The Narrow Path 5/25

Radio program hosted by Steve is not of the studio today so calls for usual format we put together some of the best calls for past programs cover a variety of topics important to anyone in the Bible and Christianity in addition to the radio program has website WW W.narrowcast.com where you can find hundreds of resources will be downloaded for free and out.

Please enjoy this special collection calls to Steve Greg in the narrow path first caller today is Earl calling from Roseville California rural welcome to the neuropathic for calling. Recently I saw a video on YouTube on Internet made by Christian, I suppose. It showed a hypothetical situation where a Christian man walked into a restaurant just down the counter and by next to Margaret Mary were having dinner in man start correcting the Christian man and he's just an obnoxious jerk, so the Christian guy starts to witness to this guy who was harassing him and the situation escalates to a point where the guy who was harassing him to Worry sitting in approach of the Christian man and then start screaming in his face, grab them shake some yellow where was God in his life. During the times where he was going through difficult trials and the guy who is being assaulted. The Christian guy to stand there and takes it, and after that situation gets delayed, the Christian guy ends up paying the bill's restaurant bill for the guy who did the sleep assaulted him and verbally abused him. Okay so I guess my question would be heart healthy boundaries of the Christian supposed to relate to one's enemies when it comes to showing love, mercy and grace and even people in general who violate your boundaries or or being overbearing and may be offensive to you. I know Jesus preaching a sermon on the Mount about showing love to one's enemies with Scripture verses. Luke 627 through 29. But this video I just described.

Using it that's pretty extreme situation. I mean our Christians will select people to walk all over him. Well Leslie Christians understood in the first century. The second and third century. Eventually Christians became more militarized with with the conversion of Emperor Constantine but you have the first three centuries.

The early Christians believed literally in turning the other cheek and they felt like that's what Jesus said to do now in the 16th century there arose a movement called the Anabaptist movement. We know them today, mostly as the Mennonites in the Amish, and even the Hutterites are Anabaptist in their kind of like the early Christians, and that they believe are supposed to follow the same amount quite literally. I I don't believe that there's never an occasion for Christians to defend themselves in certain situations. I think there you have to really know when the right time is because you're likely to defend yourself in the flesh. If you're not being led by the spirit and then do so in a way that's not going to be something you're glad you did.

I don't I don't think there's any wrong with turning the other cheek.

I think that's exactly what Jesus said to do it. Of course Jesus was not describing a life-threatening situation. It sounds like this video you saw wasn't really a life-threatening situation either, but it seems to me that's the behavior of the Christian. The reaction is entirely in keeping with what Jesus did and what the apostles did in similar situations and what Christians have done through many of the centuries of the church, though not all of them again. There are different kinds of situations.

If it's a life-threatening situation or if you're in a position where somebody's coming after you, so that they can get to somebody else that you're protecting.

There may be certainly godly response and resistance of some kind. But when we talk about boundaries it's it's great to observe other people's boundaries about as far as our own. We sometimes have to yield those boundaries a little bit. I mean, I realize that were were being taught on the time that we should let people trample boundaries but I think we shouldn't if we can't handle it.

I think we we should if if we can and will carcinoma the enablers and something I say what you just let people treat like that. You're just enabling them well, but they could say that about Jesus and Jesus, let them beat him up. He could've called 12 legions of angels and he even could knock him down by supposing I am he did that a couple times and so I mean, obviously, Jesus allowed himself to be violated, he sought as the cup that the father given so I would start. I believe Christians need to be led by the spirit and I think that if I don't have any particular leading of the Spirit. I probably would just turn the other cheek.

I've I've actually only been attacked one time in my life physically night literally did turn the other cheek because as a Christian I I am very mindful of the sermon on the mount, but also mindful of the fact that nobody else but I was being threatened and it wasn't really a life-threatening situation.

So I mean if it were, I might have felt that there was a justification for doing something slightly different. In any case, I wouldn't have any criticism of the Christian who behaved like the man that you described in the video.

I think that that's I think it could be very God honoring but if it's a special economy. If you do that when it's obvious that you could defend yourself.

I mean if you just look like a little wimp. It may not be the God get the glory might just get to them.

