The Narrow Path 09/22/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour each weekday afternoon taking your calls. If you want to call in with questions about the Bible, we'll talk to you about those and about the Christian faith. If you want to call in about things you find yourself in disagreement with the host about, feel free to do that as well. We'll be glad to talk to you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. Right now, there's only one line open, but if you call now you can get on there. 844-484-5737. Not much to announce except what I've been telling you. The first week of October, I'll be doing an itinerary for a week through many cities in Michigan. If you're in Michigan, you might want to check our website and see if I'll be in your town. The website is thenarrowpath.com and under the tab that says announcements is where you find my itinerary there. We'd love to see you there, since I'm coming anyway it'd be a shame not to meet you. Now, we're going to go to the phones and talk to Tom in Bonsall, California. Hi, Tom. Welcome.
Tom: Hello, Steve. Long time, haven't talked to you. I had some general questions, just wanted to hit them lightly about things people are talking about, the imminent coming of the rapture with the way things are decaying all over the place. I see some things that yet have to happen. Little things, like have we heard about the flying scroll? Has it landed in anybody's house yet?
Steve Gregg: Why would you expect that to happen?
Tom: Well, if it's prophesied.
Steve Gregg: It isn't. That's in Zechariah chapter five and it's not about the end times at all.
Tom: Well, it has to happen, right?
Steve Gregg: It was concerning the time that Zechariah lived in. It was a vision. Are you familiar with the way visions are in the Bible? Like if you read Daniel?
Tom: Probably not as much as you are.
Steve Gregg: Okay, well Daniel, for example, let's just take Daniel chapter seven. In Daniel seven, he sees some beasts coming out of the sea. A lion with some wings comes out of the sea, then there's a bear coming out of the sea, then there's a leopard with four wings that comes out of the sea and four heads, and then there's a beast with ten horns. Visions like that are symbolic. They're not describing things as they occur, they're describing them in symbolic imagery. That's what Zechariah does too. These are visions that Zechariah had and none of them are related to modern times. They’re not related to the end times. Zechariah, in my opinion, didn't have anything to say about the end times. All of his early visions have to do with his own time while they were building the temple after the Babylonian exile. The later visions, like in chapters 12 through 14 especially, maybe even nine through 14, are primarily about the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I don't see any of it as being about the end times. The only reason people would disagree with me is if they don't recognize that visions are symbolic. If you think they're not symbolic, then you're going to expect some wild stuff, like some Walt Disney Fantasia type stuff going on in real life. There's nothing in the Bible that would encourage us to believe that since all the visions and dreams are symbolic. Joseph had a dream that 11 sheaves of grain bowed down to his sheaf of grain. He had a dream that the sun, moon, and stars bowed down to him. Those dreams are actually interpreted for us in the Bible. They represent Joseph's 11 brothers bowing down to him, which actually did happen. But there never was a time when the sun, moon, and 11 stars bowed down to him literally, or sheaves of grain. The dreams are symbolic. They refer to things that really did happen, but they're not describing them in anything other than symbolic terms. Pharaoh had two dreams about seven fat cows coming out of the Nile and then seven skinny cows came out of the Nile and actually ate the fat cows. The same kind of thing happened with seven heads of grain, fat ones that were eaten up by blasted bad ones. That has never happened either, except that Joseph said the fat cows and the fat heads of grain represent seven years of plenty. The skinny cows and the skinny heads of grain represent seven years of famine. We know what they mean, but we know they're symbolic because a year is not literally a cow or a head of grain. The visions and dreams of the Bible are in symbolic terms. That's true in Daniel, it's true certainly in Zechariah, and it's true in Revelation. That's just the way Hebrew apocalyptic images and visions are. I'm going to have to disagree with you about that, although I do agree with you when you say some things probably have to happen before the rapture. I'm not saying God has to do it the way I expect, but I do know that the Bible does say that Jesus said this gospel must be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations and then the end shall come. One could argue that the gospel has been preached in all the world, and in some senses it has. But we know that Jesus commissioned us to make disciples of all nations. I don't see an awful lot of disciples even in the places where Christians have preached the gospel. I would say a very small percentage of the people in churches could qualify by Jesus' definition of what a disciple is. We're supposed to be making disciples of all nations. I think the task is far from done. But I'm willing to let God disagree with me about that, obviously. If he thinks it's done, then he can rapture us anytime he wants to. But I don't think he's done. I think there's more he wants to see done. I don't think God is in a hurry. I don't think there's any reason why he'd pull the plug on the mission when it hasn't been done yet. If he was inclined to do so, why did he wait 2000 years to do so? I personally think that there's more that God wants to accomplish. But I don't know his secrets. Certainly, whenever he's going to come is one of those secrets. He said to his disciples, it's not for you to know the times or the seasons that the Father has put in his own authority. Maybe the rapture will come today, but I have a feeling he's probably going to keep working on the projects that matter to him, which have not yet been completed. We'll see. But even if the rapture doesn't come today, I could die today. It doesn't make any difference. I would live my life no differently if I knew the rapture was going to happen tomorrow than I'm going to live today, although I doubt that the rapture will be tomorrow. I could die today, so what's the point of even speculating about when the rapture's going to be? We're all going to see God and it could be today for any of us. Hey, I appreciate you calling about that, brother. Thanks for joining us. Carrie from Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome.
