The Narrow Path 6/10

Good afternoon and welcome to the narrowcast radio broadcast minutest his regular life for an hour each weekday afternoon, taking phone calls from people like you who have questions about the Bible want to bring them up for conversation.

Or maybe who have listened to the show before and disagree with the holster.

Maybe later in this day you will of heard something from the cells that you disagree with and you like to balance comment be glad to have you do so. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Right now the lines are all full, but there don't despair all these calls it online here will be answered and the lines they occupy will be open later in the program so just try little later and you may find that one is lines is open waiting for you to write regular phones immediately and talk to Linda from Akron Ohio. Linda, welcome to the Nalco ethics are current heard from start thinking that through often prevents but they said through the often proper when we talk about what the Bible teaches, instead of what the Bible and when I heard that I kind of thought about how the how they come to some of the Sterling but I know there are like that that we have today.

It's not all just what is actually said, but we have to gather up a lot of things in and decide what the Bible teaches.

So I just wondered what you thought about that, just as you gave it pretty much arming and not the reverse of what the Bible agreement. I agree with that. The suffers when we say what the Bible says but we don't seem to teaches because we often quote the Bible verses, but were not recording them in the context of what is really teaching about understanding was so. The Bible says this and they prove their point. They think with it, but they they've ignored with the Bible is actually teaching in the statement about light like staffing. Nadine normally and I don't know if I'm right about how to do with how the thought that maybe two-part in relation to Calvinism.

Okay thank you okay well yeah I could target both statements and both would be true in certain contexts. If someone said to you as you as you mentioned, the truth suffers when we talk with the Bible teaches rather than with the Bible says this could be true if what we mean by that is we've decided already with the Bible teaches. That is, we've already decided what the truth is in the Bible must be forced to decide to teach it, even if it doesn't say it.

For example you give Calvinism example that's a good example.

I give one like the pre-tribulation rapture.

I grew up quite convinced that the Bible teaches a pre-tribulation rapture and I said the Bible teaches a particular chapter because that's what my teacher taught me, but you couldn't find a verse that said it so the Bible didn't really say anything about a preacher rapture. But I was convinced because of my theological commitments that it taught it. Now that's could Calvinism suffer that criticism to I think it could, in many cases, I think that the forgot was a lot of Calvinist who have philosophical reasons for adopting Calvinism. For example, they would say well if God doesn't make everything happen, then he's not a sovereign God.

That's a philosophical same is not a true statement is not a biblical statement, but they think it's true, and therefore they think the Bible must teach such a thing. But you can't find any statement Scripture. This is certainly there's nothing in the Bible that says if God doesn't ordain anything that happens and he's not sovereign that's creating your own definition sovereign, which is in the Bible or in the dictionary. It's just a word that you're using that way and you've assumed the Bible teaches that when you look at the Bible says let's just say contrite about if we ignore what the Bible actually does say in favor of what we've determined that it must teach that I think should suffer so that that would agree with the way the state was made as you as you quoted it. If you took the statement the opposite way that truth suffers when we talk about the Bible says, but not with the Bible teaches.

I would say the Bible literally does teach something and it'll be taught in every verse that's relevant to the subject because the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Whatever subject you want. If the Bible says anything about it only say one thing about it but there will be some verses that are obscure and that are easily misunderstood, say, well, the Bible says this and they are telling the truth does say that but it they may be missing entirely what it means and therefore what it's actually teaching. It's the easiest thing in the world to misunderstand what somebody says, especially if they lived thousands of years of a different culture from you and spoke a language that's a dead language in your time. The likelihood that you could misunderstand was exceedingly great and therefore to know what the Bible says is easy.

You can just open it read out loud. That's what it says to know what it teaches requires a certain amount of responsible managing of the disciplines that are available to us to make sense of ancient texts arming one of things is very obvious. We often overlook is that we have to have somebody tell us what the Greek words meaning paper was a less restrictive those languages. We depend on expertise from others who know those languages.

That's the first step of getting anything out of the Bible.

