The Narrow Path 10/9

Good afternoon and welcome to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and were live for an hour each week afternoon. We take your phone calls. If you have questions you want to bring up on the air to discuss questions about the Bible of the Christian faith or challenges, frankly to the views of the host of this program because we have to understand that, first of all, not all of our listeners are probably Christians. Probably not all believe the Bible is even true, and there may be some would like to bring up some challenges even to the presuppositions that that the Christians hold on the other hand, there are many Christians who hold divergent views on certain subjects and that many of the subjects come up on the air. So if you see things differently than the host and wish to balance comment feel free to join us. Unfortunately for those who might want to call at this time we are, our lives are full. But you can take this number down. If you call sometime in the next few minutes, you may find a line has opened up the number is 844-484-5737 now some of our listeners may be in Arkansas and some may be in Oklahoma or parts of Texas and may be interested in knowing that we have a meeting in up in the north western corner of Arkansas in Prairie Grove tonight and if you're interested in that we know some people, but from Tulsa.

I think her covenant, some from Dallas have been my comfort. We don't know how many will arrive at seven. RSVP that we don't have were not on any radio stations in this part so we don't know how many may come.

There are some, of course, with RSVPed and are coming. If you're interested you can look at our website. The narrow path.com under the tab that says announcements and look down at tonight state and you will see, that's October 9 that time and place can be accessed from the that's gonna be a Q&A in a private home. So that's happening tonight in Prairie Grove, Arkansas, which is pretty close to parts of Missouri parts of Obama parts of Texas and we might have listeners in those areas interested. All right, let's talk to Frank from North Texas Frank. Welcome to the narrow path encircling good afternoon Steve, it was a pleasure. My wife and I got the you and your wife, your grandson Wednesday night, hearing that Richardson and we, yes, I remember that we limited time enjoyed. It is something about that night I might ask you make sure I heard you right away at yet what her topic was got into Crete and you tendered only two spots in the Bible.

I heard you correctly to places in the Bible that spoke of Gover that for me if you would please rewrite this. There are two places in the New Testament where the word predestined or predestination that that particular terminology is used concerning us. Now the Bible to also use the same word with reference to Jesus being predestined. Peter uses that expression, but with reference to us being predestined. We have Romans chapter 8, versus 29 and 30 and we have a couple of verses in Ephesians chapter 1 so in first Corinthians 8 skipping rope dressing first. At Romans eight verse 29 it says to whom he foreknew he also did predestined or predestinate. The King James is to be conformed to the image of his son, that he might be the firstborn of many brethren, in whom he predestined he also called, in whom he called he justified, whom he justified he glorified so these two words have the word predestined or predestinated and it refers to the people that God foreknew it says those who he foreknew he predestined to. He doesn't say be saved.

This is not target anyone being predestined to be saved, nor even to believe the once he foreknew are the ones who are the believers took the Christians, we are the ones we who are believers are the ones of God foreknew and of us. It says he has predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son. So this is telling us that there are people that God foreknew as of believers, and he made a certain predestination for their final destiny, which we have not come to yet would not experience it. Yet we have not yet informed conformed to the image of his son. So is talking about the final end for God is predestined for those who believe in him there is no reference in this passage to God predestined anyone to believe, but those whom he foreknew it roof refers to those who believe those who are Christians and so you believe is right and then in Ephesians Ephesians chapter 1 is the. The only other place that these words are used and it says in well and just glancing through here verse two verse five. Of note verse four know it is verse five. It's Ephesians 15 it says that having predestined us again.

We we Christians, we Christians are predestined to something that is in the future he has predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ himself to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will and you might say will adoption. That's not a future that's all we already adopted well in one sense, we are certainly not children of God, the Bible says that Paul uses the word adoption to refer to the resurrection over in Romans eight he says that we are groaning. We who have received the first fruits of the spirit to grow within ourselves, waiting for the adoption which events it is the redemption of our body. So Paul speaks of the adoption that were looking forward to is the redemption of our body are what we usually refer to as the resurrection in the future, which is when we arise in the image of Christ. So both passages tell us that God has predestined something for the believers we are the believers and has something predestined for us in the future arise I don't hear image of Christ. I don't hear anything there that would even closely indicate he's talking to others. Just the believers correct well will relate rightly says Scott. He started the church, the saints, he said he refers to as a Saints who you know are safe so it's a start to save peoples as we course. Of course the saved God has predestined that we shall have the adoption as sons that is in the resurrection we will be, as Paul said in Romans nine the verse I mentioned earlier, conformed into the image of his son that that's a process that's going on. Even now in second Cricket 318 Paul said that we are being changed from glory to glory into the image of Christ, so that's a process through a lifetime, but the ultimate is that we will be like and remember first John three John tells us a beloved, now we are the children of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, so that the destiny of the Christian it as all these passages suggest is to be resurrected in glory at the on the last day and be in the image of Christ will be like him.