I just get mocked for being a wimp, but even that mocking being mocked for being nonviolent is something that even Jesus received so I'm I don't think there's just a rulebook says in every situation you do just this one thing, but I think that the way the man that you described, behaved as a Christian is quite agreeable with the with the taken the sermon on knock fairly literally, which I think is commendable and heard Meyer lemon eventually recognized they are monitored teaching tapes I have about complaining about. We quickly Christians don't really know what the context was that model for me anyway.I appreciate you know you cannot know no one can accuse Joyce Meyer come out like a week with the Christian home see some sense pretty tough okay let's on the other hand, I don't think that resisting the temptation to fight back is an expression of weakness. As a matter fact I think it takes more strength to simply absorbing injury and not retaliate then to lash out, which would be a natural tendency.

I think it's a stronger man who could defend himself and choose not to.

But again, there are times when defending oneself is probably the right thing to do it. Be slightly different situations and those that Jesus described in the sermon on the Mount, or that this man was facing really appreciate it. Yesterday, okay thanks a lot appreciate your call Return next to George, calling from Midvale, Utah. George welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

Thank you for having the pleasure about Brian asked that question related to scattershot… I currently don't really have any state of any sort conversation with my Christian, though I understand that God is omnipresent God is on Netflix of Dalton trying to understand to give you a specific like I understand. For instance, that he was only me that the wages of sin is death, and so in order to forgive sinners he came down as Christ and died defend my question is why would I not attempt being need to do that if I drink the individual and able to forgive people for any number being that I'm just trying to understand sure that the word omnipotent is not found in the Bible it said it's a theological word and it means that God has all power to say that he has all power doesn't mean he has the power to do things that are contrary to his nature. For example, my children are grown, but when they were young and home. I would have the power in a sense, to strangle them in their sleep right I was bigger than them at their sleep.

They couldn't do much of fun I could strangle them in mice in their sleep if I wanted to do things I didn't want to because it's totally unlike me to do a thing like that so I really couldn't do that.

I really could never kill my children their states to. Contrary to who I am.

There might be some people who could do that to them, but I couldn't. Now that doesn't mean I don't have power because we don't have strength. It means that I have character and my character would forbid me from doing certain things and God.

Likewise, though he has all the power of he could ever need to do whatever he wants to do.

He also is constrained by who he is, in terms it says in the bottle. For example, in Titus chapter 1 verse two says that God cannot lie.

It says another place in first Timothy that God cannot betray him or cannot deny himself can't deny himself.

The things God can't do. This doesn't mean he's not omnipotent omnipotent just means he has all power and all power would be in the context of when there's something he wants to do that requires power. He doesn't like any power, but sometimes there are things that would go against principal and for example, since God is committed to justice.

It would not be possible for God simply to say let let's just say that God love the person enough that he was willing to pass. Give them a pass on the crimes they committed. Just ignore it will be a violation of justice just like if a judge or ruler would give a pass to his own nephew who committed horrible crimes in knowing and not punishing for and how could that be a good judge you.

He's showing nepotism showing he's letting his sentimentality overruled his sense of right and wrong and God is very just entirely just, and therefore he can't just give a pass to people who are criminals and that's what we are when we have violated the laws as it were, of the universe by our sin, then we are criminals and God of course loves us and just like the judge who would like to find a way to get his nephew off the hook but he can't easily adjust God had to do something that that conformed with his own justice in order to forgive that he could forgive but he could not ignore injustice without being an unjust judge if he is going ignore injustice in one case he hefted her specific ignore justice when Casey have to do it all the time he deftly not just in any situation because otherwise he be selectively just so God it says in Romans three in order that he might be just and also the justifier of those who believe in Christ sets Christ forced out as a as one to bear the sins of the world and to bear the punishment since the world this way the crimes would be in fact not ignored that justice would be done in the person of the substitute now you have in order to be clear, therefore, of one's sin and guilt one has to be found in Christ because those who are in Christ. The Bible says share in his crucifixion and his resurrection. This is something that's a little abstract, and you know I don't know how I could make it understandable. It's a theological concept that we don't have much of an analogy for anywhere else but the idea is that if I believe in Christ than I am in him. And if I'm in him than what he has done is counted as having done on my behalf as my agent as my substitute, and therefore I have done if he died and I'm in him. Then I have died. I paid the price for my sins in him. He has paid them as my substitute. Now, if a person is not in Christ, then Christ's substitutionary death doesn't really apply to them. But anyone can be in Christ, if they will. Anyone can believe in Christ to repent. But this is the way that God set things up and according to the New Testament, and I unit it doesn't really challenge God's omnipotence, God is omnipotent, that the same if a person is omnipotent, doesn't mean that he can make a square circle or that he make form 402 and two equals five. That's not something that a omnipotent person to do because those things can't be done because they are nonsensical to say God can do anything doesn't mean he can do things that are absolutely nonsensical. It means that any enterprise that he sets his hand to do. He has more than enough power to pull it off by creating the universe. For example, but it doesn't mean that he can turn an injustice into a justice that's that's to be like turning make a circle be a square you know justice is one thing. Injustice is another thing. And since God is just by nature, he cannot be unjust. He can't do things their interests, we had to conform to justice in his dealing with the problem of sin and redemption all right on our next caller is so Jeffrey from Los Angeles. Welcome to the narrow path.

