This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
November 2, 2020 7:00 am
Welcome to pass radio broadcast my name Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week afternoon taking your calls. If you have questions about the Bible about the Christian faith. This is one place you can ask them and we can discuss them quite openly and as honestly as I know how. If you have a difference of opinion from the host want to call to express that opinion and maybe tell us why. Feel free to do so. You're welcome on the program. And even if you are, of course, if you're not a Christian and you have even objections against the Bible or Christianity. I don't object at all to calling and stating them. We can talk about it. The number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 some calls are waiting and the studio has told me that some kind of a little bit of a hang up with phone call so there's at least two colors waiting and I'm not sure how soon will be able to get him probably okay were talk first of all to Michael and Watsonville, California Mike, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling hello Michael, I guess there okay yeah but you could be louder. Still as loud as you can. That's better. Okay no better. Yes, it is all right.
I now have a YouTube I've never had that my friends that I'm renting a room from the Watsonville. She has that on her smart TV I've been watching a lot and I don't know if you're familiar with the so-called or horsemen of atheism. Sam Harris and Christopher absolutely I read the books. Yes, I know the foreign gentlemen, I'm not.
I'm not as familiar with it, okay it's it's Richard Dawkins it's Christopher Hitchens, who is now deceased, it's Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris called the four Horsemen that's right and I wanted to say between Sam Harris and William Lynn Cragg is the largest in very familiar. Yes, and one of the other connections that would raise by think Sam Harris is that the view of eternal damnation that others of being would be created and then basically thrown into the eternal suffering and apparently he was in the light of and when the other three atheist but someone said that person believe that will be shaking in their boots and afraid of being cast into the lake of fire and I don't know how many people are aware, you wrote a book called everything I could get the title that was about the alternative view of the afterlife and many Christians aren't even aware that right so so so you calling Millie to give a plug for the book know know know the book is very, very, very well written thing that is offered by one of the atheists that you and the fire and brimstone is better for the line or you're going to hell. I can I not exactly an atheist and suspense that absolute sense, but that that early in the third edition. Do speak of hell, but it's not forever. Okay yeah well okay let me let me address that if I can. What you're saying is that Sam Harris or whoever was in the debate talking about had brought the objection of eternal punishment. You didn't mention the specifics of his objection but it's an objection at all virtually all a few seven. Frankly, a lot of Christians have a lot of Christians recognize that eternal punishment is not the first was not a winsome doctrine of one reason is not winsome is it doesn't seem to be a just doctrine doesn't seem that punishment is then proportionate to guilt and God is always there to be a just God and it seems hard to know how that becomes a just punishment and and thirdly because it mimics the character of God like that.
That is, if God, you could do other things besides torture forever. Somebody who rejects him. For example, God could annihilate them. If he wants to know can tell God what he can can and cannot do right so if God wants to annihilate people. Nobody can say that he can't do so, or if he wants to get people in hell a chance to repent and be recovered for his kingdom.
Then, frankly, if God wanted to he could do that to or if he wants to burn them, torture them and keep them alive to suffer forever and ever. He he could do that so basically, hell is whatever God wants it to be because if some assessment but but but God gave free will to people and he can't help it if some people choose to reject it.
But that's not the question. The question is not whether God can keep people from rejecting them.
The question is what does God choose to do to people who do reject them and and frankly what any person chooses to do to his enemies is a very good gauge of that person's character if if, like Jesus on the cross. They say a father forgive them. They don't know what they're doing. That's that's a very merciful and generous, kind of a person. If on the other hand, a person who has enemies says I want to torture them. No hangings to good forum and I wanted to torture him and I don't ever stop being tortured. Generally speaking, we don't consider to be a very good person, or even a very civilized person.
Certainly not a Christian person because they don't have the spirit of Christ. Now of course since hell is whatever God wants it to be. Some have said since he reasonably suggested that if God could do whatever he wants it to do and he chose to keep people alive forever and ever and ever and talk to them the whole time.
