The Narrow Path 7/3

Welcome to the narrow pass radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and we are live for an hour with open phone line for you to call if you have questions about the Bible or about the Christian faith.

We have some lines open right now.

You can access if you want to call this number it's 844-484-5737 fax 844-484-5737 and that without delay will just go to our phone lines and talk to Mike from Albany, Oregon hi Mike, good to hear from you. Get I will look into a podcast, but the other day and everything that you want to become a Christian, which is good, but the court believes that a Christian must believe in their idea was that the Trinity is the inerrancy of the Bible and the five solar and I was one of your thoughts on that leg for me personally, I have I have a few questions like open questions about the training but I have a road trip and have few open questions about the ideas every sentence in the Bible being truly God breathed right but you must not posted to you to give a short list and I know you probably not them. You need to give short answers that you are trying to give a fairly short answer of what what a Christian should believe how would you word that okay well I will say this, that the the list that was given by that speaker.

I guess you're losing some speak is a distinct distinctly post-Reformation list and you never get that list from anyone before the Reformation. You might get some points but you wouldn't get to all of them in their IM for salt for those who are unfamiliar with my my ministry. I am Trinitarian I believe in the Trinity. I also believe that every word in the Bible is trustworthy, so, so I don't I don't question the authority of Scripture in any point, and I always would appeal to Scripture is the final authority on every argument.

Agape now when we talk about the Trinity and we target the term inerrancy of Scripture. Unfortunately, we are using words that are actually found in the Bible. They are words that mean something to the person or uses them, but they don't mention me the same thing exactly to everyone who uses them. For example, if your thoroughly trained theologian, I yield explain the Trinity in certain nuanced ways which may or may not be true, then maybe I'm not saying they're not. I'm just saying the Bible doesn't give us a nuanced definition or none nuanced definition of the Trinity, the Trinity doctrine is simply an affirmation of what the Bible I think does saying that is that there's only one God and then there are three persons we know about the father the son and the Holy Spirit, all of whom have distinction from each other.

All of them are also called God if there's only one God and these three must be the one God, now to to go further than that is to go beyond Scripture because you don't have anywhere in the Scripture that explains the Trinity, so however what I just said is very non-explicit. I mean the most we could say about it, feel that that everyone would have to I think admit from the particular data referenced is that there is one God, and in some sense, he's one. In another sense, he's three because if he is the father if he is the son and the Holy Spirit, then he's three persons not three gods so that the issue here. How does that work. How do you have God who is one God.

But he's also three persons to almost everybody who hears that that sounds like three gods. Yet it Trinitarian would insist no that's not three gods it's different end. Of course the traditional doctrine says God is one in substance, but three in person well okay that that sounds like it works with the material Scripture but those words are using the Bible either about his word substance or persons is just a way of putting some kind of theological words to explain the question in what sense is God one in what sense is God. Three and so they weld the 70s when we recall that substance and recall the three persons because the Bible doesn't uses terms that that's what we come down to now. I myself don't have a problem with those words. All I can say is the church didn't use them for the first few centuries. It wasn't until of course they finally got around to having a counsel to say how are we going to explain this how Reagan speak about it that suddenly they came up with words like that which happened to be. I think I think you made a good decision about the words. I think those words work very well and fit very well into my understanding of the Trinity, but I do meet people who agree that God is one in some sense, and three. An assessment who don't go with that particular explanation of their oneness people. For example, Melissa II don't believe are correct, but they do have their own way of understanding God to be one and three is just three modes. I would say three persons that say one God in three modes. Now I I don't believe that's the correct way that I don't think anyone can be sent to hell for believing that since the Bible doesn't deny that the Bible simply doesn't give us a theological explanation. Trinity and therefore any words we use to theology eyes about it are man-made words in the Bible doesn't tell us in what sense God is three.

What sense is one although perhaps and has a very sophisticated scholar who knows it better than I do could say well this is the only words that could possibly satisfy all the date of Scripture on this matter. Okay if they know that, certainly not everyone knows that and there, therefore I don't see how one could say a person has to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, especially since the Trinity doctrine as we know it wasn't exactly formulated fully for Christians to even believe it until the fourth century.

So that means there were for 400 years of Christians who didn't necessarily sign on to a Trinitarian docket. Now they may have believed a lot of may believe that we know a lot of them didn't. That's why they had to have a counsel, but it is not evergreen about it and that means for 400 years.