Carrie: Hey, Steve. There's a place in the New Testament that talks about the church being part of the Commonwealth of Israel. I can't find it, but I think I know what it means. But I may not know exactly how the Bible is using the word commonwealth. Can you explain that passage?
Steve Gregg: Sure. Commonwealth. Well, I think the commonwealth would mean the basic empire, the society that is Israel. What he actually says there is that the Gentiles, those of us who were Gentiles before we were Christians, he says at that time, this is Ephesians 2:12, you were without Christ, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. Commonwealth of Israel was just his way of saying Israel. Israel had the promises, they were the covenant community, and we were not part of it when we were Gentiles. But of course, he says that that has changed and we are part of Israel now. He says in verse 19, "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners." We were aliens from Israel, we were not part of Israel, but he says now we are no longer strangers and foreigners, we're fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. He's saying the alienation from Israel that we once had as Gentiles doesn't exist anymore. We're part of it. We're part of the true Israel. That's, of course, what Paul teaches everywhere in his writings.
Carrie: And this would refute replacement theology, would it not?
Steve Gregg: You mean refute the word replacement theology, like it would show the invalidity of the term?
Carrie: The idea that the church and Israel are not the same.
Steve Gregg: Basically, what I believe is usually called replacement theology. But I always say it's not a good label for it. It's not a descriptive label. It's not really replacement. Basically, if you say to somebody, you believe in replacement theology, and you say, well, what do you mean by that? They'll probably say, you believe that the church replaced Israel. And I would say, no, I don't believe the church replaced Israel. I think the church *is* Israel. And I think that's what you're saying, too. So in other words, the doctrine that is called replacement theology is more properly called Supersessionism. And that's the doctrine that I hold. My complaint is that Supersessionism is even called replacement theology. Because Supersessionism does not teach that the church replaced Israel. And that's usually what its critics suggest. By the way, its critics are the people we call dispensationalists. Dispensationalists believe that Israel has an eternal destiny with God that's eternally separate from the church. And that the church has its own eternal destiny with God that's separate from Israel. They believe the church is including some Jews and Gentiles during this time, but when the rapture occurs, that'll be the end of the church on earth. We'll go to our heavenly destiny and then they say, then God will redeem the nation of Israel. And the redeemed Israel will be somebody other than the church for all eternity. They won't be part of the church. That's dispensationalism. They say you have to have a distinction between the two. Whereas biblical theology, which was taught by all Christians until dispensationalism came along in the 19th century, teaches that the church *is* Israel. Israel was called the church in the Old Testament, the ekklesia. The term is used in the Septuagint to describe the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament. It's the ekklesia, the church. And the early Christians saw themselves as the ekklesia, that is the true Israel. And that's true, because the true Israel is made up not of all the Jewish people, but of all the people who are faithful to God in terms of the Jewish covenant. When Jesus saw Nathaniel coming, he said, "Now here's an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." This man became a disciple of Jesus, of course one of the 12. But when Jesus first met him, he said, "This man's an Israelite indeed." Now what a strange thing to say. Everybody around him were Israelites. There were hardly any Gentiles in that society, everyone was Jewish. Why was Nathaniel different? How was he an Israelite indeed, which must mean in contrast with Israelites in name only? Jesus used a similar term in John 8:31 where he says, "If you continue in my words, you're my disciples indeed," meaning you are really my disciples. If you're not keeping my words, then you're not my disciples. You might be in name only but not indeed. And so he says Nathaniel was an Israelite indeed. That most of the Jews around him were not indeed. And so he's saying there is an Israel within Israel. Not all the Jewish people are part of that Israelite indeed, but the true ones are, like his disciples. And so the true Israel are those who are loyal to the Messiah. And any person, Jew or Gentile, who is not loyal to the Messiah can't be called true Israel. They're not God's people unless you speak only racially. But race matters nothing to God. God never did care about race. Even at Mount Sinai, he made it possible for a Gentile to be part of Israel if they wanted to. A Gentile could become part of Israel simply by keeping the covenant. Being in Israel meant you kept the covenant, not that you had Jewish parents or ancestors. So Israel