But then there's other related expertise not only what do the Greek words meaning but which of the Greek culture mean by this kind of a phrase which of the Hebrews mean when they use this kind of an image. I mean that's the same kind of information as is getting a translation from Hebrew, Greek, Wilson is translated from the culture and so we know what the people were trying to communicate.

So in other words, you can read verses of Scripture and still miss entirely what they're saying because he or imposing.

Let's say a very Western modern grid on the interpretation of the words which is so you know anyone who stays by very well with no missing kind of the point here so anyway I the statement works both ways and I think it works for every every doctrine that isn't true. Or maybe every doctor that isn't true is taking some Scripture a certain way and because the doctors are obviously making some kind of mistake along the way. I believe the Calvinism is not true.

So I think they're making some mistakes they believe my teaching is not true so they think I make mistakes is to say that somebody's make a mistake is an understatement to say who's make a mistake is something that has been explored before he could really answer that.

Let's talk to Mark from Vancouver bridged on that mark.

Welcome to the mineral path may have been with the ministry of Jesus was much as five or six years before his meeting on the road to Damascus, correct that is possible but we don't know is nothing said about we don't know that he what we know that he persecuted the church and therefore knew who Jesus was or had heard from the church who they said, Jesus was and rejected for some time but were not told what it was a year or two or 10 or five so we don't really have any real exact information about years or chronology or periods of time prior to his conversion, but he certainly did. Had heard of Jesus before his conversion, because that's is persecuting Christians that Paul had known of Jesus ministry from the beginning of the baptism with John the Baptist between 3+ years there and at least a couple years after the crucifixion, they potentially might have known for as many as six years right now I'm going to let you go there.

Okay, most scholars believe in the Bible doesn't really tell us that Paul was probably not in Israel at the time that Jesus was doing his ministry he was.

He was from another country and he was from the city of Tarsus and he must've gone back and forth between Tarsus and Jerusalem from time to time because he was a student under Gamaliel in Jerusalem, but but we know Paul traveled a great deal after his aggression he may have traveled a lot before the main thing is that Paul never indicates that he ever saw Jesus, which is something that after you become a Christian would be a significant claim to make. So if Paul did see Jesus. We have no information about it, and therefore most scholars think we would have if he did that we would know something about it from him. So it we don't know for sure but it's common place belief that when Jesus was it doing ministry, at least in Jerusalem that was a time Saul might not of been there but I have no I'm no dog in a fight so he could he could have seen Jesus are not as obviously as a faithful Jew. Why was one of the branches on the tree and clearly repriced an end, but after the minutes you're quite a doctor before he was that on the left. Clearly, he was one of the branches that were cut off lights right right and and until he was grafted back yet. That's why I think that that perspective, like when Paul is talking in Romans 1011 it seems to me that he had that personal experience of knowing that that the years we have been rejected Christ was really himself and seems that as that's kind of like that. I again just recently met but justifiably very quickly. Steve say that I was with him again. He latches on his and you mentioned with Romans 11 themes of the service. The sound that there might be a bit of cause or basis on the surface, John Debbie kind of twist that situate says because of their past that is real the past that be the richest beware of how much more would be a member right seems very clear to me that obviously the plan member of and the donations obviously constitutes food together one corporate entity of Israel right this one is only one entity called Israel to that you were saying that you weren't sure where it could be looked upon as being what it says very friendless.

It could be pertaining to the public as being the nation's only look at it like obviously the one corporate entity is the original Israel, the nations together so that there is actually said also be described as members of their number plus the nations number greater as the one corporate entity of Israel. Then we would've been without the nations works right and go sleep and that is that you said you decided on the three views of let myself I'm 99% annihilation 1% universal reconciliation of 0% return is torture about the same as that correct. The percentage is different, but I I'm dancing. I deftly have no confidence in the biblical basis for eternal time. I don't think the Bible teaches it. Now I don't know.

I don't know which of the interviews is correct.

I think you taught. I think annihilation or condition of a child.

He has a very good case in excellent excellent case. But I also think that the universal reconciliation has a better case than most Christians are aware of and it's it's not it's not unimpressive.

