The Narrow Path 5/13

Welcome to the narrow pass radio broadcast Martin Steve Greg and we are live for an hour each weekday afternoon, we have an open phone line for you. If you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith you like to bring up for conversation, or to a different view than the host on some subject want to talk about that.

The number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 and it looks like our lives might've just filled up but will just see if you get a busy signal. Call back a little while you might get a line open all right. I'll really go to the phone lines. Then, of course, and let's see who's been there longer source like it's Paul from blowing up Vista Colorado Paul. Welcome to the neuropathic's account I call sure I wanted to know about how hyper- Calvinism. My younger brother was kind of inundated with that years ago when you moved to southern Illinois and he was in a church down with talented and he called a hybrid system. I thought the pastor passed away and did you been there for 20 years. The pastor after the takeover. When he died and now he pastoring a church they not Calvinism, and did the different degrees of it and I heard a preacher this morning on the radio for about the Lordship of Jesus as related to it and I have never heard of that.

Well you did you think your brother has not taken over church as a pastor after okay well Calvinism is obviously named after John Calvin and the people who hold Calvin's actual views are often called hyper Calvinist by average Calvinists. Now this has a lot to do with the question of double predestination you. We all know that Calvin believed in predestination and that Calvinists do believe that God has predestined some people be saved and others not to be saved.

The view that Calvin taught in his institutes of the Christian religion, and in his book the eternal predestination of God is that God has looked down through history, through through the future from the beginning of time, and he saw all the people that count. That would be born, and he chose some of them to be saved and he chose some of them to go to hell and this was not based on anything in which the two groups differed from each other. There is no difference in the persons whom he chose to go to heaven for than what was existing, and those they chose to go to hell.

In fact, some of the people that he chose Rachel were actually perhaps in some respects become more decent people when somebody like Paul or or or or some other or Nikki Cruz who work now either criminals are bloodthirsty haters or whatever. Sometimes get saved were some nice people don't end up getting sick which would mean an Calvin's view that even some people who are relatively decent folks because they were not elect God chose to send them to hell whereas he chose unconditionally to us to save others. Now, a modern Calvinist may be what they call hyper Calvinist which be what Calvin was or they might be a modified version.

Many modern Calvinist say that they believe that God chose some to be saved, but he didn't choose anyone to be lost. He just passed over those he chose to save the ones he wanted to save but he didn't make any choice about the ones that would be lost. Therefore, he did not predestined anyone for hell. He only predestined some people for heaven now this of course is not as sensible as Calvin's view. I don't believe in Calvin's value that I think Calvin's view make Scott out to be somewhat monstrous and but so does the other view because the other view is simply a logical because every Calvinist believes that God can elect whoever he wants to. That's that's the point of the sovereignty of God he can save anyone he wants to and not save anyone. He doesn't want to save and only those that he selects will be saved according to Calvinism and heat. He looked at all humanity, all the people it would have been born and he chose to save some at the same moment he could've chosen all of them but he didn't. He chose not to save some. According to Calvinism. Those who are not chosen cannot possibly be safe so he chose for them to go to hell. Now they may say that God merely passed by them are passed over, and that he didn't proactively choose them for hell, but of course he did. If he sees a whole human population that are going to hell. He says I can save as many as I want to Sangha save these few right here and I can save these others. Of course, is negative, but he's making an absolute decision about the people whom he doesn't select he's choosing from to go to hell when he doesn't have to make them go there so I think it's I think the hyper Calvinist. Sometimes a hyper Calvinist even will deny that man has any free will at all, whereas most Calvinist today believe in what they call compatible list free will and this is akin to is near as I can tell from talking them simply a way of saying that you can have free will and and that is compatible with the idea that God chose you, and you can't choosing differently than what he chose you for so that would seemingly say that God gives you free will, within a certain range, but he doesn't let you decide what you be saved or not, that's his decision now to me Calvinism and hyper- Calvinism are pretty much the same. It's just that the person doesn't call himself a hyper Calvinist seems to be a little put off by the plain language of Calvin and of of real Calvin's hyper Calvinist and they they realize that it makes God some kind of bad, and it does, of course, so they try to change the language a little bit if they don't change the concepts, and without change the concepts, they don't make garlic in a better than if they took the hot hyper Calvinist view. Anyway, you might ask him if he said if you happen to be hyper counties. You might ask him how that differs from other Calvinist has he have your estimate I have, and he'd eat well actually note the many repeated pinned it down to that actually but it was more like you know you don't believe that men have the ability to why.