never was defined by race. At least the nation of Israel never was. It was a mixed multitude racially that came out of Egypt and God made them all into the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. So there's never been a time when God saved somebody because of what their race was. It's always the faithful. And there was always a faithful remnant in Israel and they were the true Israel as far as God was concerned, the Israel of God. And when Jesus came, that true Israel followed Jesus and became his disciples and later they called themselves the church, which was what Israel had been called in the Old Testament. So in other words, the church is just the continuation of Israel. The only thing that's been replaced is the covenant. The old covenant is no longer and the new covenant has replaced it. That's what the New Testament teaches unambiguously. Where there's a new covenant, the old one is obsolete, is the exact statement of the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:13. The old covenant is obsolete. So to be part of the true Israel in the Old Testament was to be faithful to the covenant God made, which was at Mount Sinai. Now that covenant's gone, there's a new covenant in Christ. Being a true Israelite means you have to be faithful to that one. And the same people who became faithful to Christ were the ones who initially were faithful to the Sinaiatic covenant. It's just the same people, it's a different covenant. So if anything has been replaced, it's not the people that were replaced, it's the covenant that was replaced in defining the people. A lot of people have trouble understanding that and I'm sorry they do, I have to repeat it a lot of times, but it's really a fairly simple concept. When people are faithful to God's covenant, they are the true Israel. Period. And it doesn't matter what race they are. Because God, there's no Jew or Gentile in Christ, all are one in Christ. So anyway, that's that. And I think the point you're making is that if Paul says that we were no longer aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, then it's a huge mistake to say that we have replaced Israel. We haven't replaced Israel. We are Israel. We've become part of it. Just like Ruth, a Gentile, became part of Israel when she married Boaz and joined the Jewish faith. Rahab, a Gentile, became an Israelite when she left her Canaanite background and became part of Israel. So in the Old Testament, a Gentile could be part of Israel. And in the New Testament, a Gentile can be part of Israel. But Israel was always initially made up of Jewish people who were faithful to the covenant and then Gentiles were added to them as they wished. And whoever was in the covenant, Jew or Gentile, was Israel. Still is the case. All right, Carrie. I appreciate your call. Let's see if we can get something in before the break. Seth from South Carolina, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Seth: Hey, Steve. Thank you for taking my call. My family and I, my wife and my two little ones, are going to a fundamental Baptist church. And I hold an amillennial view and the church is aware of that. But we were in Sunday school class and I usually will get into questions with the teacher because we're going through Revelation. And he's talking, we were going through Revelation chapter 11 about the two witnesses and he was talking about that they will basically be witnesses testifying about Jesus Christ, giving the gospel, but also re-establishing the sacrificial covenant system. And I thought that was so bizarre. I know you have a background in dispensationalism, but when I heard that, it sounded like that's a false gospel if they're preaching that.
Steve Gregg: It is. Yes, it is. Yeah, there's nothing in the Bible that says anything about that. Except that the Bible forbids that. The book of Hebrews says that the sacrifice Christ died put an end to all sacrifices. The temple is defunct. God does not dwell in temples made with hands, Stephen said in his sermon. That's why the temple made with hands was destroyed and has never been rebuilt in 2000 years. God dwells in a temple made of living stones, the Bible says in First Peter 2:5 and many other places. So yeah, the idea that God would dwell in a temple again and they'd offer animal sacrifices again when Jesus has died once and for all, the Bible says, the final sacrifice, there's absolutely, I mean, the Bible is absolutely against that notion. And more than that, the Bible doesn't even have anything in it that would support that notion. In other words, sometimes the Bible will say something is not so, but another verse might sound like it is, you know? And then you wonder, okay, how am I supposed to harmonize these? There's no challenge here. The Bible says the sacrificial system's gone for good and there's nothing that says otherwise. There's not anything that can even be taken that way except maybe some Old Testament statements which are defunct because of the new covenant. But yeah, so I mean, the idea that the two witnesses, in some future date, would be reinforcing the temple system and the sacrificial system is that's sheer make-believe. I mean, there's not anything in Revelation that suggests that even a little bit, not even a hint.