There were Christians.

Some of them believe one way and some lived another way about that and it said there's nothing in the Bible it says if you don't believe in the Trinity just so then you can't be saved because Jesus frankly Jesus and Paul never laid out the Trinity doctrine for us. It's something theologians have inherent your transits and they would have believed that he was the Messiah, and he was resurrected and he took her exactly as I guess that's exactly right. Hearing you say what list would we make well we have to make a list that was comes in the Bible. What does the Bible say about those who are whoever confesses that Jesus is the son of God. God dwells in you know whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist.

Whoever confesses that Jesus, the Christ you know is of God. Several things are affirmed especially in first John, but also in other places like words were, Paul says if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing heart that God raised him from the dead to be saved. That's interesting how many statements there are about what you have to believe and say in order to be saved and not a single statement says you have to believe God. God is three and one now I do believe God is three but it's interesting that if that's what the apostles believe I am, of course, ever thinks that they believe what we believe. So I would say I think the apostle believe I'm saying it interesting that they wouldn't make that a front burner issue that they would not make that one of the things that they say Christians have to believe, so I'm not to go beyond Scripture. A lot of people do, and reform people do when they say things like that.

You have to believe in the Trinity. Well, I just say I have to believe the things the Bible says I have to believe I have to leave Jesus is Lord. Actually, Jesus is the Messiah after believe that Jesus is. It is the son of God.

These things are stated very plainly. I believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Now a person could believe all those things and still have somewhat different ways of understanding the Trinity doctrine from each other, or maybe even not not quite believing anything you'd really call a Trinity doctrine but still were there reaffirming the Christ is who the Bible says he is at least what the Bible plainly says is there's things that you can deduce about Christ from less plain statement, but those whatever is not plain whatever whatever intelligent and pious and devout Christian could believe from reading the Scripture and take it all seriously ill that's coming to be playing an important whatever a good Christian reads and could see differently than another good Christian, even though they're both trying to see it right if it's just not that clear, then it can't be one of the essentials because what makes a person a Christian more than just what they believe about theology course after believe in Jesus, they have to believe he's their Lord and the Savior and the risen from that.

All that the Bible says that but it doesn't say they have to have a particular view of the Trinitarian paradigm, or of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ ringing. I got none.

None. As stated in Scripture. And if the Scripture doesn't say it, and frankly the church during the strategic initially then whatever view we hold might be correct, but it can't be held to be the thing that people have to say that in order to be Christians. Paul said with have to say that after believe that there to say that Jesus is Lord, and of course have to mean it, which means in their Lord and now as far as the the Scriptures as you're saying the idea that the Scriptures are inherent if that means that we don't have any considerable mistakes in the Bible. I would say that's not true, but if it's saying that you Paul when he wrote or Luke when he wrote or even Moses when he wrote that they were incapable of using bad grammar because they were there limitations of their minds.

You were not engaged while the Holy Spirit inspired things that I have disagreed that and of course me there's there's a number of cases that can be talk about the one I always bring up first because it proves a clearly is in first Corinthians 1 where Paul says I think I didn't baptize anyone in Corinth except Crispus and Gaius, but two verses later, he corrected himself and says oh I also baptized the house of Stefano space.

I don't remember far better as a minister so he said I'm not really sure how many adapters but he starts everything I didn't baptize anyone there except Crispus and Gaius turns out he was wrong he had any kind, himself, is all I do remember now, few others you know. Which means I mean if he was riding with. If the limits of his knowledge, and so forth were not engaged in his writing, and he couldn't make any mistakes because those were somehow grabbing his mind, and you just flowing through many wrote which the bottle by the way, nowhere teaches Paul never claimed such a thing. For himself, but if that is the case that he certainly wouldn't make a mistake and have correct himself so I think the Bible doesn't anywhere call itself inherent to that term is not in the Bible it does its inspired it, but even that word is strange because in its is only found in second Timothy 316 but but what that word actually just means God breeze. All Scripture is God breathed, which is not a very clear statement of exactly how it came through the pens of the writers from God that it's it certainly is that which God has provided for to his word is his guidance to us and I believe everything the Bible is to be a is to be Placed as the highest authority properly understood and also I just go ahead. I am having a hard time reconciling parts of the law of Moses with the character of Christ, and I'm not rejecting the law of Moses because of that is being inspired but it's just like you know if there were something that work was just came from Moses or came from man, or got changed over time and not against them and still open that being a possibility.