Why would God put pictures in the Bible like Joshua 19 you note that wanted to do this day whom you will serve as for the invite health. We will that's landlord's later just got near the end that side right and you but also Moses says I lay IPO before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose lie – which a blessing you know and that I mean every time God gives a command in Scripture, it is implying that he wants people to keep it and is implying that he expects them to keep it because I commanded if they can't, you know, according to Calvinism. People cannot keep God's commands. If not, elect will then why would he give commands to people who are selects and he knows he can't keep and then punish them because they can't me this is Calvinism. Very strange doctrine and and that's why it didn't arise in the church is about 400 A.D. before that some of the Calvinist concepts were known in the early church, but they were not as part of Manichaeism which was a heresy that the early church fathers wrote against Manichaeism against this view, but it turns out that Augustine and the late fourth century who had been to make it Manichaean in his youth he converted to Christianity and lo and behold, he became the most influential theologian in history and he developed these ideas that have more in common with Manichaeism than they have a Christianity because he so influential and he deftly is the father of Roman Catholicism, but is also the father of the Reformation.

As Calvin was a reformer so is Luther Luther is not what we call a Calvinist, but he he believed in the same thing about free will as Calvin, Luther wrote a book called the bondage of the will indicated that man doesn't really have free will, which is see both both Luther and Calvin who were the main guiding lights of the Reformation. They were both Augustinian.

Luther was an Augustinian monk.

Calvin was simply an Augustinian theologian and Augustine is the one who invented those doctrines and fill it with the Lordship of Jesus goes in Roman that you know the Roman road. Chapter 10 over behind verse nine yeah if you can, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised from the dead you be safe yet well right what what what did you hear about that and Calvinism pass through teaching this morning and he mentioned something about the tribe. The two together Lordship and Calvinism being one of the payment of the 800 and yet they're not one and the same.

They're not one and the same that it is true. It is true that reformed Christians and that a Calvinist or what they call reformed reformed Christians to lay.

I think a proper stress on the doctrine of Christ Lordship and and that's a good thing, but Calvin is not the only ones who do. I also lay emphasis on on Christ Lordship and and I'm not a Calvinist. So you it's not really that Calvinism and Lordship salvation. Same thing.

It's rather that Lordship salvation is what the Bible teaches and Calvinist, although they teach some un-biblical doctrines. They don't teach only untypical doctrines they teach. They teach that Jesus is virgin born. For example, many rose from the dead, summing they obviously hold Christian doctrines. They also hold some conference that were never considered to be Christian until the time of August, but that it innovate, they do hold to the Lordship of Christ and the need to confess Christ as Lord and I do too, but I'm not a Calvinist. Now that there may be with this this person you heard was saying is he's not a dispensational it's because Calvinist or roof reformed theologians are not dispensational lists. I'm not either but I'm not reformed, but what what executive dispensational equipment. Well okay dispensational scan it.

It's a long story when the dispensations is it's it's a very popular theological camp that arose in the 19th century and has dominated American evangelicalism to very large extent. It's largely known for its emphasis on certain end times predictions like the pretrip relation rapture the seven-year tribulation and drive them out, though, the future millennium characterized by a Temple in animal sacrifices. Those are all dispensations ideas that arose in the 19th century, but dispensations aren't all the same on this, but there are some who are called hyper dispensationalism who actually believe who actually believe that you don't have to believe that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved and they believe that that would be teaching a doctrine of works. Of course it has nothing to do with the doctor works it has doctrine question of who Jesus is here now is Jesus the Lord, or isn't it but that they would say no to be safe. You only have to acknowledge Jesus as your Savior.

Now there's nothing in the Bible that ever talks about anybody acknowledging Jesus as their Savior. But there is, as you pointed out Roman sustained says if you acknowledge him as your Lord, then you'll be saved, which means he'll be your Savior when you acknowledge him as Lord and and course.

The Bible teaches everywhere that being a Christian means that you're a follower of Jesus as Lord and so the dispensational view. Not all dispensations teach it that way. For example, I was in I was in Calvary Chapel for many years in the 70s and there dispensations by don't remember them ever teaching that Dr. I believe that the I think Chuck Smith would've ended indicated that you have to have Christ as your Lord, but but there are and and John MacArthur. Is it both a Calvinist and the dispensations that's a strange mix but he's a Calvinist dispensations, but he he believes in the Lordship of Christ as he should and he wrote a very good book on that call. The gospel according to Jesus.

John MacArthur's book I recommend to anybody while he was he was writing to refute some other dispensations like Charles rivalry and Zane Hodges who think it's a heresy to tell people that they have to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and so that's a very it's very far left dispensationalism so that you know dispensationalism reformed theology Calvinism.

