The Narrow Path

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon. Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon. We take your calls during this hour. You call in with your questions about the Bible and we discuss them. Maybe we can even answer them. I don't claim to know the answers to every question you could raise, but we can sometimes answer them for you, and otherwise we can explore them. Let's put it that way.

The number to call is 844-484-5737. Once again, that number is 844-484-5737. I'm looking at a couple of open lines on our switchboard, which means if you call this number right now, you can get in line and we'll talk to you today. The number is 844-484-5737. Our first caller today is Michael in Denver, Colorado. Hi, Michael. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Michael: Hi, Steve. Thank you so much for taking my call again. As always, thank you so much for your amazing and magical show. It means a lot. Today, I had a question about something I read this week in the news. The Daily Mail, which is an online site, reported on a major theological discovery this week where researchers uncovered two lost sermons by Saint Augustine addressing the biblical story of the Witch of Endor.

Saint Augustine concluded that if Samuel truly appeared, it was solely because God allowed it as an exception, not because the medium King Saul visited successfully used magic. I was wanting to kind of get your thoughts on Saint Augustine's assertion that the summoning of Samuel wasn't due to this witch having supernatural abilities per se, but because God allowed it to happen essentially.

Steve Gregg: Well, I hate to find myself in such full agreement with Augustine, but I agree with him on that. I've always said the same thing. I don't believe that any human being has the power to summons the dead in a séance or anything like that. On the other hand, this was Samuel that came back.

But the woman herself was surprised and terrified when she saw him. She didn't expect to see Samuel. She expected to do something, probably call up some spirit that was more familiar to her, but she was shocked when Samuel actually appeared. So we can tell that she wasn't really in charge of this situation, nor was Saul.

And Samuel didn't seem to be in charge of it either. We have to assume that God, wishing to rebuke Saul through Samuel—remember, Samuel is the one who had anointed Saul to be king and had given him the charge to be obedient to God. But now twice before Samuel died, Saul had disobeyed God in ways that Samuel had said you're going to be rejected to be king. God is going to replace you with another man after his own heart, which turned out to be David. And then Samuel had died.

And Saul, because he couldn't get a word from God through some of the means he tried like the Urim and the Thummim, he got no dreams or visions or anything like that. He went to this witch to conduct a séance to bring up Samuel. Now, Samuel was upset about being brought up. The woman was terrified to see Samuel, and it didn't work out real well for Saul either since Samuel told him you're going to die tomorrow. And one of the reasons he died was because he went to this witch according to Second Chronicles.

So in any case, I think that this is a case of God speaking in an unusual way in spite of, not because of, the occult. And it's not the only case I've ever heard of. I've heard of people involved in occultic things which the Bible forbids and asking questions about Christ or God and getting the right answer. But if it was God speaking to them, then he did it despite the fact that they were not supposed to be doing what they were doing. God can break through any time he wants to and speak.

If somebody happens to be going to a witch or using a Ouija board or something like that, this is something that is spiritually dangerous to do. The Bible forbids it. But on the other hand, God can get through and rebuke somebody at that time, and that's what he did to Saul. So there are some people who think that it was not really Samuel that came, that it was a demonic spirit impersonating him. But this is simply to read one's own prejudices into the passage. Throughout the entire passage, it tells us that Samuel was talking to Saul. It said Samuel said this and Samuel said that and Samuel did that. So it's obvious that unless we're not going to take what the Bible says about it seriously, it was in fact Samuel, but it does not confirm any theories about the ability of people to reach dead people generally speaking through séances. So I didn't of course I hadn't heard about these sermons of Augustine about it, but that's been my opinion about it too. Thank you for your call. Paul in Buena Vista, Colorado, welcome to the Narrow Path. Hi, Paul.

Paul: Hi, Steve. I just was in a Bible study with 12 or 14 people that are all kind of disgruntled about the churches they've been going to, and we've had a pretty good time of it. But a couple weeks ago, it was revealed to the group that one of the couples is really pretty heavily Calvinistic. We were in the book of Ephesians chapter one, verse five and verse 11, where it specifically calls out the body of Christ as being predestined. And so for me, it's like, can you kind of put some kind of a qualifier for how predestination or predestined in the King James doesn't mean that you're specifically specially called out and everybody else is history?

Steve Gregg: Well, yeah. In other words, you want to know a non-Calvinistic approach to the idea of predestination. Certainly the word predestination is in the Bible. Sometimes the same word is translated differently, but even forknown at one point I think in First Peter chapter one if I'm not mistaken. But when it talks about us being predestined, there's really only two passages I know of that use the term predestinated or predestined with reference to us.

