20260312

Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, today's episode of the Narrow Path is pre-recorded.

This is the best of the Narrow Path radio broadcast, the following is pre-recorded.

Welcome to the Narrow Path radio program hosted by Steve Gray.

Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be able to be taken.

In the place of a usual format we put together some of the best calls from past programs.

They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in the Bible and Christianity.

In addition to the radio program, the Narrow Path has a website.

You can go to www.thenarrowpath.com

where you can find hundreds of resources that can all be downloaded for free.

And now please enjoy this special collection of calls to Steve Gray and the Narrow Path.

Our first call today is Mike from Garden Grove, California.

Mike, welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

Morning, Steve. My question has to do with the Revelation chapter 2 of church programists.

Jesus said that they had not, you know, they've kept the faith ahead tonight.

And they name it, he had some things against them.

And my question is, is Jesus the Savior and not Lord?

Or they've lost salvation?

Like in 2 Peter 1, 9 it says, if any of these things are blind, they cannot see a far off.

And they've forgotten that they've been purged from their sins.

So that apply. Anyway, that's, that's my question.

Your question is the church of Pergamus?

Is it, is it the case of them not taking the lordship of Jesus here?

Is that what you're asking?

I guess, yeah, you can put it that way.

Yes, Jesus is a Savior but not Lord.

Or they just completely lost their salvation because Jesus has that, you know,

he gave him a compliment saying that they had faith in his name and they hadn't denied his name.

But then he says, I have these, a few things against you.

So they were lacking in Samaritan.

Oh, they had some, they apparently had some areas where they were subject to deception

because there were some false teachers in the church.

Some were teaching the doctrine of the Nicolayitans.

Some were teaching the doctrine of Baileum.

Right.

And these, these were false doctrines that were being taught in the church.

The church is taken to task because it was tolerating this teaching.

Now, why a church would tolerate false teaching?

We, I'll be able to know immediately.

It might be that they were still trying to evaluate whether it was true teaching or not.

I mean, it would seem that if teaching has been done in the church, then somebody in the church must think it's true.

And therefore they could be blinded or deceived.

Right.

That's a possibility.

I mean, a true Christian can certainly go through a phase of deception.

I know that in my own Christian life, which has been for many decades in the earlier stages,

I was very impressed with certain teachings of certain teachers, which I now would consider to be quite wrong.

I don't think I was compromising on the Lordship of Jesus in my life.

I think I was just mistaken.

And so I think a person, a church even, can be honestly misled a certain distance before they've actually been, you know, or can be called defecting from their loyalty of Christ.

If Jesus was standing right here among us and telling us what's right, wrong, unmistakably,

then there'd be no excuse, of course, for a church to get off into error.

But since we are trying to discern what the Word of the Lord is from the Scripture and from, you know, just whatever indicators he gives us,

sometimes we go a little bit in the wrong direction before we correct ourselves.

This church was going in the wrong direction in terms of allowing certain teachers to teach in their church.

Obviously, what they were teaching was pretty far-fetched. I mean, they were teaching something like gnosticism, something like antinomianism.

And yet, apparently, some of the people in church were undiscerning enough that they didn't realize this was wrong.

I mean, in other words, it's not necessarily the case that they were deliberately trying to teach or believe what's wrong.

It's that they were quite mistaken.

So making mistakes is not quite the same thing as rebellion against God.

However, the teachers themselves involved could have been deliberate to see, versus hard to say.

In any case, Jesus sends us letter to the church to correct him and tell them this is not okay, and you need to repent of having had this teaching in your church.

Right. Okay. All right. Thank you, Steve. God bless.

Sure. Remember, God bless you too, Michael. You need to also remember that these are letters to churches collectively.

And in any church, you're likely to find some people who are truly faithful to Christ and some who are a little on the margins, and maybe even some who are hypocrites entirely in the church.

And so Jesus could critique a church in a single letter, complementing it for its strengths, which would have to do with the better element in the church.

But also criticizing some of the errors and mistakes or even sins going on in the church, which might be being committed by different people than the ones who were commended.

To commended church, or its faithfulness, may not mean that every last member was faithful, but in general the church has held its ground against the paganism in the society.

Even if there's been a few folks in the church who are quite compromised.

So, you know, when Jesus sends an evaluation like this to a whole church, you have to realize that almost no church is made up of people entirely all in the same place.

Some people are doing well and some are not. So you could write to a church and say, boy, you've got some really good things going on in your church, but there's some really bad things going on too.

And by that, you could be referring to different parties, different people in the church than you were complementing here earlier.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that. I appreciate your call, Michael. Marty, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

And a quick question on very well. Let's say I'll quick. The idea that the only way that we have eternal life as a gift from God is in Christ, then the concept of eternal suffering in hell with consciousness.

I can't reconcile with two.