They all have their variance, but it was not wrong for whoever it was, you heard on the radio to say that a Calvinist believe in the Lordship of Christ. They do they do and and so do many who are not Cited the early church, the early church were not Calvinist, but they believe in the Lordship of Christ.

It's only a heresy that arose in the 19th century that believes that you don't have to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ will when I was saved I went into a lifestyle in a while. After that I really didn't understand what I've done walk to dial back in my early 20.

I heard the gospel and and I didn't want to go to hell.

I was afraid more than anything and so I ran up and receive Christ.

But I really didn't understand anything about any of the doctrinal and I started listening to the radio and and reading the Bible go to church on Sunday the no proceeded to just live life in little now for over 40 years and in red for over 40 years and I went to seminary perfect, but that it is just all so confusing. We did all the little ins and outs and all the ups and downs and all the stuff in it like we did ask if mashup I'll have you ever listen to any of the lectures at my website you know I have your app on my phone. These I have okay time to write.

The reason I ask the reason I ask is at our website course everything is free. You have to pay for anything. I have a verse by verse teaching through the whole Bible as well as many topical series Iva topical series on Calvinism and the topical series on dispensationalism. I love the other topical series and all theory I did with your gospel outside got okay one day I can get off. I didn't really help but okay are the main reason I brought it up main reason is because many people are confused by different theological systems, and I treat them I treat the different ones and I you know what I'm talking on Calvinism.

I give the case for Calvinism and then I critique the case for Calvin.

Same thing with dispensationalism that's only hear different things in the you try to give different views and that's a little bit unusual for both teachers. I haven't heard anybody else did quite like you do well.

I appreciate your calling Advent we been talking 20 minutes.

I have a Lotta calls. I knew what time it take you so much for all your aunt will albeit "hard talk – okay. Our next caller is Joe from Tacoma, Washington Joe, welcome to the neuropathic for calling Steve a interesting call that he had to Mike my question/commentary would be as wondering.

It seems like we talk about dispensationalism tonight when I got saved as influenced by the Plymouth brethren and I invented they invented they invented this and say yeah and are John Nelson Darby and right and let that really alter dispensations like Ballinger on the east side and decide on and on agreement where he goes. But you had William Kelly. These were very learned people they spoke fluent and aromatic Hebrew, Greek, translated the Bible into German, French, English language and they had a gift you cannot deny that I just kind of sense of despair like it little bit of the disparaging the way you talk about it like almost as if like it's some kind of lights fluke you know like these guys disconnect came like, you know they weren't just like coming out of the lake at I mean, they came out and the Anglican you know.Michele here. I think what you pointed out, is something we all need to learn and that is it being a great scholar and a linguist doesn't mean you understand theology. Well, you realize that the people that they were disagreeing with, which was historic Christianity. They are mean John Nelson Darby told it in his eyes.

He mentioned that he had rediscovered truths that the whole church had lost since the days of the apostles and may call that means that means that means for 1800 years known and understood what that and then I call you know what you don't anybody midnight call in the Bible that I know I know the dispensational time in America would not midnight when the midnight call rang out, and they all print they trimmed yeah yeah the Bible doesn't that's not talking about dispensationalism that we could hear spiders that same night that that's there.

I know I know I have to stop you minutes I can jump in here because I just can't let you do all the talking hundred and two. I'm glad you called.

But let me just try to answer and I can put you back on what I'm trying to point out to you is that there are scholars who know Greek and Hebrew and and aromatic and and who you know were native speakers of reduction of the early church fathers. The Greek fathers. They spoke coin, a Greek as their native language and that's the language that the New Testament was written in the Old Testament had been translated into it. In the Septuagint, and that it was the Septuagint that is the Greek old has meant that the New Testament writers used and quoted, so those who were in the first three centuries the Greek fathers. They read the Bible in the Greek language that was written and they didn't happy linguist, although they were very scholarly, but think they knew the language from there from time you're two years old now. It's true that the Derby is very intelligent here over 50 books a minimum translation of the Bible in English and some of these other guys had great intellectual powers.

It's very naïve to think that they are the only ones who do I mean the Princeton scholars and many of the reform scholars emulate think they had the Bible correctly memorized in the original languages, some of them and so you'll you'll not find that the biblical scholarship is all on one side here you'll find scholarly nests does not predict for good doctrine, because there are actually atheists who can read Greek and Hebrew. I heard of an atheist professor who would memorize the Gospel of John quoted from memory that he was an atheist, so you being knowledgeable doesn't mean that you are right in your interpretations something I think I could just read the New Testament in Greek. I'd understand everything. Well, not necessarily because people of every false doctrine as well as every true doctrine every everyone knows has people who read Greek and so all I'm saying is you can't really judge what a document with her doctor.