Seth: Yes, I've certainly heard dispensationalists talk about that, but I've never heard that part of it. And it seemed really odd and we got into a little bit of a discussion and Ezekiel chapter 40 through 45 always comes in about the temple and the system. And his opinion is that the sacrifices are a memorial, but it clearly states, I think it was in chapter 45 and verse, I want to say maybe 18 or something, where it talks about the minister has to offer a sin offering for himself.
Steve Gregg: Right, exactly. The priest, yeah. Right, exactly. It's chapter 45 verse 15 says, "And one lamb shall be given from the flock of 200 from the rich pastures of Israel. These shall be grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings to make atonement for them," says the Lord. Now that's in the temple vision of Ezekiel. And it says that these sacrifices would be making atonement. Likewise, at the end of verse 17, it says that the prince shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offering to make atonement for the house of Israel. And then in verse 20, it says, "For everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance, thus you shall make atonement for the temple." So I mean, you've got, it's crazy to say that this is a future temple. This is what dispensationalists say. They say that there's going to be a third temple built and there'll be a temple during the millennium. They usually take this to be a millennial temple and that the Jewish sacrificial system will be set up again. And they think that's what's described in Ezekiel 40 through 48, really, or 47 anyway. And when you say, well, what about the sacrifice? I thought Jesus made atonement once and for all. They say, "Oh, yeah, well, just like we remember Christ in the communion, they'll be offering animal sacrifices to remember him. And just like the Old Testament sacrifices looked forward to Christ, these will be looking back at Christ." No, they're not. No, they're not. It says right there, they're making atonement. Now, the fact that they're making atonement means they're not a memorial sacrifice. Dispensationalists should give up that false line immediately. The next time any dispensationalist is listening to me right now, if you ever repeat that line, you are being intentionally dishonest. Just look at it. Read Ezekiel 45 and you'll see it is not the case that these are memorial sacrifices. These are atoning sacrifices. And this temple belongs to the Old Testament. It cannot apply to anything after the death of Christ. Now, my position about that is, it says in chapter 43, when it's describing this temple in verses 10 and 11, "Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel that they may be ashamed of their iniquities and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple." If they are ashamed, meaning if they are repentant. The Jews were in Babylon at this time. Ezekiel was in Babylon. The temple in Jerusalem was burned down years earlier. There had been promises made that God would take them back to re-establish their nation and to build their temple again. And this is a pattern of the temple that they could have if they are ashamed. In other words, the temple I'm describing here is relevant if you guys are repentant. Now, how did it turn out? It turned out the nation wasn't repentant. A small minority of them were. 50,000 went back to rebuild the temple out of hundreds of thousands who stayed in Babylon and didn't care. So the nation wasn't thoroughly repentant and so they did get a temple, but not this one. This is the temple that might have been if they had been repentant. Hey, I appreciate your call, but yeah, there's a lot of silliness there that people read into those passages just because they have a system. The system doesn't fit scripture, but they'll hammer and pound to make scriptures fit into round scriptures fit into square holes to fit their system. I appreciate your call. I need to take a break. God bless you. You're listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. There's all kinds of resources, all of them free at thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming, so don't go away. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls. If you have any questions from the Bible or the Christian faith or you disagree with the host and want to tell us why, feel free to give me a call. There's one line open right now. The number is 844-484-5737. Once again, the number is 844-484-5737. And our next call is coming from Priscilla in Vancouver, B.C. Hi, Priscilla. Haven't heard from you for a little while. What's up?
Priscilla: Hi. Greetings, greetings, greetings. Sure. Terms like born again, salvation, redemption, being saved, can you break those down for those who are still learning or grasping on what that means and entails?