One of those passages is in Ephesians one as you mentioned, and the other is in Romans eight. Now I'll look at Romans eight first. Verse 29 says, "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son." Okay, so what was predestined and who was predestined? Well, the subject of that is the ones that are predestined are the ones that he foreknew. It says "for whom he foreknew." Okay, that's the group we're talking about. He predestined them to be conformed to the image of his son.

Well, who are those that he foreknew? Well, I believe the Bible would suggest they are the believers. The believers are the ones that God has foreknown. Okay, so it has something to do with what he has predestined believers to. Those he foreknew, we could say believers, he has predestined them to become conformed to the image of his son. In other words, those who are believers have a destiny which God has predestined for them, namely to be brought into Christ's image.

That's the goal. An awful lot of people assume that if we're predestined, it means that God predestined certain unbelievers to become believers so that they could go to heaven. And many people don't have any idea apart from going to heaven of what we were would be predestined for. But first of all, Paul doesn't say anything about unbelievers being predestined to anything. It's the ones he foreknew. That's the believers. So he's predestined something for believers.

You might think he'd say heaven, but that's not what he talks about here. He says what God has predestined for believers is that they will become like Christ, which is of course a very Pauline and Petrine—Peter talks about the same thing and other passages talk about—John talks about the same thing in First John chapter three, that the hope of the Christian is to be changed into the image of Christ.

And Paul says in Second Corinthians 3:18 that we are being changed from glory to glory into that same image of Christ. So the change that God has predestined for his people is to become like Christ. Now this has nothing to do with any Calvinist ideas. Calvinism teaches that God predestined certain unbelievers to become believers. But there's nothing about that in this passage certainly, nor in any other that I know of.

This is not talking about any predestined thing that God has predestined for unbelievers. This is what he has predestined for believers. Now the other passage that mentions us being predestined is Ephesians chapter one. Twice it mentions us being predestined in this chapter. One of those is in verse five. It says "having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will."

And then the other passage is also in Ephesians 1:11, "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Now Paul's using the word predestined here just as he did in Romans eight. He's saying we, meaning believers, have been predestined to something. God has predestined believers to experience something.

Now he doesn't say anything about unbelievers being predestined to become believers. And that is the specifically Calvinistic understanding of predestination, that there are some unbelievers who, unrelated to anything that God ever saw in them or anything they would ever do or could do, God predestined them to become believers. Well, if that is true, Paul says nothing about that here or in any other passage. He doesn't mention unbelievers being predestined to anything.

He talks about us. We're believers. And he says he has predestined us, that is the church, to experience adoption as sons by Jesus Christ. Now, I have to say what may be confusing here is people might say, well, when we got saved, we were adopted as sons by God. And Paul says we were predestined to be adopted as sons. So that must have happened before we became Christians. God predestined us as non-Christians to become adopted. No, no, no, no.

When Paul talks about adoption as sons, he's not talking about conversion. When the Bible talks about our conversion, it doesn't talk about us being adopted as sons. We are born of God. We are regenerated. We're born again. That's different than being adopted. Adoption in Paul's usage has to do with those who are naturally born sons of God or supernaturally born sons of God reaching adult privilege and adopted into the role of rulership and of glory.

Now, how do I know that? Well, because Paul tells us that. It helps if we want to know what Paul means, it helps if he tells us what he means, and he tells us that in Romans eight. In Romans eight, he says not only the creation, this is verse 23, "but we also who have the first fruits of the spirit," we're Christians, we have the spirit. What is it about us that we who have the spirit? "Even we ourselves groan within ourselves eagerly waiting for the adoption."

Which he says is the redemption of our body. Now, the redemption of our body I take to be the resurrection of our bodies. That comes when Jesus comes back. Paul elsewhere tells us that when our bodies are raised, they're raised in glory, they're raised in power, we're raised to privilege to rule with Christ. We're not reigning with Christ yet, and we don't have immortal bodies yet, and we're not glorified yet.

But we are predestined to be glorified like Christ. And that is our adoption when our bodies are redeemed, when our bodies are raised. So Paul tells us in Romans, the only other book where he mentions us being predestined, that what we're looking forward to is the adoption. That hasn't happened to us yet. We've been born of God, that's why we have the spirit. He says "we who have received the first fruits of the spirit are groaning awaiting the adoption," which is the transformation of our bodies, the redemption of our bodies, the resurrection at the last day.