Then he's not very much like Jesus because Jesus loves sinners he was a friend of sinners. He forgave even those who killed him the greatest of all crimes and so we know that Jesus is forgiving but some people because of this doctrine that God tortures people forever and ever have assumed that God must be something a little different than Jesus. In fact, polar opposite than Jesus. Yet Jesus said if you see me using the father and I am in the father father to me. Which raises serious questions why do we believe, why does anyone believe in eternal torment that God's eternal torment sinners when he doesn't have to. If he doesn't, it's only because he wants to know one answer. People sometimes give his God can do whatever he wants to please God and no one intelligent would ever argue against that. But that's not the question either.
The question is not whether God has the right to do what he wants. Whether God can vindicate himself despite doing something very horrible, seemingly but the question is, is that what God wants.
God can certainly do whatever he wants to do, but is it really what he wants to do to torture his enemies forever and ever. I don't want to torture my enemies even. Frankly, for even a minute and if I was a judge and had to condemn my enemies to punishment. I would certainly look forward. The most humane punishment. The justice would allow. And so, since God could do other things. If he chooses eternal torment. It raises questions about why he and Jesus are so different from each other in terms of their attitude toward their enemies, and this has led many people to say well, but doesn't the Bible teach eternal torment will that's frankly open to question measurements.
I wrote a book about the three views of hell and I considered know all the Scriptures in favor of eternal torment and a number Scriptures that are not in favor. I also considered all the Scriptures in favor of the idea that God annihilates people to some Christians think that's the answer I gave a chapter favoring that view in chapter critiquing that view. Finding what some people think her faults with and then there's 1/3 view of courses held by origin in ancient times, and that is a God uses hell as a place to bring people to final repentance that is less Scriptures on that side to more than you think. More than most Christians think they can read my chapter deceivers far more than they imagined. But there's also some arguments against so in my book actually give all the argument for and all the argument against each view, but because of the I guess prima fascia injustice of eternal torment. Many Christians believe that that's not what God does in theirs. They feel if they got abundant scriptural evidence for an alternative view. One of the other. So anyone who reads my book and find out that is now Sam Harris is not the only person subject to eternal torment exit.
Many Christians do CS Lewis objected to it though. He seemed to believe it. He didn't like it said if there's any doctrine I could remove from the Bible. If I have the right to move out that one. But he says I can't. And frankly you are a number of important evangelicals like well Spurgeon, for example, said that God has no love for eternal torment. JI Packer said he finds that the view of eternal torment is the printers he say about subject reason know what no sane man would want that to be true. Interesting. JI Packer believed in it said no seaman would want to say saying I believe it but I don't want to be true and doesn't mean God wants it to be true, so he's not like a sane man so I can insane man.
Interestingly, Clark Pinnock, another evangelical leader said he found the view abhorrent certainly sounded good. John RW Stott so you got a lot of important evangelicals who have said this idea of eternal torment first law is horrendous and some of them believed it anyway and some of them found in Scripture. A different doctor. This now before someone decides that they already know if they haven't studied it out.
They really should study my book is not the only place you started out with Argosy.
That's one place you can and you know Charles Darwin, one of the reasons he rejected Christianity was because of the doctrine of eternal torment, which he assumed to be taught by Christianity. I wonder what would've happened if Charles Darwin had not been taught that doctrine and had been a Christian instead how much damage she would not have done if he had been a Christian. Likewise, Anthony flew over 50 years, until fairly recent years was the leading atheist philosopher in the world debating Christians and so forth. He became a believer in God but he did become a believer in Christ and Christianity because the one thing he said that held her back is good idea of eternal torment he just believe that God would not do that without if if your no person is quite sure that God would do that probably say well, too bad for him. He didn't go with what the Bible says that the question really is, is that with the Bible says is that what the Bible teaches and before someone says they know that it is they really ought to consider the much weightier biblical evidence for alternative views and the dearth of the Scriptures that support the traditional view like I dare say having read all the major authors on the traditional view who have written books on health, I have looked at all the Scriptures was about five of them and I see there Scriptures remind to him when I was I was teaching at one time but there's about five of them five versus that sound very much like hell as a place of eternal torment, but there's hundreds of verses that give alternative sounding ends.
For example, repeatedly it's very clear who the bodices of the wages of sin is death. The soul that sins will die in the day you eat of it got told and revealed I will dying is the same thing as staying alive and be tormented forever and ever so is a lot of a lot of dispute over whether the Bible teaches one doctrine or another, and that dispute is good to go on and I think that more and more evangelicals are seeing reasons to say this Dr. of eternal torment is an insult to God, and it doesn't have as much scriptural support as some of the other alternatives do so.
