Share This Episode
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg Logo

The Narrow Path 5/21

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg
The Truth Network Radio
May 21, 2020 8:00 am

The Narrow Path 5/21

The Narrow Path / Steve Gregg

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 144 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

May 21, 2020 8:00 am

this program from Steve Gregg and The Narrow Path Radio!

COVERED TOPICS / TAGS (Click to Search)
The Narrow Path Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg
The Narrow Path
Steve Gregg

Good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and where live for an hour each week. The afternoon we have an open phone line for you if you wish to call with any questions you might have about the Bible of the Christian faith. We can discuss them and if you have a different viewpoint from the host so we can discuss that. If you recall about it.

The number is 844-484-5737 if you want to call today take that number down and have it ready because lines are full right now but a few minutes now, lines will open up and you can use that number to get through and occupied one of those lines and get in later today. The number 844-484-5737 first color today is Alex calling from Honolulu, Hawaii Alex, welcome to the neuropathic for calling so I been with you your debate on the Lord's supper and reading up on it and open it today. I'm at a crossroads with how to interpret it. I'm equally persuaded by both kind of views on it mainly the Lutheran birth versus adaptive, which which the vapors which you which debate did you hear the one is a staple since it was okay because I committed in our times right will not listen to both of them anyway.

I just am afraid to think wrongly on the and wondering if you think I get them wondering do you think that there any consequences of thinking wrongly on the and how can I go about joining a church body. When I can't decide what I believe on this. You know if I have to decide to confess and agree with their confessions. How can I join the church that alright well let him just to bring the audience up to speed on this question. There are two very different ways of looking at what we call the Lord's supper or Communion or the Eucharist door. Other names have been given it to the Roman Catholics, the Eucharist are Catholic non-Catholics sometimes call it communion but it's of course referring to the ritual of eating bread and drinking some wine in remembrance of Christ of his body and his blood and one view, and there have been two views ever since the Reformation at least Luther and the Roman Catholics both believe that when you do this something supernatural and spiritual is happening. I think Roman Catholics believe that the the wafer turns into the body of Jesus and the wind turns into the blood of Jesus. Luther had a very similar view not identical.

He said that the real presence of Christ is is in these elements, and that when you eat the bread of the real body of Christ is our above and below and through and decide it in the same thing with the drink so that it it's essentially the same things with the Catholics teach a little different. He didn't believe that the elements change. Many believe that when you take the elements African consecrated that you take in with them. The real body and blood of Jesus. So it's very very similar to the Catholic view. Now Luther just disagree was vaguely Zwingli was the reformer in Switzerland contemporary with Luther Luther's in Germany and Zwingli believed that the elements were just symbolic. He didn't leaving supernatural happened when you number that there is that the real body of Jesus in the blood of Jesus were involved with it. It's just a memorial meal.

Sort of like Passover. After all, it was Passover. Jesus instituted at Passover and what was Passover.

It was a memorial as a memorial of God's salvation product is real in the Exodus and when Jesus went through the Passover ritual with his disciples he change the wording so that they were no longer to be remembering God saving them from Egypt because from now on when you do this, remember me.

My body broke a few my blood that's shed for the remission of sins sewing.

In other words, it's time to stop commemorating the Exodus and start commemorating salvation that I have brought through my broken body and shed blood. But Jesus did not indicate anywhere that it was anything more than a memorial just like Passover was there's not a word in anything. Jesus said that would say that okay whereas Passover is only memorial you eat food to remember something now something magic is going. Having something supernatural can happen when you eat the bread and wine. There's no suggestion that anywhere in Scripture and in fact Jesus specifically said when you whenever you do this you do it, in remembrance of me. So any that would been a great time from say whenever you do this something really supernatural is going on and you're really taking my real body and I will blood into and that's important to happen.

I don't think Jesus thought that I don't think that the disciples thought that it's clear they didn't because when Jesus said, drink this.

This is my blood if if they thought he wasn't speaking symbolically for funny starting little repeaters of what we don't drink blood were Jews.

We know Peter would've said that because later on and accepted. 10. Jesus actually told Peter to eat unclean animals and Jesus objective say Lord I've never anything unclean. You know, and if he thought he'd been drinking the actual blood of Christ for many years before he saw this vision of these animals. He'd never say I've never eaten anything unclean. He was a all you have been drinking unclean blood for years now. My sleep is unclean animals to we know Peter and the apostles never have silently accepted the suggestion that they were really drinking human blood or eating human flesh and there is no reason for them think that Jesus didn't say that was literally happening. That's to my mind rather superstitious tradition that developed early in the church that began to see these things as having a I would say a magical transition. Now magic is of course a derogatory term and Roman Catholics for example say no it supernatural. The miracle, but we don't have any miracles in the Bible like that sure Waters turned a blind but when it is, it changes his mind, whereas when wind turns in the blood.

