The Narrow Path

Steve Gregg: 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 so you can call in with your questions about the Bible and about the Christian faith. You can call in about your disagreements with the host. We'll talk about that if you want to call in about that. Right now our lines are completely full, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have our number ready at hand because these calls, we do go through them and there are, every time I talk to a caller and we're done with it, a line opens up.

Sometimes a line opens up just because someone gets tired of waiting, so call in a few minutes and you may well find a line has opened up for you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. And our first caller today is Ken calling from Port Huron, Michigan. Ken, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Ken: Hi, Steve. Thanks for taking my call. I've got a kind of a long intro here, but I have it kind of jotted down and I think I can move through it quickly to get to the question.

Steve Gregg: Okay, let's see if you can do that.

Ken: Cut me off if I get long. I've been gathering with, oh, a few years now, with people who are gathering in a home church. You met some of the people, I do believe. They're come-outers, they're tired of being pew warmers watching an on-stage performance. At the time, the book by Frank Viola, George Barna called *Pagan Christianity* was a popular book that circulated among us. A popular verse is of course 1 Corinthians 14:26 about the open meeting.

Now, if I can just read just a couple of short quotes from the book here, there's a chapter that Viola wrote on the sermon: bad news, that's bondage, the sermon. Okay, he says, "The exhortations of the local elders are normally impromptu." I underlined that when I read it. I thought, I don't think that's true. And then another quote: "The church needs fewer pulpiteers and more spiritual facilitators." Okay, depending on what's meant by that, okay. And then this one here: "But teaching is to come from all the believers," he quotes 14:26 of 1 Corinthians and the 31st verse. He didn't quote it, he referenced it. "And then as well as from those who specifically are gifted to teach."

Now, reading that, some of the fruit of that here in the past few weeks, at the end of one of the meetings, I said to one of the guys there, one of my friends, I says, "Maybe you could bring the word next week." And he said, "My wife and I don't believe in that." I thought I was going to say, "What? Don't believe in that." But I let it go. Oh, okay, I let it go. And then a week or two after that, I said something in the open meeting about I really appreciate time in the word in the meeting when a word is brought forth and we discuss it. And the fellow's wife added when I was done, "But that could be done in five minutes." And I thought, "What am I running into here?" I fear that there's a throwing out of the baby with the bathwater.

Steve Gregg: Are they new to the group?

Ken: No.

Steve Gregg: It's interesting. So, let me ask you this. Has the group from the very beginning just been kind of open meeting where anyone can share anything or was it more traditional in the sense of having a teaching or a sermon? Is that how the group was formed?

Ken: Okay, from the beginning it's been open, but the guys who kind of initially put it together, they do have a word that's brought regularly every week, but it's done by a person seated in a chair that there's open input into it. It's not like a sermon.

Steve Gregg: Sure. Well, let me just say this that I don't think the Bible gives us a very clear protocol for running a church meeting. We have 1 Corinthians 14, which you made reference to and Frank Viola does. But really what Paul's doing in 1 Corinthians 14 is trying to reel them in. It seems evident that Paul wants the, when he talks about speaking in tongues, he's not trying to get them to speak in tongues. They were already zealous to speak in tongues and they were doing that. And he's saying, "Listen, if anyone's going to speak in tongues, let's just how about just two or three, one at a time, only if there's an interpreter. And if there's no interpreter, just don't even speak it out at all." And then he says, "And how many prophets do we have speaking up? Let's have only two or three in a meeting, and even those have to be judged."

Now, it sounds to me like Paul's not saying, he's not writing to a cessationist church that doesn't believe in the gifts and saying, "Hey, you need to start introducing these gifts." He's obviously trying to rein in the over-enthusiastic undisciplined use of certain gifts that people especially like to use in the meeting. So he's not really writing some kind of a format for a church service. He's basically saying, I mean there was some normal format, but he's saying, "Listen, don't do too much of this or don't do too much of that. Or let's just do things in an orderly way, in an edifying way."

So, but he doesn't give us start-to-finish kind of things, three hymns and a solo and a sermon that's three points and a psalm, a poem I should say, and an invitation. That's how many evangelical churches have done things, and Frank Viola is of course saying that that isn't always the best thing for a church because it's kind of a one-man, one-mind, one-gift operation and everyone else is like an audience in a theater. Now Paul, of course, expected there to be more than one person sharing their gifts. But I think many people, not just Frank Viola, I know he does this, but I've known many people who do this, they take 1 Corinthians 14:26 as if it's prescriptive, as if Paul's saying, "Listen, everyone's got to share. Everybody's got to teach or give a psalm or tongue or interpretation, if you come to church and you haven't given anything you're negligent."