I would just save it. You know, I don't think they're both right, but I mean there may be elements of both the truth but it's not 99% versus 1% with me. It's I would have much closer to 50-50 exactly may not exactly 50-50 but have you read my book on 20 years like like I'm I was 80s I always I actually always believed in eternal torment. But I became aware of respected teachers who believed in annihilation, and I saw the case and is quite impressive. I wasn't messily persuaded.

It's it's got some it's respectable but I didn't think there was ever a respectable case for universal reconciliation is now it's only because I never was exposed to the case for why I assumed I assumed I knew what they believed in, and that I can think of a versus they base it on and when I read the case from Scripture thought there is a lot of scripture here that point that way. So I mean I'm I'm undecided, but I would urge you not.

I don't try to convince anyone of any of you because I don't have of you.

But I would urge you to read the book and especially the last part which talks universal reconciliation so that you know whether whether there's as much there on the in favor of it. As of the dilation. Okay? But okay, see, this is Dylan from Portland, Oregon Dylan, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling I just wanted little bit about how can I know committing that you take it off okay okay thank you for huddling over guilty of gluttony.

I think the best way to know if you're enslaved to food if that's what we mean by gluttony is to know whether you could if you decided you needed to stop eating so much whether you'd be able to do that for the glory of God. If you find that you would not then I think it be arguable that gluttony is perhaps dominating you more than more than your love for God now not.

I'm not saying that you person has to lose weight, to glorify God, but many people would say and it made it so that they should.

I'm just saying if a person was convinced and this is important precondition for my point.

If a person is convinced that they should lose weight for the glory of God but they don't, they won't, then that would suggest that the eating habits matter more to them than the glory gun that would seem to be idolatry member Paul talked in Philippians 3 about people who were enemies of the cross and his. He said that God is their belly and certainly food is one of those things that some people place ahead of God and I do think that when somebody's you know what to say whatever grossly obese that in the eyes of many people that start glorifying to God, the Bible doesn't forbid people from being fat and really wasn't. There is nothing above it says you can't be fat, but a glutton is not just a fat person is unhappy fat to be glutton. I'm a night when I was younger I could eat anything I wanted to and I was much I want to but my body burned off I can gain a pound. I tried I could not skinny as a rail and so I could be glutton and no one would know by looking and someone whose heavy fat might not be glutton they might be one small meal a day in the just some else's keep losing weight is lack of exercise or something.

The main thing is that gluttony is simply a placing too much value on your belly and on your palate and on your stomach and seeking comfort from food, comfort, which could be otherwise gotten healthier and better way about having said everything like that.

I would say this, I do believe that we have a stewardship of every good thing that God has given us with its money where distorted for God. If we have good health.

Sister forgot if you have a body. We should store it for God. Just like if someone gave you a car, and it cost him a great deal in the end very valuable, but you just trashed it and didn't take care of it never changed oil or something on it just blown up on the freeway because you neglected. That's because you're a bad steward and the person gave the car be pretty upset also because think they gave you something of value and you didn't treat it as something of value, and I think that everything we have, what is God's talent or when you've got wits already got intelligence or good looks or anything else that's actually an asset in our society for getting people's attention and being able to impress people so that you can influence in front of the glory gun. I think we should steward that and generally speaking I know this is my opinion I don't I don't what I want. Don't think of him, but I think that most of time when I see someone who's grossly obese.

I think well I think they could probably do something about some of that. I realize that some people can't do much about the situation is different metabolism that I do something, but in many cases, I think you know I probably probably met that they could do some of that but I don't have to. I can't messily judge that the gluttons because I've known people who wrestled with weight and fasted and dieted and did all kinds eyes and they definitely put their concerns to lose weight at a proper premium, and for some reason or another they can lose weight so that being fat isn't the same thing as being a glutton golf course. In most cases has a great very close connection but I would say being fat is not a sin but it may be very bad stewardship and especially if you're fat because your pretty much idolizing food or placing a great deal more of your comfort in food than in the things of God or something more legitimate and healthier so how do you know your glutton. You know, I guess Ascot if he thinks you're convicted if he thinks is true that the best thing I could suggest because it's very it's a it's a, it's a nuanced question, more than most people think there's not any particular right weight that anyone has to be our right amount of food for my feet in the Bible.

