Old Testament that would justify every line in that section being applied to a judgment within history, but I also know that the parallel in Luke 21, when it's talked about this tribulation, it says, and Jerusalem should be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Now, I guess we'd have to decide what are the times of the Gentiles, and I may be wrong, but I take the times of the Gentiles to be probably the times where God is largely drawing Gentiles to Himself rather than Israel, which is a time that I think we're still living in. So the period of the trampling of Jerusalem, which could be the tribulation Jesus talked about in Matthew 24, is in Luke 21 said to last until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, which I would say has not been fulfilled yet. So, you know, it could be that that whole tribulation of those days, after which the sun turns to dark and so forth, I still think the description is apocalyptic. I don't think that when Jesus comes back that literally stars are going to fall to the earth.

I think that's an apocalyptic thing, but it could be that the coming of the Son of Man in clouds could possibly be His actual second coming, as many people believe, but I'm also prepared for another view. I'm undecided on that. When I teach on the Olivet Discourse, I give both possibilities. Gotcha. All right, well, good stuff. Thanks so much for answering, Christian. Okay, Michael, God bless you. Good talking to you. Okay, our next caller is Carolyn from Black Diamond. I don't even know where Black Diamond, what state that's in, but welcome, Carolyn.

Hi, thank you. Okay, so when are you saved? My daughter and I were talking about somebody and I said that, well, I don't know that he's quite saved. He still doesn't want to follow all of Jesus' commandments. He doesn't want to.

He doesn't have a wanter that wants to. He still skims around things, and she says, well, if he believes, he's saved, and my thought is, well, Satan believes, and he trembles. He's not saved. Well, if someone says, if he believes he's saved, I'd have to ask, if he believes what? What is it he believes? If he believes that Jesus existed, well, you're right, the devil believes that, too. If he believes Jesus is the Son of God, well, the devil believes that also. If he believes Jesus died and rose again, well, the devil believes that, too. What does this person believe that the devil doesn't believe? No, he believes that Jesus died on the cross for him and that he's at the right hand of God now.

And? He believes, so he's saved. And what does it mean for Jesus to be at the right hand of God? He's enthroned. He's a king.

He's Lord. Saved in heaven. Well, he didn't just change venues from earth to heaven. He went to heaven in order to sit on the throne at the right hand of his Father and to reign over his kingdom from that point, and he's been reigning ever since. And Paul said he will reign until he's put all his enemies under his feet.

The point is, if you believe Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of God, you're not believing a Christian doctrine unless that includes the idea he's enthroned there. He's the king. He's the Lord. And Paul said... Well, if he believes that, then is he saved when he still doesn't want to follow all the commandments like he says he'll never forgive so and so?

Well, no. I mean, if someone says, I believe Jesus is the Lord, again, the devil believes that too. The difference between the devil and a believer is the believer not only knows it's true but embraces it and approves of it.

You know? I mean, the devil doesn't approve of it. He doesn't embrace it, but he knows it's true.

Your friend may also know that it's true, but if he's not embracing it, then his faith is no different than the devil's faith. If you believe that Jesus is the Lord, well, then you have to see that I'm either subject to him as a slave, because that's what a Lord is. He's someone who owns slaves. I am either his slave, and I've got to do what he said.

That's my obligation. Or else I'm a rebel, and rebels against God are not saved. Rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft, the Bible says.

But we're all being perfected as time goes on. I mean, there is a space where you just aren't that good about following the commandments, and then you get better and better, hopefully. Well, when you become a true believer in Jesus' lordship, you re-identify yourself as a servant of his, which means every waking moment, my obligation is to serve and obey him. Now, of course, I'm not a perfect servant, and although I know I'm supposed to and even want to serve him, sometimes I fail. Sometimes I sin. Sometimes I stumble.

There are times when I trip up. But that doesn't change my understanding of what my duty is. You know, I mean, you can fail to do your duty, but unless you redefine your duty to fit your failures, you have to recognize that though I failed, the thing I failed to do is what I should be doing. It's what I'm required to do. And so anyone who knows that Jesus is Lord knows that they must obey him. And if someone says, But you don't do it perfectly, fair enough. But I still know I must obey him, and it's my determination to do so.

You know, sure, I'll make mistakes, but that's part of being a human being. Like Jesus said, The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. He said about his disciples, when he told them to obey, staying awake and praying, and they didn't. They fell asleep. They didn't obey him, but they wanted to.