I mean, that's not what Paul's saying. And people need to learn to read the difference between a statement of fact and an imperative statement. What is simply descriptive and what is prescriptive. Verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 14 says, "How is it then, brethren?" Okay, he's going to describe how it is, not necessarily how it's supposed to be. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. He's describing this church. "How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation." Then he says, "Let all things be done for edification."

The largest part of that verse is descriptive. The last line is prescriptive. He says, "When you people come together, this is how you guys are. You just all want to say something. Everyone wants to get their word in. But let me just tell you this, whatever you do, no matter how many people talk or don't talk, let everything be done decently and in an order. Let everything be done edifying, in an edifying way." So in other words, he's not requiring that everybody speak or everyone teach. Why would he expect everyone to teach when he says at the end of chapter 12, "Are all teachers? Are all," he says, "are all apostles, are all prophets, are all teachers, are all workers of miracles?" That's in chapter 12 verse 29. Paul is implying that they're not.

Now, Justin Martyr, I think, is the one who gives us a sampling of a early church meeting in his writings. And they did say that one part of the meeting was when one of the brothers would get up and they'd read the memoirs of the apostles. Of course, that's what we have in our New Testament. He said they'd read the memoirs of the apostles, probably the gospels, and then they'd comment on it, exhorting people to live up to those worthy words and so forth. So there'd be some reading of the scripture and some commentary on it. Now, I don't know if it was as Frank Viola said, impromptu or extemporaneous. It could have been. I mean, some people are pretty good at speaking extemporaneously. Others, not so much.

But I was, I've certainly been at churches where people spoke extemporaneously and they were not very good at putting their thoughts together. And I would say it was not really done for edification. I mean, they might have intended for it to be, but that wasn't the effect. It was just taking up time and confusing people. So I don't say that a sermon has to be prepared, but I think it'd be very strange to say it has to not be prepared. I think maybe some people think it should not be prepared because then you're not trusting the Holy Spirit to speak. Well, if you prepare it, it's true, you're not trusting Holy Spirit to speak extemporaneously. You could trust the Holy Spirit to help you in your preparation and to help you deliver with anointing.

After all, a sermon's not the same thing as a prophecy. Now I personally think that prophecies are extemporaneous. I think that the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. I think teaching and prophecy are different things, which is why they're different gifts. Prophecy is obviously something that I believe is spontaneous. Teaching can be, teaching can be spontaneous or not so much. It can be prepared. I've certainly done it both ways. On this radio show for the past 29 years, I've been trying to give teachings in response to people's questions. And since I don't have any idea what anyone's going to call about before I talk to them, I have to speak extemporaneously.

But if I speak in a church, I'll usually have some planned idea of what I'm going to talk about and some at least minimal organization of my thoughts. But that's me. I mean, some people don't need to organize, and some people always need to. It's just different ways people communicate. So I don't, this person who said "My wife and I don't believe in that," I don't know what it is he doesn't believe in. If he doesn't believe that someone other than the preacher should be presenting, if that's what he's saying. If he's saying "We believe there should be a preacher, professional, or one guy who's got the gift and we don't believe in having members of the congregation," I think he's saying just the opposite.

He's saying he doesn't think anybody should speak for more than a couple minutes in the meeting. I see. I see. So he doesn't believe in any prepared speaking. Okay, I got that. I was misunderstanding where he was coming from. Yeah, well, then fine, if he doesn't want to prepare anything. But if he wants to speak spontaneously and he's all over the place, no one can tell what he's talking about, you might say, "Well, brother, next time you share, just so it'll be more edifying, maybe you can give some thought to how you're going to present it so people will have some idea what you're talking about."

Like Paul said, if you speak in tongues and there's no interpretation, no one's going to be edified because no one understands you. Well, frankly, I've heard people speaking in English that no one could understand. And it doesn't edify anymore if it's English or if it's in tongues, if no one understands it. All right, brother?

Ken: Well, thanks a lot, Steve.

Steve Gregg: Okay, love you, man. Good talking to you again. Bye-bye now. Okay, James in New York, New York. That New York. Hi, James, welcome.

Guest (Male): Yes, hi, Steve. Steve, I've got a two-part question. One question is that the UFOs in the news today, how does that contradict with the Bible if they are UFOs? And they've shown a lot of evidence of that.

Steve Gregg: Well, I'm not sure that it would contradict the Bible in any point. When you read the Bible, you definitely get the impression that God is focused pretty much on Earth and on the inhabitants of Earth and He's got a plan for the Earth. He's got a plan for mankind on Earth. And that could be true even if there are other planets of which the same thing could be said. In other words, we know that God has a plan for Earth and for humans, a special plan. But we don't know if it's a unique plan.