That's what got his predestined place. All right. Thank you. I think I will treat you like getting your grandson thank you for helpless by now. Okay Lisa or Eliza from Hillsboro, Oregon. Welcome to the narrow path encircling all Lisa got a E on the go-ahead and you is so this is okay so this is actually coming from a pastor who should know better than to say such silly things right now. Let me just say when Christians say to other Christians or more awful non-Christians and Christians. You're not supposed to judge. They are always referring to Matthew 71, which is the favorite verse in the Bible for unbelievers judge not lest you be judged as if that has no context, as if that is the whole statement on the subject of making judgments. Actually the bop throughout the Bible were told by judgments, but in the can in that part. In fact, let me just tell you been in John 724 Jesus said judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. So he tells us there's a way that were not supposed to judge in a way we are supposed to judge that were actually commanded to judge righteous judgment just as much as were commanded not to judge according to appearance so if those as rest of the judge.

They bear not nuanced thinkers at all, which is a shame they should be preaching until they can understand some of the basic sentences in the Bible when Jesus said judge not in Matthew 710, lest you be judge. He went on to say the measure you use to judge others is the measure that will be used, to judge you and he said how can you say to your brother, let me get the speck out of your your I when he says you have a beam in your own eyes as you hypocrite, first get this being out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to get the speck out of your brother's eye. Note notice he calls hypocrite slaves talk about hypocritical judgment somebody who's trying to correct someone else which is analogous to trying to get something out of their eyes so they can see more clearly in others you for your your suggesting that they aren't seen and evaluated their own behavior accurately and you are and you try to clear up their vision on that by by your Chris your constructive criticism uses SI try to get a little speck of summaries I was given a beam in your own eye. Now to use the same measure to judge yourself that you use to judge others and he said you will be in fact judged by that measure, then you having a beam in your I this qualifies you for judge of some who go speck in the nicest, but he does say this. First, get the beam out of your eye, and then you will see clearly enough to get the speck that he resign others. If you're a hypocrite and you're doing the same thing. They are criticizing someone else for doing hardly something equally bad, then you are hypocrite and usually ought not to judge them until you get your own act together. He says once you get your own act together, then you'll be as qualified as you need to be to assist your brother in correcting his or her behavior so Jesus is not saying that we have no obligation to correct people and receiving going wrong. Everything the Bible is when Paul wrote his letters a great percentage of what he wrote was correcting things that the church was doing wrong and that's that's judging and judging is a good thing if it's you know if it's concentric constructive criticism.

If somebody has a blind spot speck in their eye for you to clarify the matter for them is a very loving thing to do since we assume people want to see things clearly. Maybe they don't but were to give them the benefit of the doubt that the honest people who like to see things as they are. So when we tell people the truth. It happens to be something they don't like they might if they don't love the truth. They may sell stop judging me, but the truth is, you can't stop judging, because if you don't judge your behavior. You'll never have any opinion about right or wrong that's a moral judgment if you say it's wrong to all.

It's wrong to commit homosexual acts. Well that's making a judgment of course but some says it's wrong for you to judge people's homosexual ex-pats also make a judgment as soon as you say that something is wrong and something is right. You made a judgment.

The question is are you making righteous judgment so your pastor if it is your pastor, is he really needs to go back to Bible school. Or maybe just a study the Bible maybe Bible schools with student wrong. You never know sometimes it does but said he needs to study the Bible before he tries to represent the teaching of the Bible.

Anyone who says that Christians are not supposed to judge simply haven't been to careful in their study the Bible, Jesus is saying it's wrong to judge hypocritically, but once you get your own act, cleaned up, then you should be helping people get specs out of your eyes.

