The Narrow Path 6/26

Welcome to the narrowcast radio broadcast, Steve, Greg and were live for an hour each week. The afternoon and we take your calls during that time. If you have questions about the Bible of the Christian faith. You may feel free to call him the number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and before take any recalls at a wedding. I have a letter that came a few days ago from a prisoner.

We have a lot of prisoners who listen to us and we get a lot of mail from them and I don't really take the time to answer all of them on the air because are so many, but this brother has been writing to us for some time and he had a couple of points he wanted to make where he disagreed with me. I thought instead of writing back. I would answer on their just given take some highlighted sections from his letters names Eugenio and his Innotech attacks in prison and he said excerpts of Steve saying that God is not a racist is not a great answer to why God would or would not choose an individual race or nation for certain purpose. He says when God when Steve says God is not a racist in order to defend his position that Israel has no Special Pl. in God's plans more than other nations. I believe this is not much of an argument of this is the first point he apparently heard me say, among other things, that God is not a racist when were talking about. Does God have a special plan for Israel in the future, and my position is that is there is no race on earth that God has a special plan for if we talk about biological racist ethnic races and if I got it when I say God is not a racist. What I mean is this. There is no reason for him to restore Israel in the end times unless it's strictly on racial basis. Now Israel was never God's chosen people on a racial basis. There are many people who are ethnic Jews who were cut off from God in the Old Testament and Gentiles were brought into the kingdom of God as part of Israel through their becoming proselytes. It's never been a racial thing God did favor the nation of Israel, but that nation of Israel was based upon a covenant that he made at Mount Sinai and it was the keeping of that covenant that was necessary in order for them to keep their nation God threatened that if they didn't, he would drive them out of their land and to disperse them and put them under the same conditions that other nations were under so that covenant they got me to Mount Sinai no longer exists. The people who who were God's special nation under that covenant were many of them ethnic Jews and some of them not because they there were Gentiles among them as well so is not an ethnic choice was a covenantal choice. If God chooses people. It's not because of their race ever. It's because of their covenant faithfulness to him now Israel doesn't exist under that covenant anymore.

That covenant has been replaced by a new covenant, Christ made a new covenant with his disciples in the upper room and it says in Hebrews that where there's a new covenant, the old covenant obsolete so there's no more covenant to define the nation of Israel as God's people. Therefore, the only thing that would cause him to gather Jews together into something special that would be if he took accepted on a racial basis which has never been the case. He has never accepted Israel because of their race.

It's because of their covenant. God always rejected Jews who broke the covenant. Judas Iscariot is a good example.

Caiaphas is another example.

Cora is another example throughout the Old Testament.

There's tons of Israelites who were ethnically Israelite but because of their worshiping and bailing Malik and so forth. God cut them off because you can't be one of God's people because of your race.

So if we say is God going to bring the racial Jews together for some special purpose. At the end times will, on what basis we do so would have to be on the basis of race and only race and what I'm saying I say God's not a racist. I don't mean that he's not persecuting certain races. I believe that he doesn't judge people at all on the basis of what race they are, I don't think he evaluates a little bit race.

They are Paul said there is no Jew or Gentile. In Christ, and he says that the judgment comes on the wicked, the Jew and the Gentile alike. The Jew first and also the Greek. He says he says because is no partiality with God. That's, of course, in Romans chapter 2 verses five through 10 so saying God is not a racist like I guess didn't didn't sound like a strong argument for. By the way, it certainly not the only argument used. He was a lot of magnets and I don't know that I really say very often God's nonracist but that's one of the points because in order to have a special plan for Israel. You'd either have to have the old covenant there which applies to the nation of Israel, which was not all ethnic Israel or you have to have a racial basis for God favoring them, and God never did. God never did save them strictly on a racial basis. True, Abraham's offspring several generations out from him before they were nation God to deliver them from Egypt and not just them. He did deliver them because of their relation to Abraham, but he delivered others to it same time, who had same faith in and who entered in the same covenant at Mount Sinai so everything God is done for Israel.

At least after the Exodus and everything is related to the covenant of the nation is based on something other than race but since that covenant doesn't exist anymore, then there'd be nothing left but race for him to judge by, and since he never has done that ever. I don't think he planted in the future. It's when I say racist I mean simply evaluating someone because of their race.