Well, if the Bible teaches those two things, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be able to be reconciled. I mean, if the Bible teaches that anyone who's never heard the gospel is going to hell, and if it also teaches that hell is place of eternal torment, then I don't see any reason why those things could not both be true.

Now, I don't think the Bible clearly teaches both of those things. And so on my view, there's even less reason to find it difficult.

But I will say that I've spent many years in my younger life. I believe both of those affirmations were true. And as unpleasant as they might be, as much as they might go against my own sentiments, there's certainly nothing about both of them that would be impossible.

To both be true. It's like, you know, people bring up things that God did in the Old Testament that are very much against what we would wish God to do or that what we understand, you know, to be the thing that should have been done or we would have done.

And sometimes they just bring these things up as it's see that disproves that disproves the Old Testament or even worse, that disproves that there's a God.

You know, those kinds of things don't prove any such thing. I mean, it might be that if God is as unpleasant as they're suggesting, this would be a God that they're not interested in, but it doesn't mean that he's not there or that he's not the way he describes himself.

I think people sometimes they find things objectionable and they feel that just so strongly objectionable that it must not be true, but that's not the same thing as an argument against it.

I find it objectionable, I mean, emotionally, to suggest that anyone who lives and dies without ever hearing about Christ would go to hell.

I also find it emotionally objectionable that people in hell would be tormented forever and ever without relief. Those things are emotionally difficult.

If I'm going to create a religion, I'm not going to include things like that because those are hard things that I'm not particularly drawn to.

Now, on the other hand, if the Bible teaches both those things, then they form the basis of true religion, of the truth.

And my dislike for them wouldn't change that at all. It just means that if those things are true, then I don't like the truth.

Then I would have to decide if I'm going to submit to a truth I don't like, or if I'm going to make up my own alternative truth, and that's what some people do.

Now, in my opinion, the Bible does not tell us what is going to happen to people who've never heard of Christ.

It does tell us that no one can be saved except by Christ. So anyone who's going to be saved is going to be saved by Christ, but it doesn't say necessarily that people who've never heard of Him can never be saved by Him.

After all, most Christians believe as I do, that the Old Testament saints were saved by Christ, though they'd never heard His name.

They didn't live at such a time when His name was known to people. So they died without knowing the name of Christ, probably without knowing that the Messiah even would die and resurrect and sit at the right hand of God, all that stuff.

I mean, things we know as New Testament Christians were not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, yet people were saved.

And we have to assume that if they were saved, they were saved by Christ, because no one can be saved except by Him.

Likewise, if someone has never heard of Christ today, then I don't know. I don't know why Christ couldn't save people now as He did in the Old Testament who've never heard of Him.

It would have a lot to do with their response to God and to the truth that they know.

There's certainly no guarantee that because someone has never heard of Christ, they're necessarily saved because actually when people do hear of Christ, they're not necessarily saved.

It would always have to do with their response. It always would have to do with where their heart is for God and for the truth.

And I would suppose that a person who's never heard of Christ, but whose heart is as fully devoted to the truth as mine is, would be probably saved by Christ as much as I am.

Why would I be given an advantage that that person doesn't have when I'm really just the same as them?

Of course, Calvinists don't find that problematic. They just believe that God chooses to save some and not others.

But the Bible that I read says that God is not willing that any should perish and that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked that they'd all turn to Him.

Yet that passage where He tells them to turn to Him, He says, Heron, why will you die, which is Ezekiel 36? That's an old, I mean, 33.

That's an Old Testament verse before Jesus came and He seemed to say that if they repent, they won't have to die.

So God doesn't save anyone except through Christ's merits, but it sounds like they've saved people in the past who never knew specifically about Christ's merits.

But what they did know, God saw them respond to it in the very way that He would wish for them to respond to the gospel if they heard it.

And I think He recognizes who's His and who's not on that basis.

As far as helping a place of eternal torment, I don't see that as unambiguously taught in the Bible.

I used to think that was the unambiguously teaching of Scripture, but I now, of course, have studied out further and have studied the Scripture more carefully.

And the case for that in Scripture is far less impressive than I once thought.

So those two doctrines that only those who hear of Christ will be saved and all of us will be tormented for ever in hell, those are hard teachings.

So either one of them by itself would be a hard teaching and both of them together is even a harder teaching.

But they are not necessarily self mutually contradictory.

Both of you could be true if they are and it wouldn't be some kind of a self-contradiction.

Fortunately, I don't think the Bible in any clear way affirms both of those things, but true.

I agree.

Yeah.

John Paul says, if you have time,

you, locally, have been named as the Ministry of the Month, you know, being acknowledged through this particular radio station.

And I'd agree you're teaching and your responses are well-reasoned and clearly based on Scripture.

I just kind of, there's a program that I listen to this morning that is just so blatantly new age on the same station where usually there's good programming.