Maybe I shouldn't even be up early but I attended the look of Christ what Christ taught and have that kind of missing out in the Scriptures.

There's a lot of Christians these days what's been written by Christian leaders that are suggesting that maybe we can't fully trust anything in the law of Moses may be snow may be Moses thought he had God's ideas about this, but sometimes slipped a few of his own, and without realizing it, or whatever or organ or that he knew that he was running God's ideas, but he was so committed to these ideas he wanted to slip the men so that they be given credence to comes from God's revelation, but the truth is, Jesus and Paul and Peter all believed that Moses wrote those they say that they attribute to Moses and they all believe that what Moses wrote was true and that it be inappropriate to visibly remember when when Jesus was on the road with the two men on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection in Luke chapter 24 and they still didn't recognize him. He said to them in verse 25 Luke 24, 25, he said in O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken. Moses was the chief prophet, and he said you're foolish not to believe everything that the prophets wrote now. What's interesting about that is that Jesus doesn't say will accept those parts about you killing the Canaanites innovated most you should believe that he just said everything the prophets wrote you should believe in other washers, fools, and slow of heart. Now that would make me very very reluctant to think that I know more about what Moses did or did not write what God or God did or did not say what I should or should not believe in the Old Testament then let St. Jesus. Then Jesus knew and likewise Peter and Paul, who certainly knew the spirit of Christ better than any modern man would not mean only because I mean also knew the grace of God for his own conversion hasn't been caught up in the third heaven had several visions of Jesus and so forth.

And Peter lived with Jesus for years and was in no committed to representing signing the fact that these guys knew as much, as we do about Jesus right and that's really been sarcastic, they knew a lot more than we know about Jesus and they didn't see any problem with having Moses wrote so if I'm finding problems that and and I should say this to that throughout history the Christian church. Although they have had many errors. We can't always trust with the Christian churches that that is nonetheless the case that every godly commentator I've ever read from ancient times in a more modern times they they accept that Moses wrote all that, so the real question is if I'm reading something and Moses that doesn't strike me as being compatible with the spirit of Christ. There's a possibility that not understanding what Moses said as well as Jesus dinner Paul dinner someone else who didn't have a problem with you know and it's certain that that that that I don't know Jesus in the spirit of Jesus more than Paul and Peter did so that's that's hard to think out in my own case, of course, I've been teaching through the Old Testament for many many decades and have had to deal with them and and I for Mike's for my money, as it were. I have had the unable to explain everything I find in the law of Moses in being consistent with the teaching of Jesus, but not that I could go into case-by-case decorative Artie taken 20 minutes of the program, but I also suggest that John chapter 5 verse 46 Jesus said if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me, but if you do not believe his writings. How will you believe my words Jesus basically saying if you can't believe what Moses said how can you believe what I say. Obviously, since some Jesus and I think I believe what Moses said okay. Believe me, if you don't believe Moses saw me.

There are there are some very clever arguments made by a lot of modern theologians try say you know we don't have to believe you know everything Moses said in order to be Christians well in order to believe what Jesus did, I think we do.

Anyway that's just my position as I mean, I don't feel like I have to assume that every Christian who lived for the past 2000 years was so dull that they didn't see a problem here that they didn't see a problem with the genocide of the Canaanites and Jesus, interning her cheek after assume that people who really have studied this like frankly like I have probably didn't have any more problems than I do and and that that this would be the first generation that would come up with the objections to only because we go by our feelings more than any other generation of Christians instead of by you know, our theological commitments. I have to say that I don't think we live in the most enlightened ever generation of Christians.

So I'll go with what Jesus said in the Paulson Peterson and and the church is always believed about Moses, but it all out on patient and patient with people having trouble with it like all the questions and that have the scene difficult to reconcile to a zoo you don't think difficult for me to reconcile that must not be exactly on any yes I am very willing to discuss any of those passages I I've corresponded with people when they bring to me about sleaze passages but I'd like to turn the air more than by correspondence. So other people can benefit but as much.

I really do enjoy talking to you.