We usually think of the word racist as someone who's hateful to certain races or you know the presses one race or is prejudice no unusual word racist me some who makes evaluations of people because of what race they are, the evaluations may be the opposite of oppression. A person may think that a certain race is superior to other races but God doesn't believe that guardedly many race is different than any other race. What makes a man different before God from another man is whether he has faith in Christ and race is not a factor in God's reckoning at all. Now the second point Eugenia wanted to make was is is my second point is that I want to deal with when Steve says, along with all who share his view that we are not robots now. He is considerate of the Calvinist issue. They are guessing he's pointing out the you know to say were not robots is not a very strong argument against against election as he understands her sovereignty and then he gives examples how you don't have to be a robot in order to have your choices manipulate that one of the one of the examples he gives. Here is of mice in a maze. And if you do an experiment.

You got a maze and you got mice and there's cheese at one end of the house of the other in the mouse can of course randomly find his way through the maze. But if you remove a few walls and make the path more direct than that. That mouse can find the cheese faster to go that way you're not forcing his will, but you are definitely making an easier way for him and it's been taught so that you met with you, blindfolded mouse in the maze and makes it harder for him use the mouse is still making all his choices himself is under the disadvantage of a blindfold that but you're not making him make his choices. Let's true and I don't believe God does make people make the choices it's the Calvinist of their it's it's the West Mr. confession.

It says that it's Calvin.

And who says that everything that happens, including human choices is foreordained by God sonic in that part of that comes right out of the Calvinist foundational literature from the founders of the you II actually agree with the position he takes her. I believe God does give advantages to some people and he doesn't force us to make certain choices, but I also believe he doesn't prevent us from making the right choice and that's where Calvinism disagrees Calvinism believes that God causes all people to be born sinful and dead and unable to respond to him and unable to make good choices, and only if God decides is a separate act to change that in them will they ever make a good choice. Here's what Eugenio writes, among other things, is I agree. Nobody is making us do anything. We are not preprogrammed to make certain decisions were not puppets on strings but one cannot deny that many of things in our life are not our delusion. Our decisions at all. Being born healthy or unhealthy. Our parents are race or nationality being born in poverty or wealth going blind. Being bald so many things that make us who we are all happen without our input and since God said he formed us from her mother's belly. This must mean that he chose our circumstances force you regarding conflicts. There is exactly what I believe. I believe that God has put each of us in the circumstances, wherein and certainly some circumstances would seem to give someone an advantage in terms of turning to God. For example, I was raised in a Christian home by good Christian parents. Some people were raised in atheist homes or Muslim homes, and you think Weldon those other people.

God has not given the same advantage. Well, probably not.

It looks like he has not. But that doesn't mean they can't make a choice. It doesn't mean that someone raised a Muslim or atheist home can't convert to Christianity. They can and often do. It also doesn't mean that the person is born in a Christian home with good family.

I will always turn to Christ. I know some people raised like that who who were not following Christ.

So circumstances do not determine what someone will choose and I will agree that God does choose many aspects of our lives. Probably most of them there are beyond our control.

Lots of the difference in Calvinism and Arminianism is that Arminianism teaches that everyone might be able to be saved if they make the choices correctly and that they can if they will. Calvinism says no only the elect can make that kind of choice and anyone else is simply doomed to make only wrong choices. Well, if the Bible said that Augustine have to believe it. Fortunately, the Bible doesn't say that in it and it's not the same thing as saying that God gives us direct different circumstances for each other, which means some of us have hurdles to overcome that others don't.

But those hurdles do get overcome sometimes and sometimes the people who have the easy path, don't take it.

Don't follow Christ even though they begin many advantages so I don't know that Eugenio and I disagree is on on the points he's making. He doesn't like me saying God's not that were not robots.

I don't think I say that very often, but the point is we are not preprogrammed either to believe or not to believe if we were, then it wouldn't be our responsibility to be no reason for God to punish people who didn't choose to believe because they couldn't and that's where Calvinism action teaches that they can't.

They are dead in trespasses and sins that are totally depraved, and unless God has chosen to give them faith. They can't have for and got Justin choose to give it to them. So it's hard to know exactly how that would become their responsibility for not being believers, and likewise, if the believer is only a believer because God made him become a believer in that Calvinism also teaches Pioneer sovereign decree of election.