It still want ever knows that everyone knows that if you drink the communion glass or eat the bread if if you pump your stomach, you'll find that that bread is still bread and that wind still wine. It hasn't turned in anything else.

Non-Catholics know that they say will that doesn't matter because it's not really that the accidents of the of the elements change.

It's the essence of them that change in others it's something you can't measure. You can confirm. You just have to take it by faith.

Why would I do that the buses faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God to the word of God never said anything about bread turning into a human body or blood wind turning into blood. So why should I believe it happens of God never said it's a mere superstition and none of the miracles in the Bible were ever the kind of thing where once got to the miracle you couldn't tell that he did it. You know if a blind man has his eyes open a dead man rises from the dead.

Jesus walks on the water. He stills the storm whatever miracles he did turn water into wine. It was always evident.

It's always clear. It could always be confirmed.

Yeah, I saw him walking on water, but no one can confirm the Catholic claim that anything supernatural happens, the bread of the wine.

Nor should we have any reason to believe that since the Bible doesn't say it so those are my thoughts on what years on all I would ask a question it. If you had declared his blood to be cleansing wooden that still allow Peter to say that he hadn't eaten anything unclean. But Jesus was human blood and, in fact, his rights were not allowed to to eat any blood of animals, and that in fact the blood of the sacrifices in the Old Testament innocence was said to be cleansing it was an atonement for sin, just like Jesus blood as atonement for sin, but they still were allowed to drink. So, I mean the fact that blood has a ritual cleansing effect under the law does not innocence make it clean. Jews were not allowed to drink blood, no matter what, even sacrificial blood that you said what you have to believe I asked the Catholic that when somebody them asked him Staples. I've asked several It's suppose I don't believe that the bread and the wind turn into anything that they're not suppose. I take communion, and in fact the wine is turning into blood. I can't tell and the bread is turning into the body, though I can't tell that I don't know it or believe it but it still happened right so I mean if it's the words of institution or consecration that the priest says of the pastor says if that's what does the trick will then my eating it and drinking it. I'm eating the blood and and and and body of Jesus.

If the if the priest is consecrated, then I'm getting the benefit of my not missing. No, you have to believe it way where the elders were in the Bible does say were saved by believing something like that were saved by believing in Christ were not saved by by believing that one kind of liquid turns into another liquid that one kind of substance turns into nothing that is never stated anywhere as the object of our faith that Christ is the object of our faith not bread and wine, and not even the. The alleged magic of bread turning into human flesh and and wind turning into blood.

If it actually happens. Then I benefit from it. I guess without knowing it, but my salvation is based on believing in Jesus, not believing some particular theory that is not taught in Scripture about an alleged seemingly superstitious notion about bread and wine, I see seemingly superstitious in order to be generous. It certainly seems to be superstitious in my mind it actually is superstitious but not wishing to be too insulting to say whether it is or isn't superstitious. It certainly seems to be an you know something that someone claims something reckless happened but no one can confirm it it it doesn't really happen in the visible world went to go never to miracles like that that no one could confirm it never happened visibly. That's not what miracles are for the miracle of regeneration.

The miracles cleansing the miracle of salvation is wrought by the Holy Spirit in us in our spirit, but the Bible nowhere mentions it been involved with the any kind of changing of elements that we eat so how can I go about joining a church body, though I don't really confess their pain.

You, on the Lord's supper, which is usually a requirement to partake in the Lord's supper with the body. Well I would do it if I were if I happen to have no options but the fellowship of Roman Catholics I would take communion with him, I wouldn't think the same way about it that they do. But I still I could still eat away for you. I can still remember Christ so I'm not really sure why you're wanting to join a church. The Bible says that your already joined the church, the Holy Spirit placed you into the body of Christ, so everyone is really born again is in the church, not by their own decision to join, but by the Holy Spirit's action placing you in the church in the body of Christ after Tyra joining a particular steeple house group. Well I don't know why do I do that we could fellowship with them without joining them appalled was not favorable toward Christian saying I am of Paul Cephus arm of Apollo's that's that's people going to different groups and I'm loyal to this group, I will. That group is of Christ isn't divided so the idea of joining one church and and by doing so, saying I'm part of this group. I'm of them. I'm not of the church on the next corner. That's essentially what joining the church means it's basically the very thing that Paul forbade in first prefix chapter 1 and if someone says no it isn't mass in this if you want to join your church. Is it okay if I join your church and another church and another coming church is kinda long to you can be sure that no pastors can say all you can join this church also join a different denomination down the street. Why, because you have to have loyalty to our group, but is my loyalty to Christ and to his body isn't anyone who is a believer. My brother and my sister and part of the body. How can I join one part of it and be committed to that group in a way that are not committed to the whole body of Christ.