Jeffrey, after taking my call.

I wanted to get your your take on first Peter chapter 3 of verse 19, about Jesus preaching through the Spirit in the days of Noah had created not I heard your verse by verse. I pretty much agree with your view on this plate I'm trying to understand how to interpret.

You could delete being that it where they been judged. You know what he did. It you know what would prison need or a spirit that the lady you know yeah well it's it's coming again. There's several ways as you know from our verse by verse teachings on this are several ways this is been understood.

It seems like the way that is most likely be correct has to do with the idea that Peter is discussing Noah was preaching to his lost generation and telling us that that preaching of Noah was actually Christ through his spirit preaching to them, partly because in the same epistle in chapter 1 Peter refers to the Old Testament prophets and their testimony. He says it was the spirit of Christ testifying through them. He says in chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 so Peter has already used the expression, the spirit of Christ as the one whose preaching through the Old Testament prophets.

Now he singles out Noah as an Old Testament preacher and says that Jesus through his spirit also preached to those people who were being disobedient in the days of Noah while the ark as we prepared no doubt he same pop while Noah preached to them that was the spirit of Christ preaching to them in Christ preached to them through spirit, but you're asking. But why does he describe those people who are spirits in prison now a lot of people take that phrase he preached to the spirits in prison to me that Jesus himself had to go like to hell or somewhere like that to preach to people who were in that prison of hell and they're assuming that this direct Jesus personally preaching to them if if I'm correct in assuming that he's not time Jesus personally that Jesus preaching through Noah through Christ spirit preaching through Noah. Then Peter would be saying that these are the spirits who are now imprisoned. They were not at the time Noah preached that but but in the later date that Peter wrote they had died and now their souls were in prison and so we say that those souls that were in prison were preached to by the spirit of Christ in the days of Noah while they are to be prepared and so that the word prison. There, I would suggest sounds like it refers to Hades, where where the dead are because the people whom whom Noah had preached to are now dead that what I included Natalie at a narrow chelating judgment, but to speculate, beyond that note: the Bible is silent of that we definitely need to be careful about yeah and I say it's not it's not the only view is not the only view of the matter. But that is of the various views on that passage which raises a lot of questions.

I think what I just suggested actually is the next mission that answers all the data in the passage and I think is therefore what Peter's likely same that the strongest you might as well I may created carted brought up the question in my mind if I could ask Patanol dictate whatever you have to stay off the air. I don't believe that there are some teachers today Christian teachers and pastors who will take Bill they'll have a view of the age of accountability and they will also have an Augustinian view where you pretty much your born offender, you know, kind of damned to hell and I I I look at anything. I see that kind of it. If the conflict if they like their inherent conflict with each other that I think you're right.

You say because running on time him for the break. I agree with you I think I think some people do have views that are in conflict with other views that they also have an lot of people don't realize that this is true of the but I would say that the doctrine of the outside original sin has two aspects of some people affirm both and some from only one aspect, the doctrine of original sin as Augustine taught it included tooth or two ideas, one is it ever was born with a sinful nature so that you don't need any negative influence in order to be a sinner. It's all you have an internal influence. It makes you want to send in the other part is quite apart from any sins that you may commit your born guilty of Adam's sin. Now some people affirm both of those points. Some affirm one of them. Some affirm neither of them I'm inclined to affirm one of them and that is that people are born with a tendency to sin and be what some people call the sin nature of the Bible doesn't use that term but I don't affirm that people are born guilty of Adamson. Your faith review your number log. You know here okay.