That person inevitably will become a believer, but he couldn't do otherwise, then there doesn't seem to be any particular thing about believing it would make got happier with that person because they haven't really done anything different than the person otherwise it's all God just moving pieces on a chessboard.

Anyway that's that's a long standing difference of opinion that Christians have a nice certainly have a different one from the Calvinist on that one.

Anyway, I hope Eugenio is listening in prison to that responses letter where talk now to some people on the phone first is going to be Paul from point of Vista Colorado Paul looking to the neuropathic for client I need to gradient writing my quick you know today about his thinking it was really cool.

The Holy Spirit been doing a lot lately. Anyway, the question of the day with the word of faith and to avoid pulpit and Roman that you did not update then and over the years of listening to what it included the word debate, preachers and teachers. I'd kinda picked up on some of the things that they might be doing but one of and one of them being the baptism of the Holy Spirit because this is different about that specific, you know being annexed second worker Grayson and Annette with the way I had received the Holy Spirit.

I had somewhat linear question being legally got alliance smolder baptism in the Holy Spirit and were repaid out of a tie together in their connection in the court wire will dictate teachers to Pittard a -10 picked up a negative connotation about them to talk to a movie yeah well that is it is twisting of the gospel, which is why I speak negatively about you. All right. Well that's is the Holy Spirit does run in the same circles, often with people who are the word of faith teaching. It's not does Nestor have to because I believe in the baptism Holy Spirit, but I don't believe in the word faith and and there are some Pentecostal groups have denounced the word faith teaching, but the course they believe in the baptism Holy Spirit.

And I guess you probably could find some people in the Word of Faith movement who don't believe in the baptism spirit. I don't know that you there are any. It's it's largely a branch of charismatic theology. What is the baptism Holy Spirit view that you're referring to is the idea that in an in addition to being converted Christians are supposed to be filled with Holy Spirit.

Now some people believe that your filled with spirit automatically when you're converted other people believe that you do receive the Holy Spirit when you're converted. But you're not necessarily filled with the Holy Spirit. You may be or may not be if you're not then being filled with the spirit ought to happen. Subsequently, the main thing is that that it happens when it happens at the point of conversion or at some later point is not as important as the fact that it's important for it to happen that we need to be filled with Holy Spirit Nepal writing to the Ephesian Christians in chapter 1 of Ephesians. He said that they had received the Holy Spirit since they believe so all Christians I believe have the Holy Spirit, but he later said to the same people. Ephesians 518 says that be filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, obviously having the Holy Spirit was not in Paul's mind synonymous with being filled with the spirit and obviously having the Holy Spirit just means that Holy Spirit is in you being filled with the Holy Spirit means he's a new providers as as filling you as much is possible it to say that a person has is angry is one thing to say there filled with anger is a different thing to say that a person loves his diffidence and are full of love and to say that someone has the Holy Spirit is not the same things that are filled with Holy Spirit, and so the question then is if being converted and possessing Holy Spirit is not identical to be filled with the spirit, well then MI filled with the spirit, and on the believer. I know I have the spirit, but have I been filled with spirit that's the question now Pentecostals and charismatics believe and I believe this that sometimes people are born again, and receive the service or not automatically filled with the spirit, and they need to be an we see in the book of acts. For example, Paul would baptize believers and then he lay hands on them so that they be filled with the Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit come upon them in power. Now some churches practices of some don't and churches that don't may sometimes convert somebody but but send them away without having them be filled with the spirit, and so you know I think that was my experience in my upbringing.

I was converted as a young person but had never heard of the baptism spirit, my church and teacher to practice the cell. It was later in life that I found somebody who knew this material in the Bible and actually laid hands on me and I was filled with spirit now that's that's the charismatic/Pentecostal view among those who are the word of faith, teachers almost all of them are Pentecostal or charismatic but that's not the same thing the same all charismatic Pentecostal people are word faith word of faith is an additional idea and that is that God has in the death and flogging of Jesus purchased for us and exemption from certain things that other people are not exempt from namely, poverty and sickness. It says in Galatians chapter 3 that Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law.

The word of faith.

People say well the curse. The law is poverty and sickness and death.