Now committed is one thing, Activision is another thing I can be active in the church.

It is group for practical purposes, it's often advisable to fellowship with one particular group of people intensively because you can build relationships. You can work cooperatively with them. You can as as it is of fellowship. But to say I belong to this group. In a sense I don't belong to the rest of the body of Christ is divisive and extreme, and of course Paul thought it was abomination to do that but we just live in a time where that's taken for granted some abominably more so hey listen I could talk all day. I could talk all day with you, but my lines are full and be gone for about 15 minutes. That's a big portion of our program. I really need to check our it doesn't feel unreasonable, filtered, and all that is readily helpful, unbelievably helpful to date. Thank you and God bless you.

Okay, Alex.

Look for to hear from you again. God bless you all right where talk next to Sandy from San Jose hey Sandy, welcome to the narrow path.

Good to hear from you again in a long long time. Hope you are well sure, has so I have a question about the least controversial book in the Bible, which is course the book of Revelation not getting that assisted in a very clear-cut, so you know since the book of Revelation was written to the seven churches which I believe are in Asia minor. Why would it be rewarding people in Israel about what things are to come. It seems to me it was written to to the church of Israel or church of Judea that would make more sense. So I'm a little off like it invited to the churches that would be affected. Well, of course, are you suggesting that the book of Revelation is primarily about the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which is what I believe what I believe.

Why, then, I wasn't why wasn't written to the Christians in Jerusalem because it can affect the most directly is another possibility is one of them is at the church in Jerusalem.

My bargaining gone. We know that before the war began in 66 A.D. Eusebius says that the church led from Jerusalem, so they were even there anymore.

In a sense, from 60 6780. There wasn't even a church in Jerusalem to write a and there be no sense in writing them a warning since if they've already fled. They obviously have taken morning already. Eusebius said that there had been an Oracle given to the church to tell them to flee and they did more than that Jesus had already spoken to the church in Jerusalem in Matthew 24 and told him the same thing. He says when you see this flee to the mountains so they can. God warned them through the all of the discourse. And God warned them through prophecy and the church.

So it's not like they needed the book of Revelation toward them.

I will say why any questions why did he send it to the church of Ephesus in spite of the church is that right.

I think the answer is because the book of Revelation is a benefit and a blessing to the whole church and Paul and Pete John civic John just happened to have an intimate relation with the church of Ephesus he was.

That was his home church effect after after he left Patmos. He went and retired and was ministering in Ephesus until he died. So this these were the churches he was associated with Ephesus was the main city in Asia minor and so he sent the church that the letter to the churches in Asia minor, primarily Ephesus and they would share with the others, so I mean if God wants to give the church a lasting document of his predictions about things that have since happened as a testimony to his prophetic inability he doesn't have to send it to the people who will be first impacted by the prophecy, especially if they've already responded, and it is a little late to warn them now that he's simply entrusting the work to these churches that he already was relatable relating to the blessing can happen soon. So, with the blessing up in the fact that they saw prophecy being fulfilled that up in the blessing or also welding careful get your act together, get it right, you write like I think that of the blessing of it is partly and having a prophecy that would soon be fulfilled and seen. Certainly when we see prophecy fulfilled builds our faith is.

It's a great blessing to us, but also the events themselves might in some way have been seen as a blessing to Gentile churches. For example, the church of Smyrna according to chapter 2 in verse 10, and the church of Philadelphia according to chapter 3 in verse 10, were both persecuted by Jews in the town. They were suffering at the hands of Jewish persecution, as the church to Jerusalem. Now the destruction of Jerusalem would not bring the end of all persecution, but it would certainly have a demoralizing effect on Jews throughout the Empire that their capital and their religion had come to an end and therefore would probably take the wind out of her sails and probably there be a bit of relief to those churches from the persecution of Jews were having the church and the Jews would now be seen as those who had recently waged war against Rome and so they better keep their heads down and the ones who survived in the rest the Empire, they would not be viewed with favor by the Romans, and I think it may be that some of the churches benefited in the sense that the Jews who whose Empire ended their credo would probably back off from the persecution they been doing. I don't know that that's true that's a possible ride possible elite will quickly ask another one have question totally different, and ML just listen ready so it will question your moments talked about the laws written in the hearts and my question is really true.