I mean, Shakros and Divine Self-Reck is amazing, the divinity within all of us and on, on, on, on, to the outside of Christ.

Now, honestly, I'm kind of struggling with who holds the owners of the station's account.

Well, let me just say this.

I don't, when we're on a station, or we generally don't know what other ministries are on that station.

Obviously, I'm not in Spokane, Washington.

Sure.

And you can't attract every person you would need to.

We would buy time on the station even if it was not a Christian station.

I have done that before.

I've done a lot of time on non-Christian stations to be on the air.

So we buy time so that people get a chance to hear our program.

But I don't have a particular litmus test for what all the other programs on the same station have to do.

And I understand that.

No, I wouldn't expect you to.

It's just that this program is being promoted and promoted as Christian when it's just, I mean, it's blatantly.

I think that's a shame because a lot of Christian ministries, because they departed from Scripture perhaps a long time ago.

They have no basis for discernment.

So they've bought into a lot of new age, a gobble-to-goop.

I don't know, and I don't want you to name for me the program you're referring to.

But if you hear something on a Christian station that you object to, even if it's this program, I bet there's a lot of people listening to me who object to something I say.

I think you, whoever it is, that objects to something on the radio, has the freedom and perhaps the responsibility to call the station or write to them and say, I disagree with what this program is saying.

I don't think you should have it on there.

I'm sure that almost every station that carries our program gets mail from time to time saying, hey, why do you have that program on there?

Because I don't always say the things people want to hear.

But I try to be responsible and biblical.

I mean, I don't make an effort to say things that people want to hear.

My effort, at least my goal, is to say things that are truly what the Bible says and to do so faithfully.

Martin, you take another call, but thank you for your call. It's good talking to you.

Donald from Portland, Oregon. Welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

Hey, thank you. Real quick. Ephesians to talk to our great James, as you know, talks about faith works if you want to show your faith.

And there's a conflict there, I think, and then also the light and the knowledge that you get will be judged more so than someone else who didn't have that light and knowledge.

I want to see if you can address that. I hope I articulate it.

I think I understand both points you're making. They're separate points, but I'm aware of them.

Take it off there. Thank you so much.

Okay. Donald, thanks for your call.

Well, one point that he made, the second one that he made, is about people being judged for the amount of light they have.

That's not a bad follow-up to what I was saying to our previous caller, because we were talking about what happens to people who maybe have never heard the gospel.

And my suggestion was God knows how they're responding to what they do have access to what we call the light they have.

Now, there is light. Everyone has some light. Some have very dim light and some have very bright light, depending on your circumstances, what you've heard and had access to.

We who live in America who can read Bibles every day are very much responsible for having easy access to bright light.

There are people who live in countries where the Bible has never been translated in their language and no missionaries come. They don't have anywhere near as much light.

But they have some. The Bible indicates that the heavens declare the glory of God. It says in Psalm 19 and Romans 1 mentions the same phenomenon, says that God has revealed Himself in the things that are made,

and He says so that people are without excuse if they don't want to retain God in their knowledge.

They may not have ever heard of the Bible or of Jesus, but they certainly have some responsibility to respond to the information about God that they do have which might be minimal.

It says in John 1.9 as it speaks of Christ the Word who was with God and the Word was God. In John 1.9 it says about Him, He is that true light that lightens every man who comes into the world.

Now this affirms two things that are helpful to us. One, it says there's a true light that enlightens every man who comes into the world and he means every human being.

Now that being so would tell us that there's no human being who has no light at all.

There's sunlight that everyone who comes in the world has. It's obviously different degrees for different people.

And we have to assume there's different degrees of responsibility for the amount of light they have, but everyone has some.

Now that verse tells us that there's a light that enlightens everyone who comes into the world and then there's this other same.

That light that enlightens every man is Christ. Is the Word of God? He's talking about the Word of God which is identified in this chapter as Christ.

He says that is the true light that enlightens everyone.

So what we can say if we're going to take that verse very seriously is that God gives some light of some degree and some kind to every human being and whatever light He gives them is in measure, the light of Christ to them.

Christ is that true light that enlightens every man.

And if that is so, then a person's response to that light is apparently a response to Christ. He is that light.

And so obviously some people don't have much light and their response might very well be justifiably minimal because the light path is minimal.

But if they respond to the light that is the Word that John speaks of, then they're responding to Christ.

And whatever their response is, I believe, will be looked at and taken seriously by God. They might respond very negatively to the light they have or well.

But that's, of course, God's to judge. You're right that there are instances in the Bible where Jesus said it'll be a harder judgment for those who had more light than others and didn't respond well.

He said it'll be a harsher judgment for Capernaum, a town where Jesus did a lot of his preaching and teaching and where he did lots of miracles.

It's going to be harder for them in the judgment than it'll be for Sodom and Gomorrah. Well, Sodom and Gomorrah, of course, were wicked cities.