Being fat was a sign of God's blessing by Alexis is in the Psalms of the righteous be made fat. You know all that means is that God will take care of them to provide abundantly for them.

And since they live in a culture. It wasn't so looks conscious as ours. Being fat was actually committing care if they had a beach body vaguely. It was impressive to people. If you are fat that makes you most people were too poor to get fat and admit that you were pretty well provided for.

Which is a status symbol. Subcultures are different about things were much more health conscious and looks conscious now, and therefore were going to be a just by nature from our culture with more critical of being fat and maybe because we know more about health. We should really Smith's reason to be critical of them because you're not taking good care of yourself.

In any case, whether the amount you eat or the amount of weight you caring about whether that's real cross of some line so that's now sinful gluttony. I could never tell you because it would be the same for I would just say you need to.

Every Christian needs to objectively as much as possible. I closely examine their lives and make they might not have problems going to watch too much TV or in other something else that really has a hold on their life and you have to realize it. You know I really wouldn't find it easy to give this up even if God wanted me to. And if if that is the case then unit spiritually dangerous position. I think the best thing I can say about that question. Let's talk about this Dr. Earl from Roseville hi Earl, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. One Peter 58 be sober. We really can't get your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, he may devour okay and referring to spiritual darkness. The devil lurking around the corner ready to count on inspecting people and we will form the work of the devil attacking believers. Well, I'm not sure what you're asking. The devil doesn't believers absolutely see when he says your enemy the devil walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. There something that Peter has in mind when he envisages someone being devoured and I suspect that since a lion divided person means saved the lives killed them and I suppose it's about time that losing your faith in him losing your life and it is interesting that Peter does believe that Christians, because he is writing his makes very clear from the beginning.

The book is writing to Christians that he thinks they could be in danger of that they could be devoured.

If you're not vigilant and sober as he tells them to. You want to warn people about that.

If it's not a danger and and also you know I think this also has relevance in a way to people who are quite sure that Christians can be demon possessed.

Now I don't messily teach that Christians could be demon possessed. The Bible actually entirely silent on the question that some people are very sure that demon cannot possess anyone who is a Christian and well maybe they're right.

But I don't know any Bible verse that says that right and this one is one of several where Christians are being warned about the extreme danger of coming under the devil's dominion that might certainly raise questions about such assumptions of immunity. Anyway, know the devil certainly taxes wonder whether he can take our salvation from sonatas of course one of those things the church has debated whether whether Saints attack can result in demon possession is another thing that the Christians have debated and there's evangelicals on both sides of those questions but there's no question that he saying the devil is out to get you and if you are not vigilant if you're not sober if you're careless. Well, it's a genuine danger just a start spiritual danger, of course, only the devil demonic forces can actually talking to your head directly and they don't and then you mentioned about when you walking around in the wilderness know he was speaking with the devil and I imagine that would entirely spiritual conversation going on in the next few the devil or something or I don't know. I can see that you know some other demons. Let's hold this break come back for another half puts on hold and will come and talk about when we come back home will come back to you when the break has gone we take a break.

At this point to let our listeners know each day that the narrow path is a listener supported ministry. That means we pay for the time on the radio station and an don't have appetizers or subtle products will have a sponsored and so we just her support. If you'd like to help us down the strictly up to you, or Howard Gottlieb. You can write to us at the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593. That's the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or you can do from the website which is the narrow path.com. I'll be right back going small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to welcome you to everything you today's radio show is over, we invite you to visit the narrow path.com you will find time audio teachings blog article verse by verse teachings in the archives of learning and enjoying the thinking for supporting the listener supported narrow path. Greg back to the narrow path radio broadcast, Mina, Steve, Greg and will live for another half hour taking her calls as usual. If you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith or you disagree with the hospital and talk about that.