I understand that. Thank you for your time today. Question okay Jeffrey good talking to you. Thank you for your call. I Janice from Marina, California. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling. I'm listening to your radio station and I love your show. My question is if you're talking about Cendant and no other fees doctrine what actual denomination but my husband Tony talks about Hebrew root and I wondered what you had to say about that because they also have something very think about the Sabbath and what it what do you know about the Hebrew root equipment roots movement is like you said not a denomination.

It's a broad movement, and that's got all kinds of different varieties within about for the most part most people who are Hebrew roots believe in Torah observance mean that Christian should observe the Old Testament laws. Some of them go so far as to say we should be offering animal sacrifice, but we simply can't because the temples not there but if it was that we should be. They would say. Others wouldn't go that far.

II debated a Hebrew sky in Denver who said, not weaker.

No sacrifices.

Obviously we shouldn't do, but that the dietary laws and the festivals and so forth. Which is interesting because the festivals all were about going to the temple and often sacrifice some if your specter. Keep your spouse to keep the Torah about the other feast of Tabernacles and an any costs of keeping the Atty. Gen. temporally offer animal sacrifice that you sent. That's how you celebrated but simply what he roots people do they follow rabbinic Judaism which is not biblical Judaism.

They don't follow the 613 laws of the Old Testament, so they try to keep a lot of them but they they have left out of course the main part of the law, which is the sacrificial system and when the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70. A bunch of priests are our rabbis got together in January and came up with a new Judaism that wasn't in the Bible, which didn't require sacrifice because they didn't have a temple they couldn't offer cipher so they came up with what we now call rabbinic Judaism. It's what the rabbis teach and almost everything that the Hebrew roots people introducing their services are rabbinic things that weren't even done in the days of Jesus on the Old Testament are not commanded the Old Testament I mean carrying the described Torah scrolls through the synagogue blowing the shofar of the Hebrew forms of dancing cannot even he performs her Eastern European forms of dancing that the Ashkenazi Jews picked up from the culture up there, but the point is that they're doing all these things that are really part of modern Judea stick practice but are not part of the law, so there really a very inconsistent movement. But the Bible says were not required to keep the law and an end and I have actually a whole status.

I would talk more about this now that I got a break and that I do need to type. I have a complete set of lectures on the Hebrew roots movement and the best place the best place to find it there videos but you can watch them on YouTube if you go to YouTube. There is a video channel called the narrow path okay and and you'll find there is lots of my videos there, but that including a complete set on the Hebrew roots movement so I'd recommend you check it out, but my short answer is I don't believe in it and that is very Hebrew.

Michael Reed yeah I know Michael Reed is he is kind of a item is where it is common that he claims he claims to be a rabbi. He's not a Rabbi Miller never recognized as a rabbi, his HL show the mysteries it misrepresents himself his credentials and so forth. But information yeah but the thing is that the Hebrew roots.

People are are people who simply haven't understood the gospel very well on the freight and they don't understand how they don't understand how Christ has fulfilled the law and God bless and I hope that they can come out of that they should read the book of Galatians without blinders on and that would help in any case, I'm good have to sign take a break. Thank you. Appreciate your call.

We are going to have another half hour to the program. Some of our stations don't carry the second half hour so for the audience that won't be with us. I just want let you know the narrow path is a listener supported ministry. You can donate if you wish that we would pay for time on the radio stations that's what donations go toward the got anything else with no paid staff and myself. We just pay the radio stations you like to help us stay on the air. You can write to the narrow path, PO Box 1732 macula CA 92593 or go to our website.

The narrow path.com just written for another 30 seconds will be right back, taking more calls small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life, and have nothing to sell you everything in today's radio show was over, we invite you to visit the narrow path.com we'll find time to teaching blog article verse by verse teachings in the archives of learning and enjoying the thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path. Greg was asked the narrow path radio broadcast is our second half hour.