Steve Gregg: Well, each of those terms has a different meaning, but they're all related to what we refer to as salvation. Now, salvation in the Bible is a broad topic. I would say that broadly speaking, salvation means we come back into a right relationship with God. God is our salvation, Christ is our salvation, and alienation from Christ is alienation from salvation. So being saved means put right, put back into that right relationship with God and Christ. Now, Christ is king, he's Lord, and so the only possible right relationship would be that we submit to him, that we render him the obedience and the loyalty that's due to a king, because that's what he is. Now, in doing so, salvation also will speak of the various aspects of what God has done and will do once we are in right relationship with him. First thing, he forgives our sins. We call that justification. Justification means to be declared righteous. So when all of our sins have been forgiven, there's nothing left to call us unrighteous about, so we are now declared righteous, and that's the portal into the larger phenomenon of that great salvation that we're not to neglect. When we are justified, we also get regenerated or born again. And that means that God sends his Spirit to enliven us, to give us the life of God, to give us eternal life. The life of Christ is given to us and we now have eternal life in him because we have been born into almost a new species of human beings. Because we have natural human life, all our lives from the time we're born, but after this we have a divine life given to us as well. We have human life and will physically die, but we also have that eternal life that's in us, which guarantees our resurrection and immortality eventually. So being born again refers to that. Redemption is a reference to being purchased. Back in the days of the slave markets, which all nations had in ancient times, a slave belonged to his master until he was redeemed. If he was purchased out of slavery, that was redemption. And he was liberated from his slavery, or possibly liberated from one master and now belonged to another master because he'd been purchased. Now, a purchaser could say, I'm going to just give you your freedom, or I'm going to let you be my servant. But the point is you've changed hands, you've changed ownership. And the Bible says we're not our own, we've been bought with a price in First Corinthians 6. And we've been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, it says in First Peter. We were redeemed not with corruptible things like silver and gold from our vain conversation received by tradition from our fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ as a lamb without spot or blemish. So his blood is the price that purchased us and redeemed us. There's reconciliation or atonement. The word atonement means reconciliation. So that's a part of salvation too. It means that we were enemies with God, but now we're on friendly terms with God. There's eventually sanctification, which means we've been set apart for God. That's part of salvation too. There's transformation. We're changed from glory to glory over our lifetime as we behold his glory, we're changed from glory to glory into his image. It's a transforming life. That's part of salvation too. That's being delivered from the power of sin day by day through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Eventually, when Jesus comes back, we'll be glorified. That is, we'll be raised from the dead, or if we're alive at the time, we'll be changed in the rapture. This mortality will put on immortality. Our bodies, which are sown in weakness, will be raised in power, and they're sown in dishonor, they’ll be raised in glory. That's called glorification. That's at the end of time when Jesus comes back and raises us from the dead. That's also called adoption. Paul refers to the redemption of our bodies as the adoption. So these are different terms. They all have something to do with salvation, but they all have a different aspect of it that they're talking about. So I just ran over those rather quickly. If those terms were unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you won't remember them all right now, but you can always get a dictionary and see what they mean, and better yet, just get a concordance and look up those words in the Bible and see how they're used. And of course, if I ran through those too quickly for you, you can always listen to this call again since it's on our website. Anyone can listen to any of our shows again just about as soon as the show is off the air. It goes up onto our website, you can listen to this again if you need to take it more slowly. All right, let's talk to Joshua in Phoenix, Arizona next. Hi, Joshua. Welcome.
Joshua: Hi, Steve. I'm on the bus, so if it sounds a little loud, I'm sorry, I apologize for that. So this idea of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that God gives us, those who are following Christ. This idea, so I've been a Christian now for about half of my life, 18 years, I'm 37 now. And I've walked with God and I know what it is to walk with God and I've not walked with God and I know what it is not to walk with God. So from my experience when I'm walking with God, sin is just not attractive. It's not appealing, it's not something that I'm engaging in. Now of course, I might stumble, I might fall into sin, but it's not like something that I'm desiring. But then when I'm not following God, sin is very attractive and I'm falling into it at first. So my question to you is, is the Spirit of God still in the believer when he's no longer following Christ as Lord?