However, lives are full right now that doesn't mean you won't be able to get in later but right now you get a busy signal to call this number should have it on hand anywhere. The numbers 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and before the break we were talking to Earl from Roseville California and had a number of questions and one of them. We didn't get chance to answer, so I put you back on the air here Earl was saying that someone told him that the devil can put thoughts into our heads and things like that and there's another part of that after come slip my mind how word okay okay let me try to answer a question, of course, the devil can put thoughts on soaking your soaking your friends soaking your parents and your teachers soak in the PP listen on the radio or the or the news on TV God has constructed human communication and interaction such way that many things can introduce Dr. Mann including other personalities and are and there's no reason to believe the date the demons can't remember when Paul see me when when Jesus was talking to Peter and Peter answered that he would not allow Jesus to the cross. She said get behind me Satan you know you don't save the things of God but the things of men. And he recognized that as the voice of Satan speaking to Peter, that doesn't mean that Peter was Satan. It means that Peter had thoughts and was expressing thoughts that originate from Satan. We can see the same put thoughts in his head now to say that doesn't mean that we are at the mercy of Satan, and we just think whatever he puts her head all kinds of thoughts come to ahead this to mean just walking on the streets for five minutes. You have all kinds of thoughts and signs you see from conversations you hear from the music you listen to all kinds of thoughts are put into right from many sources.

We don't have to be at the mercy of them.

That's part of the dignity of being a human being with free will, we can say yeah that one night that's ridiculous or no, that's bad.

I don't approve of that because they that's a nice thing about for a while mean we we choose what will think about ultimately but the source of our thoughts come from many different places and to suggest that the devil is not one of those personalities who could put thoughts or head is I think naïve but having recognize that the does mean all know them. One of the devil just takes over my mind around like a demon possessed person.

That's not the same thing. You know I in the last if you listen to me speaking for a minute I put some thoughts in your head that does mean you agree with them. It does mean you have to accept them.

But I've introduced to your thoughts into your mind. Thoughts you've heard them there in your head now and maybe make the change of migrants or maybe the thing I don't agree with that. That doesn't change the fact that I and other people put thoughts in your head and so I think demons to so it's not as it's not as terrifying as some people might think so. Yeah, the devil puts lots of heads, and I think when Jesus was being tempted in the wilderness that was never raised. Did he see the devil he might have, but I don't think you necessarily did the boxes. He was tempted in all points like we are and I don't have the advantage for intent to deceive the devil. Now why would that be an advantage because I didn't know where that thought is coming from. I would be on my card.

Obviously if the devil shows up and says hey on the devil. As you know, I want to destroy your soul forever and alienated from God. So let me make a suggestion why you do this bad thing you know if you're facing the devil. Heroes have ventures that have I not the least bit instrument when you say it's more common. The temptation is whispered into the head and we we think it's our own thoughts we don't recognize it is from the devil, that's were Jesus was different. We are although he was not different than what we can be in this referred we should be vigilant. We should be sober and not allow the devil's thoughts to go unchecked. So there is a devil.

There are demons. Yes, their main interest is not to make you poor or sick.

Main interest is to change your mind and like anyone else's. Try to change mine there to introduce thoughts to head. However, you have responsibly and thankfully ability to monitor your thoughts and reject those thoughts that are not related to the truth okay know one yet. When you said you're talking to me including my head and told him the other the abstract so maybe I'm just trying to think much about it and I shouldn't be so anyway.

Thanks a lot.

I appreciate it okay to call out Luke chapter 130 on talking about how Mary will compete for the holy however will carry on like like you know we don't know why he said that but it does seem to convey an image from the Old Testament to me and that is that the tabernacle God's presence in the form of a cloud overshadowed the tabernacle and and therefore God dwelt is said to have dwelt in the tabernacle because the Shekinah glory cloud that overshadowed it now. I think that this imagery of God dwelling in the tabernacle of the Old Testament has its deliberate parallels in the way the Gospels right.

For example, in John chapter 1 and verse 12 he said. Verse 14 John 114 Jesus said to her son Paul. The spirit of Jesus, of the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and the word dwelt among us is tabernacle in the Greek if he pitched his tent or tabernacle with us, and we beheld his glory. Now the glory of God seen in the tabernacle is definitely the imagery that John has in mind when he speaks are God tabernacle in in Christ, and we size glory there now. He didn't really see a little cloud. I think what the New Testament is understood was that God appearing among us in Christ is in some respects akin to God appearing to Israel in the tabernacle with his glory very visible and so it's possible the angel said to Mary the spirit of God will come upon you and the power of the highest shall overshadow you may be saying that you know this thing in her womb was to be the product of God overshadowing her and her womb and recite the glory of God coming to dwell there in that tabernacle.