The program those of you listen to stations that pick up the program at this point and don't carry the first half-hour. I would just like you to know that the entire program which is in our everyday. This is the second half of it.

You can hear it from our website.

The narrow path.com everyday. The program is streamed from the website she can hear life and also everyday.

The program is archived at the website so you can hear it later if you can't listen live in these archives go back many years so you can listen to our programs going back a long time.

If you visit the narrow path.com all right. Our next caller is Tom from Dallas, Texas Tom, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling I area well.

Thanks. My question is A. I actually called you back that summer and told me what I experience you didn't tell me much about it that are: Angel coming there and being here. I've had more experience than I'd like to pay what I got. My question for you is that in the end time the great laughter deception will be they that turn people away from God. Right. So that would be the great dissections be people turning from Christ. All the Great Depression. We are people coming from claiming there, another planetary experience, but they're not in the market research I've done, the more I have learned that there are not what they say they are there actually demon in a spiritual form. I tend one since I tend to agree with you that people who have had what they consider the encounters with alien life from other planets allegedly are in many cases, if not every case, perhaps encountering demons because demons come to deceive and in many cases these contacts with aliens have led these people to believe certain errors about the nature of the universe. The nature of God, and interestingly they the errors that they embrace from these beings are often very similar to the new age movement or to Hinduism and that definitely if him if these creatures are from other planets than they certainly are confused planets like ours is a confused plan and what they have to tell us is of no value. It's even worse if they're not aliens further plans because that would suggest that they are someone masquerading as aliens and in deceiving and in most Christians would understand to mean that they are demons manifesting themselves. Not all Christians would agree with that particular assumption about them being demons, but it's a fairly common view and I think it has merit, and after doing all the three errors and after literally being little way by going on. I mean if I could reach out to anybody anything anything anybody is that sure that they are in physical form and they will come back in the weld like CP well away from God.

I can't make any predictions about whether this could be an increase in demons appearing as extraterrestrials because the Bible certainly doesn't mention anything about that. Some people think it does, though I'm not that I don't think these people are very good biblical exegetes younger certain people who believe that demons came down in the days before the flood, and that these were the sons of God who came down and intermarried with the daughters of men and produced what they would leave his halfbreed human demons which they think was an excellent guy understand that whole passage in Genesis 6. Quite differently than that, but that's of popular view and there are Bible prophecy teachers especially one or two who are famous for building a whole ministry for many decades on the most sensationalistic series imaginable about the end times there. Some were saying well that's can happen again. The end times. Why would that be well suggested. Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah while it was in fact in the days of Noah that the sons of God made the judgment so so there are some were saying.

Just like in the days of Noah. There's really demons coming down and I guess mating with women or in one way or another and there's nothing limb that are demonic beings deceiving people and they will appear to come down from space so the be mistaken for extraterrestrials will deceive the world that way. This is a very popular teaching with some teachers like to say who are famous for espousing sensationalist theories.

I would just say this I don't really take Genesis 6 to be telling us that demons mated with women. There are other theories and I think some of them much more likely to be true. On the other hand, even if it is true even if demons did meet with women in the days of Noah that is not what Jesus target when he said, as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days the comments on then how do I know that's not we start out because he says what he is talking about is not like Jesus leaves us wondering how many ways will it be like the days of Noah. When Jesus comes back.

He tells us exactly he says because, as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage, and buying and selling, and did not know until the day that know if the ark of the flood came and took them all away, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Now, what you saying is the way it's similar to the days of Noah has nothing to do with any what demons are benevolent has nothing to do even necessarily with the moral state of the days of not enough.

A lot of people say well it's gotta get really wicked because could be like the days of Noah and the days of Noah, really wicked will in fact the days of Noah were exceedingly wicked. But Jesus didn't say that it would be like that.

In that respect he could have he considered as in the days of Noah. They were murdering and raping and pillaging and and godless and evil and selfish and immoral and she could've said that we didn't. What did he say it's gonna be like the days of Noah. In this respect what respect well, they ate, they drank, they got married they bought and they sold.

How is that weird everybody at all times eats and drinks gets married and buys and sells. Jesus chose the most normal activities the people to visit. That's what it'll be like, but it's not.