Steve Gregg: Well, God has to know where that line is drawn, but the Bible teaches that even as Christians there's two forces or two influences within us. Paul says in Galatians 5:17, "The flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, and these two are contrary to one another so that you don't do what you want to do." It sounds like a single verse summarizing what he said at the end of Romans 7. He said, "With my mind I agree with the law of God that it's good, I want to do it, but I find this other law in my members," which is what he calls the flesh in Galatians, "which is at war with the law of my mind and brings me into bondage to sin and death." So he says as a Christian, I do have the Spirit of God, but I also have the flesh. Now I need to live suppressing one or the other. In fact, I always am living suppressing one or the other. If I'm not suppressing the flesh, then I'm suppressing the influence of the spirit. Now the spirit's much more powerful than I am, but it doesn't overwhelm me against my will. So the truth is that God gives us his spirit and then we have the option to walk in the spirit. And it's our option because the Bible commands us to do it. If it was not optional, that is to say if it was something that automatically happens all the time, there'd be no command to do it. So obviously we're commanded to walk in the spirit and we'll not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Paul talks in Galatians 5 about what the works of the flesh are and that's what people do when they're not walking in the spirit, that's what their flesh dictates. But then he talks about the fruit of the spirit after that and that's what happens in our life when we are walking in the spirit. Now the Spirit of God makes a change in your life. So this change reorients you toward the things of God. But that doesn't mean your flesh isn't still there and isn't still going to protest and so forth. I mean, anyone who thinks they don't have a flesh to protest their godliness within them, they should maybe try fasting for a few days and see if their flesh doesn't protest to it. You'll still be able to fast because you suppress the influence of the flesh through the spirit. That's what Paul says in Romans 8, he says, "If you live according to the flesh, you'll die, but if through the spirit you mortify the works of the flesh, you will live." Mortify means put to death. He's referring to us suppressing the claims of the flesh in our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now you're absolutely right. When a person is truly born again, sin is obnoxious to them. It doesn't mean they never fall because the flesh still likes it. But when you're born again, you have a different desire that's more defining of who you are and that is the Spirit of Christ. When you're not a Christian, your flesh defines you. When you get saved, the Spirit of Christ redefines you, but the flesh still protests at times. And if we walk in the spirit, we are suppressing the voice of the flesh and ignoring it and not obeying it. So Paul says walk in the spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. It's a wonderful promise in Galatians 5:16. But then if you don't walk in the spirit, the flesh is still there and still tempting you. Now the interesting thing is a Christian does walk in the spirit generally speaking most of the time. But we do stumble, as you used the term, the Bible says we do stumble. And we do fall into the flesh because there is part of us, our flesh, that still likes sin. Our flesh is still self-centered, self-interested, wants to do what we want to do. And the Spirit of Christ is teaching us to do what Christ wants. Now I think a person can tell if they're saved or not possibly by asking this question. Does living in sin sound like a good time? Or does living a holy life sound like a good time for me? Would I rather live a purely holy life if it's possible without sin? Or would I rather live a sinful life without taking God into account? If it's the second, a person's not a Christian, they haven't been born again. But if living a holy life is what you really desire, even though you have temptations from time to time to do things that are not holy, but even when you have those temptations, you're kind of struggling with it. I mean, an unbeliever doesn't struggle with temptation, he just does it. A believer gets tempted and then he gets into a little wrestling match and sometimes he lets the flesh prevail foolishly. But not without a struggle and not without regret. I'll tell you, if you have the Spirit of God in you and you do stumble, you will regret it. You will wish you had not. And the reason you'll wish that is because that's not really what you want. What a Christian wants is to please God. And while there's conflicting desires that raise their voices against you and you sometimes foolishly succumb to them, once you've done so, you realize how contrary that was to what you really want. You want to live for God. And that fact is what proves that you've been born again. The Spirit of God does not make you enjoy sin. I remember Jack Hayford once said being truly born again spoils you for sin. And I think that's totally true. If you were a party animal, fornicating and drinking and using drugs and stuff like that before you were a Christian, and then you get saved, if you do those things again, you cannot enjoy them like before. I'm not saying there won't be any pleasure, but there will be the nagging guilt, you just will not be at liberty to do that like you were before. And you'll want to give it up because that's what being changed looks like when you're born again. So I think that's what you're describing, am I correct?
Joshua: Yeah, you're correct. I would just say that I'm always wondering, was I a Christian when I was pursuing my own path and I was engaging in sin? Now of course, I would still feel bad as I've always realized that sin is enjoyable at first, but afterwards it leaves a very dark... I don't know what it is.