True false by whether the guy who's teaching it knows Greek and Hebrew doesn't matter. People of every doctrinal camp know Greek and Hebrew. So I'm in the point you're making is is not no definitive not put you back on it. Thank you. I agree completely. I would say that I read his translation.

Speaking of Darby and really hold any doctrinal views and his like if you go to notes, it's just trying to explain a little bit better like how like the English language. Language doesn't really reflect the idea like mine because Darby's translation is not a commentary doesn't get his views exhibits is to translation Skagit. He never said it is not likely that in games here you said that it it it might be a health writer that that's irrelevant overnight when I talk that translations the Bible you can use the Derby nor any other and and what I'm okay. I'm just let me say some that might be relevant to the subject.

If I could.

Schofield, CI Scofield wrote the first dispensationalism study Bible. Unlike Darby and unlike other tracers before him, he did more than just translate the Bible with footnotes clarifying what English words you Greek words mean so forth. CI Scofield footnotes in the bottom of the page where he taught dispensational teachings. He actually didn't have much scripture for some the points he made, but he put them in there anyway because they appeared in the Bible. Many Bible readers thought that spirit that must be biblical and that Scofield you know he was pretty scholarly guy to but I don't care how scholarly a person is Jesus and I thank you father, you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them to babes.

The real question is not how scholarly is a person when the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, the Sanhedrin is amazing is that Peter and John were unschooled men.

II believe in Bible scholarship. I just don't believe in Bible scholars per se. Some scholars see things correctly. Some scholars don't put their level of scholarship does not different now is is that what you call money did you have something else landed and we just get off it. I guess not okay okay let's see who's next. Here Mary from Sacramento.

Welcome to the neuropathic for calling John that God led to think about out well. Did he actually use the term God is the author Eagle or did he say the same thing with different language than that everything had gone okay that could be the reason I ask is because Calvinist John MacArthur's deathly Calvinist, and he sounds very much like a Calvinist, except that Calvin is almost always a God is not the author of the evil they they say that he foreordained evil and that he made it inevitable that evil would happen.

He actually decreed that Adam and Eve would sin any decrees that you and I will send from time to time. Any decrees that everyone who sins since because God decrees everything that's at the Westminster confession of faith says and that's that.

One of the main statements of the Calvinist doctrine that is respected by Calvinist today so that in in saying that they say will, God decreed, and God rendered inevitable evil and so forth brought he's not the author of evil, not to my mind that's just saying you know he's black but is also quite it's interesting you're pretending the two statements can be logically put together that on one hand, God made it necessary and inevitable that Eve would happen and man had no real free choice, this can happen on the other hand, is not the author of evil will and what are you calling the author view the official what what does the word author mean to you. Now if John MacArthur actually did say that God is the author of evil. He's breaking away from what Calvinist usually will say in terms of verbiage, but he is agreeable with Calvinist doctrine Calvinist doctrine does make God the author of even or how many times they say he doesn't doesn't. If God is the one who loaded into the script and we do nothing except what God wrote into the script and everything. Even we do. He wrote into the script that makes him the author of and saw II don't agree with MacArthur that are given points for honesty were most Calvinist shirt that suggestion that God is the author of evil. They would teach.

He is the author of evil, but they use different words and didn't deny that that's with the teaching that's that's a little bit disingenuous on their part but you know they have to do that, because who wants to take out the author of evil. All right you take a break here and will get back with another half hour to go there listening to the narrow path, we are listener supported. You can go to our website. The narrow path.com.

Everything is free. There you can donate from the narrow path.com and that can help us stay on the air.

I'll be back in 30 seconds.

Please stay tuned. Tell 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 Steve Grant when today's media share with them for cutting your social media and send a link to the narrow path.com, one can find free time on your teachings 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 and that the narrow path radio broadcast Steve Greg and we are live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have a question about the Bible and the Christian faith or you have a different viewpoint from the host with a phone line open.

Well, we don't have open another full but you can get take this number down and call in a little while numbers lines to open up a number to call is 844-484-5737 that's 844-484-5737 our next caller is Raul from Dallas, Texas. Good afternoon and welcome to the neuropathic scholarly afternoon balled up mess because people will follow Paul's instructions rightly divide the word of truth. Bible says in first Corinthians 11. Follow me as I follow Jesus Christ. That's what's wrong. It's as if you want to know and everything about the Bible.

Second committee to seven, and eight consider what I say in the Lord will give you understanding all things. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David raised the dead according to my gospel, and he says in first first committee 116 that he was chosen the first one chosen to be our pattern for salvation in the first essential the whole religious system should be shocked and often and dump your fake NIV, NASB, and all these other modern translations of corrupted and changed. Thousands of admissions and I'm telling you man are you a are you are you are you what's called and asked nine dispensation list. I'm a Bible believer, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ I I believe the Jesus also said that in the first not Peter you are so you aren't asked.