Certainly is worth looking at my clubs. I got taken over, and I appreciate you join us today and got bless you good talking to a friend from Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome to the narrow path extra calling yet like all people. Once all the more likely to stay on the line. I know you Bible and all and I want to know really talk like that.
In the all men are created man and women in they did not need all men and all women all mankind and they are an inherent part and it went down.
We give down body created when building is quite the day you die, but a Creator with certain legal rights. I get right. You can't deny a big snake. The light delivery at think I'm trying to find a campsite. How is that concept founding fathers get the Bible that concept in the Bible any form or verses would support they might've gotten the Bible.
The Bible, but I can't have constitutional law the moment on Robbie's late had some voting? Now some address it. So is is the statement that God is given in alienable rights to man among them life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is that, strictly speaking, biblical is not strictly speaking biblical. It is true that God the Creator has given man in alienable rights I would've listed them differently. I think the list was drawn in some measure from enlightenment thinking which was not not Christian per se. Obviously the Elect Enlightenment Took Pl. in Europe and England where well. The Bible had influence people for in their culture for centuries and even though the Enlightenment was somewhat of a secular movement of the people in it could not fully escape the kind of awareness of reality that the Bible had been viewed in their culture for centuries before they were born so they did. They did come and include their own thinking there to say that God is giving us the right to life is certainly true because the Bible has a command. Thou shall not murder. And if you're not allowed to murder summons because they have a right to live and you don't have the rights taken away. It's an injustice if you violate their life, but it's not entirely in alienable because obviously a person commits murder has has basically deprived himself in his right to life and that's why the Bible says that he should not live, that whoever sheds man's blood, by him by man shall his blood be shed in Genesis 9 and of course the law of Moses also said such things so I mean it is a right to life, you can forfeit it. If you do things that forfeit your right to life, Paul, for example, said in the in acts 25 invaders. He said if I've done anything that is worthy of death, I don't object to dine his court is on trial in court. He says if I have done anything worthy of death, I don't object to dine, that is, he doesn't object in principle to be put to death if he's done something that has that is worthy of death, that is, that which is where he would've violated his own right or forfeited his own right to life because he did something worthy of death, not in alienable seems to meet to been something that can't be taken from you and and maybe your right to life, cannot be taken from you think you can forfeit it though, in which case you and had your right side have been alienated now as far as the right to liberty. We don't have a description, a statement that God is give us the right to liberty, and his own people, the Jews were in bondage a great deal of the history and yells to say because it was all right to liberty. Well, there may be some truth in it because the bodices were the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
But the Bible doesn't specifically talk about human rights in those terms. And so me, that is, I would like to think that I have a right to my liberty and I and I think that if anyone know would capture me. There were certainly laws against kidnapping and that would mean that if you take something who's a free person and make them unfree and bring them under your control. Without them having earned it or do anything to make it happen. Well then I guess you are violating our right to liberty that it's not stated in so many terms in the Bible, but one could deduce it. I once again it's not an inalienable right because people do things that that would just like put them in prison and they give up their liberty because they do things that are deserving of it. In this case the course and I think the founders understood this to be the case that what they called an inalienable right was certainly right that you can forfeit by criminal behavior which case you might lose your life justly or even lose your liberty justly. As far as The Pursuit of Happyness goes I think that that's awfully hard to know exactly how to understand that and you know I don't know. I don't know that we have a right to pursue happiness by think for somebody to prevent me from pursuing my happiness when they have no justification for doing so would seemingly be a wrong. Maybe we could call maybe violating my right to happiness is a pursuit that we don't have a right to be happy with right to pursue happiness for the same timesaver has a right to happiness. How could anyone guarantee that everyone would have happiness, you know that you're not happy when the children die.
Your parents die or when you're wife leaves you are when somebody who's a friend snubbed you. There's no inalienable right to being happy but pursuing happiness.