Do I really know what to do. That's if I don't I don't quite believe that. I think it's what I've been taught to do. However, in the next question is we talk about absolute right and wrong. We do believe that God it's possible like if I said to you I talked to a guy that a kid a baby and started cutting up with machete on my my desk and said to me you think this right along. I thought clearly erroneous.

It will not. Not because of fighting kill this one could there be a thousand other kettles.other kids dad. So the question is if the rent on a heart and caucusing to be absolute when things become situational.

There's my question okay to second answer right. Well let me just say the law written on the heart doesn't mean that we know the law, but that the law, our hearts have been made receptive and amenable to the law member. Jesus said to his disciples going to teach all nations teach them to observe all things I commanded you, so that the disciples need to be taught to obey the things Jesus said, but their hearts will not be like the hearts of Israel test and obstinate, which were stone like member Ezekiel said God will take away your heart of stone and give your heart of flesh. There's a softer and I'll make you walk in my ways. When Jeremiah said all right my laws in their hearts what I think you saying is, instead of imposing externally written laws upon hearts that are rebellious and therefore will not keep them under to change their hearts so that my law not so much the details of it but the whole spirit of all the whole amenable this of the law is is written on earth that they are now their hearts are now receptive to the law and agreeable to the law and and they don't receive God's law as a foreign thing imposed on them against their will, but there will is changed to be submitted to his law, but still the details have been taught to them so I don't think that the law written heart needs.

We don't need to read the Bible anymore. We don't know who will audit automatically notes right wrong. Now the second question about absolute right wrong.

It's always absolutely right to do the will of God and God.

God reveals reveals that now God told Abram to kill his son, Abraham MM didn't have a Bible, so he didn't know if that's the kind that God would want done or not. So he he went ahead and sought to obey. It's always worked obey God, but of course God stopped him, God would let them. Not because it wasn't really God's will for his son to die only for apron to be tested in this matter. So there are times in God in the back. In the past seem to give commands that we would know now knowing more than they knew them would be the things that you know wouldn't would not be generally the thing you're supposed to. There are times though when God told Israel to wipe out all the Canaanites are all the Amalekites and that would not be the right thing to do. In general, war. But when God gives the command doing what God says is always right now we don't have any command from God to kill innocent people anything like that we have in fact commanded God to love our neighbor and to do no harm, and so forth. So it's always right for us to do that whatever God wants.

It's not that there's just a moral code.

There is a moral code, but it's it it it's based on God's will. And if God in some particular situation gives her an exceptional command that wouldn't be applicable to everybody. Well, then it's God's will for them to do that, but not in this and from our understatement. Bible clearly things we cannot do okay. I think the bigger subject, but I think I got enough humility to get on one with him one last thing.

The reason I don't call you as much if you taught me so much that I think a lot of things on my own got graver help me on that and I'm the greatest thing you open one easier to get to Santa Cruz again okay and then got by society. Thanks, but I used to call a lot like 1015 years ago will hear so much from them. But that's great to hear from you today Michael from Aptos, California. This is another one his income for your site Michael David. Today, so you you were talking to a cause: the other day about the in of printable you mentioned it was that what is now known as Providence.

They view of predestination actually began with Augustine, that is correct.

While it didn't begin with him but entered the church with him. There were there was a cult or a heresy called Manichaeism that taught it before.

Augustine did that all the church fathers recognized those doctrines as heresy, it was Augustine who was a Manichaean and then became a Christian who incorporated some of these ideas into Christianity and became very influential and both August of both Calvin and Luther were followers of Augustine so that's why Calvinism embraced these ideas what what went as a form of Gnosticism is there are several different forms of the gnostic heresy and Manichaeism was like a going all the details.

But now, but it did include these ideas of election that are now part of what you call Calvinism all right in there. He carried it over and it hit me on the same view on the okay yes he was Augustinian though he didn't Calvin have some of his own distinctives in his theology, but both both Luther and Calvin were Augustinian so they did hold the same views about predestination stuff I go there during the lifetime of the three founding fathers and theologians would did anybody challenge them at the time. Well, Augustine is really one of the later church fathers of course are Calvin and Luther. We were in column, church fathers, the reformers of about a thousand years after Augustine but are more but so was Augustine challenge on it. I don't know that he was.

He rode around the time that Rome was being sacked by the barbarians, and so forth. And in the church was in some measure of disarray and he was simply a very intelligent and very persuasive theologian and he formulate a lot of views that were formerly accepted in the church, but because it is persuasiveness of sulfur, they just cut them to govern. There were people who disagree with him. Pelagius disagreed with him and probably some others to God for the most part he prevailed with Alex without very successful opposition.