Nine dispensation management yet you're belligerent okay now know your heretic. You have a big heretic map because I say we need to follow Jesus. That's makes me hurt. You don't follow Jesus again a human body is itself a skinny following Jesus does not necessarily mean I have a healing ministry.

You better get one why these signs shall follow them that believe in my name. devils were great laid hands on the sick, and i shall recover. speak with new tongues. you got to have almost kind of group allergies and well all you go to possessions 12 and 14 you are not obligated, you're not okay. well, nobody does.

okay now i am. i know you're not okay you just want to talk i'm going to put on hold i put you back on. i could hang out and i got to talk more to you but i want to talk to you little bit first. you are a bullinger right and what that means is you believe that the gospel as was preached by peter and james and john. in the early chapters of acts is not the gospel that's relevant to us today that said they were following jesus. but then in acts nine paul got saved, and from then on i knew gospel was preached and paul became the model for all christians to follow a course called and believe that himself because he said that when using it in galatians chapter 2 he said when he came to jerusalem.

he and the other apostles agreed that he would go to the gentiles and they would go to the circumcision, that is to say they would. they their preaching the gospel to different groups of people and peter, james and john would go to the jews and paul to the gentiles. paul didn't say that he was gonna replace the gospel that peter james and john preached and he didn't say that reaching a different gospel than his, there's there's only one gospel. in fact, paul said in galatians 1. if anyone preaches any other gospel than that which i preached even if even if an angel from heaven did and i would have to include peter and james and john if they preached different gospel and paul did. then there accursed. in fact, jesus you believe taught a different gospel to paul that i don't believe that lots you sam heretic because i say that we are to follow jesus. let me see what paul said about that and you might want to click to first timothy chapter 6, paul says, this is paul.

your pal, if anyone teaches otherwise, and does not consent to the wholesome words, even the words of our lord jesus christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, that person is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words from which come and be strife regarding suspicions header now. i think you were just saying if i'm not mistaken that were not supposed to follow the words of jesus refers to follow the words of paul. paul said if anyone says that the person says it is proud knows nothing is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words now when it comes to following jesus.

the bible to say that everyone is supposed to sell other goods and give to the poor.

jesus told some people to do that but you know peter and the others who followed him. they said, lord, we have forsaken everything and followed you will surely have any said well you can have a hundredfold more or whatever, but peter and those guys had were among those that were following jesus and have forsaken all the peer on the house he owned a fishing boat healing fishing tackle. he had a family that he supported even sell everything and give it all away. so i think you are. i think what you're doing.

you're trying to take some of the statements of jesus made and interpret them in the most rigid way which the early christians did not and and you can say okay because we don't do that week and we shouldn't follow jesus because were not followers of jesus of this idea about.

if you're if you believe in christ you speak with new tongues and so forth it out. you said that. that's the description of people who follow christ and that and that we don't do that, we shouldn't. jesus said that's what will follow those who believe in him are you telling me now that were not supposed to believe in jesus and were not believers in jesus were just believers. and paul is is that your position while addressing read the chapter 15 and matthew. it says that i am not come of the lost sheep of the house is really full of federal phoenician woman, he said right and matt moore can go don't go to the lot don't go to gentiles with the milwaukee plaza israel healed the sick, knocking apologies, looking at not listed.

i'm not try to give you a hard time here, but it says in romans 216 that would be judged by jesus christ according to paul's gospel and of the free gift of grace. that's all well and going to say society under the law.

okay the gospel pretty okay. jesus said anyone who rejects my words has one who judges him the words that i have spoken to him.

jesus said will judge him in the last day. now i sound like maybe rejecting jesus words because you're saying were not supposed to follow jesus words well. jesus said we are to be judged okay and as we by my words that i've spoken unto you now will also be that is the same gospel is only one gospel. paul when he said my gospel. he needs the good news. i'm presenting he didn't say it's different than the good news. jesus presented in fact the gospel that jesus presented is called the gospel of the kingdom. jesus said in matthew 24. this gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then into council the gospel of the kingdom. jesus preached it and it has be preached to all the nations. jesus said that's the gospel of the kingdom did paul teach a different gospel net. he did not. he did not. he makes many references to the gospel he preached. for example, in acts 28 it. i mean the very end of acts it says about paul in verses 30 and 31 caldwell to hold the years in his own rented house received all who came to him and preach the kingdom of god and teaching the things concerning the lord jesus christ with confidence known for many now you have to realize that what you're teaching was never taught by any christian in history prior to the 1800s and that if you're okay with that. then you can take your chances.