But they didn't have anywhere near as much light. They didn't have Jesus working miracles among them. They didn't even have a Bible.

So he's saying the judgment will be more severe for Capernaum than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And this does strongly suggest that God judges differently depending on how much light people have.

And that's the point Jesus is making there, I believe.

Now, your other question is about the difference between what we seem to hear in Paul and what we hear in James about faith and works.

In Ephesians, I think you were referring to Ephesians 289 says, by grace you're saved through faith. And that, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, less than he mentioned both.

So we're saved by grace, we're saved through faith, we're not saved by works.

That's what Paul says there. And he says the same essential doctrine in many places. That's a very good summary of it there in Ephesians 2, 8 and 9.

But the doctrine is taught by Paul consistently in many of his epistles. On the other hand, James in James chapter 2 says that faith without works is dead.

If a person says he has faith, he doesn't have works. He doesn't have the kind of faith that saves a person. That's what James tells us.

And those two concepts, of course, are not contradictory because both Paul and James insist that we have to have faith and that we have to have works.

Paul said we're not saved by works, but we are saved by faith. However, Paul says in the very verse following in Ephesians 2, 8 and 9, which I quoted Paul, the very next verse says, for we are God's workmanship created in Christ for good works.

So Paul is very clear. We're not saved by works, but we are created by God for good works. That obviously implies an obligation to do good works.

In another place, Galatians 5, 6, Paul said in Christ Jesus, circumcision avails nothing, an un-circumcision avails nothing, but faith that works through love.

That's what Paul said God's looking for. He's looking for a faith that works through love. That is to say there's different kinds of faith.

And James himself mentioned that in James 2. He said, you know, the devil's boldly even tremble. His implication is there's a kind of faith that the devils have that doesn't save a person.

Obviously, if you have the same kind of faith the devils have and they're not saved, then you're not going to be saved either. You've got to have a different kind of faith.

James said, the kind of faith you need to have is not a dead faith and a faith that doesn't produce any works is a dead faith.

What James says, Paul doesn't seem to disagree in my opinion. It seems like Paul does agree when he says what God's looking for is a faith that works through love.

So faith is the means of salvation. Working through love is the product of that faith.

It's not additional to the faith is what the faith produces. If you see a living body, it will have vital signs. It'll have a heartbeat or it'll be breathing or something.

There are vital signs in a living body. So also with a living faith or a person who has a living faith, there are vital signs.

These vital signs are not necessarily what makes them alive, but they are always present when one is alive.

You don't become saved by doing good works, but if you are saved, there are vital signs that will show that you are saved.

Those vital signs are that you do, in fact, works of love. That's what Paul said. It's a faith that works through love is what it saves.

Now, I admit that James does say something a little confusing in James 2 where he says that he seems to say that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar.

And Paul makes it very clear, we're justified by faith, not by works. So there does seem to be a contradiction there, except that James then explains what he means.

He says faith with his works and by works his faith was made complete. In other words, yeah, there were works involved, but these were the works that came through faith.

And the works were not an additional meritories thing to faith. They are simply that which made his faith complete. That's what James says.

By faith, his works were made perfect or complete. And therefore works are part and parcel with the kind of faith they are the product of it.

If you had a dead body and I said, I can raise them from the dead. And I said, there he is, he's raised from the dead, but he's still not breathing his heart's not beating.

You might readily say, I don't think your pronouncement is complete yet. I don't think he's completely alive yet because I'm not seeing any vital signs here.

So it says, I have faith, but there's no evidence of obedience to Christ in their life. I'm going to say, I'm not sure you do. Your works are what complete.

You know, the other part of the faith that you're supposed to have in order to save. Anyway, the music claim means that we're going to take a break here just for about 30 seconds and we're going to come back for another half hour.

However, some of our listeners won't be with us because one or two stations only carry the first half hour, which is now ending.

For those who are listening to those stations and will not be with us in the next hour or one half hour, what you know, the narrow path is the name of this program. It is listener supported.

You can write to us if you'd like to help us stay on the station you're listening to. You can write to the narrow path PO Box 1730 to MacYalla, California 92593.

Or you can do so from our website, which is the narrow path, which is talk full of free resources. Nothing is for sale at the narrow path.com. For those of you remaining with us, please stay tuned 30 seconds and we'll be right back.

Small is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to life. Welcome to the narrow path with Steve Greg.

Steve has nothing to sell you today but everything to give you. When the radio show is over, go to the narrow path.com where you can study, learn and enjoy with free topical audio teachings, blog articles, verse favorites, teachings and archives of all the narrow path radio shows.

We thank you for supporting the listener supported narrow path with Steve Greg. See you at the narrow path.com.

Unfortunately due to technical difficulties, today's episode of the narrow path is pre-recorded. This is the best of the narrow path radio broadcast. The following is pre-recorded.