I don't know where to get that because the Bible doesn't say that the curse law is poverty, sickness and death, but they just decide that's true they go to Deuteronomy 28 and there's like dozens of curses of the long they just kind of singled out a few of them and say this is the curse law that were redeemed from so poverty and sickness in particular they believe we are redeemed from never reading from death also. Then the net has ramifications here because they believe since were redeemed from poverty and sickness which I don't believe the Bible teaches that we should never be sick in this life and we should never report in this life and if we are poor or sick. We are failing to live up to our privileges as Christians. Christian should every secretion should be poor. That's the teaching of the word faith, but one should argue that a Christian should never die either and I'm not really sure how they answer that. If they say well we were redeemed from death at that seen in the resurrection. Why could we then say if were redeemed from poverty and sickness that that would be in the resurrection to that unit were not redeemed from death from physical death until the resurrection, and likewise you know it may it be inconsistent to say but the other things were redeemed from a reading from now. We should never sick, should never be poor… No connection of those ideas to anything the Bible actually teaches. It's true. The Bible does teach that God provides for us and he'll supply our needs. It also says that he can heal and often does heal and so I mean every Christian. I think believe that God heals and every Christian believes that God provides. But that's not the same thing as saying you should be always well and you should always be wealthy and that is of course with the word faith teaches that's called the word of faith because they say that you appropriate these benefits if you're if you're feeling sick you from the poor. Are you can you can become rich and become well by confessing a word of faith by faith you say I am well when I'm actually sick by faith is a by his stripes I am healed when you're really not healed and the and then you will be healed, or at least if you're not, you can pretend that you are and say, well, God has healed me an appetite if the devil just wanted to see me regularly selects the symptoms and that's with producing buds.

I've always said well I don't care to be healed of restorative symptoms. If there's I can't think of anything in sickness that I would want to be delivered from except the symptoms so you know it's kind of silly to save on healed but the devil still give me symptoms, that's certainly an argument of desperation in the Bible, no one of them was ever healed and still have symptoms and healing remove their symptoms. Every case, and if it didn't then what's the point of being healed all. Likewise, if you say I am rich when you're really poor that that confession that word of faith is going to bring riches to you that you might recognize this teaching very similar to a pagan teaching popularized in the book the secret which Oprah Winfrey and others promoted. It's not a Christian book. It's so new age book and basically would say the same thing that if you confess your well you confess your you get you make these positive confessions, then the universe will hear and you'll be manifesting these realities by the power of the universe, responding and so forth, which is just a secular way of saying the same thing. The word faces the word of faith has the same teaching. It's just that they would say these benefits come because of the death of Christ and they come from the power of God, but that other than that, of course, the just the same as the pagan teaching on this matter that you control things now in the Bible, the Christian doesn't control their well-being. They submit to God's will, and the word of faith is very very negative on this idea of submitting to God's will for example, if you want to pray that geared child be healed and you say Lord of sure will.

Please heal and they say all that's that's despicable your you're not expressing faith here you're suggesting it may not be God's will, but realistically in the Bible sometimes it was not God's will to heal, and that we have no guarantee that it always is.

In this way, the word faith goes crazy turns people into manipulators of God to manipulate their circumstances so that they can avoid things they don't like.

That's not what Christianity is about Christie is not about avoiding things you don't like.

It's about serving and and faithfully pleasing God in all circumstances, including sickness and including poverty and other things.

So the word faith really is is a different gospel and fortunately, people who hold it do believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead end and many of them want to follow Jesus, which means they may in fact be saved and I wouldn't necessarily condemn them to not being saved but the teaching of the word faith is a different gospel or corruption of the gospel, and it certainly is something that if if you've heard people speak negative about it.

It was rightly so careful.

I appreciate your call all right. Steve from Lakewood, Washington. Welcome to the narrow path. Hello Martin, I don't have told on him to believe, you must know, tribulation, premillennialist and why do you disagree with him and that he said in his talk of anything else, and what he is, because they are afraid of the anti-Christ.

That certainly is my position. I think he may say anyone his pretrip would be afraid of the antichrist. I'm not sure that's even true that it would make more sense to me. He wasn't discussing all millennialism Walter Martin was in fact a historic premillennialist which means he did not believe in a pretrip rapture really did believe in a future millennium asserted many of the church fathers.

By the way, it's probably the oldest documentable view among the church fathers.