i just read you paul saying that anyone who says that we shouldn't follow the words of jesus who teaches country is proud and knows nothing and is obsessed with you conflicts and end controversy.

so if that's what you want to be identified by paul as you are welcome to do that. i frankly would not want to stand before christ. with that label on me of a person or just didn't know anything is obsessed with controversies.

i appreciate your calling will that's been longtime since had a belligerent cause there's we have a belligerent friend and in the amity organ who used to call me all the time back 20 years ago on the show but i don't hear from belligerents and often a more i don't. i think it's a dying breed.

actually, all right, let's talk to looks like it's good to be rg from renton, washington, arg, welcome to america.

talk to now become jesus never said a thing about the gospel did not change anything about jesus.

i agree with that but my question to you that's important now when you come to me when you worship unity with god.

he was there one to think what you really pray to god is intent to make sure well you're asking to things like prey to worship when i pray i pray to the father. jesus said jesus said when you pray, pray our father which art in heaven, and i'll let elaine and ephesians chapter 3, paul said, for this purpose.

i bow my knees to the father of our lord jesus christ, so that the new testament teaches that we pray to the father in jesus name. jesus taught that several times now. worship is concerned, i worship god the father, i worship jesus as his son and i worship the holy spirit worship and all of them are worshiped in scripture. just one quick question witnesses going to be snow guy named charlie effectively adopted well.

jesus never said to use the name jehovah anywhere and i'm following jesus, i'm not. i don't feel any obligation to use it. i think most christians have ever read the bible much know that god's name in the bible is revealed in the old testament as yahweh or jehovah. both are different renderings of the same hebrew letters jones is using the word jehovah. modern scholarship saves better pronounce yahweh, but the term is used throughout the old testament and so it's it's not a new insight that they've had the god's name is jehovah yahweh on the other hand, jesus never use that term as far as we know, there is no record of jesus ever using that term including exactly exactly. i mean, my kids know my name is steve greg but they usually call me dad or paw or something like that. you know that if they if they never knew what my real name was the guy they knew i was there dad and we have a relationship you bought me that much screaming. some people think god be upset if you don't, by his company, jesus, as far as we know, never taught anything about god's property.

noted paul and the other apostles gwu name to be about to graduate. the well jehovah's witness i have had jehovah's witnesses tell me if we pray and we don't use name jehovah held jalapeno were talking to him exactly, i don't think he's that stupid frank. i think he knows when talking to them. my talk my wife can talk to me not call me by name only if your mom calls you by your name. you could hide and seek is all right. okay god bless you. thanks your call. okay, let's see here.

our next caller is dustin from fort worth, texas hi dustin, welcome to the narrow path. thanks for calling me. thank you, or have anything for answering the last two caller delayed that i've never even heard of the act. nine.

dispensational thing before that was interesting. so i wanted to ask about something up.

i have think it's probably wrong but i just wanted to come to get your take on it. i look into your wind shall be think be teaching and also your verse by verse through revelation and so you mentioned the and revelation 20 verse five.

the retina did not collect lot until the thousand years were ended. this is the first resurrection that showed the year they came to life and reigned with christ in new haven thing be they lived and reigned with christ and so so so here's my like idea. my theory what is unfilled. jesus conquered death and attended to have some time around that time there literally were no people in heaven that no one was that basically come in, died and went to something like shield. it was just a place of nothingness. life not unlike the jehovah's witness about the soul sleep and of course you know we don't believe that we could be happy with from the body to be present with the lord. i wear callous saying that after jesus resurrection so people actually are with the lord.

but the quick psalm 656 Six Verse Five Written in That There Is No Memory There Is No Remembrance of You, and Medically Get You 910 J Know No One Works, You Know, and She'll Shield No One Works and Death That Does Work May Be True before Jesus and Then after Jesus. Paul Was Correcting Thing to Be at about so Your Question Is When People Die and They Are Not Believers. And No, and before Christ Came before Christ Came As a They Went Shale and They Were Not Conscious, but When Christ Came, He Introduced Immortality to the Believers That Were Suggesting Potentially but Not Not Believers. I Think the World Well in Scholarly.

That's a Possibility, Certainly There Are People Who Believe That You Know That Insults Are People Believing Soul Sleep. Those Who Do Usually Believe the Soul Sleep Is True in the Old Testament and the New Testament for Both Believers and Unbelievers. They Just Leave All the Dead Are Unconscious and No One Is in Heaven by Those Who Take the Other View That I Take for Example That When We Die We Do Go to Heaven and We Are Conscious.