I get my lines affluent have you select hunting you okay Mike, good talking about okay or next caller is Scott from Phoenix, Arizona Scott, welcome to the general path that you're going reading for good. It may remain in the mapping it because I'm having a discussion about territory with somebody and I are thinking about that I would bring up with when Jesus spoke to when the gardener get many in the line but the question we and one I think that I don't do it you know I want to do it.

I don't do it and the last by the enemy.

Eric doubt. I completely read mean word redeemed the word. The word redeem literally means bought back page purchased and yes we have been purchased, but you may be thinking of the term are sometimes people say they talk about redeeming us a bad situation with a nonspeaking specific garden very specifically for the word redeem usually means but how are you how do you undercut the resistance is because we have been paid for. We have been paid for by the blood of Christ were not only involve the price. There is a sense in which those in Romans eight, Paul talks that were still looking forward to the redemption of the body about a chart of the adoption.

Even the redemption of our body and so redemption means redeem so there is a sense in which we been redeemed. That is our our persons, our souls, we could say have been redeemed, purchased and belong to God. Our bodies have been purchased to. That's why Paul says you been about the price. Therefore glorify God with your body. So our bodies been redeemed to God owns us that there is also the sense of rescuing our bodies from this present horrible world which will happen when were resurrected.

So there's more than one aspect redemption met someone and what you mean to that, we so that we can eat nothing unclean, entered heaven against the modern right body not read the door is not backed by our our body is still subject to the weaknesses of this of our character never of the world and subject to temptation and also subject to falling into temptation, but we as human individuals belong to God because he has paid the price and and he is cleansed us from our sins. It says in first John chapter 1 in verse seven it says if we walk in the light as he is in the language he assumes to be what Christians do, then it says we have fellowship one with another of the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin, so that the blood of Jesus cleanse me from all sin. As I'm walking with him and Christopher Slater said if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness that cleansing from all sin and fall in righteousness. Looks to me like it leaves none unclenched so even though I I would never mistake myself for a perfect person. I was the perfect person when I got converted either, but I got cleansed and so I think it is nothing unclean goes to the true nothing unclean goes to only those things that Christ is cleansed will be there but that would include everyone. His true Christian okay thanks got good talking to you.

All right, let's see if we get another calling here before break John from Oregon city. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling Michael United about 20 years ago I remember. I'm sorry it was a very casual introduction by another name. Steve called Steve do you all I know Steve DI.

I'm a great admirer of Steve D know know I'm God's truth. Truthfully, I really my so I know is I think this like he was a student of mine in Oregon okay anyway. He also ran a school in Israel. He also ran a school in Israel that he invited teaching guy I know very well.

He yeah I question years ago that you 2415 when you get closest to the domination of the solution spoke about in the profit and I think you answered demo 927 till 1131 and I said there's more specifically, you asked where and I speak with and when Steve heard that he was with the city loftily cried while it is kind of funny to say you know of another passage and I asked for is a sense of secret coming. Why would you not Sharon. This is why question you record how many people will quickly examine also. Also, the deep state is recording out speaks your funds coming are you talking to you all is recording.

That's why there's a verse you don't want them to know about okay $11 know that I guess you had talk about family say that again Jeremiah will Zachariah is a crime. Okay, will do African back for break time were taking a break for about 30 seconds and then when you come back. The narrow path is listener supported. If you'd like to help us down the air.

You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or you go to the website. The narrow pass.com.

Everything's free, but you condone if you want@thenarrowpath.com back stage and the book of Hebrews tells that do not forget to do good and to share with others and share the narrow hat with family and friends. When the show is over today and one in the narrow path.com they can learn and enjoy your teaching articles verse diverse teachings and archives of all the narrow path, radiation, and be sure to tell them to tune into the show here on the radio chairlift noted the narrow and do good luck on that to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg I'm here for another half hour to take your call. Send questions on NASCAR of the disagreement with the host you'd like to bring up. Feel free to call this number 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 just before the break. I had a call from a brother who wanted me to comment on some verses in Zechariah 14, so I will heat. He did not stay on the line, but I'll just be listening and I just tell you what verses they are hit even ask a specific question so we must just take this as a just wanted explanation.

The verses are in Zechariah 14 and I think that verses 16 and 17, and here's how that reads it should come to pass that everyone who's left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of Tabernacles also called Sukkoth by the Jews and it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts on them. There shall be no rain. Okay so I guess this is probably coming from the article which your position is but a very common position that many people have that the feast of Tabernacles will be celebrated in the future. I think many would say during the millennium in Jerusalem that this is a there's a belief of course the third temple will be built there.