That is, we don't know if He has a thousand other planets out in the universe somewhere which He also has a plan for, but He hasn't told us about them because they're not in the plan for us. They're not part of our plan. They're just in their own ecosphere and we don't go there and they don't come here and so we don't need to concern ourselves or know about them. I don't know if that's true. I'm not saying there are. I have not yet seen absolute proof that there is life from other planets or galaxies. And I will say this, what we know of as life, carbon-based life, would be impossible except under extremely rare conditions which happen to persist here, in the place of the solar system we're in, on this planet, as far as we know, only this planet in the solar system.

Just the right temperature and gravitation and velocity and so forth that are necessary to support life. We know that this planet has it, and we'd know it even if we didn't do the calculations because we're here and we know we're here. But scientific calculations have shown how unlikely it is for all the necessary conditions to exist anywhere that would support carbon-based life. But that doesn't mean God can't have made those conditions somewhere else. He could have and so forth.

Now, I myself am skeptical about the idea of life on other planets, but being skeptical doesn't mean I can't adjust to it if it's proven to be true. It's just that since it hasn't been proven to me yet, I have the right to be skeptical until it is proven. I think being skeptical is a very good thing. I'm actually more of a skeptic than most atheists are because they think life can come from non-life. I'm skeptical about that. They're not, although of course I have more scientific evidence on my side than they have. But the point here is that we can be skeptical and we can be changed.

Now, if it's proven that there's life on other planets, then fine. I don't see any problem with that. The Bible doesn't tell me that there isn't. The Bible simply isn't concerned about the subject. And because of that, I'm not either. Now, I will say a great number of things that have been reported in relation to UFOs and so forth over my lifetime have had features that make me suspect demonic deception and demonic activity. Now, I can't say with certainty that that's what it is, but I do believe in demons and I do believe that they can deceive and I do believe that they're supernatural.

So, I don't know, maybe that's what it is. But you don't have to worry that if they prove there's life on other planets, somehow we've got to throw the Bible out. Why would we? The Bible doesn't have anything that would be contradicted by that statement. So I'm going to say I don't see a contradiction there at all. I appreciate your call, brother. Let's talk to Rick from Vancouver, Washington. Rick, welcome.

Guest (Male): Hello, Steve. I'll try to make my question quick and I think it will be. I was listening to your series on Origin of Sin and it made me think that a lot of biblical subjects have multiple interpretations and I think it's because when something jumps up, we have to answer every question. And then when a statement comes up that we don't understand, we try to make our thing fit. And this is my statement. On the idea of original sin, why can't it just be as simple as we have free will? We choose to obey God or we choose our own way and that's exactly what Adam and Eve did. How wrong would I be in just holding that position?

Steve Gregg: Well, I don't think you'd be wrong at all. That's what I believe is what the Bible teaches. Okay, I guess I'm done. Okay, Rick, thanks for your call. For those who don't know what he's talked about, there is a common doctrine. It originated with Augustine in the 4th century, but it has become a standard doctrine, at least of all the Western church. I think the Eastern church, which didn't follow Augustine, eventually kind of picked up on it too. I'm not sure if the Eastern church has this or not, they might not.

But the Western church, which would include the Roman Catholic and virtually all Protestant denominations from the West, were influenced by Augustine. And Augustine in the 4th century came up with the idea that there's this thing called original sin, which means that when Adam sinned, he somehow became changed and infected and therefore something called sin as a character trait or as a feature of human nature was introduced in the world. And then when Adam and Eve had children, this feature was communicated to them genetically to the children.

And so every human being, having come from fallen man, is born with this feature, that is, we have a sinful nature. And according to Augustine, we don't just have a sinful nature. That would be relatively uncontroversial. I mean, that everybody tends toward sin quite naturally, we could argue that that's a sinful nature if that's what we mean by it. The Bible doesn't have the term "sinful nature" in it. Some modern translations do, but they're not translating words in the Greek that mean that.

The word they're translating is the word *sarx*, which literally means "flesh". Paul used the term flesh numerous times, *sarx*, and some modern translations have decided to translate it as "sinful nature", which reflects the interpretation of the translators, not what Paul actually said. Paul said "flesh" and flesh can mean any number of things in the Bible, but some translators have decided to translate it as "sinful nature" in certain places. So, but actually there's no words in the Bible written in Greek or Hebrew that translate into the expression "sinful nature".

Now I'm not saying there isn't a sinful nature, I don't know. But since the Bible doesn't mention it, I don't have any commitment one way or the other about it. All I know is everybody sins, and I know it's easier to sin than not to sin. So we could call that a sinful nature. I'm okay with that. But Augustine's the one who came up with the idea and honestly, there are possibly some other interpretations of why everybody sins that are not related to Augustine's theory of a sort of a genetic sinfulness passed down from father to son through natural procreation.