Their flesh was weak. Jesus knows that he knows whether our spirit is willing or not. You know, a person who doesn't.

Well, I'm trying to get the fine point of that. She said, Well, he is saved because he believes. And I said, Well, he doesn't believe enough or thoroughly.

He's not trying. He doesn't. I'm not sure he believes. I'm not sure he believes because I mean, he believes something.

He believes certain historic facts and truths about Jesus. But like I said, the devil believes all those same facts and truths about Jesus. The difference is the devil has not submitted to those truths.

The devil knows that Jesus is Lord, and every Christian better know that, too. But unless you're submitted to that truth, you're rebelling against it. And rebelling against it is what you have to repent of to become a Christian. So, you know, you don't have to do any number of good works to be saved. Somebody's been writing to me who's having a real hard time understanding this lately.

We've been dialoguing. He seems to think that what I'm saying is you have to do a certain number of good works to prove you're a Christian. If you don't do a number of good works in a certain quantity or something, then, you know, you're not a Christian.

I've never said anything like that. I mean, some people have asked me, How many times can you sin and still be saved? Well, I don't know the number. There's no higher limit given to us. I mean, Jesus said, If your brother sins against you 490 times, 70 times 7, you should forgive him every time. And that's because we're supposed to forgive like God does. God doesn't place, as far as I know, an upper limit or a ceiling on the number of sins He can forgive. We're not saved by doing fewer sins or lost by doing a certain number of sins. We're saved by being identified as Christ's followers and servants. And obviously the difference between believing and actually being saved is when you actually want to serve God in everything you do.

You have a want to please Him all the time and not some of the time. Right. That would be the fruit of real repentance.

Yeah, that would be the fruit of true conversion. Okay, that's okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Carolyn, for your call. God bless you.

Linda from Cedar Ridge, California. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hi.

My phone's gonna beep, but I just have to ignore it. My question is on sanctification, and I was having a discussion with someone, and this person believes that it's a one-time event that happens at salvation. I believe it is a process. And then my question is, does God do the sanctifying, or are we sanctifying ourselves by the way we live? And any Scriptures that you could give me on sanctification being a process would be greatly appreciated. Okay, well, the problem with this question is defining the word sanctified. The writer of Hebrews uses the word sanctified to simply mean the objective fact that God has set believers aside to be His own people. The word sanctified means set apart. And so the writer of Hebrews speaks as if, well, God did that when we were saved. He's using it almost as synonymous with the justified, that those who are sanctified in the book of Hebrews refers to every Christian, and it seems to identify their sanctifications taking place when they became Christians. But the word sanctified also is sometimes used to refer to behaving in a holy way.

You know, Peter said in 1 Peter 1, verse 15, I think it's verse 15, or maybe 14, he said, As He who has called you is holy, be holy in all manner of behavior. Now, being set apart for God is what sanctification means. That's an objective reality that God makes true the moment you pass from death into life, the moment you're born again. When you're His, you are now part of the group that is set apart to be His.

It's an objective thing. But sanctification is often spoken of in its subjective aspect, that now that I know that God has set me apart from sin, I need to start living that way. I need to start living like somebody who's set apart for God. I need to set myself apart for God.

That is in my choices and my behaviors. That's why Peter says, Be holy, or sanctified, in all manner of conduct. So some people, when they talk about sanctification, they're talking about the process of becoming a better person. There are some, Wesleyans, for example, who have taught that sanctification actually removes your sin nature. That's what Wesley taught, and that it's a second work of grace after conversion, and that every Christian should seek to be entirely sanctified.

But they see it as sort of a crisis experience like conversion, but not at the same time as conversion. I personally think that what the Bible teaches about me becoming more consistently one who lives in a holy way, or in a way that's set apart for God, I think it talks about the process of growth. In 2 Corinthians chapter 3 and verse 18, 2 Corinthians 3.18, he said, You know, we all with unenveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being changed from glory to glory into that same image, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. So he talked about the Spirit of God changing us into the image of Christ one step at a time, from glory to glory into that same image.

That's a process. You know, Peter said in 2 Peter 3.18 that we should grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Well, that growth in grace and in knowledge is going to be also accompanied by a growth in holy conduct.

And that is to make more consistency in it. As we become more mature, as we become stronger, as we become wiser, we will sin less. And, you know, from the moment that you're converted, God has re-identified you.