I need to take a break. At this point but thank you Michael for your call and have another half-hour coming up, so don't go away.

The narrow path is listener supported. If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills you can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593.

You can also do so at our website, which is the narrow I'll be back quickly.

Tell your family.

Tell your friends tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to send everything to the narrow path with Steve Grant when today's media share with them for your social media and send a link to the narrow, 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.

Listener supported the narrow path. Greg welcome that the narrow path radio broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for another half-hour with taking your phone calls or lines of all if you take this number down and try little later in half-hour you make it through. The number is 844-484-5737.

In our next caller is Chris from San Diego. Chris, thanks for waiting so long. Good to hear from you. Good things. Quick question, and will on the state. Yeah, my uncle the other day and you talk about Calvinism like that and you know I just one of the big thing is like I don't have much really getting to like reading that they believe because right now I'm just trying to focus more on like this gospel and and learning more about Jesus and and you know and in the gospel is that like that but it was one of the things that he hacked them up and I've noticed I noted this reoccurring thing that happened when I talk to Calvin and it just seems like they they feel like there beliefs are the only solid biblical foundation and everything else is like something that like need to be disregarded wanted to get your opinion on that like to have you run into that and also like. Could you maybe like Michael Minnick I just explain a little bit of their belief that I will not talk them. I have a little bit more understanding on conjugated to really dissecting their doctrine okay will say when you do have time, you know have a lecture series on Calvinism. It's called God's sovereignty and man's salvation, and it covers all the five points. Calvinism gives all the argument is that the Calvinist use.

It gives all the scriptures that they use, and it then also the cross examines and frankly debunks the Calvinist argument. So it's a very thorough study called God's sovereignty and man's salvation.

You can list it for free.

Of course our website. The narrow but briefly your Calvinist to believe that their doctrine are true, but so do everyone else who is convinced of their beliefs on provision my doctrines are true also.

I mean I can't be.

I'm not can't be 100% sure because I'm not omniscient, but I've done a fair amount of studying I feel pretty comfortable in saying that I think that what were saying here is what the Bible teaches that seller Calvinist is that's how dispensations are that's all reform people are. That's how lots of different people are but one thing I will say is that Calvin is at least younger Calvinists who don't have the wisdom of any age tend to be, you know young people to be more proud than old PB life.

Life knocks the wind out of your son as you start out proud and confident. Then you learn just growing and learning up so sure of yourself, but that's good, that's a good development but young Calvinist with a call.

The young restless reform as they call them sometimes they often do talk as if Calvinism itself is the gospel so that yes, who did those who don't believe in Calvinism are thought to be actual heretics will, of course, if they're just saying that those who don't believe in Calvinism are wrong. That's one thing but to say there heretics and they and they have a false gospel is quite wrong right yet. Be careful about calling somebody else's use heresy, especially if you immature at them if all the Christians until Augustine, that's the first four centuries of crochet. They all believed those views that you're going heresy okay so Calvinism didn't exist until around 400 A.D. the previous 400 years. The church fathers all held a different view and by the way those church father spoke Greek August the Augustine didn't Augustine said he didn't know Greek. He only use the Latin Bible which is a translation of the Greek the church fathers before many of them were the Greek fathers. They grew up speaking Greek as their native language and they read the Scriptures and the languages written. Interesting that they never found his doctrines and their until a man who didn't read Greek decided to bring them in any that's just a fact of history. Now to say that all the church fathers for the first 400 years were heretics is a pretty bold statement for some young buck today who is still wet. You know he hasn't really is hard to cut his teeth yet. In Christian theology. He has just been convinced by some persuasive teacher and certainly false doctrines have plenty of advocates who are persuasive and certainly Calvinism has some very persuasive teachers.

However again, Mike my series God's sovereign emancipation. I quote those teachers and like quote their arguments. My point with errors in them, but again I don't call Calvinist heretics. Although I probably would not feel too uncomfortable doing so.

But the reason I don't is because I don't think they're not saved. I think you reserve the word heretic for some whose doctrines exclude them from being Christians and Calvinists.

Calvinist don't teach a doctor that would exclude them from being Christians, they believe in Christ. Many of them are devout and faithful followers of Christ, so obviously believe in Calvinism, it may be wrong, but hasn't prevented them from following Christ which is what makes you a Christian. The amazing thing is that they would say about non-Catholics that somehow were not Christians now.

Not much Calvinist must have us won't say that won't most cumbersome say that but but the young ones who don't know any history don't know very much our theology just been persuaded by strong advocates. Calvinism, they sometimes a little little heady little arrogant and they think they were right. Everybody else is wrong in a big way now. What I would say is if I was to call someone a heretic, I would have to prepare. I have to prepare to show that if someone believes the doctrines that they believe it necessarily damages their ability to follow or interferes with their following Christ. And although I can see some negative effects of Calvinism in people's lives.