I suppose that could be coming back. I don't object to that formulation, but the Bible is never speak quite in those terms. So you're asking me do these three inalienable rights found in the declaration of independence do they have a biblical basis. I can say the first two have something of a difficult basis to be sure, but to call them in alienable rights or if that means that you can't. They can't be separated from you that it would Debbie some. I would agree with, but they cannot be taken from you, unless you forfeit them justly. They can be taken unjustly from the bed being against God's law. So in general I'm in Clark I'm quite in harmony with the statement in the Declaration of Independence and I can easily justify at least two of those things from the Bible and maybe the third as well. Depending on what is meant by The Pursuit of Happyness like you to have the right to pursue an education drive right to pursue a certain career that make me happier than under certain marriage with a certain person. I suppose I do.
I don't know that's an inalienable right or not but but I can't see why anyone would wish to interfere with it. None of their business and maybe that's what's meant by an inalienable right or something that no one has a business master with in that area and if that's all they're saying that I can see that I can save them. Its validity of that so be the best. I probably could answer that particular choir.
Okay, we have little time. Okay you understand the founding fathers probably the first to any and could be taken away from you that it is not. Maybe on the right thing all those beautiful, lovely, and according like food we seek after these things that might come to the wrong also think on these things, think on these things. Well, I mean the Bible does say what you want me to do. Do you do the same to them said that that's a summary of love your neighbor as you love yourself so many of my neighbors pursuing his happiness in a way that's not unlawful and that isn't an II have no right to interfere with that. We could say he has a right to do that the and if and I certainly wouldn't want someone to interfere with my pursuit of happiness in the size doing so in a criminal way so you know so you wouldn't want to interfere us. II don't know why anyone would want to enslave somebody else.
I don't know I didn't want to kill somebody. I've never wanted to kill anyone in my life nor enslave them and nor for that matter, to interfere with The Pursuit of Happyness itself just so and so far it is not hurting any else so I'm very favorable toward those two and I think it's Bible and also enlightenment.
Plato's laughing in that direction only being doing the right direction with the call okay thank thank you I like about I appreciate that the founders were deftly strongly influenced by the question. All right, I appreciate your calling right. Let's see if we can put Mark from West Hartford, Connecticut.
Mark welcome to the neuropathic for a guy like me questions about on the East Coast and I don't think you ever get out this way.
Is that true Lord is when two high.
I know that the first question and or something.
After the break LASC others. Let me answer that one quickly that I have to take a break and hold you over for I have been out to East Coast a number of times a lot of times as Florida or New England sometimes in South Carolina or North Carolina or someplace, but I don't I don't mother anywhere near as often as I go to places that are much closer to my home, which is of course Southwest in California, but as far as what it takes to get me to come someplace somebody pretty much has to set up but you know I gathered where there is a number people who would like for me to come and I don't really require much I don't charge anything like that so it's a matter of if you feel like you and set up a meeting with we could try to fit somewhere in my schedule that's that's what happened.
That's where I that's how I end up going places in general. I don't contact places asking them to book me actually strip them on right now is something an exception because we were going east. Anyway on a family thing and read that it's we just decided to tell people we knew in the area to see if they wanted they could set things up and they did, but generally speaking I don't initiate travels at all. You can always watch the announcements at our website.
The narrow path.com to see where I'm going to be speaking but if you are she want to set something up. That's entirely possible that I need to take a break here, but I'll come back to market just a moment you're listening to the narrow path radio broadcast.
My name is Steve Greg and where live Monday through Friday at the same time and we have a mobile app which you get for your phone. The narrow path.com. If you look up you find it for free. Put on your phone you can listen the program live or later from the ridiculous to most lectures at our website. Our website is also the narrow path.com and the resources there are in the hundreds or thousands, and they're all free. You may want to take a look at it. If you have before the narrow path is a listener supported ministry and if you like to help us down there. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 at our website is the narrow path.com now. I'll be back in 30 seconds to go away. Tell your family.