So to Paul, Christians have been predestined to be raised in the image of Christ, to be conformed to his image as he says in Romans 8:29. So he says there in Ephesians 1:5, he says we've been predestinated, he has predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ. So the adoption is going to be our resurrection in glory where we come forth from the grave to reign with Christ. That's what Paul calls the adoption.

And if someone wants to say he doesn't, then they're going to have to find another Paul or another book written by Paul, because Paul tells us in his own books what he means. Unfortunately, sometimes Calvinists, they don't care as much what he means as what he sounds like he means to them. And that's I think the problem that they have. By the way, fellowshipping with people who are strong Calvinists is not in itself a downer, it's not a bad thing necessarily.

Calvinists can be good Christian people. But of course, if you're trying to fellowship with a group of people and one couple is strong Calvinist as you say and the others aren't, you just might want to watch out that sometimes people who are devoted Calvinists are not content to let some other Christian not be a Calvinist. Now if they're okay with everyone reaching their own opinions just like they themselves have—I mean they've reached their own opinions in choosing to be Calvinist—well they should allow everyone else to choose their own opinions too even if it means choosing not to be Calvinist.

There will be no unity in a group where one party or one couple are trying to force others to conform to their theology. That's divisive, and Paul said not to have fellowship with divisive people. On the other hand, a Calvinist doesn't have to be divisive. A Calvinist could hold his views or her views and still gladly allow others to hold theirs. So I mean it really I don't know if it's going to be a problem in the group you're with. You say they're strong Calvinists. If strong Calvinists means aggressive Calvinists, then there may be problems. If they're simply convinced Calvinists, that doesn't have to be a problem. They might be very gracious people and they might not be troublemakers. All right? Michael in Inglewood, California, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Michael: Hey, Steve. I'm calling because I heard a Bishop Keith McQueen preaching about—basically, he kind of sounds gay and he has a first man and things like that. So he's preaching Ruth and Naomi were the first lesbian couple in the Bible and other things like well, here's my question. How can I unapologetically use apologetics to refute how he says David was bisexual using First Samuel 20:41 and Second Samuel 1:26?

Steve Gregg: Okay, well, I'll tell you, I don't care if, I mean, I do care if somebody's gay or not. I'm sorry for them if they are. I certainly care if a preacher or head of a church is gay. I don't have any prejudice against people who can't help feeling same-sex attraction, so I'm not anti-gay people. I'm certainly against gay sex because the Bible is. Now, but what I'm certainly against any preacher or Bible teacher who decides to twist the scriptures in order to justify one's own sin.

I mean, that'd be like if I was a bank robber and I tried to find ways from the Bible to say, well, being a bank robber's not really forbidden in scripture. Some good people were bank robbers and if I twisted some stories to make it look like it, that would disqualify me as a Bible teacher. And I would say if someone says that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, well, that person obviously is not a Bible teacher. He's an ideologue trying to push an agenda.

Naomi was a generation older than Ruth and was her mother-in-law. Both of them married men. Neither of them were lesbians. They both were widowed, after which the younger woman found another man and got married. There's no lesbianism anywhere in the passage. So I mean, anyone who a Bible teacher really ought to teach what's in the Bible, not see if we can twist the Bible in order to make it say something very unbiblical so that we can feel better about ourselves. That's simply dishonest.

And no teacher, whether it's that issue or any other, no Bible teacher should be tolerated who is not interested in teaching what the Bible says but is interested in rewriting the Bible to fit one's own passionate agenda. Now, as far as David and Jonathan, people often point to David and Jonathan as if they were gay because when Jonathan died, David lamented his death and said our love was greater than that between a man and a woman.

Now you see, I guess gay people might think that love means sex. I mean, I don't think they should think that because I would think they'd know the English language better than that, but maybe they don't. Because after all, the excuse they make for tolerance of the gay lifestyle is "no one can tell me who I can love." Well, nobody ever wants to tell anyone else who they can love, I hope. I hope we can love everybody. I love everybody. If I don't, shame on me, I'm not a good Christian.

I even love my neighbor's wife. I don't even know her, but I mean I love her, you know, I love everybody. But I can't sleep with them, you know. And having sex is a very different thing than love. It's nice if you are in fact married and obliged to have sex with somebody, it's nice if you love them too, though not all married couples have loved each other even though they've had sex together because that's what marriage is. It's nice if it's loving also.

But you can love a lot of people without having sex. So to say that David and Jonathan's love for each other was greater than that for women, it's not comparing it to sexual love. I mean, it actually exceeds sexual love. A man's love for woman no doubt does probably refer to sexual love because it's specifying man and woman. But it's possible to love another person more than you love your sex partner without it having any sexual connotations at all.