The Jewish sacrifices will be reinstated. There the Levitical priests will be ministering there at the altar again and the whole world. During the millennial kingdom of Jesus range from Jerusalem. From David's throne the whole world will have to make the pilgrimage is yearly like the Jews had to do in the Old Testament to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem now. My understanding of this passage. It has nothing to do with the future millennium. I realize that the premillennial and the dispensational view of both which are really pre-millennial. They often take this passage to be about events after Jesus comes back they think that Jesus coming back is at the beginning of the chapter when it says the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations are in verse one, where it says, behold, the day of the Lord is coming, and they take the day of the Lord to mean the second coming of Christ.

And so they they start this chapter out with the second coming of Christ and then they take the rest the chapter to describe some things that happen after the second coming of Christ. This is how they would fit it into a future millennial kingdom.

Jesus comes back, establishes a millennial kingdom, and ended be in those in that milieu that we have these verses be fulfilled. I don't understand this passage that way understand the day of the Lord at the beginning to be the destruction of Jerusalem, which it says very specifically in verse two, five will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem, the city shall be taken, that is the city of Jerusalem, the houses rifled, the women ravished and so forth. So this is describing the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now that happened in A.D. 70 of the fact this is the Lord's coming is not unusual that common in the prophets to speak of earthly judgments which come because God is judging a nation, even though the actual instruments of the judgment are human armies. In this case Roman armies is commonplace for Old Testament prophets to speak of such judgments as being the Lord coming so Zechariah is not unusual in that respect is worded the question then is it this is describing things after the destruction of Jerusalem, but that was in the first century so it isn't possibly describing our own time. Now what you have going on in the chapter, it seems to me is you got the destruction of earthly Jerusalem, but you've got the continuation of the this spiritual Jerusalem, which is the church a pulse of the spiritual Jerusalem is the mother of us all. In Galatians chapter 4 and in Hebrews chapter 12 the writer says that the this the heavenly Jerusalem.

He says, is the the general assembly and firstborn the general church of the firstborn which are registered in heaven, so that be you and me for the fourth part of the Church of Christ firstborn and our names are registered in heaven.

Then we are, as Paul is the right of Hebrews puts it, we are the heavenly Jerusalem that you find easily.

Hebrews chapter 12 versus 22 and 22 IM 21 2222, 23, alright so I believe that the early church saw many of these Old Testament prophecies that Jerusalem is fulfilled in the heavenly Jerusalem is the true Jerusalem the church, the true Israel that what Paul refers to as the children of Abraham's seed of Abraham which is so he said if you are Christ's, says the Galatians as if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. Of these, the church, they are apostles saw passages about Jerusalem and about Israel and so forth as fulfilled in their time through the remnant of Israel, which became the followers of Christ and then of course Gentiles were added to them. Like wild branches added to an olive tree. The olive tree is Israel.

So my understanding is one afternoon apart from the destruction of Jerusalem. There is, nonetheless, references to Jerusalem. There is no reference to rebuilding Jerusalem, by the way we see the city destroyed. In verse two, and yet we see in verse 16, 17 people coming to Jerusalem to submit the feast of Tabernacles. Well, it doesn't mention Jerusalem being rebuilt, efforts destroyed, so I take this to be the Jerusalem that remains after after earthly Jerusalem fell the true remnant of Jerusalem. The church continued and coming into the church is described as people coming to Jerusalem now to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles and that anyone who doesn't come into the church and that is and who doesn't become part of the body of Christ is become part of God's kingdom and he doesn't become a follower of Christ and orders and they will be cursed in terms that are of course Old Testament terms, but very commonly Old Testament imagery is used to speak of something spiritual or something. Not exactly the same. I can't going all the cases of that Pantheon taken this you and how I see it I think keeping the feast of Tabernacles is living in the kingdom of God.