I won't go into those because they don't concern me. But Augustine also believed that people are not only born with a nature that inclines towards sin, but that they are now born because of Adam's sin, guilty. That the guilt of Adam's sin is on the whole human race, which means condemned. Guilt means condemnation. Adam was not condemned until he sinned. When he sinned, he was condemned. Now, you would think that then humans in general would not be condemned until they have guilt, until they sin.

But Augustine says, "No, you don't have to sin to have guilt because Adam sinned and you were in him, so his sin is your sin. His guilt is your guilt." And therefore, a baby that's conceived in the womb, not yet born, is already guilty of Adam's sin. Now, one of the upshots of this that I've heard some especially reformed people say, and I think probably Catholics too, I'm not sure because they all follow Augustine, is that a baby that dies in the womb or dies in infancy dies condemned.

Now, the Catholic church says "No, if you baptize the infant, then that takes away original sin, so if they die in that case I think they go to limbo" if I understand Catholic theology well enough. I don't follow Catholic theology much. But the truth is Augustinian religion teaches that a baby from conception is stained not just with a tendency to sin, which is like a disease, which frankly no one would blame someone for having a disease. You don't usually ask for that and you're more like a victim of a disease.

But we got the disease with him, but we also have the guilt of the sin of Adam, they say. Now, I have found nothing in the Bible that says that. There are two verses that Augustine used. One was Psalm 51:5, where David said that in sin my mother conceived me. And the other is Romans 5:12 through 14, where it says that one man sinned so death spread to all men. It doesn't say sin did, it says death spread to all men because all sinned, it says.

So it kind of sounds like death happens to us all because we all sin. Although Augustine said, "No, when Paul said 'because all sinned,' he meant in Adam we all sinned." So death comes to us not because we sinned personally, but because we all sinned when Adam sinned. Now, that is an interpretation of Romans 5. That is not universally held. But it's widely held because Augustine's influence was very great in the Western church.

So the idea of original sin is an Augustinian doctrine that means that people from the time of Adam onward are conceived and born in sin, meaning they are guilty of Adam's sin and they are infected with the behavioral disease of sin. So that's, there are things in the Bible that raise questions about that, like the many times the Bible says a son is not going to be held accountable for his father's sins. That would be a major problem with that. But it's, that can be discussed, that can be debated and I don't really care which view is correct.

I mean, I do in the case of a child who dies. If an infant dies, then I would be concerned if he dies condemned by God or saved because of the grace of God. I personally believe the latter. Jesus said, "Let the children come to Me," and this was in a context, according to Mark chapter 10, of infants. It says people brought their infants and the disciples tried to chase them off, and Jesus said, "No, let the little children come to Me, don't forbid them because of such is the kingdom of God."

Now, He said these infants, they were the, this is what the kingdom of God is comprised of, people like them. Now, of course He probably means in many respects adults have to be like children. He said that on occasion. But if infants are the kind of persons that persons have to be to enter, to be in the kingdom of God, that strongly suggests that they belong there until they of course reach an age of accountability, I believe.

And once they are accountable, once they understand moral good and evil, then I believe they're guilty for the sins they commit. And I think there's several things in scripture that say that, but I won't get into that now. Your question was couldn't we simplify all that just by saying people have free will? Yes, but theologians usually don't and that's why I made it all complex because that's the complexity of theology on that subject. Your point is much simpler and easier and I believe it's correct.

All right, so we're going to take a break here, but we're not done. We have another half hour coming. Don't go away, we have more calls to take, maybe yours. The Narrow Path is a listener-supported ministry. We've been on the air for 29 years daily, Monday through Friday. We have a website: thenarrowpath.com. Many teachings, archives of radio programs, thousands really, are there at thenarrowpath.com. We are listener-supported. If you want, you can donate there at thenarrowpath.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds, so don't go away.

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live to take your calls again as we usually are Monday through Friday at this time. You've got questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, feel free to give me a call about them. You disagree with the host, by all means call, we'll be glad to talk to you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Let's see who's been there the longest. Looks like it's going to be Lori from Ann Arbor, Michigan, who's been waiting a long time. Lori, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Guest (Female): Hi, Steve. Thanks for your program. I have a couple of questions. My first one is, can you recommend a daily devotional? And then the second question is a little bit more in-depth. I have a family member who is active in his church, but is also living a gay lifestyle. And I wondered if you had any tips on how to approach him without pushing him away.