So I mean, we live in a very corrupt society that doesn't even know that the word love and the word sex have different ranges of meaning and that you don't have to have sex with everyone you love. In fact, you had better not have sex with most of the people you love if you love everybody Jesus tells you to. So this person is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing quite obviously. I mean, they are not making any attempt to understand the Bible. They're just trying to help others to misunderstand the Bible so as to justify their own sinful lifestyle. I find that very distasteful. And certainly if that person is in ministry, they should be out of the ministry. Karen in Citrus Heights, California, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Karen: Hi. So I grew up knowing Cain and Abel were twins, but later after reading the Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, I learned that they were twins, but not of each other, that they both had a twin sister. Is this true?

Steve Gregg: I'm sorry, your voice was a little muffled. Who had twin sisters?

Karen: Cain and Abel. Were they not twins of each other, but both had a twin sister?

Steve Gregg: Well, the Bible doesn't talk about twins anywhere in that story. Cain and Abel were brothers of each other, but the Bible doesn't say they were twin brothers, and there's no mention of them having sisters. They might, they certainly had sisters, but I wouldn't say twin sisters necessarily. We probably would have been told about that. We are told in Genesis five that Adam and Eve, in addition to Cain and Abel and Seth, they had other sons and daughters.

So of course all the children of Adam and Eve had brothers and sisters, but we don't read of any twins among them. There could have been twins, but we don't know of it. As far as the Lost Books of Eden are concerned, there are no lost books of Eden. None of the books—

Karen: The Forgotten Books of Eden? Or the Lost Books of the Bible?

Steve Gregg: Yeah, they're not really—they were never part of the Bible. They've been around for a long time. You see, people can market them as the Forgotten Books of the Bible or Lost Books of the Bible or Forgotten Books of Eden because they're old books and they talk about some of the same subjects that the Bible talks about. But old books that talk about the same subjects as the Bible aren't books of the Bible.

The books of the Bible are chosen because they are written by inspired writers, namely prophets and apostles in the New Testament. And it's that inspiration that caused them to be included in the Bible. Now, lots of other books were written about similar subjects by uninspired writers. It shouldn't be surprising. For example, I have a bookshelf full of the life of Jesus by this or that Bible scholar. Lots of lives of Jesus.

None of them are actually inspired books. They're all just people writing on the subject of Jesus' life and they don't belong in the Bible. They are books about Bible subjects. Now some of them may be wrong. Some of them could be very much mistaken because the authors are not inspired. The same is true of authors who wrote about Old Testament stories back in the ancient times. If they weren't written by inspired authors, they could certainly get the stories wrong.

And anyone who reads the Lost Books of Eden or the Hidden Books of the Bible or whatever any of those words are is reading books that are not part of the Bible. They never were, and there's reasons they weren't. They're not written by inspired writers. So I have that book on my shelf too, the Lost Books of Eden or whatever it's called. And as far as the Lost Books of the Bible, they're thinking about Enoch and some of the books that we call apocryphal books, which have never been included in any Bible—well, Enoch has been included in the Ethiopian Bible, but not in the Jewish Bible.

And since it's an Old Testament era story, it really would belong in the Old Testament if it's in the Bible at all, certainly not New Testament book. Enoch lived and left the world long before Jesus was born, so that would put him in Old Testament times. However, the Jews did not recognize the book of Enoch as a book of the Bible, and for good reason. It wasn't written by Enoch, it wasn't written by an inspired author. It was written around the year 200 BC. Enoch lived closer to like 3000 BC.

So obviously he didn't write the book called Enoch. So don't be—it's a marketing ploy when some publisher puts out what they call the Lost Books of the Bible. They know that there's going to be people say, oh, there's something there that's just been discovered. No, they have not just been discovered. They've been known from earliest times. The church fathers in the second and third century wrote treatises against some of these books. So they knew those books. They just knew they were not real.

So anyway, I appreciate your call. We don't have any evidence that there were twin sisters of Cain or Abel, but they later had many sisters as we do know from scripture. You're listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. We have another half hour coming. We have no calls waiting, so you could get through right now if you call 844-484-5737. Our website's thenarrowpath.com. Stay tuned. I'll be back in 30 seconds.

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour, and I'm looking at an open switchboard. That's the first time in many months that that has happened. Now the lines are starting to light up. If you'd like to get onto the program, this is a great time to break through while there's no one standing in your way. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That number again: 844-484-5737. And so we're going to talk next to Robert in Pinole, California. Hi, Robert. Welcome.