Now the feast of Tabernacles wasn't remembrance of the wandering of the Jews in the wilderness is also the time when the law was given and of course the laws written on the hearts of the church and on and Pentecost are safety Tabernacles repented husband allows him to Tabernacles was remembering the harvest season for one thing, of the fruits but it was also makes money mainly in memory of when the Jews wanted for 40 years in the wilderness. Paul in first contents 10 verses one through six actually worked one through 11, actually, but he talks about the Jews wandering in the wilderness. During that time and he says these things happen as a type of us that is a type of the church. The wanderings of the Jews in the wilderness for 40 years is a type of us. The church in this wilderness of the world being led by God toward our final inheritance which is to inherit the kingdom of Christ when he comes so hard to thousand years of church history is the fulfillment of what is represented in type by the is lights wandering through the wilderness, so keeping the feast of Tabernacles which is in a memory of that has its spiritual counterpart and simply living in this tent member Paul says in second Corinthians 5 that we are living in this tent, meaning our physical body were looking forward to leaving this tent and going to be closed upon with the building from God, so the idea that we are wandering in the tents. Peter and second Peter one also mentions while he's in this tent and out meeting before he dies. So the Christian life is living as it were in Tabernacles were living attempt and it's it's what the feast of Tabernacles anticipated look back on the wandering and the ones that look forward to the spiritual counterpart, so I think this is a spiritual thing and you might say, but it says no. Keep the feast of Tabernacles you know in first Corinthians chapter 5, Paul talks about his keeping it talks about his keeping the feast of Passover in the feast of unleavened bread, but he means it spiritually says Christ, our Passover has been set for his first let's keep the feast and not with the leaven of malice and wickedness with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. So I understand him to say there's a spiritual fulfillment of Passover and of unleavened bread, and that's what we live, and it's also fulfillment of Tabernacles. So I think that the wording of Zechariah is frankly symbolic through almost all chapter and it is talking with us the spiritual Jerusalem and everyone who doesn't become part of that is going to be as good a miss out on God's favor and the keeping of the feast of Tabernacles is I think a reference to our living in the presence of God in a temporary state like the Jews wandering through wilderness and so that's what I'm some university took a long time to say it but it's not a simple passage now Ron Ron I think I said here but before so you been listening to me as if I'm talking to you but Rod Rod from Loveland, Ohio. I assume you're on the line. I am sorry that I had your line activated identically to the practical life? So a brother in Christ called me today to ask for prayer with what's going on. I did a quick note version but basically his father was just recently diagnosed with Bluebeard and so the thing is, there is actually a genetic variant where it could be inheriting. It turns out that he, father, sister and actually died of that entity in a relatively young age, until his father now tested positive for the said now the question comes, should he disguise probably in his early 40s he got like four kid and the question now is, should he be tested for this G divinity knows the future if he gets his 50 have positive for this team.

Then he has 100% chance of contracting Lou Gehrig's to the point and nephews he would end the killing the person so the pros and cons in your mind. Knowing you took to getting this path for just living your life and just trusting God, why have a friend who had Lou Gehrig's disease is a horrible horrible affliction man.

He got he died, and I guess what what you're asking would be if somebody might be high risk for any disease they could take their life. Young, I would be good for them to know what in the advancer. Just trust God in the matter right. For example, with several people in your family have died of you know, prostate cancer or something. Should I suspect that maybe I will to.

I guess it could go either way on III think that if I if there was such a disease in my family and theirs.' I have a gene for. I wouldn't mind being aware of it. Just because I might say, okay, I won't make really long term plans. I'll just just make the most of every day with my family and stuff and do the best I can to prepare my children for the time the comes and I'm not there not other people make a different decision.

I suppose some might say will knowing it would hurt your faith. You know if you see I don't I don't believe you're more likely get sick if you believe you might get sick. That's a work safe idea that if you think you get sick, you will you know what times I thought I was getting sick.

I didn't know sometimes I didn't think I get sick of it did so you have the idea of the word of faith that you you will have what you believe is simply nonsense theirs. That doesn't line up with any reality.

So I don't see any harm in being forewarned. On the other hand, a physician, I just feel led to just look you let God's will be done because even if I have that gene that only predisposes me does mean Oliver get the disease so mean I should live my life worried about something that may never happen. But see, you know what he said with it did with this G you know your hundred percent right now he 50-50 his father to care if the carrier he's manifesting. So the thing is, if he hadn't been there to 100% penetrant so he will die of Bluebeard is like, even a prophet can't something you may be able to out live or whatever be treated. For this you know the gradual. I understand that Lou Gehrig's disease is incurable, that what I would say is, even if he has the gene he doesn't know that he'll die Lou Gehrig's because he might die before he gets the disease. Now you might die like it die in an accident today.