There They Usually Would Say and It's Always Been the Case That When People Die, Their Conscience Somewhere in Shale or Whatever. I Believe That There Is Room for Nuances in This Something Goes, It's a Complicated Study to Understand What Shale Is in the Old Testament and in What Sense It Says Your Those in Shale Gen. Don't Praise You, and Things like That for the Dead Know Nothing in Ecclesiastes 9 in My in My Opinion, I Don't Know Anything about What Happened to the Dead in the Old Testament Time. It Is Possible That They All Were Asleep in Unconscious. I Don't Know. I Don't Think We Have Any Reference to a Tavern When Samuel Was Called up from the Dead by the Which but at Saul's Because He Is and Why Have You Stirred Me up. My View You Roused Me Disturbing Is Almost As Are You Sleeping and He Got around from a Nap, so Maybe Maybe He Was Unconscious until Jesus Came to Head It Says That When Jesus Ascended He Led a Host of Captives, and It May Be That That Refers to the Righteous, Who Had Been in Shale, Whether They Had Been Conscious or Not before That Were Really Not Told Okay the Input All Right and I Think They'll Really Create Your Teaching on Your Handling It Accredited View of Been Calling You for a Number of Years Now to Work Well It's Good to Hear from You Dustin.

Thank You for Your Call. Thank You All Right See Her Next Caller Is Greg from Eugene, Oregon Greg, Welcome to the Neuropathic for Calling Hopes.

I'm Sorry Hit the Wrong Button Very High.

Everything Is Safe and and Healthy Where You're at Today Are Here for You, Your Engaging My Question.

Is It United Everybody As As Things Get More Complicated. It's Helpful to Assign Titles to Different Categories so That You Practically Need a PhD to Understand Simple Scripture, Unfortunately, but Can You Narrow It down Trying to Understand the Trinitarian Doctrine in Christianity and Its Association with the MI Correcting.

There Was a Sermon This Morning and in the Guy Was from UK to Scott about How If You Believe in Jesus Christ, Then You're a Christian That Makes You a Christian and I Thought It Was Believing in the Trinitarian Doctrine of Christianity and Made She Classified You As a Christian, Not As a Believer in Christ, but Christianity or Christian Meant Christlike or without Sin That Creswell the Word Christian Was Coined in Acts 1126 Two Refer to People Who Were Previously Known His Disciples. It Says the Disciples Were First Called Christians in Entech so Just Another Name for Disciples.

Now the Disciples Is a Term That Jesus Used, and That the Gospels Use in Describing Christ Followers and so They Were the First Christians Now Were They Say by Believing in the Trinity.

They Probably Were Not Because They Didn't Know Name of the Trinity. They They Were Jews of the Jewish Religion Doesn't Believe in the Trinity and They Been Jews All Their Lives Trained in the Scriptures in the Synagogue so They Didn't Have a Trinity Doctrine in Place When Jesus Called Them to Leave Their Nets or Leave the Receipt of Customers Become His Followers. Now They May Have Become Trinitarian's in the Course of Following Jesus When He Was Here but We Don't Read of It. We Don't Know That They We Don't We Don't Ever Read of Jesus Sitting down and Giving Them a Discussion or Description of the Trinity. If He Did so It's Not on Record and It It Would Seem That They Walked with Him for a Long Time without Having Any Glimpse of the Trinity Doctrine Is According to Attorney Dr. Jesus Is God Himself in the Flesh I God the Son and of the Disciples Didn't Really Have That Particular View of Jesus When He Was with Them. We Know That When He Stilled the Storm. They Were Puzzled Visit. Who Is This Man What Kind of Man Is This, That He Can Still the Storm like This with His Words.

Well, If They Knew He Was God. That Wouldn't Be a Problem That What Kind of Man Is This Is a Very Good Question to Ask and I Think Today with What We Know about the Doctor Would Say He Is Working to Manage These Is a God Man. He Is the Incarnation of God but They Didn't Know That That Wasn't How They Were Thinking If They Had, They Wouldn't of Been Surprised That He Could Still the Storm. Likewise, in the Upper Room Just before He Died. Philip Said, Lord, Show Us the Father That Will Be Sufficient for Us and She Said, Have I Been so Long Time with You Philip and You Don't Know Me. They They Honestly Didn't Feel That They Were Seeing God When They Saw Jesus Coming. He Said That If You've Seen Me of Seen the Father Think.