Steve Gregg: Regret. Yeah, let me just say this because I'm going to have to get some more calls, but I will say this. It's hard to know whether you were a Christian before. I look at my early Christian life too and say, was I really saved then? And I think I was, because I really wanted to please God. And I really was, I mean, I didn't have much spiritual power in my life, certainly didn't have the anointing of the Holy Spirit on my life. I would witness to my friends but seemed to be powerless. And I think I was really saved in those days, but I wasn't as much different from an unbeliever as I should have been. And I think that's partly due to my powerlessness. I wasn't really filled with the Holy Spirit in those days. But I also say this. Suppose someone said, "Listen, you weren't even saved until you were 16 when you say you were filled with the Spirit and suddenly your whole life changed." That's when you were really saved. I'm not going to argue with them, they could be right. It's a moot point though because I'm not going to be judged when I stand before God by what I was like before 16. I'm going to be judged by what I'm doing right now, what's going on in my life. And people need to understand that. You can't put any hope in the idea that you accepted Jesus in your heart when you're four years old like I did or when you're 12 years old or sometime like that. When you stand before God, you're not going to be judged by what you did when you were four years old or 12 years old. You're going to be judged by what you're doing now. Because that's who you are now. And if you're saved, it'll show. So I mean, I understand the curiosity. I can sometimes think, I wonder if I was really saved in those early years. I'm pretty sure I was, but whether I was or wasn't is truly a moot point at this stage because I don't have any, it has no relevance to my relationship with God now. That's at least how I look at those things. I appreciate your call. Let's talk to Corey in Wildwood, Florida. Hi, Corey. Welcome.
Corey: Hey, Steve. Thanks so much for taking my call. I'm looking for some pushback on a view I developed through my reading of scripture that I understand is in a great minority, which is kind of concerning. It's what some call conditional immortality or even soul sleep. When I read things like First Thessalonians 4 where Paul says, "We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep," and he goes on to describe the dead in Christ will rise, it seems hard to see a separation between body and soul. And even in Second Corinthians 5, which people normally use to refute the position, it seems as though his main point is that he's looking forward to the time when he will take off a mortal body and put on an eternal body. And it seems like that's all taking place, of course, at the second coming of Christ when the resurrection takes place and the dead give up their grave and things like that. So I'm just curious, I know you kind of view it differently, so I was hoping to get some pushback because if the judgment doesn't take place until after the second coming, how could souls be either put inside of heaven or inside of hell without judgment and things like that?
Steve Gregg: Well, I'm not, I don't have anything against conditional immortality. I think that's a different issue than soul sleep though. Soul sleep teaches that you have no conscious awareness of anything between death and the resurrection. In other words, what we call the intermediate state, after you die and then at the end of the world you're resurrected. So there's maybe some years or centuries in between there. That's the intermediate state. Where are you? Soul sleep says you're nowhere. You just don't exist in any world at that time. A more common view among Christians is that the Christian's body has left their, the soul has given leave of the body and is now with Christ in heaven awaiting the resurrection. And when Jesus comes back and raises the dead, those souls will be rejoined with the resurrected bodies. Now, it doesn't really matter very much, but it does seem to me like Paul does distinguish between the body and me. There's a difference between who I am and who my body is. Because Paul says he's looking forward to being, and you mentioned this very verse in Second Corinthians 5, he's looking forward to being absent from the body. Okay, so I, if I can be absent from my body, my body is not me. I can be absent from my house because I am not my house. If I was a snail or a turtle, I couldn't be absent from my house because I am my house, my shell is my house, but my house is some place I live but I can be absent from it. My body is a place I can be absent from also. Paul says, "As long as we are present in the body, we're absent from the Lord, but we are eager to be absent from the body and present with the Lord." Now, you're saying he's looking forward to leaving the mortal body and being given an immortal body, and you could be right. That's not how I understand his words, but you could be right. But even so, being absent from his mortal body means his body and he are different entities, even if he's going, how can you be absent from yourself? You can't. And so also in Philippians chapter 1, of course, Paul said he was miserable in prison and he would love to depart and be with the Lord, which is far better. Depart obviously means depart his body and go be with the Lord where the Lord is. And he said that's far better. Now, I don't think, and I don't care whether I'm right or wrong, you could be right, but I don't think he's talking about, "I want to depart this body and be nowhere until I get a resurrection body." Because he's talking about being absent from the body in especially Second Corinthians 5. Absent from the body is between the time I leave this