I don't say that Calvinism in itself prevent somebody from being followed Christ.

Now I be amazed if they would say that Downingtown is rejecting Calvinism somehow damages people's ability to follow Christ. All the followers of Christ for the first four centuries, didn't believe in Calvinism so it just it just kind of a young everything that your dad you said you debtor who is he talking to uncle your uncle, but he's probably not that young syntheses is probably younger than I am. That is not a young buck, probably, but he's is probably one of those many who've listen to maybe John Piper. Maybe John MacArthur. Maybe RC Spruill may be a James White baby Doug Wilson, John Piper conversation he had sent me a link from him from his website like the 10 points of Calvinism that like show God's grace now likely you'll need to believe you got great nose Right like, let me just say you said you don't have much time to look into the side say don't worry about it. Not exactly you don't don't don't become persuaded of Calvinism before you do have time to look into it. I mean if you hear his arguments and you don't know what to say about him take the time to listen to my lectures on the subject feel Sue what they say what I say I think you see what the Bible says, but the point is you don't have to fight over this. I mean if your uncle is a humble follower of Jesus Christ then is Calvinism is pertinent is not a follower of Jesus Christ and maybe it may be coming, that still we had a very edifying conversation I met my point.

Did you know but today we came to understand why you are the main objective honor and glorify the Lord and follow Christ. You know, I think that supersedes everything else in the email we did at that all right. I need to call and I hope that helps. And again, when you do want to get into it. My series God's sovereignty and man's salvation is the place I recommend you go to my website and the know nothing dear your your meeting happen anytime soon or know the large the larger meetings are not happening yet. I think will probably start them up in June were going see what happens. I would do them now but I don't. I don't want to get into getting into trouble me.

Thank you Chris God bless you too all right.

Let's see Mark from Mark Clifton of Mark from Clifton Park, New York.

That's Welcome to the narrow Pathmark thanks for going.

Matthew chapter 1 in the genealogy verse 12 after they brought to Babylon. Jack and I guess that he'll deny any genealogy in Matthew yet in Jeremiah chapter 2230 where in 19: I which is also known in depth deny that main shop) and they do send us on a path Clifton on the throat of David. My question is why Matthew including check and I seem to be.

According to Jeremiah chapter 22 here yet. He mentioned descending on the well is mentioned as the descendent of Joseph Jesus. Jesus is not descended from Joseph. Joseph was not his dad.

He had no biological connection to Joseph. Joseph was his foster dad or his adoptive dad. So Joseph was the man who was recognized in society as Jesus father, who, because he adopted Jesus by Mary Mary. But Jesus was, not descended from Jack and I Joseph was but Jesus was not your right. If Joe if Jesus was the son of Joseph, then Jesus could not be the king of the Jews because Jeremiah 22 said that Jack and I would never have any of his offspring sitting on the throne and is really more effective. I think this is brilliant because in order to to be a hereditary king in Jerusalem or Judah you would have to be. You have come through the kingly line right you have to have all all the kings of Israel before he had be your ancestors and and you had to be in the direct line of the kings but if you were, you'd automatically be disqualified because that would you be dissented from Jack Anaya and no one dissented from Jack Aiken thinking so it's a catch 22. How does someone ever become king of the Jews.

They have to be dissented from the kings but they can't be if they're not if they're not dissented from the kings they have no claim to the throne. If they artisan from the kings under the curse of his jackknife son. So it's like you just can't be the king of the Jews, unless you are legally in the dissent of the kings but you're not really a son of Jack Anaya. So Jesus was adopted in this providence of God by a man who was in the line of the kings, Joseph his ancestors included all the kings of Judah going back to David and including check and I so Joseph himself could not be but Jesus as his legal son did not have that curse him. He was not a subject that interests in terms of his legal status. I mean, if David adopted a boy that boy could be his heir, you know that the next king could be in adoptive son and Joseph may well have been the one most in line to be the king of the Jews had not that curse objection. I've been an issue, but the curse would not be a Jesus who now is legally Joseph, son, and therefore legally in the kingly line. However, we know that there's another genealogy of Jesus. Given a little after three you and and in that genealogy. It appears to my mind to be the genealogy of Mary and she she also was descended from David, which the Messiah had to be but she was not dissented from David through the kingly line.

She was not dissent from Jack Anaya. It was a son.