Robert: Hi, Steve. Yeah, my wife and I recently left a church. One of the reasons why was the pastor encouraged saying it was okay for Christians to drink. And he liked to ride motorcycles, he would—when he would go on vacation, you know, he'd take these long rides and he would post pictures of Facebook of like one of his favorite places to hang out was a bar and he would post a picture of a glass of cognac with a cigar on top. But he would tell the people you shouldn't get drunk, and want to know what are your thoughts on that? A pastor telling the congregation, because it's a church of about a thousand people, and the way I see it, it could be a stumbling block because I'm sure there are people in there that are struggling with alcohol.

Steve Gregg: Well, if he said it's a sin to get drunk, then he's saying exactly what the Bible says. If he says that the Bible does not forbid the drinking of alcohol, he's also agreeable with the Bible there. The Bible does not forbid the drinking of alcohol. But you're right, there are many Christians who do struggle with alcohol. They can't handle it, and a pastor really ought not to dangle temptation in front of his congregation. He should be more aware than that.

Now, again, the people who struggle with alcohol should know very well that the Bible forbids drunkenness. So no matter what the pastor says about the legitimacy of light drinking, let's say, without getting drunk—frankly, the Bible would support the pastor in that. But the pastor doesn't have to—I don't know what context—for the pastor to post pictures of himself with cognac and cigars, this reminds me of a trend that's going on. It's going on in some circles, I think they're mainly in Reformed and sometimes Catholic circles, where young theological types like to hang out with cigars in their mouths and whiskey and other drinks like that nearby and take them.

I think they're trying to give off the impression that that's a sophisticated thing to do, that that's an intellectual thing to do. Now, I don't know of anything in the Bible that forbids anyone to smoke a cigar. I've never smoked one of those things, don't even like to be around the smell of people who do, or cigarettes for that matter. Never did like those smells. But some people do, and I can't really say on biblical authority shame on you, you can't smoke cigars. Well, you can.

I mean, the Bible doesn't say not to. If someone says, well, isn't it bad for your body? Shouldn't you steward your body better than that? I'd say I would. I'd want to steward my body better than that, but I don't want to be a hypocrite either. Because while saying I don't want to put any tobacco in me, I might be putting a lot of sugar in me or caffeine or, you know, whatever, fattening foods or whatever. I don't have a big problem with fattening foods, but I could be eating very unhealthy and doing harm to my body and not smoking.

Let's face it, if we're going to say people can't smoke, and the reason they can't smoke is that it's unhealthy, well, we're going to have to also say they can't do anything else that might be unhealthy because if that's what makes something wrong, then we shouldn't do it. Now, I think where the spirit of the Lord is, there's liberty. But obviously smoking and drinking are both things that are controversial in Christian circles. They're not forbidden in the Bible, but they are controversial.

And I think a pastor ought to be aware of that. And if he smokes or drinks, I think he might on occasion, if people ask him about it, he should say, well, you know, I don't think it's wrong to smoke or drink, but I don't think I would post pictures of myself doing that. I wouldn't pretend to be a teetotaler and secretly be drinking, but I would be willing to say—now, see, I don't drink either. I don't smoke or drink, never liked it, never liked either of those two things and do not do them.

But if I did like them and if I did want to do them, I would just tell my congregation, you know, there's nothing in the Bible that says this is a sin. But I will do it discreetly if I do it at all. I won't be rubbing it in your face, especially in view of the fact that some of you might have been addicted to tobacco or alcohol. And certainly people who have addictions like that need to avoid it altogether. And Paul did indicate that there are some things that are allowed, but some people in their conscience can't allow themselves to, or because of their weakness to it shouldn't do it.

And Paul said those who have the strength to do these things moderately should avoid doing so in the presence of people who don't have the strength to do it moderately and who would fall into temptation. So there's certain things that you could say before God I have no problem in my conscience doing these things because I'm not violating anything which scripture says in doing so. But at the same time say, yet many people have problems with this, so while I will make it very clear that I don't have a problem with it and that the Bible doesn't forbid it—the Bible does forbid doing things that you can't control.

And Paul did say all things are lawful for me, referring to food, by the way, not everything. But he says, but I will not be brought under the power of any. So that's a pretty strong statement. I might have the liberty in Christ to do certain things, but if it has power over me, I don't—I'm not going to do that. And if it has power over anyone around me, I'm not going to encourage them to do that. So those would be the reactions I would have to a pastor posting pictures of himself smoking cigars and drinking booze.

