The Narrow Path 07/17/2026

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 so we can talk to you in real time. If you want to call the program, you can ask questions about the Bible or the Christian faith, which we will discuss on the air. You can also call to disagree with the host. That's always fun. Feel free to give me a call if you want to disagree with something I've said. We'll talk about that. The number to call is 844-484-5737. One announcement I need to make, and today's my last chance to make it. I should have been doing it all week long, but I was negligent. Tomorrow morning, the third Saturday of the month, is like all the third Saturdays of the month except for rare exceptions in that we have a men's Bible study in the morning in Temecula. 8:00 tomorrow morning. If you're in Southern California, you're welcome to join us. You can find the time and location and all that stuff at our website, which is thenarrowpath.com. You go there and you click on the tab that says announcements. Find tomorrow's date, which is Saturday, July 18th, and it'll show exactly where we're going to be. You can join us there. Having said that, we'll go directly to the phones. We'll talk to Jim, calling from Post Falls, Idaho. Hi, Jim. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling. You there, Jim? I hope so. Jim, I hear you. Can you speak? Going once, going twice. I'm sorry I can't hear you, brother. Call back. I'd love to talk to you. We'll talk to Barbara in Roseville, Michigan next. Hi, Barbara. Welcome.
Barbara: Steve, you have a radio or something going in the background. I can't hear what you're saying. There's a whole radio talking. I don't know if you can hear me.
Steve Gregg: There must be something going on at the studio here. Can you hear me? Okay, so at some studio, I don't know if it's our studio or somewhere else, there's something else playing at the same time as our program. So both of our first callers that I put on the air apparently could not hear me. I'm not sure what the cause of that is. I'm sure the people in our studio are looking into it to see what's going on. Let me try to take another call. See if this one works. I hope you can hear me while I'm talking. Damian from Oak Harbor, Washington. Welcome to the Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Damian: How's it going, Steve? Can you hear me? Okay, so as you called on me, I started to hear the radio talk show come in. So I'm just going to ask my question and hopefully you can hear it, and I'll look back later. Okay, sweet. I can hear you now. So I know that your view of the three and a half years that happens in Revelation is symbolic of the church age. My question is why would you not consider it to be the literal three and a half years that lead up to the destruction of the temple that we read about in Josephus's writing? A follow up question to that is have you ever mapped the sequences of Revelation to the ancient Jewish customs of the apostate city? I'll stay on the line because I do have one more follow up question.
Steve Gregg: The second question, no, I've never done that. But as far as the reason why I take the three and a half year period of Revelation the way I do is because I have sought to find, by comparing scripture with scripture, something that applies to everything that is said about it. In my opinion, the three and a half years is symbolic for the period from the fall of Jerusalem to the second coming of Christ. So that covers almost 2,000 years. I could be wrong. I mean, certainly there's a lot of ways to see the book of Revelation, and I've seen it different ways at different times. I understand your suggestion that if I'm a Preterist, I should probably see the three and a half years as belonging to the Jewish war, which was from 66 to 70 AD, especially since I see the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem as major themes in Revelation. I have, however, if you listen to my lectures, I'll explain. Chapters 10 through 13 I take to be sort of a time out from the main theme, sort of an aside, answering the question: Is the end of Jerusalem the end of the world? The answer being no, because God continues to work through the remainder of history until Jesus comes back. One reason that I have taken that view is that in chapter 11, the first time we read of that period of time, it says in chapter 11, verses 1 and 2, he's told to measure the temple, which I believe is the Jewish temple that was standing at the time when this was written. He's told not to measure the court outside the temple, for it has been given to the Gentiles, and they will tread the holy city underfoot for 42 months. That's the first time that the 42 months is mentioned, that is three and a half years. And yet there's four more times that it is mentioned in chapters 11, 12, and 13, and no more elsewhere. It's only this middle section of Revelation that even mentions this period of time, and it's mentioned a total of five times. The first time it's mentioned is said to be the length of time that Jerusalem will be trodden underfoot by the Gentiles. Jesus used that expression in Luke chapter 21 in a way that makes me think that it's talking about the age of the church after the fall of Jerusalem. Here's why. In Luke 21, when Jesus is giving the Olivet Discourse, it says in verse 24, they will fall by the edge of the sword, they will be led away captive into all nations. This is what happened in 70 AD. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That's the same expression that Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles. Here it appears to be saying that when Jerusalem has fallen and the people have been slaughtered and led away captive into all nations, that would be in 70 AD, then it sounds like Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles from that point until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. If someone sees it differently, that's all right. I don't have any objection to anyone seeing things differently than I do. But that's what I think. I see a reference to a time of the Gentiles beginning with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD during which time Jerusalem is trampled by the Gentiles. Now, in Revelation 12, it says that the holy city will be trampled by the nations, the Gentiles, for this period of 42 months. I take Revelation to be almost entirely symbolic. The numbers in Revelation especially, and many other things in Revelation, seem to have symbolic values. So instead of a three and a half year period being literal in my opinion, it's also a symbolic number like so many others in Revelation. It represents the time from the fall of Jerusalem until the end of the times of the Gentiles. Of course, the expression "the times of the Gentiles" is never given any definition for us in the Bible. In fact, the expression "the times of the Gentiles" is only found in that one passage we just read in Luke 21. There's no other reference to the times of the Gentiles in the Bible. So we're kind of at a loss to know for sure what it refers to. But to my mind, the destruction of Jerusalem appears to be said to begin the times of the Gentiles, and during the times of the Gentiles, Jerusalem will be trodden underfoot by the Gentiles. Now, with the fall of Jerusalem, we have the end of the dealings of God with the Jewish nation and state, and now he's dealing with the Gentiles, which I believe he continues to do. I don't know of anything after 70 AD that would mark an ending to what we could call the times of the Gentiles. So I would think that God's going to be dealing with the Gentiles until Jesus returns. That's my understanding. Now, I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm just saying you asked me why I think that way. The next thing that lasts for the same period of time is the witness of the two witnesses. Now, if the three and a half years is the period of time of the Jewish war, then we have to identify the Jewish witnesses, and some have sought to do so. Some Preterists have found John or Peter to be the two witnesses, or it's symbolically the law and the prophets or something else like that. I believe that just given all the statements that are made about the two witnesses, they represent the church through the whole church age. So in other words, the same period of time that Jerusalem is trodden underfoot by the Gentiles, which is the times of the Gentiles, is also when the two witnesses are bearing witness. Then of course we have the woman who flees after the child is born in chapter 12. She flees into the wilderness, as the Christian church did. They fled from Jerusalem before it fell, and the church is sustained by God for three and a half years, the same period of time. Then later on the Beast. The blasphemies of the Beast last for the same period of time in chapter 13. Now, this is kind of important because we have to identify what the Beast represents. Obviously, we're not talking about a real animal. No one takes Revelation literally in that respect. We're not talking about an actual quadruped animal that has a mouth of a lion, feet like a bear, a body like a leopard, and seven heads and ten horns. Everyone knows that's symbolic of something.
Damian: Steve, am I on the air right now? Sorry to interrupt real quick. I've watched your study and I agree with everything so far. I just kind of want to because my follow up question was actually about the witnesses. Have you ever dove into the idea that the Beast, and I agree that the Beast is Roman, the Roman imperial Julio-Claudian government? And the second Beast is the fallen Jewish authorities at the time, the religious authorities, who force everyone to glorify the Beast. Have you ever seen this as an unholy trinity where Satan is forming his image as we see that the Beast is made in the same image that we see Satan is depicted as the red dragon? And then we see the false prophet is the one who forces everyone to glorify the Beast.
Steve Gregg: I think every commentator who holds any view of Revelation that I've ever read has seen that as an unholy trinity. Dispensationalists do. They think that the dragon is like the opposite of the Father, the Beast is the opposite of the Son, and the False Prophet is the opposite of the Holy Spirit. I've heard that from the first time I heard any dispensationalist teach the subject. It's possible to see these three as being sort of the unholy trinity and yet still not be able to identify what they are in real life. That's why there's so many different views of Revelation.