Welcome to the narrow path radio program hosted by Steve Greg. Steve is not in the studio today, so calls from listeners will not be able to be taken. In the place of the usual format, we put together some of the best calls from past programs. They cover a variety of topics important to anyone interested in.

In addition to the radio program, the narrow path has a website. You can go to www.thenarrowpath.com where you can find hundreds of resources that can all be downloaded for free.

And now please enjoy this special collection of calls to Steve Greg and the narrow path.

Welcome back to the narrow path for our second half hour. And our next caller is Autumn Cohn from Sacramento, California. Hi, Autumn. Welcome to the narrow path.

Hi there. Thank you for taking my call. I had a couple of questions and then I thought maybe I could hang up and listen to on the radio.

My first one is about a coworker who asked me if I would like to do an exercise program with her and it happens to be held at a health lodge.

I have no problems doing the program, but I'm just not sure if I still write about filling it at the health lodge because I know they're affiliated with nations.

And then my other question is regarding our pastor who might ideally love, but I know we've been going there for about a year and a half after much searching for a good church.

And I noticed on a few occasions now that he has, they haven't only seen a major, but just little mistakes in the Bible.

Like he'll say something and then he'll rise, oh, that's not the really the story of how the connecting goes or something.

And it kind of makes me so uncomfortable because I'm definitely no teacher or scholar of the Bible, although I've been a Christian a long time.

So it kind of is a little bit, I really like him a lot personally, but it makes him a little bit uncomfortable to think that I don't know if he just knows this or if it's truly he doesn't know or what.

And it's a feeling, you know, people should tell him to maybe bring it to his attention, but I don't know personally if that's appropriate for me to do that.

Or if I should just let my husband do that, who has now become weak in there or how that, how that should work.

So I'm just going to go ahead and hang up now.

Thank you so much.

Thanks a lot for your call.

Thank you.

A bless.

You too.

Well, I'll tell you something.

I was not aware that the Elks and the Masons are connected.

Now they might be.

I have almost no information about the Elks organization, but even if they were the Masons, the Elks lodges are often available for people to rent for things that are not at all related to the Elks organization.

As a matter of fact, not far from you, you're in Sacramento.

I've actually spoken a couple of times in meetings at the Elks Lodge in Auburn, just up the road from you.

And that's just because somebody rented the Elks Lodge and invited me to come speak.

And I'll speak anywhere, frankly, if they invite me to speak at the Kingdom Hall, I'd speak there, too.

But whoever owns the building is not really necessarily going to determine whether or not I'd be willing to take part in an activity there.

Because, frankly, almost any place, public venue is probably associated with people who are not Christians in some way or another.

Now, I suspect that the Elks are not related with the Masons, or at least not closely so.

Now, the reason I said is because of some Christians, I know who joined the Elks, and I think they would be not willing to join the Masons.

But I'm just not an expert about those things, and maybe someone knows, well, it wouldn't take much to know more than I do about it.

So I'm sure some people out there know more than I do about it.

But I would question whether the Elks and the Masons are actually linked.

If they are, though, if somebody who's not related to their organization were renting their facility and having a, you know, Pilates class or something like that, I would not find that I wouldn't object on the basis that the wrong roof is over our heads.

You know, I mean, it's not as if a building owned by the Masons could be necessarily haunted and walking in there will make you demon possessed or something.

I mean, honestly, I do believe the Masons have some pretty dark stuff associated with them, but I don't think that walking into other buildings is necessarily going to, you know, pollute you.

And again, I have doubts that the Elks are very much involved with the Masons, but that's something I don't know much about.

All I can say is that when it comes to activities not related to those organizations, I've never had any scruples about renting their facilities.

That would be my thoughts about the first question. The second question is your pastor seems to make some biblical mistakes. Now, you didn't mention whether these are substantial mistakes or whether they are, you said you're not sure if they're intentional or he just doesn't know, and that's where you as a person attending the church have every right to ask him.

Because frankly, nobody knows the Bible perfectly, and everybody who talks about the Bible, if they do so very much, is likely to make some kind of mistake or something at one time or another.

But the purpose of the body of Christ is that we exhort one another daily, iron sharpens iron, or we can correct each other, and the fact that a man's a pastor doesn't put him past correction.

You know, if you hear a pastor say something that you think is not biblical, he should have no objection whatsoever to you coming up to him after and say, you know, that one thing you said, now I'm seeing the Bible this other way, and you said this other way, now I wonder could you clarify that for me why I should see it that way, because I'm seeing it this other way.

I mean, you could be mistaken, or I could be. I mean, when you go to correct a pastor, you shouldn't go out there arrogantly, because it may turn out that he is right and you're wrong, you never know.

You should always be prepared to be corrected yourself, but that's what Christians should do when they think that somebody else is wrong.