Steve Gregg: Well, let's talk about daily devotional first. I've never really found daily devotionals helpful to me, though I think some people do. From the time I was little and growing up in the church, we always had these copies of *Our Daily Bread*, which were little, I think each month one came out and had a daily devotional. I read those when I was little and I thought they were kind of nice little sermonettes. I had no problem with them.

They might be more profound to some people than I found them. That's the thing about devotionals. They're about just long enough, usually a page long or something like that, and they're just long enough to make a single point. And if it's something that you find inspiring, it may set your day going off in a better direction than otherwise. To me, my daily devotions have always been just reading the scriptures. Well, I shouldn't say that. I'll read other books too. I'll read other Christian books that are edifying, but I don't have a book of daily devotions that I follow.

There's quite a few good books out there. Many people like *My Utmost for His Highest* by Oswald Chambers. And of course, there are daily devotionals that have the writings of Spurgeon. There's *Mornings and Evenings* is the name of a book of devotionals by C.H. Spurgeon, one of the greatest preachers, many people believe. A.W. Tozer's works have been sometimes put into devotional form. There's some of the Puritan writers have been.

But I mean, I'm not recommending a daily devotional, but I'm not criticizing them either. I'm just saying that's not been part of my spiritual life. I like to read the Bible. I like to read the Bible and God hears, I hear from God that way. But I can't tell you what to use as a daily devotional, but I wouldn't forbid it either. I don't think it's a bad thing. It's just not what I do. Now, you were talking about a man in the church who's living a gay lifestyle. Do the leaders of the church know about this?

Guest (Female): This is actually a family member and I believe he's attending the Reform Methodist Church. So I would assume he's not the only one.

Steve Gregg: Yes, okay, so Reform Methodist is probably United Methodist, I would assume. I don't know, but most Methodist denominations have gone a little bit in the woke direction. I mean, the Free Methodist denomination has typically been more conservative among Methodists. But United Methodists, I'm not familiar with the Reform Methodists, there's of course all these different denominations have branches.

But Methodists are among those that often have very, very woke approaches to things. I mean, women pastors, even maybe gay women pastors, and transsexuals and all that stuff. I think these modern liberal churches have the idea that the task of the church is simply to be inclusive. Now, inclusiveness is definitely one very strong feature of Jesus' ministry, but exclusiveness was too.

I mean, including people who have a checkered past, including people of all races and both genders, we should say, including people who might be the outcasts of society, Jesus was inclusive like that. But He was exclusive in the sense that He only accepted people who repented. They could be of any type of background or race or color or gender or whatever, but they had to repent. They had to be followers of His.

And so right now, the whole idea of inclusiveness is considered to be a value in our society, and therefore the liberal churches, which don't follow scripture very much, they just take what they like from it, and the fact that Jesus associated with tax collectors and prostitutes and sinners is and Gentiles and so forth is kind of what they take as the main thing about Jesus. Although they didn't realize when Jesus gave an answer to those who criticized Him for the company He was keeping, He said, "I'm like a doctor."

He said that a doctor doesn't go to well people, he goes to sick people. He says, "So I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." See, a doctor goes to people who are sick because he's not judgmental about them being sick, but he's trying to cure them. In other words, he's not satisfied to go to just hang out with somebody because they're a cancer patient or because they've got a disease which he can actually cure. He's going there to help.

He's not just being accepting of their disease. And Jesus said, "I am like that. I'm going to sinners, but I'm there to call them to repentance." Now, this is the problem. Some people love the idea that Jesus, you know, He went to sinners. Yes, I love that too. I'm a sinner, so I'm glad He goes to sinners. But I've repented. And I know people who've sinned in almost every conceivable way. I've known people who've murdered, I've known people who've committed adultery, I've known people who've been in prison for felonies, and who repented and they've been accepted by Christ.

But that doesn't mean that Christ is not judgmental or that Christ is not exclusive. The body of Christ is exclusively made up of those who have repented and who are seeking to follow Jesus. Now that would not include people who are fornicators because Paul said no fornicator will inherit the kingdom of heaven or of God. You know, it does not include idolaters. It does not include people who are living lifestyles that are in disobedience to Jesus Christ.

Now we all know that no one's perfect. Some people say, "Well, if we just kicked all the sinners out of the church, there wouldn't be anyone left." Well, nobody's arguing that we should kick all the sinners out of the church, but kicking unrepentant sinners out would not be unlike Christ or unlike the apostles. They practiced church discipline. And if somebody was living in sin and they were in the church as if they were a Christian, they were confronted with it like Jesus said to do in Matthew 18, and if they didn't repent, they were given another chance, they were confronted a little more formally, and if that didn't do it, the whole church would call them to repent. If that didn't do it, they'd be kicked out.