It's not like the days of Noah in the fact that they are doing those things and and that's not an advertisement that they were doing those things, oblivious to the fact they were about to be destroyed. That's what he says, as in the days before the other. Eight they drink. They married gave marriage and did not know until the day that the flood came and took them all away. The idea here is, they were going about their ordinary life naturally in the days of Noah. There is a lot of wickedness. But Jesus doesn't doesn't underscore that he does make any reference to their wickedness.

He just says it's good to be like this. Just like in the days before the flood, people caught totally unaware they did things the day before even the morning of the flood before it came. They're getting married, buying and selling as any. If you thought you died a few hours would you be buying things and selling things and getting married. Probably not, you probably wouldn't have much appetite for eating and drinking either of you might the point Jesus is making is people were going about their everyday life and they were oblivious to the fact that they were about to be wiped out, and he said that's what it's going to be like in the days of the Son of Man people going about their ordinary life right up till the time the Jesus comes ours and says and set in first Thessalonians 5 in all they'll be saying peace and safety, and wonder saying peace and safety, sudden destruction will come upon them. So Jesus is not likening the days of Noah to the end times in any respect, as do with demons or nothing limb or even the moral state of the world in any of the ways that the end times state would resemble the days of Noah. In those ways. Jesus makes no reference and we don't know that there is any similarity. But what is similar is that that was a time when worldwide judgment came on people, just as it will when Jesus comes in both cases, those who were unprepared to meet God were totally oblivious until the thing caught them unawares.

That's the point Jesus is making so there's no real teaching there about a return of the nothing limb or anything like that. Not not even a hint as near as I can tell I know it. I already know about what you're telling me you know what I would've saying it. I want to know there's people here, but I can tell you asking me going on what you're asking what you're asking is if this is something that we can expect in the last days. I'm saying I don't know if it is or not because it's not predicted. I don't have any supernatural knowledge of the future are not clairvoyant. I don't have the gift of prophecy. I don't have everything I could know about the future expression of the end times I would have to drive from things that God has already revealed about that in Scripture and he is not revealed anything along those lines, I got move along because my lines are full but I appreciate you joining us today. Let's talk next to Bruce from Sacramento, California Bruce, welcome to the narrow path for calling today to deliver video shows. I believe also in a lab topic was that you want people to seriously enough to understand that God is hard like a prime example of that God created evil in support for that Isaiah 45 yeah well to say God created evil we we need make sure we understand what we mean by the word evil because the word evil in our normal usage means that which is morally wrong, that which is wicked. That which is sinful and we use the word evil that way all the time in the Bible uses that way to sometimes but the biblical word. The Hebrew word is translated evil in that place is often used in the New Testament in the Old Testament, and there also to mean calamity like occurrences that we take as real bad for us not initially morally bad but it's bad in the sense it's not what I would like. It's the it's the opposite of what I would like if I said had a good day or a bad day.

I'm not usually talking about the morality of the dam usually talk about whether it had a happy day or an unhappy day when it had a difficult day or an easy day and the word evil in the Hebrew there can refer to moral evil but in many cases, perhaps most cases in the Old Testament, it refers to calamity or disaster selling houses.

I create disaster or calamity is simply making a point that's very clear throughout the whole Scripture.

He brought disaster. For example, in Sodom and Gomorrah. He brought calamity on the world through the flood.

He brought calamity on nations that he judged in various battles throughout the Scripture God is saying that I create peace and I create calamity. In fact if you look at the verse he says I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil notice.

Evil is the opposite of peace. It's calamity and that the King James is evil. The new King James Ashley says calamity but that's because the new King James translators realize that modern people reading the word evil are likely to take it to mean sin or is he not permit Sandy's talking about disaster, and in many cases it's a very righteous disaster that comes up on people because of their sentence a judgment for sin and that's what he refers to. I can I can give you peaceful times are or I can bring calamity upon your 20 saying. And now, if that makes God hard to love hard to like it's probably only because were not thinking as he thinks we generally speaking, we love, justice, and except of course when were the ones were criminals, then we don't want justice, but but when we are the victims or simply the bystanders watching our crime take place. We want justice. We want the bad guy to get what is owed him you you almost will never watch a movie of any kind that doesn't get you thinking.