body and time I re-enter it when it's resurrected. Where am I in between? Now, one could argue you're nowhere. You don't exist in between from the time you die until your body is raised on the last day, you're nowhere. Well, then why would that be described as absent from the body? Absent is referring to not here, but somewhere else. And so I'm of the opinion that when, for example, John sees the souls of those who were beheaded in heaven under the altar saying how long before you avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth in Revelation 6, when the fifth seal is broken, the vengeance on the wicked has not yet happened. There has not been the end of the world, there's no resurrection of the dead, the wicked have not been judged, but he sees their souls saying how long before this happens? So of course Revelation is so symbolic I don't want to rest too much on that point. But it is true that the imagery of the souls being disembodied in heaven is freely used more than once in Revelation, it also appears in Revelation 20. So it seems to me like the world view of the biblical writers accommodates the idea that a soul can be in heaven or in the body. Not both at the same time. And being absent from the body could not really describe the resurrection because we'll be in the body in our resurrection. There's a point between the death of this body and the resurrection of it on the last day that we are either nowhere or we're somewhere. But Paul talked about how being absent from the body essentially is being present with the Lord. And at least he seemed to speak as if he thinks that way. So that's my position. I don't have any problem with people believing a different way. Now that's a very different thing than conditional immortality because you could believe in soul sleep or not believe in soul sleep and still believe in conditional immortality. Conditional immortality has to do with the state of the resurrection body. Is it immortal in hell if you're lost or does it get burned up and disappear? That's of course talking about after the judgment. That's not a intermediate state thing. So a person could believe in soul sleep and yet not believe in conditional immortality, or they could believe not in soul sleep and still believe in conditional immortality. But most people like Seventh-day Adventists, for example, who believe in soul sleep also believe in conditional immortality. These are different doctrines. They may run together in the same crowd sometimes, but they could be held independently of each other. Anyway, I appreciate you sharing with us. You're certainly welcome to hold those views with my blessing. I don't have any emotional concerns about your views on that. Let's talk to Denny from Tecumseh, Oklahoma. Hi, Denny. Good to hear from you again.
Denny: Hi, Steve. Good to hear from you. I hope this comment kind of caps off your show today. I was saved of course in the Jesus movement in 1972 at Calvary Chapel and I just absorbed the dispensational doctrine as if the Bible clearly taught it. And I really regret I was never told about any doctrine that other people see things differently, but this is the way we see things. It was all that way until I've been listening to you for seven years. During that time, even before that time, I began to see the problems in dispensationalism. But listening to you has just, these seven years, has just brought more clarity. And I just want to tell you today when I was hearing you talk to someone else about dispensationalism and teaching out of Hebrews, it just hit me that your teaching ministry is so fruitful. But one of the key fruits in my opinion is helping people be delivered from the dispensational myth, if I can call it that. And it's just brought such clarity to me and I'm really thankful. And I'm sure I speak for a lot of people who you've helped clear things up.
Steve Gregg: That's very kind of you. You know, it's not my mission to deliver people from dispensationalism. My mission is to get people to read the Bible and think about it for themselves. I believe in many cases they will abandon their dispensationalism and that has been the experience of many, many people I've known, like myself. But if a person examines the Bible for himself in a clear and critical manner and still is dispensational, I don't have a problem with it. I just don't like people being cult followers of anyone, including me. As far as I'm concerned, if your pastor's the only person whose views on end times you've ever heard, and you don't want to hear any others because your pastor's always right as far as you're concerned and you trust him, yeah, that's kind of a cult follower. A cult follower is someone who lets the religious leaders think for them, especially on things that are controversial that lots of Christians would disagree about. Well, I'm just going to go with what my pastor says, he's right, I trust him. Yeah, that's where I was at too. But I didn't know it was even controversial when I was under Chuck Smith. I learned how to say everything he said and I taught dispensationalism for years myself. But I also learned how to read my Bible and how to say, wait a minute, that verse that's being used to support this doctrine doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything like that. Why are we using that verse to prove that? And there were more and more cases like that until I realized that wow, I need to rethink everything because I've been taught a system, I've not been taught the Bible, I've been taught a system. And so I had to rethink it all. It took me lots of years, but I'm glad if I can help others do the same. I'm out of time. Thanks for calling. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Check it out. Lots of resources, all free there. Let's talk again tomorrow.