Robert: We can make a case for wine, right? Didn't Paul tell Timothy have a little bit of wine for your stomach? Absolutely. And I think it's in Proverbs it talks about, like, wine, but I thought there was something in the Old Testament where it talks about staying away from like beer or hard alcohol. That's why when I see cognac, something hard alcohol, that's why it really ticked me off. And also the way I see it too, it's a bad testimony, you know? Even me, if I'm at a barbecue and I've been witnessing to somebody and telling them about Jesus and they see me at a barbecue and I've got a beer in my hand, they'll look at me like I'm just like everybody else, just like the world. I'm indulging in things the world does. I just think it's a bad testimony also.

Steve Gregg: Well, yeah, but I mean shame on someone who would judge you for that, because you may drink a beer once a month at a barbecue and not drink it any other time. It certainly is not going to hurt you that once a month and it's not going to make you drunk. But obviously there are people who don't even have a concept in their head of drinking alcohol moderately. They only know total abstinence versus total drunkenness.

I think the majority of human beings are in between those two somewhere. Like I said, I haven't practiced total abstinence. There have been times in my life where I've had a glass of wine. But I also have never drunk any alcohol in order to get drunk and it's not something I do. I don't even like the taste of it, so I don't—if I drink it at all, it's going to be for social reasons, but I'm not going to keep drinking it until it has some effect on me. I don't like it.

And on the other hand, some people do like it and I don't think it's wrong for a woman or a man to have a glass of wine once in a while. So you know, the Bible doesn't forbid it. Now the Bible does talk about wine and strong drink. I think the strong drink is the term you're thinking of. I don't know what strong drink was. Some people say it's beer, but I don't know why it would be beer. It certainly isn't distilled liquor, you know, because I don't think they had distilleries back then. But any anything that would be strong enough to overpower you would be something certainly to avoid. Thank you for your call. Let's talk to Ryan from Lynnwood, Washington. Hi, Ryan. Welcome.

Ryan: Hey, Steve. So in talking about the Trinity, I've heard you say that in one sense God is one, which is obvious, and then in another sense he's three. Yes. But just trying to be a critical thinker, do you think it'd be more honest, maybe not necessarily more accurate, but more honest to say that in a sense that God is one and in another sense he is at least three? Just because the Bible doesn't make that clear that there may be a few more that I don't know about.

Steve Gregg: Well, I don't want to add numbers to what the Bible does. I read in the Bible that the Father is God. I read in the Bible that Jesus is God. And I read that the Spirit is God. I don't know of any fourth or fifth parties that are called God. So I mean, when saying "at least three," I would just say going by what I have in the Bible, and frankly that's the only place I would know to get the answers to this.

I would not go to a philosopher outside the Bible to ask me whether God is trinity, whether he's one or three or you know, I mean, the trinity doctrine, if it's true, must be shown to be true from scripture. An alternative doctrine to the trinity, a non-trinitarian doctrine, if it's true should be shown from the scripture because we really don't have outside the scripture any definitive revelation of God that's before our eyes.

Of course Jesus was himself a definitive revelation of God before the eyes of a generation that lived before, but he's not here now. So what we have are the scriptures. We have Jesus too, but we don't look at him directly, we see him in scripture. So I wouldn't say "at least three" unless I suspected there were a few more that I don't know about. Now if you're saying there are many aspects of God, just like a diamond might be cut with having eight or six aspects, well that would be another thing.

I mean to say different than persons. Yeah, so I'm, you know, I don't haggle about the language, but I'll say as much as I think the scriptures demand me to say and I'll kind of avoid speculating beyond that on things that I don't know otherwise. All right, Ryan? God bless you, man. Good talking to you. Mike in Cool, California. Hi, Mike. Welcome.

Mike: Good afternoon, Steve. I hope you're having a blessed day. So far so good. So I go to a Pentecostal church, of course some of those people are word of faith. I just happen to suffer from an extreme rare neurological syndrome I guess you would call it that is very painful. And so they always try to give me the oh your faith isn't strong enough, you know, that whole situation. And of course I go to Paul and Timothy and assorted other scriptures that the people who were healed didn't have much faith. So where would you what would you do in that situation to just kind of calm their attempts to say that I'm weak in my faith?

Steve Gregg: Well, I you may not be aware but I have four lectures called the word of faith doctrine. Have you seen those?

Mike: I've listened to parts of them, but yes I've looked at a lot of stuff on your website.