Damian: For the two witnesses in Revelation, Jesus himself says that he walks amongst the seven lampstands and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. So I would be in agreement with you that the two lampstands represent churches. My question to you is, I do take it as mostly 70 AD, I'm a partial Preterist, so I think that the thousand years represents the church age. How would you understand somebody saying that the two witnesses represented there would be the Jewish church and the Gentile church led by Paul and Peter respectively?
Steve Gregg: It could be. Once again, I'm seeing the whole time period of Revelation 10 through 13 differently. But if someone says, "Well, I believe the two witnesses are the Jewish church and the Gentile church," I'd say that sounds pretty good too. I've got another view, but there's lots of views out there and some of them make more sense than others. That one's a sensible one.
Damian: Yeah, well, that's all I have. I appreciate it. I have listened to all your lectures and I'm going to continue listening. I want to let you know you've inspired me, so God bless you. Thank you.
Steve Gregg: All right, Damian. Good talking to you. God bless you. All right, Jim from Post Falls, Idaho, who we didn't get a good connection with before is back on the line. Let's see if we can get a better connection. Hi, Jim. Welcome.
Guest (Male): Hey, Steve. Can you hear me? Awesome. So I just had a question about the Mormon belief of baptism in place of the dead and I was wondering if there was any scriptural basis against that or where that belief came from or what you thought about it.
Steve Gregg: Well, there is a scripture that refers to people being baptized for the dead, but whether it's referring to the same practice that the Mormons practice or not is definitely open to question. I honestly don't really know if it is or not. But Paul actually says over in 1 Corinthians 15, verse 29, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" Obviously, there were some people practicing something that Paul's referring to as being baptized for the dead. The Mormons and many others believe that Paul is referring to living people being baptized by proxy in the place of people who have died and did not have a chance to be baptized previously. And of course, in the Mormon religion, if someone dies without being baptized, they're not saved. So it's very important that you find out all your ancestors who died without baptism. That's why the Mormons have been such excellent searchers of genealogies. If you want to do genealogical research, the Mormons are the people to talk to. They're definitely into it, and that's because they want to find out how many ancestors they have who died without becoming Mormons and without getting baptized so that they can get baptized in their place. And that's what they think Paul is talking about. Dr. Walter Martin, who wrote *The Kingdom of the Cults* and was in no sense a Mormon, he agreed that Paul is referring to some people who were being baptized by proxy for people who had died. He would point out, though, that Paul doesn't necessarily embrace it. He doesn't endorse it. He doesn't say this is a good practice. Some have thought maybe there's some weird heretical group that Paul knew about and his readers knew about that were practicing this. Paul doesn't refer to that as a Christian practice. He says, "What shall they do who baptize for the dead?" meaning those people who do it. I don't do it or we don't do it, but they do it. Why would they do that? That's another view. The Mormons think it was a Christian practice. Many Christian apologists and theologians think it was a practice of some fringe group that Paul did not approve of, but which he referred to in order to make the point: Why would they do that if there's no resurrection? I've always had a little problem with that second position, although most Christians I know hold it, and that's because Paul is using the whole chapter addressing Christians about the legitimacy of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. He's making one argument after another for its legitimacy because there were some people in the church who didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead. That's what he points out early on. So he's making arguments to convince them that the resurrection of the dead is a biblical doctrine. Now, I think it would be very strange for him to refer to the practice of some group that he didn't agree with and say, "See, that proves it." If Paul didn't think being baptized by proxy for dead people was a legitimate Christian practice, what's the point of mentioning it in support of an actual Christian doctrine? A possible answer to that would be, well, it is the people who are doing this baptism for the dead who are also denying the resurrection doctrine. And so he could be showing their inconsistency there. They say there's no resurrection, but why are they then being baptized for the dead? Nonetheless, he'd show their inconsistency, but the statement would in no way prove the resurrection doctrine to be true. It would just be showing that these people have practices that don't agree with their professed beliefs. I think it's very possible, and I don't know this to be so, that he is referring to the Christian practice of being baptized in the name of Jesus, who, if the dead do not rise, he has already said Jesus is dead. He says this in verse 13, the same chapter. 