That's the good thing to do, he thought. Likewise, I don't judge according to appearances, but he does command us to judge L Paul said in is in a single epistles probably 10 times. First Corinthians. He told us to judge. He says in chapter 2. You know the spiritual man judges all things. He also says in chapter 14. Let the prophet speak for three let the others judge in another place he says I'm speaking to you as mature men judge what I say concerning a man whose living in fornication in the church. In chapter 5 he says I've been absent and have judge the man already and he rebukes them that they have a thesis. He says for what do I have to do with judging those outside the church but but don't you judge those who are inside.

He said those around Saigon judge of the unit to judge those who are inside with make judgments, havens, rebuke them for going to the courts and in first six before pagan judges, he says, isn't there a wise man among you who can judge between brethren seeking judgments is a mature spiritual thing to do.

It's a beneficial thing to do beneficial to the one you're judging if you're doing so charitably. If you love the person you and your try to correct them because you know they're doing what's wrong and harmful if it's not immediately harmful is very harmful and have judgment.

It's a very merciful thing to point that out now. Jesus said in John three that this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than the light and he says they don't come to the light. Lester deeds should be exposed. But whoever is a doer of the truth comes to the light, that his deeds might be shown to be rotting God really saying is if you bring illumination to people morally and they don't want it, they, they resented because they don't want their deep space balls they like darkness. They will hide in the shadows. They don't want anyone bringing light to them because light exposes them for what they are. But anyone who loves the truth or someone who wants that exposure because they don't want to have things about them that are are self-destructive or that are you know can bring God's disapproval upon the people who are smart want to get better. Want to know what they're doing wrong and be corrected and judging people is a very merciful and godly and loving thing to do for such people, but if they are you know if they love the darkness within the say hey stop judging me and others. They won't deal with the issue.

If you tell them they're doing something wrong. Rather than dealing with the issue insane yeah you're right it is on or defending their behavior that is I don't judge. Which means I can't defend myself, but you have no business pointing that out to me.

Well, these people act as if the human beings don't have the responsibility for each other. We do and we should. You should correct people and we should wish to be corrected when were going the wrong way ourselves. So your pastor is a very shallow man when it comes to this particular issue.

Maybe he's deeper on some other issues but he I he certainly hasn't studied some of them out very well and God bless you, thank you for your call Mike from Aurora, Oregon. Welcome to the narrow path.

Thanks for calling Steve was in Ephesians chapter 4.1 Lord 131 baptism, and then I will come going one baptism but there's about one baptism. Baptism of the dead. In the Hebrew student talks about only true principles baptism squirrel is one of the themes for mom try to find out when his 1000 which one of the several sections of Scripture is talking in Ephesians 4 begins that chapter and it's like in the first two verses etc. hate.

He makes that list of the one God, one father one face, one hope, one baptism, and so forth. It's at the beginning of the chapter he is basically arguing for unity in the body of Christ, telling them to him. He says in verse 32.

Keep the unity of the faith in the bond of peace because there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and so forth. Now he lists there is his argument is for unity that we should have maintain a unity of the Spirit among all brother because there are things that all of us have important the important things we have in common and we all have the same God we have the same Jesus, we have the same faith and so forth and we all had the same baptism that he is not arguing here that in the person's life. There cannot be multiple things that are called baptism, sort baptism and egregious means immersion and you'd be immersed in as you mentioned there's a baptism of fire. There's a baptism in the spirit of baptism in water, even among baptisms and wonders John's baptism is different than Christian baptism. There is no being baptized, Jesus asked his disciples, can you be baptized with the baptism I've been back I'll be baptized with meeting his suffering. There's a variety of things called baptism and real all of them or several of them might occur to the same person. So poly scissors one baptism is not trying to say. There's only one thing in your life that you will ever have that can be called a baptism or an immersion in something, but what he is saying is that when Christians were immersed they were all baptized the same that is in the name of Christ, as opposed to, for example, he says in first grade gives one you were baptized in the name of Paul or you your baptized native Apollo's.

You know he's trying to house and there is again deficient his grace argued for unity.