You know it, you know, just because you know that okay my genetics are you going to leave me eventually. If I don't dive something else sooner.

I'll probably die Lou Gehrig's disease or we all die of something and there's no guarantee that when I'm in my 40s. Maybe it will happen when I'm in my 60s or 70s.

That's still a little young for most people to die. The you know it's enough time to serve God and God knows what he wants me to go on the night I put my health in God's hands to a great deal like I don't mind being forewarned like if I have something in my skimming.

I wonder if that's cancer and I'm not against having it having it checked, and if it is cancer you know then to say well you better eat lot healthy food and got the sun as much or whatever you wanted to do what we are stewards of our bodies and if week.

If new information about our health risk comes to our attention doesn't have to make us worry because I'm not really done it finalized. I today I would be worried or should be worried about time to die is gain. So to me if I had was in his position I before I be fine with being tested to see if I fed them it's okay. That means if I don't dive something else first all die, Lou Gehrig's, but it doesn't mean I'm necessarily literature I could easily dive something before Lou Gehrig's catches up with so many get something to get so I you know if he's curious to know if he if you know if it's a having that gene means that he's knocking live past 50 or something like that. Well then I guess it be nice not if I wasn't going live past say 70 I'm almost there now I know that I think I like to know that because they know okay I know and I can have another 10 years. I better cram a lot of stuff into the exteriors serving God. Okay, that's great advice will take you to please take your time appreciate all right.

Thank you for your call. All right, let's talk to Joe from Mountain View, California Joe, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for coming Greg.

I really question down so I came across a blog post by a Calvinist apologist who objected to the depiction of the Calvinist view of salvation as a force less secure immigration of a man slipping a woman drug to change your mind right on the right. Writer says the situation is actually more like a letting lovable doctor who can and does heal someone he loves from a serious mental illness that renders him or her incapable of loving this Dr. and the writer doesn't say whether the doctor obtained consent from the sick person, but she states that what God does for us is not for, nor is it based on the goal of maintaining our economy. Above all it the merciful healing work that results in human beings relating to the creator intended and without this workweek would never choose him. So my question is do you think that this illustration is a fair way of characterizing Calvinist view. It may be. Maybe it's not my it wouldn't be a perfect one. In my opinion, but it could be as good as mine. The thing is that it assumes that the patient is not reached. A responsible person you know he's a mentally ill person so mentally ill that he does know it's good foreman and can't be expected never make right choice and therefore the doctor has to make the choice for him against his will now fix if it's not against his will, and because the patient does have the ability to choose it. If the doesn't want to choose and the doctor makes him do it anyway because he's of your mentally ill and could make this choice for you. Well, then, that in a sense the patient is in a mental condition where he's not really responsible for making someone else makes the decisions because he can't adult who can make his own decisions should be allowed to do so in adult who is so brain-damaged that he can't make his own decisions. Some analysis making for them but I don't read anything in the Bible that suggests to me that the the unsaved human being is so brain-damaged that they can't make responsible decisions. If that is the case if inherent sin if total depravity, which is the Calvinist word is actually like a mental illness that makes somebody so crazy that they can't make any responsible decisions will then if they can make responsible decisions are not responsible, and I think the Bible teaches human responsibility. So for me to make a better analogy, I think of the human condition is that the person who makes a self destructive decision not knowingly but because they are making a rational choice to choose a something they want more, but it's going to end up hurting them, but they don't know that that's not the same thing as a person is mentally ill and some has made all the decisions for them. It means they're making a bad decision.

Maybe a badly researched decision or simply a selfish decision but that's that's more like the ulcers I gave of a man wants a woman to marry him and she doesn't want to okay now, he might well know that if she doesn't marry him. There's someone else is going to come up and run her whole life and she should make a very foolish decision and married him the very best thing that she could do but he can either let or make a decision or if he slips the roof enter drink and that gives her to run off and marry him while she's out of her normal state of mind. Then you know that's that interfered with her free will and in fact it went against Marcus if her previous disposition was.

I don't want to marry and something he did just kinda disengaged her free will, so she made a choice that wasn't really what she wanted.