And modern churches just, they don't follow the Bible in this respect. If somebody's living a gay lifestyle, now let me just say this. Being gay, if being gay means "I'm attracted to same-sex," that's what I understand being gay to mean. If a man is attracted to men, but not women, or if a woman is attracted to women, but not to men, then okay, then I guess that's what being gay means. But it doesn't mean they have to be sleeping with them.

You know, when I've been single many years of my adult life, and I was attracted to women, but you know what I didn't sleep with them, because I'm a Christian. Who you are attracted to doesn't define your spirituality. What you do about that attraction defines whether you're a follower of Jesus or not. So you know, if I was attracted to men, which I never have been, but if I'd all my life been attracted to men, then for decades of my life when I was single, I would have to do the same thing that I had to do as a man who's straight.

Straight men are attracted to women, gay men are attracted to men. Okay, I realize both groups exist. Both groups have to avoid fornication. Both groups have to live holy lives. Neither group is allowed to have sex until they're married. Now, people can't get married same-sex because that's not what marriage is. Now some people say, "Well, then the poor gay guy, he can't get married." Well, that might be true. I know a lot of straight guys who can't get married, they'd love to.

They just don't have anyone they're attracted to that's also attracted to them enough to want to get married. So I mean, that's the unfortunate plight of many people. That was my plight for many years. I mean, there were people who'd marry me but they weren't people I wanted to marry. And there were people that I wanted to marry that wouldn't marry me. So it could have easily worked out that I would not be able to get married either. Fortunately the Lord provided for me, but the thing is here, nobody has an absolute right to get married because to get married requires that somebody else has to marry you. And you can't have a right to require somebody else to marry you.

So, you know, marriage is available to all. I mean a man and a woman. If I was a man who was not attracted to women, then I probably wouldn't marry because why would I marry a woman if I wasn't attracted to them? Or I might be a man who is attracted to women, but I don't have one that wants to marry me or that I'm attracted to. Okay, same thing. Whether I was gay or straight, I'm in the same predicament.

Everybody who's a Christian, everyone who wants to follow Jesus has to avoid fornication. And fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God. That's stated at least twice in the Bible, straight out just like that. And once in 1 Corinthians 6, once in Galatians 5. So fornication means having sex outside of a biblically ordained marriage. And a biblically ordained marriage is a man and a woman, Jesus said. We go by people who are Christians follow Jesus.

People who aren't Christians, they follow their lusts. And then there's people who want to be Christians but they still want to follow their lusts. Well, you don't get to do that. You don't get to follow Jesus and follow your lusts. Jesus said, "If anyone will come after Me, let him deny himself." That certainly means deny your own agendas, your own drives, your own preferences. You're making Him first, not you. And He says, "Let him take up his cross."

Well, that certainly is bearing a cross if you have to live a complete celibate life when you actually have sexual attractions to other people. It's a cross many people have had to bear. Mostly they were straight people, but some gay people too. So anyway, we don't have anything against people who are attracted to the same sex. They probably didn't choose that. Just like I didn't choose my sexual orientation, I assume that gay people didn't choose theirs. So I don't blame them. I don't blame them at all. I don't condemn them.

But what I will say, if a person wants to be a Christian, then whatever their sexual orientation, they've got to order it according to God's principles because that's what being a Christian is, you order your whole life according to Christ's commands and God's principles. So we live at a time where, you know, your sexual expression almost excuses everything. It's almost like sexuality is a whole identity. And it just isn't. I mean, that's just a perverted society we live in where who you want to sleep with defines who you are.

Okay, that's pagan, that's perverted. And I understand if people don't have God how that could easily be the way they think. But people in church are supposed to be followers of Christ. So churches, if they have people who they find are fornicating, I don't care if it's same-sex or opposite-sex fornication, if people are fornicating, the church has to confront it and say, "Sorry, that can't happen here." Now, I don't think most Methodist churches will confront it because I don't think they have any problem with it.

You know, now I'm not saying Methodists are all bad. Like I said, Free Methodist churches typically more conservative, but there's other branches that and I think they're in the majority probably. And they'll just turn a blind eye to it and they'll even think it's wrong to say it's wrong. So what are you going to do? You find a church that follows Christ and you don't let your mind be changed by those who are deciding to make it up as they go along, ignoring the Bible. And lots of churches are doing just that.

I'm sorry to hear about the situation, but many people, I mean, there's many people in churches who shouldn't be there and the leaders of the church certainly, if they're shepherding the flock, are charged with confronting that situation and correcting it. The shepherds who don't do that, and there are many, well they'll answer to God for leading people astray. And if the people who they should have led to repentance are never told to repent and don't repent and end up condemned before God, then that'll be on them, frankly, won't it? It'll be on the pastors and those who didn't tell them what God said.