Tell your friends tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to send everything to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's radio show in Denver go to your social and send a link to the narrow path.com, one can find free time on your teaching blog article verse by verse teachings and archives of the narrow path radio shows and tell them to listen live right here on the radio. Thank you for sharing with their supported the narrow path. Greg will path radio broadcast Steve Greg and we have another half hour to take calls. If you have questions about the Bible and the Christian faith or differing viewpoint you want to bring up. Feel free to do so. The number is 844-484-5737 844-484-5737 and just before break marks West Hartford, Connecticut had called and he asked three questions asked one before the breaking I: holdover from the next go-ahead. Mark okay one shaky question, but it's just a curiosity in Matthew 17 when this is transfigured, and that that's the disciples. This Peter says let us make tabernacles or 10th translation for Moses and Elijah and 3/10 for Moses and lighting himself. My question is how does Peter know that that's Moses and Elijah never seen them before. Now this is this divine revelation is times for afterwards when they get down the mountain, Jesus, John Gordy, got in there but it says at the time Peter said, let us make it most likely like he said that right then and there. Sure as to possible answers. One is a very simple one. The other like us to both verbal simple but very different. One of them that he knew quite naturally because so Jesus and Moses and Elijah were conversing together and get my been evident from their speaking even from addressing each other by name, who all three of them were, you know, because they knew who Jesus was over. He looked extremely different, because his face began to shine and is transfigured as it says so there were actually three people who didn't look like anyone they knew and and yet in the conversation and we don't know how long the conversation went.
Maybe one most the night but they certainly would have occasion to put together who it was that said conversing. A lot of times when my wife is on the phone talk to somebody I walk and I don't talk to if I just wait a few minutes and just from what she's talking about it become clear who she's talking to and if you're listening for any kind of extended time and especially if anyone addresses everyone by name, then that's how they would know. I don't know if that's how Peter and the others knew, although it's clear that they did. And that is 1 Possible Way they did. Another isn't as you suggested, by divine revelation. When the thing was over.
Jesus said to them, you tell the vision to no man, and so it indicates that this was perhaps a vision that is a divine revelation. Not necessarily something that was physically happening anymore than when Ezekiel are Daniel saw visions that the things they were saying were literally happening in the physical world. These are more like dreams that you have when you're awake and by the way, I believe the visions are quite analogous to dreams quite similar in the Bible better used coupled together is just one is what happens when your sleep never happens when your weight, but there are sometimes when you might have a dream or somebody you know of, but you've never known is in the dream. And you know who they are.
Even though you don't really know what they look like. I don't know. That happens very often to you, but I think that's happened to me and I I can't give any example, but it wouldn't surprise me because in the dream. Your mind is in a sense making the story up anyway.
And the awareness of who the characters are is is yours to know in this case they were making up what they're saying. This is God revealing something to them and there's every reason to believe that his revelation to them would include all the necessary elements, including who it is seen because it was very important that they understand this is Moses and Elijah. The representatives of the old covenant of the law and the prophets, Moses, who gave along the logic was the prince of the prophets, the real authorities that the Jews look to in the in the Bible. These men were passing on the baton to Jesus.
That's what they're there for their talking to the Exodus that he would accomplish his and when they said well when Peter said let's make 3/10 one for Moses, one for Elijah refugees, and others. Let's camp out here and keep all three of you around of the others disappeared and when Jesus alone was left it. God said to him, to the people to the disciples. This is my son here him. The idea being, God is showing them that it's no longer Moses and Elijah that it's no longer the Old Testament that they'll be heating. It's going to be Jesus from here on out south along the prophets.
Now the law and the prophets give their endorsement to Jesus. Just like Moses like you did in the vision but they were going to wait around to be sort of know equal authorities with Jesus. They were passing along their role of leadership to Jesus and so when they were gone, God said about Jesus.
This is my son, listen to him and Everett. From now on, you listen to Jesus rather than to the Old Testament.
As you authority for for knowing what to do and so forth.
Now that if that is in fact a message and I believe it is, then it would be essentially part of the marriage message that the subs would know who it is that's you that Jesus is talking to who it is that's receding into obscurity in an in favor of his own preeminence, and so I would think that if it's just a revelation from God then probably very the identities of the persons in it being as important as they were to the message of the vision would be given to them as well. Thank you and my question is has to do baptism in the Baptist frame of mind and that baptism is that of a merchant because the translation of it like I believe it kind of loosely translated, but there the questions more or less a believer's baptism as a Baptist would say you must be baptized as a believer's baptism as opposed to baptism and so powerful. I mean never been documented least my knowledge in the New Testament that they were actually had a believer's doctrine and the baptism of John is a baptism of repentance.