It became Christ flesh I I could be wrong on me that I could be reading more in there that is implied for very long time. I've I thought that that's what the allusions to okay Rebecca, thank you for your call. Douglas okay and Paul has been waiting for like 1/2 hour. Paul from Delray's Oaks Delray Oaks is California Monterey. I say okay I should know that my words through chapter 4 will sharpen your phone line line.

Paul was delivered the mouth of the lion from which Paul was delivered as you said second Timothy 417 says that so all his friends. He stood on travel for Nero. He said all his friends for second visit, but the Lord stood with me and strengthen me so that the message might be preached fully for me and says also I was delivered from the mouth of a lion. Seriously, what's that mean well, one of the simple interpretations would be that had he been condemned by Nero, he would been thrown to the lions like like Daniel is now Daniel was delivered from the mouth alive.

I got shutting the lion's mouth.

Paul could say God delivered me from another lives by not having thrown to the lions in the first place. You are God words acquitted me and I was released from court instead of threat fed the line so we since I was delivered from the line. It could certainly have meaning. Some believe though that Paul is using the term the lion as a symbol of Nero himself and and say guys delivered from Nero because that would be true.

Also, Nero was his judgment could've killed him, but that he was acquitted in court. He was delivered from what could've been a very horrible death at the hands of Nero. One thing I find interesting is that in Revelation chapter 13 the beast is described which many people have identified with Nero reps most Christians don't anymore, but there was a time when most Christians did identify the beast with Nero and the beast he said of the mouth of a lion, and says that it was a beast like a leopard, had the feet of a bear mouth of a lion, and the seven heads and 10 horns. Now it's interesting that John Paulson, I was delivered from the mouth of a lion.

And if Nero is in fact the beast that may have been informed by the imagery of Revelation that if Nero is kinda referred to as the lion, the beast has the mouth of the line and it Paulson here delivered Nero that would be an interesting connection.

It seems to me, but we can't be sure which way he meant it most fully. Well, it could be could be figurative, but I think there's ways that are slightly more literal, like like that he would've been fed lives, but it wasn't would be take it rather literally and and that be a sensible way to not saying other alternative ways would never work but sometimes something works very well just taken literally and so he might all right referred to lion tribe Deirdre.

Well, Jesus referred to the line of the tribe of Judah, partly I mean there's there's a number of background things and feed into that imagery. One is that the tribe of Judah, its emblem in the Old Testament was at least traditionally a lion sound on Judah's banner their image was a lion so it's like the let's like Judah is represented by a lion, how a lion is the king of the beasts in the dominant animal in the among the fauna of that region, and so represented everything dignity and in supremacy and things like that that the tribe of Judah had that Jesus was, not only of the tribes observed of him but he was the one who had all the dignity and and and rulership even of the tribe is the lion of the tribe of Judah that could be part of it in writing me all of it, but I think the idea that in the context of that statement. The only place in the Bible that speaks of Jesus as the light of the tribe of Judah is there.

Revelation 15655 the elder sister, John did not fear for the lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed to break the seals and open the book and then John looked he saw one like a lamb that had been slain so I think there's I think the lion and the lamb juxtapose so juxtaposing those verses. Perhaps it's a suggest, the fact that Jesus was at once a lion and a lamb but from different perspectives perspective from the perspective of earthlings like John himself. He was a lamb he is here. He appeared harmless. He appeared sure, of course, were lamb suggest a sacrificial animal to but it also speaks of a meek and harmless creature.

And that's how Jesus appeared to the eyes of an earthly man like John but to the inhabitants of heaven. They saw Jesus from another side. He is more like a lion prevailing's as the lion of tribe of Judah has failed and so he and his warfare against the powers of darkness is like a lion tearing them apart and I think there's many places the bottom suggest this dual imagery I mean when Jesus walked on earth. The Bible describes is holy and harmless, you know, we seem ever hurting anybody. And yet the demons were terrified himself.