That being so, you know, that was his view now if he said everyone who disagrees with that view is just a pretty energized, I wouldn't naturally agree with him about that that that's making a judgment of people's motives that we don't have enough information actually make so that Walter Martin is a great guy and I talked to a number of times when used to live, but I didn't agree with him on everything all right when I were to take a break here and we got another half-hour coming up, so don't go away. The program is not over his hassle. So stay tuned, and that we want to know that the narrow path is a listener supported ministry. We pay thousands, tens of thousands of dollars every month to radio stations and we continued beyond those stations, as long as listeners send money and that we don't beg for money, which is let you know that's where the money comes from. From listeners, we don't have any commercials. We don't have these things for sale.

We don't have any sponsors so if you'd like to help us out. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or you can go to our website. The narrow path.com. Lots of resources or thousands in all3@thenarrowpath.com.

I'll be back in 30 seconds. Please state small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life and to welcome you to the narrow and had nothing to tell you today that everything did you in today's radio show is over, we invite you to visit the narrow Pat.com we'll find time. The audio teachings blog article verse by verse teachings in the archives of all the radio shows daddy learn and enjoy the thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path if Greg will come back to the narrow path radio broadcast, Steve, Greg, and relies for another half-hour taking your calls.

If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith for free to give me a call if you differ from a host of different viewpoint be glad to talk to you.

The number is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our next caller is Erica from Sacramento, California Erica, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. I question and question implying how should Christian ratio.

Great plates are that you think I will are related to alcoholic have a desire to gain any use including blinding communion. How can the Vatican's secretary partake and can share that regarding sure well I mean I have to say that I know of people with problem alcohol need to avoid alcohol. I don't know if that thimbleful of wine that is usually served in most churches would be enough to have an impact. Maybe it will. I've never been addicted to alcohol, so don't know that I would imagine, for example, I'm been addicted to coffee before lunch if they serve me a thimbleful of coffee when I'd been abstinent.

I don't think you'd start a Vegas or have headaches again and I don't think I would have, but I don't know how it is been addicted to alcohol, so if it is really a problem, then there's certainly no legalism. That should be imposed on the act of know that it matters. Use wine or grape to set up think it would.

I think that the original communion. Of course, was a Passover meal and most churches don't practice communion that way anyway so they're already deviating very significantly from the original communion methods, but in the Passover meal and the early communion wine was at the table, partly because it was at every table.

It was what people drank it was their beverage. They mixed it with water and drink it is a mixture that's what every society did in order to make their water safe to drink the wine in the alcohol and it made the water possible so that they wouldn't get amoebas and things like that so ill they did use wine but not only a communion but in every meal and it's probable that the reason wine was used in Passover and the early church community is because that's just the vet that's what people drank that's what was at the table. They didn't have the unfermented grape juice very often because once you make grape juice, it starts to ferment. And it may be if you drink immediately after it was the grapes are crushed, you wouldn't have alcohol in it but give it a few weeks and if you start about in a years worth of grape juice, which is what you do you have one season crushed all the grapes and put all the grape juice and bottles and let it ferment and you can be doing that for year certainly scare the alcohol limit, but that's good because that's what's needed they needed the alcohol to kill the bugs in the water, that's what it was that was the main issue now. We don't do that we don't need wine at our table so some Christians do have one at the table but we have other things we can drink and grape juice. One of them. I don't really think there's anything sacrosanct about wine per se. I think that's in essence the fact it was used in the Passover meal is probably incidental that it was used because that's because it has a way was a meal and after they had meals so I don't see any sacrilege in using grape juice of cinnamon if there's people that I just can't handle your drinking wine Robin fine grape juice we find there is nothing in the Bible it that is legalistic about communion does Newman say in the in the Bible how often you should take communion or what it should be should be wholemeal or not which it was in biblical times usually isn't in most churches now and really almost nothing is legislated about it in the Bible, with the exception that when you do it you do in remembrance of Christ of his body's blood.

So I certainly would not make an issue of it.

Especially if there's people struggling with alcoholism in this and I just can't take communities want women is something else that be my vice hi hi what's your name honey cattle on a hi Gabby, I hope to see you Sunday I come in sacrament, or sometimes I got blessed I John from Oregon city.