I Think That the Trinity Doctrine Was Something That Came to Be Understood Later As They Grew, and in the Knowledge of Christ after He Was Gone Member in John 16 and Verse 12 and 13, Jesus Said to Them, and This Is Right before He Was Crucified He Saw I Saw Many Things to Say to You, to Teach You, but You're Not Ready for Them yet. He Says When the Spirit Comes to Graduate All Truth, so We Know That There Were Lots of Things That Jesus Didn't Teach Them and until Later Jesus after He Going to Heaven Sent His Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit Led Them into Greater Knowledge.

For Example, the Knowledge of the Body of Christ, Which Apparently Paul May Have Been the First Understand the Doctrine of the Body of Christ.

The Idea That Gentiles Could Be Saved without Being Circumcised.

That Was Decided at the Jerusalem Council.

Decades after Pentecost. So I Mean There Were Doctrines That They Had to Grow into Their Understanding of Peter Says in Second Peter 318 but Grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of Our God and Savior Jesus Christ. Not so Weak, so We Have To We Have To Grow. They Had to Grow. I Believe That at the Time They Began to Follow Jesus. They Did Not Understand the Trinity Doctrine, and I Suspect That at the Time That He Ascended in the Smirking and They Still Did Not Understand the Trinity Doctrine, but I Think They Came to and That Is Fine If the If That Is Correct, Then Believing That Jesus and Believe the Trinity Doctrine Is Not What Saves a Person, but Being a Follower of Jesus Is One of the Things I'm Having Trouble with the Misunderstanding Is Spent with the Professor.

That Explained Something That I'd Only Read about and Never Heard It Actually Applied Was That in the Arguments of Jesus in Jesus Christ DVD at the Council Next Year They Decided They Couldn't Be God That Had Had to Always Exist Alongside of God, but That Would Make Another God and so They Decided That He Was God and with This Case It Was.

No One Can Be Saved by Being That He Had Been Created or Borne and I and I Asked Is It so the Saying That Jesus Christ Is Not the Son of God, Is That the Basis of an Document Is God and Not the Son of God Is at Deposition That Was Just Kind of Threw Me That Humanity Denies Jesus Christ the Son of God, Which Is a Requirement of Salvation According to Something Here Because I'm Looking at the Clock and Were to Be Running out Time Here. The Bible Does Not Say That You Have To Understand the Trinity in Order to Be Saved but There's Nonsense. You Don't Have To Understand, for Example, Earlier Route Target Dispensations They Understand Some Things Differently Than I Do so to Calvinists. They Understand Things Differently Than I Do.

They Believe in Jesus Hopefully and If They Believe in Jesus.

That's What Makes Them Christians Now.

They Also Believe in the Trinity, but to Say It's Belief in the Trinity That Makes Them Christians. It Would Be Little Hard Thing to Say Because There That the Church Didn't Really Settle the Question of the Trinity until about the Fourth Century.

I'm Not Saying the Doctor Wasn't around. The Main Church Fathers in the Second and Third Centuries Believed in the Trinity, but There Were Plenty of Church Leaders Who Who Were Not Settled on a Date They Didn't Really Believe It.

And That's Why They Had to Have the Nicene Counseling and Others to Really Kinda Disaggregate Does the Bible Really Teach the Trinity As These Guys Say or Does It Not Teach It As These Other Guys.

Which Means It for about Three Centuries There Were Christians Who Weren't Sure about the Trinity Doctrine and There Have Been since Them Even after the Nicene Council, Which Is an over the Deity of Christ Was Strongly Affirmed. There Were Still Aryans in the Church.

In Fact, the Whole Germanic Churches Remade Aryan for Another Century. After That so I Mean We Live at a Time Where We Take the Trinity Doctrine to Be What We Just Take It. So Much for Granted That We Assume Everybody Who's Ever Been Saved, Understood, It, but We We Have the Benefit of Hundreds of Years of Contemplation and Studying and Discussion about It Which Are in the Early Church.

They Had Relief That Hadn't Been the Focus until about the Nicene Time so so There Were Christians Who Believe in Jesus and Followed Him, but Had Not yet Understood. The Trinity Done and I Think There May Be Some People Mythologies Today Who Still Don't Understand. I Don't Know but I Think That We Even Though There Christians Are Views on Things That Are Wrong and Who May Still Be Saved.

I Still Believe That God Would Have Us Believe It's True about Everything, Especially Himself, so to Say That I Can See Some People Saying He Didn't Know about the Trinity Doesn't Mean That We Shouldn't Know about It.

Should Believe True Doctrine I'm Surrounded Time. Are You Listening to the Narrow Path Radio Broadcast. My Name Is Steve Greg. We Are Listener Supported. If You'd like to Write to Us the Address Is the Narrow Path, PO Box 1732 Macula CA 92593 Website Is the Narrow Path.com Thanks for Joining Us.

Let's Talk Again Tomorrow