I hope that that guy gets caught or gets punished in the end because we love justice as I say and less were to bag ourselves now so it's it's not anything extra hard to love God that he brings calamity as a judgment on the bad guys unless we are the bad guys. Of course now true. If we are living it in violation of God's righteousness, then it is very hard to like him because he's gonna chasten us is going to judge us.

People don't like that very much but if we are on his side.

He's not hard to love it all, although sometimes we recognize that healing brings hardship into our lives with the Bible makes it very clear that he does that for our good vibe makes it very clear that trials in our lives are like fire to gold to purified solemnly trials can make you stronger and that's what God has in mind when he brings Truscott does bring trials even on his own righteous people for their good and he brings disasters also on the wicked as a judgment upon them. Neither of those things are particular difficult to to applaud and neither of them would make it particular hard like God. But if he's saying if the if the talkshow host was saying God creates sin, so that even for example, when children are kidnapped and in and sold interest in sex slavery. Well, God did that well know God didn't do that. That's not what God does and it would make it very hard to love him if he did that if if your child was kidnapped and sold into sex slavery and you felt that God was one who did that to be very hard to like him for that, you might start to trust them, you might still even have to obey him, but you would initially like him very much, but that's not what I mean if if this host was saying that God is the author of these evils of these sin while the children died of cancer is a little different because or are adults, died of cancer. Frankly, we don't like it any better. If an adult dies of cancer.

Cancer is very unwelcome to us, but then death is very marketer side.

I wouldn't like it very much if I had a child who died of infant and sudden infant death syndrome and I mean even painlessly in her sleep.

You and I would like it very much if I woke up one morning for my wife had died in her sleep. I don't want her to die of cancer. I don't want her to dog being tortured by kidnappers. I don't wanted to dine her sleep, but I don't lose it so we we never do like death. However, death comes on everybody and that's not an injustice. The wages of sin is death. We've all sinned and therefore rock to die, but some of us will die. You know suddenly, quietly, painlessly, others will die over somewhat more extended time, but it's still a finite time.

The real issue is what does God do to us after that because that's not finite that's eternal. And so I have lost a loved one. I had a wife who was killed at age 25.

It was a lot younger than I was hoping she would die.

I was hoping for it either knew she would, because she was human and humans died, but I didn't expect or wanted to die that young but when she did it because I'm on God's side.

Not my own. I just saw you okay God has the right.I'm going to die someday to I could die at age 25, like she did. I could die at age 35. I could die at age 85, but whenever I die it'll be a time when some people would wish I could still be alive longer so no is to be all that happy when people die, but again, those who love God.

Trust him and know that he doesn't make mistakes and and God can of course heal cancer he can, he can heal any sickness he can protect from any mortal danger and therefore if someone dies, it does mean at least that God did not intervene to prevent it and you know we have the we have than the choice will I be angry at God because he didn't prevent this, or will I trust God that this was a as good a time as any. Maybe better than most. For this to happen sometime some people die young, we need to consider maybe living spared something very horrible was coming in the future that God knew about and we don't know. 711 and 4711.

Let me turn there is therefore evil shall come upon you. Yes, that's calamity. Yes definitely, and you should not know from where it arises. It says trouble shall fall upon you which is parallel to the evils or trouble. Calamity is talk about judgment coming upon them in the form of invasion all right, all right appreciate your call. God bless and thanks for joining us. Andy from Buckeye Arizona is next any welcome to the narrow path is for calling Michael today. I wanted to ask if you could give it an overview on the remount word of God, perhaps as it relates to the logos word again and I will listen to your response, LaMacchia all right magnifying the candy and by the way, just wanted our listeners and he is setting up some meetings for me in the in the Phoenix area which which will be coming about in February I think February 16 and following through the weekend and into the next week about 455 or six days. Not sure hello on so I'm very speaking in the Phoenix area and Andy who just called is the one who invited me so is our host. As far as Raima and logos. These are two Greek words that are both translated by the English word word. The word word in English has more than one equivalent in the Greek New Testament. One of those equivalents is logos.