Some of you say no if I'm of Paul Summers a number of Apollo's summer cinnamon of safe this summer saying of Christ. He says what's up with that who died for your sins, not Paul. Certainly, you were baptized in the name of Paul were you so what are you saying is we all were baptized in the same baptism and that is the baptism in the name of Christ, not in the name of Paul or Apollo's and because of that we are. We acknowledge ourselves to be one people one body were baptized into Christ and so he is referring to water baptism. But the statement there is one baptism is in the context is not meant to say. And there's only one that anyone will ever have.

And there's only one kind of baptism of Jesus himself said I Eli grabbed John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. I said in X.25 so obviously Jesus made a distinction between two kinds of baptism for the same people but 20 saying Paul's not really discussing how many kinds of baptism every he's enumerating experiences that all believers have had that are in common.

We've we've we've been born again we have the same father or brother with the same Lord we have the same hope we have the same baptism and by that again, comparing with first credit one. He's not saying anything other than we've all been baptized into Christ who died for us. We have been.

Some of us baptized into Paul summoned Peterson to Apollo's which would give which which is a mark of the division. If you are baptizing the different leaders, but we all did baptizing the same leader the same Lord. And that's what is arguing in them. Give me an explanation with it and if these are prescriptive. 15. What is it verse 27 or so.

Paul mentions Paul's mentions that you know about those were baptized for the dead, he says, or else why are they debt baptized for the dead. If the dead do not rise.

Why then are they baptized for the dead. This is been taking a number of different ways. In fact, the exact number of different resident taken is 40 is contained 40 different ways.

I have not encountered all 40 but one commentator said he had encountered in commenters and instruments. 40 different interpretations of that. I don't know 40 different interpretations. I do know several and certainly one when I was perhaps raised with the one teachers used when I was being taught. The Bible is young. They say that Paul knew of some rhino, some religious groups are some of cultic or heretical that baptized people by proxy for dead people that you know that's what the Mormons do they even use that verse in first constricting to justify that they say will you you need to be baptized be saved. So if you have loved ones who died without being baptized, you might want to be baptized in their name on their behalf so they can have that on the records of the saved. I think first of all the that whole argument has a rather skewed understanding of what really saves a person, but nonetheless they see it as a baptism by proxy. One person's baptized for another person that the person being baptized is alive, the person on whose behalf the rebaptized is a dead person and they think that Paul is referring to that is the baptism for the dead. Now again the teachers I said hundred argued that although Paul mentions that he doesn't endorse it and there that he's just saying some people do it, but I've never understood why Paul would give as an example, in an argument for a true Christian doctrine, namely resurrection from the dead. The practice of the cultic group you know now, he might just say there being inconsistent, but if they don't believe in the resurrection they still baptized Ted but you see, I think that I think what Paul's saying if you look earlier in his argument. He says if the dead don't rise at all, then Christ is not risen. He says that early in the chapter and so he, I think here. He may be saying we were baptized under Christ. But if the dead don't rise that he's dead is not alive as of the dead. Don't rise even right so he might be saying we who are Christians have in fact been baptized under Christ.

But if the dead do not rise. Why do we do so because he would be then dead were being baptized for the dead Christ in the dead, hypothetically, in this argument he's already made earlier the point that if the dead don't rise at all. Then Jesus is not risen and that's also the condition he uses in this why are the baptism of the dead.

If the dead don't rise that may Jesus be dead and he did the dead person in whose name all Christians, are baptized, so you might be saying the fact they were baptized in the name of Christ, which presumes that he is dead were followers of his baptism suggests would be a way of arguing that there must be a resurrection of the dead, or else. Who are we being baptized into a dead person. Anyway, that's all I can say right now on that subject amount of time, but I hope they give you some things to chew on were to take a break here and we got another 30 minutes ahead so don't go away. The narrow path is listener supported. If you'd like to help us pay the radio bills you can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732, Neteller, CA 92593 or go to our website.

The narrow path.com. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Please stay tuned your family. Tell your friends tell everyone you know about the Bible radio show that has nothing to send everything to give you the narrow path with Grant when today's radio show in Denver go to your social media and send a link to the narrow path.com, one can find free time on your teaching blog article verse by verse teachings and archives of the narrow path radio shows and tell them to listen live right here on the radio.

Thank you for sharing.

Listener supported the narrow path.