Steve Gregg: All right, well it's under topical lectures there's a set called word of faith where I critique that very view. And I point out the scriptures they use are taken totally out of context and totally not only out of the context of the passage in the chapter they're found in, they're also taken out of the context of Christianity in general. This is not a Christian teaching. The word of faith teaching is that if you have enough faith you can say you are well and you won't be sick anymore.

They also say if you say you are healed by Jesus but you still have symptoms, you're healed anyway. You're healed but you just have symptoms, the symptoms are a deception from the enemy to make you not believe that you're healed. Which is of course the most absurd thing vis-à-vis scripture one could say. I mean Jesus never healed anybody and left them in their symptoms. The symptoms are the disease. I mean that's the thing. If you've got the symptoms you're not healed yet and there's no such thing in the Bible as a healing that did not involve the removal of the symptoms.

So I mean this is simply fast talking. I mean they say if you say you're healed you'll be healed. And you say well I do say I'm healed but why am I got these symptoms? Well that's just you are healed, the devil's just trying to deceive you. These are the people who do not use the scripture honestly or faithfully. They know what they want the scripture to believe it teaches. And since what they think it teaches does not align with reality in anyone's life, they have to make up secondary and tertiary excuses for that and say well my doctrine's not wrong just because real life doesn't conform to it. My doctrine's still true.

Well why do you think that? You know, well because someone quoted these verses to me: by his stripes you're healed and he healeth all thy diseases and that kind of stuff. Yeah, those are some verses that need to be looked at carefully. But it also says that Paul prayed for his thorn in the flesh to be taken away and the Lord said my grace is sufficient for you, my strength is made perfect in your weakness.

We also have Paul telling Timothy "I left Trophimus sick in Miletum." Now he should have said if he was word of faith, "Trophimus is not sick of course because he was healed at the cross at the whipping post. By his stripes we're healed. So he's really healed, but I left him there under the delusion that he was sick." Now Paul didn't know any of this fancy talk. He just said I left him there, he's sick, he's sick, I left him there sick. So he's not using that fancy word of faith jargon because he didn't believe it.

And there's no reason to believe it. Timothy had frequent infirmities in his stomach Paul said. He didn't say confess you're healed brother, he said take a little wine for that. That'll help. So in other words, they have a few scriptures they like, they assume a certain paradigm that Jesus when he died paid for not only our sins but also our sicknesses, which is not stated to be true in scripture. It's their false interpretation of Isaiah 53 verses 4 and 5 which I explain very carefully in my lectures.

So I mean just I would just ignore them. And frankly since they keep saying that you might want to find a church where people don't say such nonsense.

Mike: It's the people are the majority of them are the nicest, kindest people I've ever been around.

Steve Gregg: Oh I don't doubt it. I don't doubt so in other words, okay. Well then what you have to develop the physical condition you have to develop is thick skin. And say hey you think what you want to think. Yeah, so say whatever you want about it. I'm following the Lord, I've got faith, and you know, deal with it. All right, brother? I'm sorry about your pain. God bless you. Jim in Portland, Oregon. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Jim: Hello, Steve. I'm not sure where I read this verse in the New Testament but it has to do with John the Baptist and the way I remember it Jesus said something to the effect that he would be least in the kingdom of God?

Steve Gregg: No, what he said is "Among those born of women there is not arisen one greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." That's Matthew 11 and let me look it up here, verse 11. Matthew 11:11, "Assuredly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen one greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Yeah.

Jim: So can you explain that to me? What he's trying to say there?

Steve Gregg: Well I believe that Jesus was inaugurating the kingdom of God, also called the kingdom of heaven. His preaching was "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" or "the kingdom of God is at hand." This is the whole message of Jesus. Jesus was bringing into reality the promised kingdom that the prophets had looked forward to which would be ruled by the Messiah. Jesus was present and therefore the kingdom was kind of invading the world through him.

But he was not yet enthroned. He was going to be enthroned at his ascension and then he'd sit down at the right hand of God and his kingdom would be realized. Now Paul says in Colossians 1:13 that Christians today have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God's son. So no one was in that state yet. The kingdom was there. Jesus was there, he was gathering followers, a kingdom is a king and his subjects. There was a king, there were subjects.

But he wasn't yet coronated, he wasn't yet on the throne at the right hand of God. So even John the Baptist didn't live to experience that. John the Baptist died before Jesus did and therefore never came into that kingdom in its reality there. So John didn't ever become part of the kingdom though he announced it was near. But those who actually live to be born again into that kingdom after Pentecost I would suggest would be greater than John.