If I'm correct, but that was never anywhere saying that after they believed that Jesus was the son of God in Christ, they were baptized again the father-son Holy Spirit could be an assumption that I think I think I think it is important and necessary one is true there is no record of the disciples being baptized as believers in Jesus day they were almost certainly baptized John's baptism since some of them have been John's disciples and obviously John was calling everybody rebaptize so none of his disciples with neglected, however, of course, once they become believers and Christians. I assume they were rebaptize and Reese. I would say that is because we have a case it's not of the apostles themselves but of a parallel situation in acts 19 where Paul encountered 12 men who had been baptized with John's baptism, but they had not known about Jesus. And so when Paul preached Jesus to them. They decide to be baptized in the name of Jesus is a second baptism, and so they didn't simply say, for example, well now that we believe in Jesus will disfigurement when we were baptized with John's baptism that was appropriate and enough it was. It was assumed without speaking that now they were Christians, we should be baptized as Christians. Now that was that was Paul's experience with people who received John's baptism, I would assume that that would be the understanding about such things in the church so that the apostles who probably had all been baptized. John's baptism we don't know the failover but is a good chance of it, that they also were later baptized with Christian baptism. When they became true believers in Christ, we don't know, you're right. There's no record of it, but there are certain things. Frankly, there's no record of them ever going to the bathroom either.
We have to assume they did and that's not equal the sum equivalent but just to say that many things can be assumed because they were normative about people in the Bible which we are not surprised or not recorded.
They don't have to be recorded in order to be implied in my opinion. So yeah, I think they were rebaptized. Just like the men that Paul met in Ephesus were rebaptized.
Appreciate your call. Rodney from Detroit, Michigan. Welcome to the narrow path they take my call back into also appreciate the format of the show. Sure about the early about the eternal torment view of how like I know when I read the Bible like I'm sure I speak for most Christians that we believe that God inspired word that is valuable and inspired belt, but I believe that God is the Bible so I believe that a Christian should believe that when I read the Bible and I read the New Testament pretty much every reference to how use of the word eternal everlasting forever, forever and ever and why God knowing that when we read his word. The melody mean when we read on. Why would God use those words to describe how light is very weak. I say well you know lastly could mean that could mean just a short period of time and pretty much every reference in the Bible when needed. Everlasting compares it to God and nature, and his kingdom. Why would we were trying to defend God laid it out.
He created how mean that you tell us something in and of itself about God that he evenly create a place like that, that's precisely what this process works, as God created hell to be a place like it is what we know about God. What would he. How would he create help what we created to be. For example, is God more or less loving than we are mindset she's a lot more loving than real.
And yet I can't think of any enemy of mind that I want to torture.
I don't think God wants to torture for God says he had no pleasure. Even the death of the wicked. He said in Ezekiel 3311, rather than the elixir turned from his evil way and live in first and second Peter chapter 3, he says, God's not willing that any should perish. God is on the side of sinners.
That's why he sent his son to die for sinners.
He loves sinners, and therefore, if he loves sinners and and we all agree. I think that if the a terrible sinner repents on his deathbed, like the thief on the cross. That is a great day of rejoicing of the angels of heaven, because somebody got saved, even though there are horrible sinner and even if they died hours later or maybe they repented on their deathbed that this is because a greater joint rejoicing. But then the assumption is that if then they die suddenly God hates them if they have repented and and wants to torture them. I don't think the Bible really teaches that know you mentioned God says we wants to say I agree with that.
You said there's all the verses that help target being eternal everlasting well that's not what I found to be the case.
Most of verses from hell at least a verse reassumed about hell when I when I believed in the eternal torment view myself all the verses I assumed to be about hell with very few exceptions did not mention anything about eternal. For example, the references to weeping and gnashing of teeth and being in cast forth into outer darkness, and I took all these verses to be about hell. But there is no reference in them to eternity or anything like that they could be short-lived. There are in fact a couple of verses.