Greg love them back to the narrow path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Greg and were life for another half hour taking calls from listeners like you others couple lines open. You can reach me here the numbers 844-484-5737 that number again is 844-484-5737 if you have questions about the Bible and the Christian faith or maybe you disagree with the host of a talk about that. Feel free to give me a call. We will glad to get your call. If we can we will try to get all these calls in the next half-hour. Our next collar is a John from Jackson, Wyoming John, welcome to the narrow path extra calling you disagree with Calvinism several times and not that I agree totally with you agreeing with the, the total depravity of man as I understand the five points of Calvinism and by the way, and I understand them differently now than I did when I was growing up. I actually slot when I was growing up, that I was at partially Calvinistic coming. I was raised in the Baptist Church and you know the we talk of the five points of Calvinism. I think we in our church would probably start off history three point Calvinist and we would've thought will certainly one point we can't tonight is the total depravity of man. Now as I came to study actual Calvinists and Calvinism and understand what they really teach when I got older I realize that when they talk of the total depravity of man. They don't mean the same thing that that I wouldn't thought and if you actually accept the view as they understand it, you're stuck with all five points for me. Theirs is a logical consistency within the system that if you start with a certain premise.

All the rest followed by a seamless logic and the first premise is the total depravity man now what I thought it meant when I was younger is universal sinfulness, universal sinfulness simply means everybody and send as the Bible affirms many times all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and therefore all are lost until they you know, come to Christ.

That's how I understood the eye. The words total depravity for the totality of the human race is depraved, or in other words, everyone has sinned and when did salvation I would of course still believe that because the Bible says that but when I got to understand how Calvinism uses the expression, I realize it's not something I believe because you can't really find it in the Scripture, and that is the view that if a person has not been supernatural reject supernaturally regenerated by God because they are one of the elect and have been regenerated. They are so depraved they can't want to be say they can't want to follow God. They can't want to worship God.

They can't believe and they can't repent, because they are dead in trespasses and sins.

This total depravity is often mixed with the idea being dead in Ephesians 2 or Colossians 2 we were dead in our trespasses and they would argue from that metaphor that you know a dead man can't believe in it. That man can't repent and a dead man can't pursue God and so if people haven't their spiritual dad. They can't do anything to to get saved so God has to and according to Calvinism unconditionally elect some people for salvation, which is the second point of Calvinism and then he has irresistibly drawn them, which is the fourth point in the idea is that God has selected before and he was born a certain number called the elect a number two, which none can be added nor any subtracted who he has determined to regenerate so that they can believe and come to him now. The difference here Calvinists and non-Calvinists can be reduced to well that many differences but one of the main ways you can tell if some accounts are not true Calvinists is Calvin and the and the leading voices of Calvinism would argue if you asked me what comes first, faith or regeneration. Now, everywhere. The Bible says faith comes first, there's not a single verse of Scripture that says the opposite end of May. The say that faith comes by regeneration you receive life through believing the Bible since so many times faith first regeneration as a result, Calvinists say no regeneration comes first because total depravity says you can't believe unless God brings you to life because you're dead so and and this talk of course arose as no earlier than about 400 A.D. the church no early church father believe anything like that and they argued against that kind of thing faith. They said it was Manichaeism but you see, Augustine was a Manichaean prefers a Christian. Then he introduced these ideas and both Luther and Calvin were Augustinian. Luther was an Augustinian monk before he was a Christian, Protestants, and in the next generation. Calvin had been an Augustinian also Catholic and became a Protestant. And so both the reformed leaders in Germany and that part of Switzerland, Geneva, were Augustinian. Augustine had introduce this idea that people are dead in such a way that they cannot believe unless they are first made alive while again I have lectures on this. You can listen with the website so I can't go into as much detail here about the blind likely says Jesus when he is not been regenerated. Nicodemus asked how can this be how can a man be born again and she said well as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so shall the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him will not have to perish but have everlasting life will having everlasting life begins by being born again.

That happens people who believe. Believing comes first being born again is a result of that Jesus ever plainly there seems such as Paul everywhere.

He talks about Chris that raises questions which seemingly suits were dead.

What certain is lit recently as literal a non-Christian. According to Paul is dead in trespasses and sins. And while deadman can't believe repent. They also can't breathe or brush their teeth. They can't get up in the morning to go to work. Dead people were literally dead can't do anything at all, but certainly we don't believe it dead in trespasses and sins means that people can't do that so Calvinists have to seemingly arbitrarily because is no basis for Scripture.