He's reassigned you to the group that are His, set apart for Himself. So that's an objective reality at conversion. That seems, to my mind, to be the way the writer of Hebrews uses the word sanctify.

That's what I'm saying, actually. Yeah, see, as you read the word sanctify in Hebrews, and it occurs quite a few times, it always seems like he's just talking about Christians are sanctified. Christians are the people that God has set apart for Himself, and that is true. But when Christians talk about sanctification in terms of practical sanctification, actually not sinning, that, I believe, the Bible, that phenomenon, I believe, is what the Bible describes as a process. And we can call that being sanctified, but it's in a different sense than the writer of Hebrews says.

So it could be a semantic thing, you know. If someone says, well, I got fully sanctified when I was saved. Okay, but if we're talking about being holy in all manner of conduct, that probably didn't happen when you were saved. I mean, that started to happen. You started to change.

You started to live differently. Can I just interject a quick question? So, does God do the sanctifying, or are we doing the sanctifying as we grow? Well, the initial sanctification is God's doing.

He separates it. But when it comes to growth, this is something that God does and we do. Remember, Paul said, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and do of his good pleasure. So he's saying that you have to work out, that is, you have to live out, the things that God is working in you. God is sanctifying you inwardly, and you, therefore, in cooperation with that, live obediently. Oh, that's better.

I like that. Yeah, so that's, you know, that's Philippians chapter 2. But I would also look at 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 on this, because it says—let's see where I want to take it here.

Here. In verse 16 and following, it says—this is 1 Thessalonians 5, 16—"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophecies, test all things, hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil. Now, may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, he said God's going to sanctify you completely, but this is as—that's God's part.

Your part is kind of lined out. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything, don't quench the Spirit, do not despise prophecies, test all things, hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil. This is what we're to do. And it says, and God will sanctify you wholly. So God is the one who, again, works in you. God is the one who changes you inside, makes the changes you are not capable of making. But we have obligations to live according to those changes, and there's no suggestion that this will happen without our cooperation.

In other words, if you're stubbornly not choosing to avoid sin or to listen to the Holy Spirit or whatever, I don't think God's going to make you wholly, you know, contrary to your own choices. Okay. Well, that's huge. I'm so appreciative, because it's been a big conversation. Okay. Well, thank you for your call. Thank you for your answer. God bless you, Linda. Ian from Tallahassee, Florida. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. Hello, Steve. Thank you.

I just had a quick question, and as I mentioned before, I really liked your model on just living on a low budget and living very wisely in that way. I've told you I've just asked questions about work before, and I had something come up serving as a worship leader at a base, but I'd have to move a long ways. And I'm just curious, what are your thoughts—the big question I have right now is what are your thoughts about someone who's a biblical Christian serving on Sundays and the like at a base, because I don't know what the chaplain or chaplains are preaching necessarily?

Yeah. Well, a military base, in other words. Well, I mean, if there's a group of Christian soldiers or sailors or Marines or something gathering together for worship, then Christ is there, and that someone could lead in worship is—I mean, I don't see anything that would make that a controversial thing from a Christian point of view. It may be that the chaplain is not a good preacher. It might not even be a very faithful preacher, but that's his problem. I think if Christians are gathering to worship and to be taught, the preacher might be very unfaithful to the Word of God, but the person leading worship doesn't have to be unfaithful.

Where people are truly worshiping and are qualified to worship God, who are his followers, then I don't see anything that would be a compromise on your part, if that's what you're considering. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, I appreciate your call. Thanks for joining us. Yeah.

God bless you. Yeah. Well, we're going to hear the closing music in just about 10 seconds here, so I'm not going to take another—oh, there it is. Quicker than I thought.

So I'm just going to say The Narrow Path is the name of this program, if you're not familiar with it. We're on every weekday at this time. Two to three on Pacific Time Zone, and of course, other time zones.

It's not the same time, but it's same time as it is now. We are listener supported. We pay for time on the radio. That's how we stay on the air. And we don't have advertisements. We don't have sponsors. We don't sell anything at our website or on the air, because we just don't sell anything.

We just trust God to provide for us to stay on the air, and He usually does it through people who think that that'd be a good idea. If you feel led to do so, you can write to us at The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593. Or you can do so from the website, thenarrowpath.com. It's thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow. God bless you.