At least if not two, three, maybe that sound like maybe they do use that word are one of them is in Matthew 2546 square Jesus said that these the goats shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. Now the word eternal is use that time of eternal punishment and then another time we read of Satan's punishment that he is tormented forever and ever. Day and night. That's in Revelation chapter 20 verse timidly and so that's it says forever and ever. That's talking about the judgment on the devil and the beast and false prophet is not doesn't say much about anybody else. There and we don't know if there's anybody else that will suffer exactly that same fate. There will be others certainly thrown into the lake of fire. But whether they'll endure consciously or forever not is not stated. Generally speaking, we have everlasting it is stated were sent. As stated, everlasting right to leave just a very weak argument to say that that word in that particular means only a short period of time when every other time itů A very weak, I don't know everlasting word. I the word Aion is never means a short period of time. It never means a short period of time. It means depending on which Greek scholars are consult because it is ambiguous. It means either enduring foreign age or it means pertaining to an age of the word ion is which is translated eternal everlasting.
It's from the word ion age and age as a noun and ion is is a an adjective taken from that now, but scholars are not agreed on what it means enduring foreign age or pertaining to an agency's obviously have everlasting it means exactly.
Don't don't tell me what it means I've studied okay.
I don't think you have. If you have you not acting like you have okay what you're telling me right now is ion is the Greek word means exactly what the English word means your sentimental it means or not.
Says everlasting means that know it says that in the English translation, but the question is, is that a good translation that's that's really what you haven't studied and what frankly I'm not credible, but I have. I wrote a book on okay I studied bit lexicons you haven't. Apparently if you if you had stable lexicons on the Greek language you would know that until you truth if you don't stay the Greek and you just tell me what the translators they never get it wrong and therefore since the transfers transit is everlasting or eternal letter to histamine will then I can't argue with you.
Obviously, I can't argue is if you if you think that God wrote the English Bible and not the Greek New Testament in we just don't have any common grounds for discussing English as an English garden ungodly. We can't I'm sorry. I would love to go further this conversation we had a robot you think that God wrote the English Bible in English Bible uses the word everlasting and some of these passages I'm saying the Bible is not even translated into English until 1500, 1600 years after it was written okay so for the first 1569 years you didn't have the word everlasting in any Bible you had translations of the word ion is ion. This was the Greek word in the original Greek language. Now what does ion's mean you're assuming it means what your English Bible says it means I'm sorry you can make that assumption, but it simply isn't so. The word bad teeth, small means week recent news baptize well actually means immersion in the Greek the word church ecclesia we think we might think the church is a building with a steeple or something like that ridiculous image.
The assembly called out once so we have English translations of Greek words that have become traditional translations in English what I'm saying is that Greek scholars actually know more about the Greek language than they did back when English translations were first being made. There's a lot of progress in Greek scholarship and the best Greek scholars, even conservative ones know that the word ion is does not necessarily coincide with the English word everlasting and you can just you can repeat it over and over if you want to save means what it says, well, I'd say it means what it says in the Greek not what this messily says in English we know that it means what it says in the Greek what we have to decide is whether the English translation is reflecting properly what the Greek says you think it is. I think it may not be so if we can't get over that difference were not to be able to get anywhere in this conversation. I don't listen to what you're saying so you're saying that my English Bibles not inspired any net debt Lewis to say that no treatment to say that okay and got your demeanor and dad were type thing that because his word is inspired out of written in English.fire at his word. Let me ask you question what level are you using which which English Bible. He is the King James okay and you believe the King James translators were inspired men profits.
I believe that God inspired them to put down what he wanted in his word and within the script right now is why God wants in his word. Rodney can you show can you give me a scripture that says what you're saying I don't have you okay if you don't need Scripture that I don't either but I have Scripture for what I'm saying is you don't have Scripture for your say I'm a Bible teacher, not a traditionalist. To say that God inspired the King James version for me to believe such a thing I would need a statement Scripture is God inspired the King James version, but there's no Scripture that says that so it's an opinion and is not a very enlightened one on certain sites. It's quite out of step with what Greek scholars know to be true. So I guess I am senior English Bible is not inspired unless of course the translators who created it were inspired and if you want to argue they were, that's fine. Then were the translators who put out the revised version with inspired to order once about the new living translation with in spite of NIV within American set how many of these translators inspired and how do you know which ones are.
You see, I'm afraid you're just going with tradition and that's what the Pharisees did the Roman You don't agree with Roman Catholics. I'm pretty sure when they say Mary was a perpetual version I have no other children.