That would be to my mind more analogous to what the Calvinist say about unbelievers because they say that the unregenerate person hates God. If you hate God then you choose to hate him and not to follow it. If God says well even though you hate me I love you so may change you. I'm going to I'm gonna make you love me. I'm going to take that blindness out of your heart and make you love me and and well that's when your sins to someone you hate me, but I can make you love me and asked me an irresistible thing because I ordained the prophetic so that you can let me know you don't want to.

I'm going to just go against your will is your will is to hate me every according to Calvinism, every unbeliever hates God, that's their choice. That's their free choice but every elected person was once such an unbeliever making a choice for God simply didn't let them make that choice. He he counteracted that choice he made them choose differently and to my mind that's a little bit like illustration I gave now the only differences in my illustration. I'm assuming the unbeliever is a responsible party responsible to make their own decisions in this man's this description you gave. He assumes they're not responsible party. Save your mentally ill. They can't make decisions for himself. Someone who's not mentally ill make it for them, but that's another way · responsible and you know so the question is does the Bible teach the people are responsible though very foolish and make very foolish decisions to reject God or doesn't say there really incapacitated completely and they can't make any responsible choices.

Well, if it does say that that's awful strange that God do so much complaining about the bad choices people make.

Why would he complain mentally of the Right there. They're not responsible. I believe the Bible from the first book of the Bible to the last treats human beings as if they are responsible for the choices they make. That's why they're not animals. Animals make bad choices and cruel choices and exhibits are not responsible or not moral creatures. We are and we are because we make and can make responsible choices.

I don't think is illustration works as well as my okay thanks for helping me analyze at one okay you letting Your blessings to you to good talking to you Richard, from Phoenix, Arizona.

Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling you how you doing today hey I got two questions for you over the mass controversy in Alaska and then I'll take the answer here so you had Sherry calling yesterday and she was conflicted about whether or not as a Christian she should follow the mask mandated interstate and so my first question to you would be saying that the mask mandated in that's being initiated and some of the states doesn't have anything to do with preventing us from exercising our Christian faith in any way and seen that there is no proof that it like a social experiment to gain control over people just to see what they'll do and it seems like more of the evidences based upon the fact that there's a national pandemic that we need to get the upper hand on them will not work going the other direction with the Christian responsibility motion. The Christian seem that it's a responsibility to follow the government instead of rebel against it since it really doesn't sound really relevant to Christian faith. That's my first question. The second question is we have lives in a country that that our First Amendment rights do not fall into play because they're based upon things that the country feels will be good for other people, even good for yourself.

Like for example the helmet laws for people riding motorcycles on desert not even consider instituted to guide and protect other people. It's to protect you from yourself and we have smoking prohibited in airlines and in restaurants and so forth to protect society and we could go on and on with a couple more, though, so that my second question, it seems logical to me that somebody would want to back and rebel against these, and against these mandates and try to call out the First Amendment as a reason to do so well yeah I don't think the examples you gave would be First Amendment issues. I don't think mask mask wearing is a First Amendment issue and as I told her I know, I think that we need to pick our battles. I don't think the government has the right the righteous right to command some of things it does, but some of them don't interfere with our being Christian and there's no sense to get at odds with the government over something that is really a negotiable point. I mean, as I said, I believe the time may come where we do need to stand against government that some that's not negotiable, like whether you serve? And I'd rather than I'd rather you not go to jail for every little thing that I disagree with the government about before it comes to something that matters. I'd written on may only get one chance there's only one time before the firing squad that I have a chance to go to metal to gold firing squad for masks now. People die said to have to choose your battles and I suggested. I didn't think wearing a mask was such a battle I don't like the mask either. I submit to Hemingway were in California were supposed wearables.

I'm so aware I don't like helmet laws for motorcycles. I don't think the government has any right to tell me what I have to do to protect myself as no one else is in danger and I even have problems the smoking in restaurants. Although I've never smoked.

I don't like smoke but I just think that private property rights are followed should I wear a helmet law since I object to certain laws but not on a moral basis.

I object to them on the basis that the government has no intrinsic right to command, but that's the way the garments are. You do it they say unless they go against your conscience and I don't think mask wearing his seminar conscience issue with me, although I dislike listening to the narrow path radio broadcast my name Steve Gregor listener supported. If you go to our website. The narrow.com you'll find there's hundreds of resources earning free. You can also donate from there@thenarrow.com have a good weekend. Let's talk Monday