You come to torment us before the time and and even when the disciples came back 70. If the Lord even the demons are subject to us in your name. He said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, which many people believe I among them think that he was saying that you were testing out this team here that even there I was saying Satan totally been his whole kingdom been destroyed and brought down which is being done by Christ even as he walked around looking sheepish and lamb like on the earth from the point of view of the spiritual heavenly host.

It was he was a force to be reckoned with. I thank you, Paul. It's good to hear from you – you all right, let's talk next to their okay Julia from Sacramento, California Julie, welcome to the narrow path calling I'm doing fine thank I okay we meet people where they could not spare right in thinking that people coming here because you have to pay taxes and linebacker for the Christian thing is a lower amount actual here at what we need to will what would your own conscience tell you that you feel like getting a (I mean I later way that like line 1 and not go with your husband's instincts and now yours to okay yeah I mean I think for Christians maintain that integrity and especially testimony for integrity is is actually important for the reason that we have a message to the world that we claim is the absolute truth about Jesus and if people don't see us being seamlessly honest than they won't have much reason to believe that they should trust us when we tell him all this is the truth. You know, I think that I think trust has to be earned, and it takes a long time to earn trust and to the skeptical person but but losing trust losing credibility only takes one line and so I think that you I think even though it's going to cost you more think you be happier if you maintain your integrity that we did make it work, but even you know even even if it's is not immoral in any way. It is never safe to go against your conscience because that's one of the ways that God leads us to our current and if you think of doing something I don't have a piece about that. I think a lot of lot older Christian traditional traditional speech would say you got a check in your spirit about you know that's an old-fashioned term not found in the Bible, but to say you have a check in your spirit means you don't have a complete piece about their something about that just isn't set right and you know godly preachers are said don't you always pay attention. Those checks your spirit, because if if if God is convicting us of something and say that I think and get away with doing this other thing and then you maybe you can, but what you've done is you've compromised your conscience and consciences are not static.

They are dynamically change the boxes.

Your conscience can be seared which means I cauterized you want to keep your conscience sensitive.

If you feel a check in your conscience and do all you can to maintain a clear conscience of the matter because if you if you show yourself unwilling to see if you show yourself willing to violate your conscience that sets a precedent in your inner man, that is, will almost always lead to greater and greater compromises until your consciences, and sensitized. It's God's sake always go with your conscience on this. Unless of course something in you till you do something you know is wrong, then that's not your conscience or something else okay thank you for your call. God bless you Cheryl from Lincoln, California, which is never far from Sacramento, where Glasscock was somehow Cheryl welcome meeting on Deuteronomy, I'm struck by how many times the punishment for downing Mike Downey and so I'm wondering what I'm making in the transition from the Old Testament to the new it appears to me that Downing stopped with the death and resurrection and of Christ, Christian is Doing Whatever They Were Doing That for Followers of Christ Stoning Stop That Right Will Certainly Obligation to Do Any Kind of Punitive Punishment to Sinners Has Never Been a Christian Duty. That's the State's Duty.

The Bible Says in the New Testament, in Romans 12 Pulses Brethren Do Not Avenge Yourselves, but Leave That to God and Then in Chapter 13 of Romans Says God Has Appointed the Government to the His Instrument of Vengeance so the Church Is Not Supposed to Be Killing Anybody Not Running a Criminal Justice System Right so That Israel Was Because Israel Was a State and a Church in Israel Was the Only As a Unit Country.

There's Never Been One like It before or after. There Is One Now. It Was a National Entity with All the Structures and Machinery of Government and a Land with Borders and Have Armies and Police and Things like That and They Were Also As a Whole Worshiping Community Is That There's Never Been a Nation like That since before It Is or Was a Unique. Now the Church Is a Worshiping Community. But It's Not a State.