Although everybody's responsible to read the Bible for themselves since there is one. Most throughout most of history Christians didn't have Bibles. There weren't printing presses, you couldn't get a Bible. So they had to depend on the priests and the preachers to tell them what God said. No one really depends on that now. There's a Bible in every home. And if you don't have one in your home you can go to a hotel room, there's one there, or prison or wherever, hospitals.

Anyone can read the Bible. So everyone's responsible before God. No one can say, "Well, the preacher didn't tell me." Yeah, well, maybe he didn't, but you had a Bible and Jesus' words are in there. And you will be judged by His words. Jesus said, "He that hears My words and does not obey them has one who judges him. The words that I speak to you will judge him in the last day." So you know, we're going to answer to Jesus' words. The preachers are going to have to answer to that too, they've got a stricter judgment, the Bible says. And that statement by the way was in John 12:48. All right, well, God bless you. It's always a sorrow. It always makes me sorry when someone is in the church and they've been led wrong and they're living in their sin and no one has the courage to tell them they're doing the wrong thing. John from Salyersville, I know you didn't get on yesterday because when I put you on you weren't there. Welcome back.

Guest (Male): Hey Steve. I'd like to get your take on Isaiah chapter 44 verse 24.

Steve Gregg: Okay, you want to read it for me?

Guest (Male): I don't have it where I'm going down the road right now in my car.

Steve Gregg: Okay, well I've turned to it. It says: "Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: 'I am the Lord who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads out abroad the Earth by Myself.'"

Guest (Male): Well I was just what do you think that means?

Steve Gregg: I think it means what it says. God says He's the Lord who made the Earth, and He did it by Himself. In other words, He didn't have other gods helping Him. You know, Isaiah, of course, is confronting the idolatry of his own people. And God is saying, "Listen, those other gods, they don't exist, they're just pieces of stone and pieces of wood that you carved into idols. They didn't do anything."

And when God says "I did this by Myself," what He's saying is "Yeah, I didn't have a crew working with me. There weren't a bunch of other gods helping me out. I did this alone." And the point being, that since He's the creator of everything, He's the Lord and ruler of everything. So why would people worship other gods who didn't do anything and don't even really exist? That's what that's saying.

Guest (Male): Well thank you, Steve.

Steve Gregg: Okay, John, thanks for your call. Okay, let's talk to Nelson in Fort Worth, Texas. Nelson, welcome.

Guest (Male): Yes sir, thank you.

Steve Gregg: Yes, go ahead please.

Guest (Male): Okay, Genesis chapter 8, that might help us understand a little bit more whether it's Augustinian original sin or whatever. I'll read it to you if you want me to, it's real simple. It says God said, "I will curse the Earth, the ground no more for man's sake, for man is evil, the imaginations of man's heart is evil from his youth." So I just want you to tell what you think about that.

Steve Gregg: Okay, well I don't see any Augustinianism in it, excuse me. Yeah, a man starts sinning when he's very young. And Jesus said whoever commits sin is the slave of sin, and boy as soon as you give yourself to sin it takes over and then you're a slave. You need to be delivered, you need to be saved from your sins. That's why Jesus came. Bible says His name shall be called Jesus because He'll save His people from their sins.

And Jesus said to the Jews, He said, "If you continue in My word you're My disciples indeed and you'll know the truth, the truth will make you free." And they said, "We're Abraham's seed, we're not in bondage, why should you say we should be made free?" He said, "Well, whoever sins is a slave of sin. But if the Son sets you free you'll be free indeed." So we need to be freed from our sins. Why? Because at a very early age we're all doing it.

We all have sinned and when you sin you become in bondage to sin, no question about it. Of course that's not what Augustine was saying. Augustine said that people are born infected with something called sin as a trait, as a feature, as soon as they're conceived in the womb. Now that may be true, I don't know if it's true or not. The Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. But let's just say Augustine's right. Well, if he is right, he can't use this verse to prove it. This only says that people sin from their youth. Well, that's true. I'm not sure anyone who disagrees with that. I never heard any theology that denies that people sin from their youth. So yeah, I don't think it's directly related to the question, but I appreciate your call. Thanks for bringing it up. Waldo in Orlando, Florida.

Guest (Male): Hey Steve.

Steve Gregg: Hi. Is there a quieter place you can be on the phone?

Guest (Male): Absolutely, yes. I'll step out right now. Sorry about that. I just got out of work, started dinner at the pizzeria close by here. Hopefully this is a little bit better.

Steve Gregg: Go ahead.