They should be willing to dialogue and both of them should be interested in seeing that the other person's way if it proves to be the correct way.

What we're interested is the truth, and sometimes our first impressions about a Bible passage are not the most accurate.

So, you know, a pastor sometimes is well-trained in Scripture, and sometimes he may see a true meaning in Scripture that you might not immediately see, and he might be able to show you if that is the case.

On the other hand, even if a pastor is well-trained in Scripture, that doesn't mean he never makes a mistake, and so I would suggest that he should be humble enough that if you came up to him and said, you know, in this sermon you said such and such a thing, or two or three things, then they gave me pause, and I have some reason to question whether this is correct, and let me show you what they are.

And I'd like to ask you if you could show me, I'll tell you what I think they mean, and you tell me why I'm wrong and why what you're saying is what's true.

If you do this in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational, you know, non-critical way, but rather as just a sister approaching a brother about, you know, something that's not going to condemn anyone to hell,

I would think that a pastor should be glad to have the input. You see, whenever anyone comes to me after I speak, or even here on the radio, if they say, you know, I think you're wrong, I think you said this, but I don't think that's right.

I'm always glad that they said so, because there's one or two possibilities. One is, I really am wrong, and the other is, I'm not. I mean, it's got to be one way or the other.

Now, when they come and ask me such a thing, or point out such a thing, I have to assume, well, okay, one of these two possibilities is true, either I am wrong, or I'm not wrong in this.

So, if they've shown me that I am wrong, and if they can show me that the reasons for seeing it their way are better, I feel they've done me a wonderful favor, because I don't want to say things that are wrong.

So, I'm glad that people point out when they believe I'm wrong. Now, there are times that people say they think I'm wrong, and I look at the evidence and say, I don't think you're right, but it doesn't hurt me.

I mean, it's nothing threatening there, because if the evidence is on the side of the view I've already held, then obviously you just by asking or by challenging me, you've simply given me the opportunity to demonstrate.

To clarify that my view actually has more merit than you've been imagining.

So, again, a pastor should always have that attitude. Someone says, hey pastor, I think something said it was wrong.

I think a pastor should humbly say, well, tell me where you think it's wrong, and we'll examine that together.

If I am wrong, I'll be glad to say so, but if I'm not, I'll tell you why I think I'm right.

And if we end up after this conversation that we just can't see it the same way, then we'll just have to love each other and live with a disagreement.

As Christians must about many things.

I certainly wouldn't make a big issue, but unless, of course, it is a big issue.

To me, not every little biblical mistake that a pastor makes is a big issue.

I have to say that it's very seldom that I sit in a church meeting and hear a whole sermon and don't hear some little thing or other that I don't think is quite correct.

But so, I mean, how many things, how many times do I speak and never say something that's incorrect, not very often, probably.

We all are, Paul said, we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but that which is perfect to come, that which isn't part will be done away.

In the meantime, we're all, in a sense, charged with correcting each other in humility.

It says in Galatians 6-1, brethren, if any of you are overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of weakness, considering yourself, unless you also be tempted.

And so, I see that as, of course, talking primarily about people who sin, and that's not the same thing as making a mistake in interpretation, but it's the same principle.

If anybody is going wrong in their interpretation, I should be able to talk to them in a spirit of weakness and point out where I think they're wrong, but realizing in humility that maybe I'm going to run, maybe they can show me something that I'm not seeing.

That's the attitude I think that is enjoined there by Paul.

All right, our next caller is Norma from Portland, Oregon. Norma, welcome to the narrow path.

Hi, thank you. I think it was your program the other day I was listening to about revelation about, was it used?

I said there was 200 million troops and they were saying, well, how would they feed a number of mounted troops?

Yeah, well, it was actually a call of it brought that up, but it wasn't on the show.

Probably, probably I'm pretty simple, but I've always loved reading revelation.

And I feel like I understand it.

And I've heard you say several times, I think that sometimes you think something's like a picture of something and something's aren't you?

And it's hard to tell. To me, it's not hard to tell. To me, it's very obvious.

Anyway, it sends right in there the horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this.

Their breastplates were fiery, red, dark, blue and yellow as sulfur.

The heads of the horses resemble the heads of lions and out of their mouths came fire and smoke and sulfur.

A third amount of time was killed by a plague of the fire smoke.

Well, I just, they're, they're tanks.

I mean, they didn't have tanks back in those days.

So he couldn't say they're tanks. They didn't even have gas engines.

And to me, it's so plain.

Why would that now have a 300 cars?

So a horse?

A horse?

A horse with a rider that has a head like a lion and a tail like a snake is obviously a tank.

That big thing, the lump on top of the, of a tank.

And the tail, you know, they've got where the, where the fire comes out, where the rockets come out.

I mean, what he saw, he, he described it as a horse because what people didn't ride any machines.

They rode animals.