The Church Is International. It Has Presence in Every Country It's It's Loyalties Are to a King Who Is Not Even on This Planet I'm Looking at the Right Hand of God in Heaven, so We Don't Have As a Church. The Church Doesn't Have State Functions, and Therefore We Support the Just Exercise of Those Functions in the Secular. Paul Is a Positive Appear to Be Most Said We Should Recognize That the States Functioning As Law Enforcement so Forth, Is Operating As a Divinely Appointed Servant of God, Even If They're Not Christian. The Church However Is Not Supposed to Stone People Because They Committed Adultery like That Now. On the Other Hand, the Church Does Have a Spiritual Spiritual Community Is Spiritual Nation and Our Spiritual Disciplines of the Church Discipline Is to Be Exercised against People Who Do and Continue to Do Things That Are Not Permissible among the People of God. So We Find a Man Whose Living in Incestuous Fornication in First Corinthians in the Church and Pulses Put Them at the Church Recall That Church Discipline, but He Said, but Whom I to Judge Those Who Are outside the Church, God Judges Them, but We Have To Judge Those Who Are inside the Church so You Know It's a Funny Thing Because What Paul Taught. Is It with No Business Judging Sinners Who Were Not in the Christian Church, but We Have an Obligation to Judge Sinners That Are in the Church That Are Not Repented and That's Just the Opposite of What Most Churches Practice the Point the Finger at All the Sinners outside the Church, but They'll Tolerate Sin in the Church, I Met There's Many Churches That Boast If You Talk Impressionable Site We Don't Practice Church Discipline Here, Which Means We Don't Judge Misbehavior in the Church As Jesus Commanded a Student of Paul Commanders to Your Bible and General Commands to That's Why Got so Angry at the Church of the Pergamum Site Ira Because He Said You Tolerate That Woman Jezebel, Who's in the Church and You're Not Supposed Be Tolerating That Kind of Stuff in the Church but You Can't Make a Goy from the World and You Were Not Supposed to Go out and Find Sinners Will Judge Them Pulses. What Do I Have To Do Is Judging Them. God's There.

Judge We Have To Judge Those Who Are inside the Church As We Have To We Have To Monitor and Maintain the Purity of the Community That's Named after Jesus Christ.

Those Who Don't Name the Name of Christ Their Sins Are on Them, but They're Not Bringing Reproach on Christ Per Se, so That's Not Our Problem. Paul Does Say That Criminals Are inside of the Church Are Subject to Law Enforcement Because God Is Endorsed That Way for the First Church Where They Went from Practicing Jewish and Christian and Slow, Maybe Because They Were Being They Were Overrun by Rome. You're Right It Wasn't That Big a Deal for the Simple Reason That Even under the Old Covenant the Average Jew Can Go around Stoning People to Death. They Had to Be Taken before the Judges and Just like in Our Own Country. Although Israel Was a Religious Nation. Ours Is a Secular One. If a Person Committed Crimes Are Crimes Had to Be Adjudicated by Official Government Officials It Wasn't for the Neighbor Next Door to Go over and Stone His Neighbor Because He Happened Knew That He Committed Adultery That Was for the Judges to Decide out and in Jesus Day before He Even Had Disciples. He Was in Israel That Was Now Even under Roman Authorities about the Ultimate Political Fight Was Roman and His Society, and Secondarily the Jewish Sanhedrin, but None of His Disciples Were in Those Body so None of His Disciples Who Followed Him Would've Ever Had Occasion to Stone People Anyway Because Order to Condemn People to Death Because That's Not the Average Citizen's Role. So When They Became Christians. It Wasn't a Big Change for before They Were Christians. They Can Stone People to Death, Even If the State Could and They Were Members of State Officials and so after Became Christians, They Still Weren't State Officials so Jesus Just Told Them to Love Their Enemies, but He Didn't Say That They Should Allow the State's Job and Do Its Right Hand Side or Another Time.

I Wish I Didn't Ever Run Out Of Time, but I Do Everyday and I Appreciate Your Call. Given Listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast Where Listener Supported. If You'd like to Write to Us the Address Is the Narrow Path, PO Box 1732 Macula CA 92593 or Our Website Is the Narrow Path.com.

Everything That's Available at the Website. Lots of Things Are All free@thenarrowpath.com thanks for joining us. Let's talk again tomorrow