So Jesus was biologically through his mother descended from David, as the Messiah must be. But he had avoided the curse that's on the line. Jack Jack Anaya by being not Joseph, son, but by being Joseph's adoptive son. He was in the kingly line after all. So it's like God did a he set something up where you just couldn't be the king of the Jews unless you had something very exceptional like this happen in your motherly stare. David and I believe this seems to be the providence of God that worked all this out once again you made it happen.

Thank you message to talking all right or next caller is Chuck from Honolulu a second Honolulu color in one day. Hello, welcome to I wonder at you about that is what should the Christian attitude toward the world incredibly rich in Christian nations that we have all these poor people were given on the street have all these people working to John just barely making an attempt to value all of rich people. But I do understand why Christians have the attitude toward Corky.

Well, we should have that attitude toward really anyone even our persecution, much less people have done us no wrong.

We should love them. But in terms of love, the question is what should our actions be because love manifests and actions, and so if we love them.

What should we do well it depends what do they need no answer. Will they need a home they need food.

Well, actually, a lot of the sinks are available to them. The government you say the government subsidizes the rich. I think the government subsidize the poor great deal if you can't get a job you get welfare if you if you're homeless person. There are shelters usually state run shelters, but there could be privately run shelters to people who live on the street, surprisingly, not all of them but a surprising number them and you never matches a lot and like to live on the street. A lot of them have been offered shelters. They don't want to live in the shelters and now notice to. I lived in Santa Cruz for years. I know many homeless people. There's a shelter there. It was hard to get them to go there and the reason is the ship going on because the notes more dangerous on the street. They didn't want to shelter and they said so because they couldn't smoke dope there and they couldn't take alcohol there.

In other words, the shelter had to be it weekly, and to live without alcohol and drugs, and they didn't want to. If you think if you doubt me, you can down the Army I I don't care if you doubt me or not but I am answering your question honestly based on homeless people. I do ask actually know that there are homeless people. Of course who are godly. I know some Christians who are homeless living homeless commuters and do outreach to them. But that's a pretty small minority. The truth is there are some homeless people who were just unfortunate and they're not bad people and I think the Christians if we find such people, we should do what we can to help them because helping the poor is a very important Christian duty. The main thing though is that we live in a society where when you meet a homeless person unless you get to know them somewhat. You don't know if there homeless because they want to be if they're refusing to accept the a that's already available. You don't know what they're gonna do if you give them money because you don't know them but we do know this, that if they're in this country they can get assistance either from the government or from charities. There are plenty of charities that reach out to them. There are soup kitchens. There are shelters and if they want them. They are there not of course not. There aren't a shelter being taken all the homeless people, but not all the homeless people will shelter the ones who want to. There are ways to get that and if you find somebody who really wants help and is really trying to live a godly life and they're not ripping people off and then I just poor because they're irresponsible well then. Certainly, there may be ways that you if you've discovered this to be true about them can help them help them get into a home help them financially but I will say this to helping the poor, I think, are one of the biggest duties American Christians have in helping the poor would be to help the poor in countries where people are poor through no fault of their own.

And that is to say because they're in famine are there there. They live in corrupt systems where the government oppresses them and and or just places that everybody's poor in those countries.

I mean there's a lot of you agencies reach out to them to Christian and non-Christian. I think Christians in this country should give a great deal to Christians and poor people in other lands who simply have no other way to go. There's not very many meet when you look at the homeless people today they fall in different categories. Some of them are legitimately just out of luck. They've they've lost their job. The job disappeared their unemployable. They're not well. They have no family making really all you need that you have a very bad attitude toward all people in the Bible you know Lloyd for okay will you can think that what you want. I don't have a bad attitude toward poor people. I'm telling the truth is it is the truth of that attitude. I love poor people I help poor people.

I give way, I won't tell you how much I give way to poor people. I give a lot of money way to poor people.

A big portion of what I get close to poor people and I have also helped them personally more than just giving money so I really don't think of a better adjective and but I'm telling you something that is true that you are apparently not aware of the Bible to say if a man does not work either. Should he eat which is an instruction to Christians you don't underwrite a lifestyle. Somebody who could work and won't so I'm telling you when you see a homeless person. We don't know what their situation is until you get to know them but some of them I'm saying are legitimately poor. They're just unlucky and things got badly for them and they may be disabled or they may have other reasons they can't work these people if they're not already wasting what they have on lick on alcohol and drugs and things are kind of people you do want to help and I'm all for what I'm saying though I'm not angry at these people but there out that there are people who the reason there poor as they won't work.