The other is Raima and there are some people who make a real distinction between the meanings of these words sometimes, especially in certain Pentecostal circles. They talk about this. The written word being the logos and this but it's like the prophetic word, or the living word being the Raima and they like to make a distinction between epic and sometimes they feel that there's something superior about getting what they would call a Raima word from God which goes beyond what the logos that is the Scripture says another distinction is artificial, you cannot find that the Bible uses these words with this distinctiveness. I don't know of any place. In fact, in the New Testament.

I've looked for a long time because someone asked me to look for this one several years ago, so I did. I don't remember any place in the New Testament we were logos specifically means the written word.

It may include the written word because the written word of God is still God's word, just like the spoken word of God is where God speaks it or its written if it's his word is his word, but but I don't know of any place in the Bible where the were logos specifically means the written word and would limit it that way. Furthermore, there are places where you compare parallel passages in Scripture where Raima issues.

One passage in logos in another, so that it would appear that they are used interchangeably. There may be some shade of difference in the general usage of these two words, but I when I first heard about them years ago. You note that the word of faith people. Kenneth Hagan and his is Bible college is called Raima Bible college and his emphasis is of course on God's authoritative word speaking to you as an individual more than just a generic way through Scripture. And it's it's there that I first I didn't go to Raima by the cards were used to read Hagan was a teenager and it's from him that I first realized the difference that there were two different Greek words, Raima, and logos that are both translated by our English expression word and you know it. I was young and naïve, and I accepted the fact that there was some kind of a thick line of demarcation between the meaning of these two words but that apparently is not true.

The studies are done since then to try to confirm that have not confirmed it is matter fact I can say Raima is sometimes used interchangeably with logos in Scripture that was first pointed out, leave years ago I was reading DA Carson's book called exegetical fallacies DA Carson article called exegetical thousand and one of the things he pointed out was when people argue for a difference between the meaning of logos and Raima and he pointed out cases where the two were used interchangeably in Scripture. So I don't really see that a big line of demarcation between the meanings of these two words can be made that there may be a sense in which Raima is used more frequently when it's talking about, you know you getting a word from the Lord through the Holy Spirit speaking to you. I don't know if it is so or not I, I don't think that the consistent usage of these words in the New Testament would would suggest that that's the most I can say without going into more specific cases of the usage but I think that those who make a big deal about the difference between logos and Raima are usually people who don't know very much what the Greek language and death. This is often the case with people who make important points from the nuances of Greek words, they often don't really know very much about the great I don't claim to know very much with the great because I study people who do I look up these things. It is my conclusion that Raima and logos don't have a huge difference in meaning as far as I'm concerned. They both mean word and can be used in a way let's talk to Jeffrey from Los Angeles Jeffrey, welcome to the neuropathic for calling the question about Matthew 532 new board you and I've always understood it when he gave the infection and 32 that he gave the exception because it more like humans trying to make sure that the blame would like saying you know it. He wouldn't cause the wife to commit adultery because she committed adultery already started studying and again I encountered near, looking at him, considering the sequence of the event. If he divorces her, then the cause would be after the divorce, so she committed adultery before the divorce. He divorces start and how would you know how many cognitive committed adultery if she did it because she cheated and committed active after the war, delete and somehow I think that I think the passage assumes that in that culture. Certainly, a woman who is divorced by her husband and had no husband was going to be a have to find another means of support, and she couldn't just go get a job that's not that wasn't as available to women in that culture as it is now and so she would either go back to her father who might be dead by this time are simply not wanted to come home or she would have to remarry or in many cases, made even sell herself into prostitution. Some women end up having to do but if she would because her husband divorced her if she had of remarrying, which is probably what most women would do for the opportunity and he's assuming it I think.

Then their marriage that the new marriage would be adultery. Unless, of course, there had been a legitimate and to the first marriage that if there had been grounds for wouldn't be that it was a legitimate employer that he wouldn't call her to commit adultery, assuming that she licked the remarrying by that is that is what I think he's talking that is my understanding of it.

If you want my most thorough treatment on the subject of the divorces about the verses about divorce and remarriage. I do have a series of articles I wrote that the website are combined into one document. If you go to the narrow path.com and click on the tab that says topical articles you'll find are easily one that's called divorce and remarriage and it's a very thorough treatment of the relevant Scriptures of the subject, including the topic raised Sirota time again the long run it right now