Guest (Male): Yes, Steve, so I'm a huge fan. I've been watching your stuff since last October. I was a futurist for pretty much most of my life. I've been following Jesus since I was 15 and never heard of a viewpoint other than the futurism stuff outside of your teaching. And I found on YouTube your Revelation series and I watched the whole thing start to finish, did not stop, every day I just kept watching. And I was like, "Wow, there is a biblical and reasonable and logical way to piece everything together about what scripture teaches about eschatology and the end times."

Never heard it that way, you know? So it was awesome to see that. And I took it one step further. I made a whole YouTube series on Revelation after having watched that series and I hope everyone sees it because it's awesome. It relates a lot back to your teachings on that Revelation series. But what's your question today?

Guest (Male): So today I was going to get to that. In regards to Matthew 24, that's actually how it started me researching all of this stuff. I just couldn't believe that Matthew 24 was talking about something that had already taken place based on the language that it used. I was like, "There's just no way, what are you talking about?" Right? So I did the research on it. I was like, "Wait a minute, yeah, this is talking about directly answering the questions that the disciples brought up in the beginning of the chapter, talking about when will these things take place."

Obviously "the things" referring to the destruction of the temple. But what I would say, probably one of the only things I disagree with you on is the ending of Matthew 24. I believe starting from I think verse 36, that the rest of it is talking about more of His second coming. I was favoring that viewpoint after hearing it from you, but I ended up looking at Luke 17, which is somewhat of a parallel to that same discussion about how Jesus compares it to the days of Noah as to how the days of the Son of Man will be. They will be eating and drinking, marrying, and then Noah entered the ark. We're getting ready to run out of time here pretty quick. Go ahead, make your point.

The point is I'm convinced that even the ending of Matthew 24 is also about the preterism viewpoint rather than the second coming, if only because the same language that He uses in Matthew 24 about the giving in marriage and Son of Man being revealed and stuff like that, He says in Luke 17:31, "On that day where the Son of Man is revealed, the one who's on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out, and likewise the one who's in the field must not turn back." That's the same language He uses at the end of Matthew 24. So usually when I see those same languages being used, I'm assuming that when He's talking about it in Matthew 24, that He's also referring to that same period of time in the first century rather than the second coming. I just wanted your viewpoint on that.

Steve Gregg: Sure. Well, by the way, I give special treatment to this very issue, the point you're bringing up, in my book *Against Full Preterism*. My book is called *Why Not Full Preterism?* It is a stumbling block for many people. And there's many people who think that the whole of Matthew 24 and I guess 25 too with those three parables there are all about 70 AD. The only problem is I don't see how they can be. And it's clear that Matthew, in Matthew 24, he combines two different discourses of Jesus.

One is the one that's found in Luke 21, which we call the Olivet Discourse, it's also found in Mark 13 and Matthew 24. And the other one is the one you mentioned in chapter 17 of Luke, which is not on the Mount of Olives, it's a different discourse given on a different occasion and in my opinion on a different subject. One thing that's interesting is the things that happened or are predicted Matthew 24 through the first 24 verses, the things that Jesus said "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled," all those things did happen.

All those things did happen in that generation, so that makes it a rather no-brainer to apply it that way. Now, the things that are in chapter 36 through the end of chapter 24 and through 25, near as I could tell those things didn't happen yet. I don't know of any time where one was taken and the other left who were sleeping next to each other, or where there was a sudden judgment like that that came on Sodom and Gomorrah. I mean, the death of Jerusalem took place over months of siege where people were starving and killing each other for months and months and then finally the Romans broke in and put them out of their misery.

This was not a quick, this was not something that happened where two people were sleeping in one bed and then suddenly their fates were separated. And so I mean I just don't see any fulfillment of these verses in 70 AD. But more than that, you did mention in chapter 17 of Luke, which I take to be of the second coming, He does talk about those who are in the housetop don't go back for the goods that are in your house. Now, I think this can be hyperbole being saying, "Listen, don't think you're going to take it with you when you go. You know, you have to be detached from your things, from this world because you're going to be taken in a sense."

When I see the one being left and one being taken stuff, I'm thinking of it more so as in like one person will die. And that didn't happen. When the Romans broke through the gate there was no one sleeping. I mean, there was no one sleeping, there was no one working in the field. Actually no one was in the field, they were in the walled city for many months. But Jesus said two will be working in the field, one will be taken the other left. So He's not describing the things that happened in 70 AD.

Well, but I won't, I'm not going to fight you over that. I mean, there are many people who like you have reached that conclusion. They think that all of Matthew 24 and Luke 17 too are about 70 AD and not about the second coming. I've certainly looked into that in great detail. My opinion is different than that, but I understand why some people think it. But my book talks about that more, I don't have time to go into that now because I have to I'm going to be cut off here. My book *Why Not Full Preterism?* Our website's thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us. I'm Steve Gregg.