They're not disabled and other addicted to drugs and alcohol that they could seek help, but they're not interested in in that help if you tell me that's not true, then you don't know very much about homeless and I happen to I have been homeless, not in the sense of living on the street that I've lived in a school bus. I lived in a VW bus and I've lived and ministered among homeless people for many years in Santa Cruz so I know something about some homeless people. I don't know about them all and I'm answering your question. I'm saying there are places where the poor really have no options countries that are just hit by famine hit by disaster, Haiti, for example, Guatemala, and in many places in Asia and Africa. These are the places that we can. I hope, with good conscience give very generously because we know these people didn't choose to be poor and many of the poor in America didn't choose to be poor either. If we happen to know any of them in their being diligent and there it was safe of the working poor or they become unemployable because of disability.

Will that we should help them to the problem is.

In America we have an awful lot of other resources for people who are poor that are simply that they're not interested in some of them are not interested and those are not the ones that we should be putting more resources into you know frankly poverty in some cases may be the way that God is dealing with somebody to let them know that you use drugs use alcohol you your lazy won't work when you can. This is what happens to you and again I'm a maternal and some I don't care how politically incorrect I am. As long as I'm saying is true and I happen to know that is true because I've been there.

I know the people I don't all of them but I'm saying some people and that's my answer to that. You say that's a bad attitude to the poor. Well, you're welcome to think so, but I don't think that I can't just answer the question. I appreciate your call. The talk to Joe from Colorado Joe. Welcome to the narrow path calling Angel hi welcome all my question is take the position that like the books are the only ones that are relevant to the Gentile Gentile. I think that pretty normal that's pretty normal among consistent dispensations.

Most dispensations are not consistent. The ones who are, they would say Jesus came and he taught the Jews things that they needed to know to enter the kingdom and therefore the teaching of Jesus is for the Jews who were about to enter the kingdom, but they rejected him and the kingdoms of the kingdom was postponed until the millennium, so dispensations and teaches that the things Jesus taught are not really intended for the age we are in but most dispensations are not consistent enough to say that her live that way and so they will still use some things that Jesus said in their preaching and teaching, but dispensationalism technically teaches that the teaching of Jesus was not for this dispensation. And so the consistent dispensations. We called hyper dispensations, they often will say give the Gospels what you said that's not for us now. Besides that, they believe that lots of the epistles, the ones that are non-Pauline peters epistles John's epistles to James that they're written for Jews to they believe that these epistles were the apostles of the junk to the Jews and therefore they didn't write to the Gentile church and they usually say only Paul's epistles are relevant to the church today.

That's Gentile and of course they're wrong and taken off long time to say all the ways that they are wrong. Certainly the church in history never believe such a thing that's dispensationalism that arose in the 1830s and it basically it contradicts what Jesus said any what Paul said, you know Jesus that anyone who hears these sayings of mine, and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

So if you say we don't have to do it.

Jesus said it's they're not for that teaching is not for us.

Well, go ahead and be a fool. Bill Johnson sent that's what Jesus himself said, but if they want. Jesus, I want to what Paul said because that relates to meet okay will. Here's what Paul teaches in first Timothy 63.

He says if anyone teaches otherwise, and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the doctor, which is according to godliness, that person is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words now. Paul said if anyone's teaches anything that's not agree with sound doctrine. And he said sound doctrine is the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that person is what your proud and knows nothing. So if someone says I don't go with what Jesus like with public pulses will Paul said, if you don't like what Jesus said your proud and you don't know anything he said what Jesus taught are sound words sound doctrine, so Paul didn't know of any distinction between what he taught and what Jesus taught and you can't find any distinction I have for I made a list it's online you can find it.

Matthew Matthew is Matthew underwrote charts their use of the letter might print documents where there is a comparison of Paul's teaching and Jesus teaching on every subject of significance I think is about 15 different subjects.

There and I point out a show and give examples how Jesus taught something on and Paul taught the very same thing on anyone who thinks that Paul taught something different than Jesus just doesn't understand Jesus or Paul and that's a shame. Like Paul said they know nothing there proud. So if you find some of says only Paul's writings are relevant to us, well then let's say I think first Timothy is one of Paul's writings. At least it says it is Paul written to Timothy and he said and first of the 63. If anyone doesn't consent to the sound words of Jesus, that person doesn't know anything and so my contention is anyone who takes dispensationalism seriously enough to argue what dispensationalism implies, namely that Jesus words are not for us in this dispensation. The Paul's are there.

They got a catch 22, Paul said Jesus what you have to go about and that if they say otherwise. There simply ignorant and proud. I don't want to push the proud part they may be proud or not, but there's certainly a if they think that the words of Jesus are not for us today listening to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and we are listener supported. If you'd like to help us stay on their you can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1730 to macula CA 92593 or you can do it from the website where everything is thanks for joining us, publishing

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