There's decide well of course people were dead in trespasses and sins can do something with the things they cannot do our believing repent. Now one has to ask if the reasonable. Why would you pick those two things, of all the things the Bible certainly doesn't say they can't believe repent. That's just being extrapolated from the fact that there dead and we know that being dead in sin is a metaphor commonly used in the Bible. For example, the prodigal son when he came home his father said he been dead. My son was dead is now live common metaphor in the Scripture, but the son who is dead actually made a decision to come home.

His father and going regenerate into the far country. He came to his senses as many other people have done her sinners a counter senses to the gospel. They decide, hey, I'm gonna return my father and I never repent and the son did all that before he re-encountered as fun as fathers and my son was lost now is found, he was dead.

I was alive. So whatever the metaphor, being dead in trespasses and sins means. Certainly, the prodigal is one of them. It certainly does not mean they can't repent because he did and the so I mean it's it's harder, it's frankly arbitrary, is 100% arbitrary to say that a person is not regenerated cannot repent. But that's exactly what total depravity needs in in true Calvinists teaching from Calvin and you ask any major Calvinist teacher asked what RC supposedly task him and he's changed his mind now anyway. But John Piper and others would argue that you can't repent you can believe in leisure elect and God has to because your elect regenerate you and then you can so again I guess the question is in one of the simplest ways to distinguish between Calvinism and frankly historic Christianity before Augustine is to ask, what comes first, regeneration or faith. If someone says regeneration under Calvinist or an Augustinian if they say faith than a roof Jesus and Paul and all the writers Scripture and the attempt to be humble about it but at least the way I read it I certainly read all the Calvinist books I can get my hands on and I know they say, no question about the doctrine is not my mind.

I've debated several of the major Calvinist spokesman, so it's not like I haven't heard a note note.

Don't know what to say how I do, but I just can't find anything in the Bible that agrees with them that so that's why don't hold your Calvinist doctrine total depravity. They will what you do with you about that were chosen in God we are what we are were in Christ that in Christ we are chosen because Christ is chosen in Christ we are righteous because Christ is righteous in Christ.

We've died and risen and are seated in heavenly places because were in him and he did those things. The Bible says that we have our status before God in Christ. Now it says in Ephesians 14 that we are chosen in Christ okay now Christ is chosen, the Bible refers to him as the chosen one in Isaiah 42 and is quoted as a bit of Christ and in Matthew, Jesus is the chosen one, and we are in him. So in him. We are chosen also. But you see Christ is treated in New Testament and New Testament language as being corporate. We think of just Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus himself said no he's the vine were the branches not branches are part of the vine branches of the same organism. Paul put it in human terms. Christ is the head were.

His body was flesh and his bones. We are in him like organs or in the body and if I if a body is on death row those organs on death row. If that body is exalted to be king of the world are present in the United States.

All the organs in the body are in that status with it that the head of the body rise or fall together so we.

If the if the head is chosen as bodies chosen to so the question isn't, you know not whether I have been chosen, but whether I am in him who is chosen he is chosen, and I according to Scripture, have an obligation to remain in him. Jesus said abide in me, or remain in me, if anyone of remains of me. They bear fruit. He said if any man does not remain in me. He's cast forth as a branch and withered and they will gather them up and burned them.

Of course, John 15, six so the vine is chosen, Christ is chosen, we are chosen in him we are the chosen because we are in him, but nowhere does it say about that. We were chosen to be in him just like Israel corporately was chosen. They were the chosen people. But no one was chosen to be in Israel as a personal choice. If so, was born in Israel they could beat if they could effect and become a bail worship and be cut off from the people. The Bible says if you're born Gentile.

They could be converted. They could be circumcised become part of Israel. Israel corporately was chosen. Individuals would have to decide whether to be in Israel. I mean, certainly, those who were born in Israel had a easier time being initial because they didn't have to change but anyone could change from being in Israel to be out of his or from being out of it to be an in and Israel is a type of Christ in Scripture is that Israel was the true vine in Isaiah 5, Israel was the son of God in Exodus chapter 12 Israel was the servant of Yahweh in Isaiah so is Jesus. Jesus is the son of God.