Welcome to the neuropathic's are coming. Do you think you my question will elect a personal question first.

Do you have a favorite all jaded like Christology told you, no, no, I don't have a favorite ologies. I I love well frankly I just I just love to study the Bible and find out what God has revealed that anything I do tend to be more fascinated with the realm of practical Christian discipleship than theoretical theology, but obviously I'm fairly familiar with the of almost all the theological controversies in the effect almost all the sides of the controversy. So I love I love the Bible. I don't think that to be obsessed with.

Let us say eschatology or demonology or some of those ologies.

I don't think it's healthy to be overly obsessed with anyone thing I guess. So to rheology which is the study of salvation would be an important one and that is, of course, a lot of things are in that realm like the difference between Catholic and Protestant ideas of how a person saved or the difference in Calvinism Arminianism about what's involved behind the scenes when a person saved and whether they can lose their salvation so forth. Those are parts of so to rheology.

You know I is like when I teach the whole Bible, and will often go to school to teach like a why when school of business studies or something of teach one or another book of the Bible taught most of them from over the years, and I'll be often asked what your favorite book of the Bible and I really I don't know who I have no idea whatever. When I'm reading and teaching is the one that's the greatest of the moment. I isolate you. I have five children, which is my favorite. Well, my favorite is when everyone think about at the moment. Honestly that's always been the case in this how does the books of the Bible or for that matter theological topics in the Bible.

So for you.

It's more bread. The depth well no I wouldn't say that I mean are whenever I study anything I study very much in depth. It's more a difference of whether something is practical or something is merely mature certain philosophical or as a matter of curiosity. I think practical teaching about how to be a disciple is not just a matter of curiosity. It's a matter of morality and its essential. I believe a lot of theological points which I study quite in-depth, are nonetheless not as important as what you do. The Bible always says that when we stand before God in the day of judgment till judgment for what they did. It never says he'll judge them for what they believed in them, so your email is@theneuropathic.com.com okay okay one more thing, could you do a exegete on Romans 1125 okay that's at the end of his olive tree illustrations. Also at the at the end of his hold three chapter long discussion on the on Israel. But when he gets when he finishes the olive tree illustration.

He then says in verse 25 I this is Romans 1125 I do not desire brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and so all Israel will be saved.

That's first line of chapter over 26 so he's just described Israel as an olive tree, which is the imagery he gets from the Old Testament and he sees individual people who are in Israel as branches on that tree, just like Jesus did with the vine and the branches he sat on the vine. You're the branches and so individuals disciples are the branches of the barn, so also vigil Jews are the original branches on the tree, but he says some of these Jews who were part of the tree have been broken off the not part of tree more because of their unbelief. He means they rejected Christ they don't believe in him, so there no longer part of this river no longer part of the olive tree, but he says and you Gentiles have been grafted in a seizure stating that by faith. So what he saying is the olive tree consists of the Jews who believe in Christ and the Gentiles who believe in Christ.

The Jews were already there and the Gentiles been grafted in, because of their faith in Christ.

But the Jews who don't believe in Christ are not part of it. Now that's then he says, therefore I don't want you to misunderstand this mystery says hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles becoming nice describing this hardening in part has been part of the Jewish branches something had been broken off. That's the hardening that has happened part of Israel. Not all of Israel. Some some of his remains, but part of it is been hardened and are not on their number and then the Gentiles are being prodded, that's the branches from the wild olive tree that are grafted in, so he's summarizing that very imagery their aces and so all Israel will be saved now so means in this way. Now Israel again is the olive tree that had been describing and the olive tree is saved all the all the olive tree is saved all of Israel but of course it's constituent branches are some of them Jews and some of them Gentiles, and some of those that are not part of it are Jews in summer Gentiles, so what he saying is all of Israel is saved, even though many of the Jews are not in its in this way.

He says that all Israel will be saved is by you know this process of God removing the unbelieving branches and grafting and believing branches so that the believing community and others Jews and Gentiles are the olive tree and are on our Israel and are we also called the church that should be surprising because the Israel was called the church in the Old Testament the word ecclesia, which is the Greek word for church is used in the Septuagint and many many times. The Old Testament preferred Israel so when the Christians who were saw themselves as the new Israel began to call themselves the ecstasy of the church. They were using a term that already had referred Israel and their Old Testament, and of course they assumed a lot of names from the Old Testament chosen nation, a holy people kingdom of priests, and so forth. So that's that's repulsing Paul saying that many of the Jews are no longer part of the tree because of their unbelief at some Gentiles are part of the tree and in this way all the all the true Israel. All the branches Jews and the Gentile branches are all being saved through being believers.