Well, but they had cherries.

I would think as he tanks don't have legs, they tanks have wheels and cherries have wheels and carts.

You think he would say I saw cherries, you know.

Well, he didn't.

He, I know.

He, he didn't.

But to me, it's, it's not horses.

Horses don't have fire coming out of their mouths and, and all that kind of stuff.

Well, I, I agree with you.

I agree with you that they, that this was not, not literally talking about horses with fire coming out of them.

But, but, but, but.

Okay.

Well, thanks for your call.

Let me, let me just follow up on this.

The guy, the guy who called me about that yesterday, his name is Steve.

He sent me an email to follow up and, and he was just talking about this.

By the way, it'd be just as big a problem if there were 200 million tanks.

First of all, I don't know how many tanks America has in their entire armed forces.

I would imagine it numbers in the thousands, but not in the millions.

But even if it was a million, I doubt it.

But if it was a million, were you going to get 200 million and where you get the fuel for those?

Frankly, I think you have a bigger problem if they're tanks than if they're horses.

Because a horse only eats 30 pounds of food a day, a tank.

The fuel for that thing would be, you'd have to have a tank truck carrying the fuel for, for, for that to go some distance from China to Israel.

That's a long way to drive a tank.

And they probably get about five miles to the gallon of diesel fuel.

I don't really know, but, but the, the point is, the guy who called me about that actually followed up with an email.

He said, let me just read what he said.

He said, one war horse would eat 30 pounds of food a day.

That's 200 million horses by 30 pounds is six billion pounds a day of food.

So, now, frankly, I think it was, if it was tank, you'd have to even have more than that quantity of fuel.

Because a horse eats less than a tank does.

And this army would require six billion pounds of food a day, which is three million tons, which would require 30,000, 50 foot, 100 ton capacity box cars.

The train that would bring the food for one day for these horses would have to train 284 miles long.

Now, see, that's, we're talking about 200 million horses.

You'd have to have a train 284 miles long every day bringing the food for your horses.

I think that's not very realistic. Now, let's say they're tanks.

We still got the same issues.

We still got the fuel needed for them and so forth.

There's some interesting stuff here that if they travel by train from the heart of China 3,000 miles away,

and 12 horse and rider combos were loaded into these 50 foot box cars, approximately 16.7 million cars of train cars would be needed.

By the way, if you're going to transport tanks on a train, you're not going to put 16.7 tanks in a box car.

You're going to put one tank on a flat car.

So, you're going to need 200 million train cars to carry 200 million tanks if they're going to go by train.

You don't have that many train cars.

He said that, oh man, he's got all kinds of interesting facts here that I can't go into because he's got a lot of them.

But he said that the line of them would just circle the globe several times.

I don't have time to get into all this.

But the point is, it's nice to suggest they're tanks, but it doesn't solve the problem.

I personally don't think they're tanks, but in a case, if they are, you've got the same kind of problem that the caller was raising.

And that is that the fuel for that many horses would be impossible to transport.

It'd be even harder to transport them on a fuel for tanks.

And where are we going to get 200 million tanks?

I don't know what the total number of tanks in the world is, but I'm guessing it's under 1 million.

I have to do some pretty massive production.

Why would anyone send 200 million tanks against Israel?

You could just send a missile.

One missile, why would you transport 200 million tanks?

You'd have to manufacture 199 million more than there already exists just to invade this little tiny country, which you can even fit the tanks in the country.

They wouldn't fit there.

So to my mind, the number, 200 million is symbolic.

So that's why I'm thinking.

And I don't think it's referring to tanks either, but that's certainly, I've heard other people suggest that these are tanks, and that the locusts are helicopters and so forth.

That's been a popular view since the days of Hal Lindsey, and maybe before that time too.

I appreciate your input, though.

I appreciate your calling.

Let's talk to Billy from North Carolina.

Billy, welcome to the narrow path. Thanks for calling.

Yes. Thank you.

Well, first time caller, I need you to have me understanding.

First Corinthians chapter 12 was three.

I have a problem.

I'm not sorry, not problem.

It's hard to understand these words.

Therefore, I may known to you that no one speak by the spirit of God.

Or Jesus, a curse.

So, and then no one can say that Jesus is Lord except the Holy Spirit.

As I believe were born again with the spirit of God, can we say that Jesus cursed for us?

Is that correct or wrong?

He became the curse for us.

It says that in Galatians chapter 3, Paul, the same author said that.

But when we talk about 1 Corinthians 12 and verse 3, we have to take it in the context of Paul's discussion in chapter 12.

In chapter 12 through 14, Paul has entered and completes a lengthy discussion on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

And his concern at the beginning of chapter 12 is to help the Corinthians know how to distinguish between an authentic utterance from the Holy Spirit and one that is counterfeit.

Because people were prophesying and speaking in tongues and giving interpretations of tongues in the church on a regular basis.