Now by greater I don't mean that's by some metric. It's not saying that John was inferior to people in every respect if they're in the kingdom and he's not. In one of the passages I think it's in Luke's passage says of those born of women there's not arisen a prophet greater than John the Baptist. Now as a prophet, as a spokesman for God, John the Baptist had a message that was the greatest of any prophet. All the other prophets had said the Messiah will come. John said he's here.

That's a greater message than any previous prophet. Those of us who live after the resurrection of Christ, after his enthronement and who are in his kingdom now, we have a better message. Not that the kingdom was near—the kingdom has come and Jesus is King. So I think that when it comes to having the greatest message, being the greatest messenger or prophet, John was the greatest because he had the greatest message of any before him. But we who are in Christ have an even more a greater message still: the kingdom has come, Jesus is King, he's enthroned. That's what I think is the comparison that Jesus is making there. Thank you for your call. Victoria in Oakland, California, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Victoria: Yes, hi. I was wondering if you know about the story of the Maccabees in the Catholic Bible because I like that story if you know much about it.

Steve Gregg: It's a great story and it's true. Yeah the Maccabees were Jewish priests initially, an older priest and his four or five sons who staged revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes around 167-168 BC and they ran a guerrilla warfare campaign against the invading or occupying Syrians and drove them out. It was a bloody battle and the book of First Maccabees tells that story. Now the Catholic Bible also has Second Maccabees in it.

And I think if you outside of the Bible there's like a third and fourth Maccabees written too. None of them in my opinion are inspired books. They're not written by prophets, they're just history books. Because they cover relevant Jewish history, some Bibles, the Catholic Bible for example, includes them in the Old Testament of their Bible. Protestants usually don't because Protestants want to limit the books in the Bible to those that are actually inspired by God.

But some people think that well these other books are edifying too whether they're inspired by God or not and they would put them in the Bible. Anyway yes ma'am I do know that story. It's a great story. In fact every year around Christmas time of course the Jews celebrate Hanukkah and Hanukkah is a celebration of the Maccabean war and its result. They drove out the Syrians and they reestablished the temple and the eight days of Hanukkah remind the Jews of eight days that it took I think to manufacture the oil for the lamps so that the temple worship could be reinstituted. Anyway yes ma'am I do know that story.

Victoria: Thank you.

Steve Gregg: Thank you very much. Good talking to you. Okay, let's see. Our next caller is Linda from Auburn, Washington. Hi Linda, welcome.

Linda: Hi. Okay, I just wanted to say something about the caller that called in about the healing having the possibly fibromyalgia with the pain and the church not helping and what they said. I just wanted to say that there's a pastor Tina at Years Evolution Ministries in Puyallup. Her story was that at 10 she couldn't see—her—she needed corrective glasses and a woman next to her got healed and she thought God didn't love her. She talked to God and then she actually got the healing in a way through medical doctors through her husband paying to have this surgery done when they were married quite a few years later. And she heard God answer her maybe when she asked that he waited so that her husband could show his love for her that way because it was a really big thing for her husband because he was very tight with money. So God could have you know special reasons to hold off at any certain time like maybe the person would have a family member that could pray and could be successful or there's physical things like gluten-free diet has helped, bromelain and NAC.

Steve Gregg: All right, I understand what you're saying. You're saying there's lots of ways that God could provide relief other than supernatural healing. And sometimes he may use other people including doctors and medications and people who can pay for those procedures and so forth. God may involve those people for a reason. It may have something to do with what God's doing in the lives of those people to give them a chance to be generous for example or something.

Yeah, I mean that's true. I mean the Bible certainly would not deny that there's ways other than supernatural ways for people to recover from sickness. We know that's true. We also would have to allow that the Bible allows that people die of sickness. That is not all people do, but many people do. Some people in the Bible are healed of sickness but some may be helped by doctors and some may not be helped at all, they may die sick.

That was true actually of Elisha the prophet in Second Kings, I think it's chapter 13 tells about his death. It mentions that he was sick with the sickness of which he died. Elisha had done miracles, twice as many miracles as Elijah, even raising the dead. But when he got sick, he didn't get better, he died of sickness. It's kind of normal, no special explanations need to be given that people die of sickness. That's kind of one of the main ways people die.

They die in accidents and other things too. But yeah, if God wants to wants you to get better, he can arrange for you to get better supernaturally or or through means that are not supernatural. I'm out of time and there's some callers waiting. I wish I could get to you, but call back Monday. We'll talk about what's on your mind. You're listening to the Narrow Path. We are listener supported. If you want to help us out, you can go to our website where everything is free. It's thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.