Protestants don't see any reason to believe that because the Bible doesn't say it but you your believing something parallel to what they believe your believing things about the Bible that the Bible doesn't say just like your believing things about Mary that the Bible doesn't say how is it better to believe something about the Bible that the Bible does not say then to save Gleason but married with the Bible say if the Bible doesn't say what you're saying, you're simply mouthing a tradition human tradition and your view that the English Bible just the King James, not the other ones are inspired has actually no biblical proof whatsoever. Nothing suggested and the evidence simply proves it wrong so I'm sorry that we can't come to minimize with rapid if I'm to argue from the Greek version.
You can argue from English. I'm afraid we just aren't standing on the same foundation. I'm standing on the foundation of the Bible actually written by the apostles which was in Greek. Okay the apostles didn't write it in English.
Victor from Denver.
Welcome to the neuropathic for calling you're watching lately. Thanks.
I have a quick question about baptism. So what would a believer do that say that if they don't have a regular church home and they came to be a Christian, listening to radio programs such as your as far as how would make it well probably only get baptize is the went to church baptize or find somebody else who does it for them. You know, I don't know what to say I you're not the first person asked me was in fact just last week I met with somebody who is not part of the church. You become a Christian. Recently he had not joined the church, but he knew it is essential to be baptized, and he asked me to baptize him so I did. But I can't do that forever. That's because I'm not where they are, nor do I asked, nor do I will offer myself necessarily as went to baptize people, but you could find any believer to baptize you into Christ and if you have just a Christian friend, you can ask them to baptize your swimming pool or something. I get that the Bible doesn't say that the person doing the baptizing has to be a church official by not by any means. Paul himself was baptized.
Paul himself is baptize water by Ananias, which was only described as a Christian is just a Christian in Damascus and the Lord spoke to and told to go baptize people so that we don't read it as a church leader. So yeah, there's no suggestion in the Bible that it has to be a church leader to do so. Alright brother, and I'm glad you want to be baptized, and I hope you will be as as soon as possible. You might you might go to a church and go during the week. Not in service and asked them if they would baptize you even though you're not intending necessarily to join their church if they will not, then they are sinfully sectarian, okay, but I suspect most of them will not that is a I suspect most are sinfully sectarian because member of their church. They do they and there's no biblical basis for their desire for you to be a member of the church. They just would like to have you there and they may hold over your head when I could baptizing lesser joint, in which case there being controlling the not following Christ. The Bible I in my lifetime, I baptize lots of people who weren't going to be in the same fellowship with myself, but that's really what if you go to the website.
Matthew 713.com there are some fellowships there is a there's a fine fellowship or something like that link there and you may find that some Christians in your area already are meeting your in Denver.
There may be some Christians already who've listed there that they fellowship. I think that's a place where people go when they don't have a church and maybe then not but maybe losing hope of finding a church that that they can really part of and are looking for fellowship so you might go. That's Matthew 713.com and there might or something that you great okay Victor jobless.
You think you and you could still be of course looking for church all the while you II think Christian should look for church but church doesn't have the steeple house. It doesn't have to be a 501(c)(3) organization calling itself the church, it can be a small group of believers in a home computers and events of the early churches were the early churches met at home plate and have steeple house was all right but I appreciate your call and I certainly hope you find the fellowship you need there. Denver David from Portland, Oregon. Welcome to the neuropathic for going after my brother in law who is Jesus and God and that I don't think he raises my loyalty goes to church and I'm wondering is if you see when you well yeah a person limit something because were running out of time.
The music started playing real soon so I will try to answer a person is saved if they are a follower of Jesus. Now something is a know you just saved.
If you believe in Jesus within them. The devil is saved because he believes in Jesus to God and in the Bible does not teach you just believe in Jesus you are fairly certain things that Jesus have to agree with them in and embrace and the Bible says if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised from the dead will be safe. So you have to confess with your mouth, which suggests you agree with it that he is the Lord, and if you believe is the Lord that means you believe your enslaved because the Lord is on slaves if he is Lord of all that is Law Review and if you're not following him, then you don't really believe is Lord. So it's when people follow Christ that they demonstrate that they believe that he is Lord and that they embrace that rather than rebel against it when you know there's a Lord you can only do one thing or orders to you can embrace and submit to it or you can rebel against those who rebel against Christ are not saved rotted time. I appreciate your call brother.
Let's talk again tomorrow. This is Steve Greg and the narrow path