He's the servant of Yahweh. He's the true vine. These are Israel was a type of Christ and being in Israel in the Old Testament that you are in the chosen nation being in Christ, and it has major in the chosen nation also here in the chosen one Christ, so to speak of us is chosen with December chosen in Christ is very difficult for some people to understand this concept. I think because we think in terms of individual choosing so much. God chose Christ and he commands everyone to be in him, and Jesus commands us all to remain in him.

If we are in him, warning that if we don't will be withered and burned before the foundation of the of the world is that Christ was yet Christ. Christ was chosen before the foundational world and we when we come into Christ become part of that eternal chosen us that that primordial chosen us we could say Jesus is chosen before the eternally chosen and when we come into him. We are eternally chosen in him is again the Bible says were chosen in him. It doesn't say were chosen to be in him, no one made the choice as far as we know in Scripture took for me are used to being Christ, but that you yourself you repented. You believe that's that your obligation. God doesn't repent Tripoli for you, he commands you to do that and he's angry if you don't, he punishes people who don't. So obviously he's not making the choice. He complains when people don't to it so no one can say it was his idea for you not to believe he chose Christ and we are obligated to choose to be in two to remain in Christ so this is the language of Scripture, and I think people get mixed up because they don't understand the corporate mess of election. Christ is a corporate entity and we are individuals who are part of a corporate entity and the whole entity, including a Senate ourselves. Now the word chosen. I think accountants often mix up the chart term chosen with the term predestined. As I said to an earlier caller. The word predestined never refers to anyone been predestined to become Christian.

It's hardly used in the New Testament, although when it is, it says that Christians are predestinate to be conformed to the image of God son or Christians are predestined to adoption in the resurrection. So predestination is about something entirely different.

But I think people. I think a lot of people just assume and I'm not sure why they do, but I guess maybe you taught this event to be predestined means that you were predestined to become a Christian and that being elect means you were chosen to become a Christian.

And so elected in predestinate coming used interchangeably and that in that system. The Bible doesn't use them interchangeably. There's obviously a connection God has chosen Christ in his predestined that those who are in him will become like it that's kind of biblical teaching. In a nutshell on this on those terms right you blow my mind.

Well, it's only the first time very more devices. John appreciate your call. We'll talk again by the oh well okay for anyone who's interested I have the 12 lectures on Calvinism called God's sovereignty and man's salvation is a free everything is free of the website. Website is the narrow pass.com you can go there and look under the tablets as topical lectures and there's a bunch of sets of lectures arranged in a kind of table of contents in alphabetical order, and there's this one of them is called God's sovereignty and man's salvation is a 12 lecture series where I deal with every single verse the Calvin issues on every one of their points and I and I you know I I give their case.

I use their words.

I quote them to give their own case and that to argue from the Scriptures and then I exegete the Scriptures in the context and the so that's what that series is. If you're interested with and you can you can go to the website get that out my wife since think some people may want to listen.

This call again if you do, you can go to Matthew 713.com seven Matthew 713.com go there and look under what were they look at it. I guess Calvinism and that were total depravity and some like that. We have a topical arrangement of calls for this program on this website and you can look up there's like 10,000 calls that have been indexed there on various topics@matthew713.com will our lunch. We need to keep moving. Let's talk to Mike from Albany, Oregon Mike, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling out think the moment and when I first left Mormonism. I figured my baptism was fine because I have is probably right place. When I did it but I sense then I want to baptize again. I just have a couple lingering questions about about that no present users have faith in Christ. You can baptize of In re Ignatius who would say that you need. The presiding Elder consent says it bases him and I know he may have been a disciple of John and Margaret note a good good man closer to the apostles.

I am honestly but know the Protestants would say that if you the criteria.

Paul told Timothy about requirements for being an elder then become one and admitted to counting to say that to you know it was the congregation to call the elders wasn't wearing like that. Not yet.

As the early church tradition that a bishop needs a point on the bishop and another bishop that holds excessive thing I want to get your take on how you make sense of all those things and take this off the air because otherwise we would be talking for too long. Six okay okay my good to hear from you.