That's how it's happening so Steve you hold to the professionalism. Yes, that the church replaces Israel well I wouldn't I wouldn't put it that way.

Super session as it is sometimes called replacement theology, but the word replace is not the best word for that. It's more to say that the church is Israel and always has been. Israel has all the remnant of Israel. The Israel that not all of Israel are member pulses Romans 96. Not all who are of Israel are Israel. While the first Israel is the ethnic Israel. That's not all who are that Israel are the Israel that the promises made to now who are the promises made to them into the remnant, the faithful remnant. What is the ethnicity of this from lime juice in summer Gentiles slivered. There were faithful Gentiles in Israel in the Old Testament like Ruth and Rahab, and many others.

And then they were unfaithful Jews to so the true Israel is always been the faithful, whether Jew or Gentile, and continues to be, so that the main differences happen is there's been a replacement of the old covenant with the new covenant so it's not that the church replaced Israel. The churches Israel always has been. It's just that what defined the church or Israel used to be the sciatic covenant but that Kevin is is defunct and a new covenant has replaced it. So if we want to color replacement theology, we should say the old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant, and I can't imagine a Christian who would disagree with that, although maybe some would want to, but to say that the church replaced Israel is is misunderstanding the case.

The churches Israel has replaced Israel.

It's always been you see in the Old Testament Israel was made up of Jews and Gentiles were faithful to covenant and the new covenant it's made up of Jews and Gentiles who are faithful to the new covenant so there were hundreds changed is the covenant. The tree has even replaced the tree hasn't been replace that this is an olive tree, which is the Gentiles been grafted into and some Jews been removed from the very end of the time of the Gentiles that you Jews will receive a like a second chance and I think this is expressed in Hosea 61 to about three anyway. I know you got lots of other colors, so I'll let you go but thank you okay José does target the Jews having objects and they did after the Babylonian exile.

They did have a chance to come back and be faithful to God again.

I appreciate your call. God bless you.

All right, let's talk to Misha from San Francisco. Welcome to the narrow path high.

Thank you Michael. I look forward to your program every day. Thank you Jean that wrote the letter and email Eugenio Eugenio Eugenio regio well it's Eugene with Iowa.

I have to say it's us. I have guys especially modern others, Eugenio or or I don't I don't others cancel Spanish words but it's a looks like Eugenio Micah, by the way, okay, it's you and I don't if that might cause greater spelled correctly or not but that's okay so I had a question, but in I was in my reading this morning I was reading in Ezekiel chapter 16 truck that was the very first chapter that started with this morning and he was his first question had to do with his God. A racist or I could God be considered a racist. And now he was saying he was saying. He agrees with me that God's not a racist, but he's thinking that he was thinking that my stating that God is not a racist is not a very good argument for I for my position the go-ahead rating of and as I was reading through it it it was. I thought of his question.

It came back to me. The reading that I had this morning and it talks about Israel kind of being taken off the from that ash heap of being thrown out and discarded. And in verse three it says, thus saith the Lord God into Jerusalem diverse in the Nativity is of the land of Canaan. They father was an Amorite and my mother was a Hittite and for the first seven verses it talks about how God rescued Jerusalem, Israel, and then for the next eight verses it talks about how she prospered and then for the remaining chapter 63 versus total it talks about how she backslid, and God and then went into idolatry and in sin right and I know it's kind of like the parable. It certainly isn't literal, but it is Jerusalem is a woman. Israel is a woman right in this. In the story and I guess the church is also considered a woman said you have a question. I just wanted to comment on that and the question I have is totally unrelated. It has to do with Genesis chapter 1 and two and the sequence of the creation days and I think on days three, God created the grass and the herbs and the trees, and then on day four, he created the sun and the moon and the stars in the government and things may have been very different in the creation back then but because God created on the third day of do you think they were functional, they were reproducing without classification of the sun and the moon yell I don't think they had an awful long time to wait for the sun and the moon numbing plants. For example, today they stay alive overnight. And when God made the plants.