And all of these utterances were professing to be inspired by God.

And Paul recognizes there is such a thing as true inspired utterances from God.

There is a true thing called prophecy.

And there's a true thing called speaking in tongues.

There's true interpretation of tongues.

But in order to avoid the counterfeits, the false prophets and so forth,

you need to be able to judge what is said in another place.

Paul said, let the prophet, later on in the same chapter, chapter 14,

Paul said, let the prophets speak two or three and let the others judge.

So that is the 1 Corinthians 1429.

So he said that the prophets should speak two or three in the service and people should judge what they say.

And what are they going to judge?

They're judging to see if these are real prophets and real prophecies or false ones.

In 1 John 4, it says in verse 1,

he did not believe every spirit but test the spirits whether they are God.

It means judge the prophecies.

He said, prophecies can be false or they can be genuine.

So Paul is assuming that the Corinthians need to have some way of recognizing the difference between a true and a false one.

Now when he says no one speaking by the spirit of God to say Jesus is a curse,

what he means is if someone gives a prophecy and essentially it is running down Jesus,

the utterance is not exalting Jesus but putting him down.

Saying Jesus is a curse would be one example of that phenomenon would be clearly not what the Holy Spirit would not run Jesus down.

On the other hand he said no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

What it means is if you're wondering whether a prophecy which says and affirms that Jesus is Lord is a genuine prophecy, not it is.

Because of a demonic spirit giving a false prophecy would not affirm this.

And so what Paul is simply saying and he says it in an absolute term but it's absolute only in terms of the context.

If you're listening to someone prophesy and you're trying to decide this isn't a true or a false prophecy,

just know if it's running Jesus down, saying Jesus is a curse or some other similar thing,

then that's not the true prophecy.

That's not the spirit of God inspiring them to say that.

On the other hand if it's exalting Christ affirming his Lordship, then that's what the Holy Spirit would do not a demon.

Demons would give false prophecies to the Holy Spirit true prophecy.

So this is just Paul's way of giving sort of a quick way of determining whether a prophecy is from God or not.

A true prophecy from the Holy Spirit is always going to exalt Christ as Lord.

A demonic spirit giving a false prophecy is going to run Jesus down.

Now it seems like you're a little concerned because Paul in another place in Galatians said that Jesus became a curse for us.

And so in a sense we could say well did Jesus, is Jesus a cursed?

Paul didn't say that Jesus is a cursed.

He said that he did become a curse when he hung on the tree.

It doesn't mean that Jesus now is still a cursed.

It means that Jesus took on himself the curse of the law which was ours.

We were under the curse of the law for our disobedience.

And the law says cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.

Jesus hung on the cross and since that curse pronounced by the law came upon him and he did receive the curse.

But he doesn't carry it with him still.

He died and he rose again free from all of that.

And so any prophet in the church who says Jesus is a cursed is making a statement that's not correct.

Jesus is not a cursed.

Though he did at one time become a curse for us but that was obviously not his permanent status.

So again we've got to take each thing that Paul gives his proper context because he's addressing something that can usually be determined from the context of the passage that we're looking at.

So we can only say that Jesus became a curse for us.

Yes.

I found on the cross, right?

Right, but he's not a curse now.

Yes.

He just takes our gear.

I'll put on him.

That's what I understand.

Okay.

So when I read this, I come at confusing me the book of Galician and let me say, so I'm afraid.

So I don't know how do I understand this.

Well, I hope I helped if I didn't.

All I can say is don't be afraid. Paul did not contradict himself.

So obviously he was not saying something in 1 Corinthians 12, 3 that would condemn himself in what he wrote in Galician's 3.

So I tried to clarify that but if my clarification isn't adequate, just know that there is no likelihood at all that Paul in these two passages.

No, you speak well.

You understand because I'm learning English when I become a believer.

I'm learning English the same time.

You're speaking English very well.

So you're learning well, but I appreciate your calling me today, Billy.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

God bless you.

God bless you too.

It's good to hear from you today.

Boy, our lines are full, but I don't think we have time to take another call because we're going to be hearing the music right now.

And that means we're closing down the program.

My apologies to those who cannot get on the program today, but we are on Monday through Friday.

And if you didn't get on today, you could probably get on tomorrow because if you call early enough, any given day, you will certainly get on the program.

We don't have hundreds of callers that we're turning away.

The narrow path is listener supported.

And if you'd like to help us stay on the air, you can write to the narrow path.

PO Box 1730.

Temecula, California.

92593.

That's the narrow path.

PO Box 1730.

Temecula, California.

92593.

You can also go to the website and highly recommend it because everything in the website is free.

You can donate there if you want to, but if you don't want to, just get the stuff.

It's at thenarrowpath.com.

Thanks for joining us.

Tune in again tomorrow and we'll continue our discussion.

God bless.