And of course when you were Mormon. They believe that there's apostles, and that there's no people anointed by by apostles to baptize and things like that in the New Testament we do not read, that baptism was only done by apostles or bishops, for example, the man who baptized Saul of Tarsus, whom we know is Paul amending Ananias is simply described as a disciple, which is what all Christians were called disciples in the ninth chapter of acts as a disciple in Damascus named Ananias recall now, he could have been a bishop although the Scripture doesn't tell us all and is very possible that churches and even have bishops quite federally on the wood bishop was in use in any churches of that time he was just a disciple of other, and he baptized Saul. That's a pretty important baptism right there also. We know that some when Philip was one of the seven what we call deacons went off into Samaria he baptize his converts in acts chapter 8 that he was not a bishop of anything.

He was if is called anything about is called evangelist is called Philip the evangelist later on chapter 21 of acts that he is. He was like what we would probably call it a deacon which means servant dioxin disagreed maidservant and he was a human table server in Jerusalem, and then he fled during persecution and he happened to be useful as an evangelist and he baptize his converts is no mention of him having any office in the church of apostle or Bishop living like that if IT wasn't a bishop because he bishops are resident in the church and traveled around after that we didn't Samaria went on work with the Ethiopian eunuch for you.

A few hours I guess. And then he went to Caesarea and settle down with his for daughters were prophetesses, but I guess when things is not the slightest evidence in the Bible that one had to be bishop or an apostle to baptize some of the early baptisms in the book of acts were done by people who in no sense were identified that way. So you have the Catholic Church of course believes in apostolic succession. They believe that when the apostles died they left as successors to their offices, bishops, and then those bishops when they died they left successors after them who were bishops and they believe that the bishops now in the Roman Catholic Church are the successors of the apostles and since the apostles that the bishops can ordain priests and so forth than the priests have that apostolic authority in no way can baptize and so forth. All of this is just a bunch of man-made traditions really there is no biblical evidence of all of apostolic succession.

While I have no doubt that when the apostles died. There were men left in place to leave the church's effort that there is no evidence that they had apostolic authority and apostle is not the same thing as a church leader.

Apostle was very special thing in the New Testament, and there's no evidence in the New Testament apostles like like the 12 or like Paul that they existed in the second-generation church. Even the apostolic right. I should say the church father writings do not identify them so as far as you being rebaptized in other no longer Mormon. I don't know that's not me. I don't think there's any particular officers in the church that need to have special apostolic authority to do that.

So anyway that be my my take on that whole idea, by the way you and I are going to get together for lunch or something. When I'm in Albany in a week or so so we can talk, but that's more. Let's talk to Tom from San Diego, welcome to the Effexor telling you doing I think it more faithful under the law. America Iraq what what was that when did I say that they went when you had called asking about something about about being born again with Mike that the hold talk the people that is not okay so you in Minnesota if they get more. They believe their b-day need to live under sharia law, like America yeah I don't remember that subject even coming up in my wife is here. She'd actually writes down all the questions and she doesn't remember send it inside if I said that I'm surprised because I don't remember that subject even being discussed but in and certainly not about Minnesota. I think I don't think of Minnesota as being a predominantly Muslim and I think one of Michigan Michigan has a lot again. The Detroit area. Michigan has a lot of Muslims, some some large Muslim neighbors.

I don't know. I mean maybe I said something that I can't answer for. Because I don't remember saying it and I like a major fight without America, I don't care how would you log out. Well that's right that it's this election because a certain way there be many things in our country that are part of the United States Constitution, and there already are and that there are a lot of people who would like to trash the Constitution kind of rewrite it their own way. It's hard to know how it turned out, what's the Constitution's been abandoned, but I don't remember saying anything about it. And honestly I don't remember what I would've said about it because I don't have any firm opinions about that subject.

I might've said you know a young for significant majority of the population becomes Muslim.

Maybe he'll start you a calculus of something like the start installing sharia law. Obviously they couldn't install everything about it because they couldn't in America do things like yeah well that you honor killings yeah but but if if all the rulers of the town were Muslims. They they might not enforce laws against honor killings are. Don't really. I'm sorry that time on I don't want to cut you off but I'm I myself often 15 seconds. God bless your brother I'm sorry to obsessive confusion because I don't remember, you been listening to the narrow path, we are Lister support.

If you'd like to find out more about how to sports or just use our resources go to the website.

The narrow path.com that's the narrow path.com thanks for joining, establishing