It was evening and then morning and then there were you the next day and he made the sunlight so that you know the sunlight.

The sun apparently came up or became a factor in the life of plants. Just after the deny time after he'd made them so even if even if there were, even if the sun and the moon were the only light possible to to sustain plants the past and have to live very long.

Just overnight before the sun a little created but there was already light before the plants don't need sunlight. Any light you can you can raise plants under artificial light to light is necessary for them. I'm sure sunlight is probably the healthiest light for the you don't nestle active sunlight for them to grow so on day one God said, let there be light and there was light and he made succession of light and dark season are periods and call them day and night and so by the third day there'd been already days and nights with light and darkness for three days so there was light there.

He didn't create the flow of the plants in the dark is just that on the fourth day he created the sun and the moon to be the light bearers. I believe all right: Abner, I thank you for your call. Next talk to Marilyn from Newburgh. Welcome to the narrow path.

Marilyn and Steve and I really really appreciate it, really appreciate ministry. I really appreciate your gallantry. That's really clear and I want to make a comment and then asked the question yet an 86-year-old man I called in several weeks ago and he is discouraged is still sensible and I got what you told them it's very good and I just find out something that's helped me a lot because I think a lot of Christians struggle with this because the fidelity on pride and I'll get you on the marriage written sinfulness yeah and let's really help me answer is making a conscious choice to forget about my sin and God that they are forgiven and focus on Jesus and make a conscious choice to keep my attention on him because I'd be helping me become changed and if we dwell on our sin work and keep repeating and knowing Jesus, becoming like humans everything that's just something to help me and my question and start having sentences and when I got the Genesis 1 verse 30.

I think he had said before you didn't know if there is definitely animal right before Stan and Genesis 1 38,000 to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for feed and no do you think that that clears that up that the animals didn't need each other than or is there more to it than that. Well animals might not of the need to other or might be that there are some that were omnivores like our today. I mean, there are many animals that eat mostly pray or meet about will also eat implants may have to and Albert for example, a bear likes to eat meat but elite berries and implant foods to dogs thoughtfully plant food to set so that every E and I had given every green herb for feed right so he he'd given them. He given the herbs for food for man and for all the beasts. Now, whether whether the beasts ate anything else besides that we don't know that the question of whether there were predators at that point are not is a actually a separate question to the question of whether animals were ever created to die or not. I might my belief is that God I don't I don't believe God ever gave animals eternal life, and therefore, even if animals even had a mate had never sinned. I think animals probably die in various ways may be of old age or maybe from predators. I don't know we don't know if there were predators at the time mean there were animals then that are now predators whether they became predators later or whether they were… That they the they always were capable of being predators, but for the most part it plants and then afterwards they standardize shifted more toward the carnivores.

We don't know much of their shares are built for it now and they sure are they sure are in all the there are some things that admit we might think would make something or carnivore that might not I mean when you see a Toronto source and its teeth, and so forth. The inlet must've been a hunter or maybe it was maybe was a scam young lady. If animals were dying on by other means may be the these carnivores were scavengers and like like volt are now in only they may have been the ones that clean up the mess. When animals simply died or they may have hunted them, or in other creatures like pandas and so forth that have teeth that could be presumed if you didn't ever see life attitude be that of a predator, but all they eat is bamboo enough. So it's really it's really hard to really be sure of the habits of some of these animals unless we get to see them alive.

But you're right, there are a lot of law animals alive that are are obviously designed to be predators. Or at least to be carnivores and yelling in a claim under a state of the doubt that a letter right now.

It's hard to say. I don't worry much about it but I know it's not a real important thing in very much sure appreciate you calling question. Thank you got an issue by well and find router time. I'd like to take another call, or more, but says it turns out Mike my clock is frozen here, but the music is begun so good after signing off for the week, Monday through Friday for an hour at the same time as you can tell what kind of laid back and just handed take phone calls to me doing the show selects around the living room with a bunch of Christians talk about the bottom which is an idea of having so I don't like the weekends is much as I likely days because weekends are having. I have to cut off the program for which were doing the narrow path is listener supported. You can find out how to support us by going to our website.

The narrow.com and looking under donations. I hope you have a good weekend and join us again Monday will continue our discussions that got Bush