1 Corinthians 15:13 says, "If there's no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen." In other words, then Christ is dead. If there's no rising from the dead, then Jesus didn't rise from the dead and he's dead. And that's also the condition he makes here in verse 29. The last line is "if the dead do not rise at all." Well, that's just the thing. If the dead don't rise at all, he's already said that Jesus is dead and is not risen. So why would we be baptized with reference to a dead man? That's what he could be saying there. Why are we baptized into Christ if the dead don't rise, meaning he didn't rise, because if the dead don't rise, then he didn't. He's already made that point in verse 13. So there's some question as to what Paul's referring to there. Now, as far as my belief about being baptized for the dead, especially if we're talking about proxy baptism, like if I had some friend who died without being baptized and me being baptized in his name, there's no practice like that taught in scripture. It wouldn't make much sense based on what I think the Bible teaches. I don't think the Bible teaches that if somebody dies an unrepentant enemy of God, it'll all be covered just if they get baptized. Now, you can't pull them out of the grave and baptize them, so I'll be baptized for them. As if getting wet with water is what saves a person. I believe the Bible teaches that what saves a person is their heart being turned toward God, them putting their faith in Christ, then becoming his disciples, then becoming his loyal servants. That's what becoming a Christian is, and that's what puts us back in right relationship with God and in what I believe to be salvation. Now, people who are in that right relationship do get baptized. But people who are not in that right relationship, it doesn't help them to be baptized. You don't get a Christian out of baptizing a non-Christian; you get a wet non-Christian. So it's not really of any use unless you can also by proxy repent and believe and be baptized in their place. But there's no suggestion that that would be possible. It just seems to introduce ideas about salvation and about baptism that are not consistent with what the Bible teaches. So I can't say for sure what Paul meant and who he was referring to. But I do believe that he's not talking about the Mormon practice or even Christians practicing something similar to that. That's my understanding.
Guest (Male): Thank you very much, Steve. And I don't know if you have time, I'm a friend here of Jim and I don't know if you have a minute for another question.
Steve Gregg: Sure. Your friend of which Jim? I have two Jim friends in Idaho.
Guest (Male): The one from Post Falls. I was just wondering, is there any indication that Adam would have a belly button?
Steve Gregg: Is that something that really interests you, or are you playing a joke on me?
Guest (Male): No, it's a question that people seem to discuss.
Steve Gregg: Yeah, people have discussed that for many, many years. The first question I'd want to ask is, would that matter? If it's just a matter of curiosity, then it wouldn't matter whether we got the answer right or if we got it wrong. If it's a matter essential to salvation or walking with God, then we'd really have to get the right answer on that. But I can't imagine that the subject would have anything to do with our walk with God. Therefore, it's just a matter of curiosity. The answer would be, though, and I think I can give the answer with just common sense, a belly button is not a body part. A belly button is a scar. It's a scar left over from an operation from removing an umbilical cord. Adam and Eve were not born from wombs, and they didn't have umbilical cords attached them when they came into existence. So there'd be no reason for that scar where there was no operation. So, if a belly button was a functional body part, then we could say, "Well, yeah, of course they would have them. They're humans; they're fully human." But they are fully human people who never had the operation which in all other people leaves that scar. So no, they wouldn't have that scar.
Guest (Male): Thank you, Steve.
Steve Gregg: All right, Jim. Thanks. Okay, let's see here. We're going to talk next to Michael in the Bay Area, California. Hi, Michael. Welcome.
Michael: Thank you, Steve. My question is on Acts chapter 6, verses 2 through 4. It seems to say that the apostles gathered the disciples and said that they had more important things than to serve tables, so appointed people to do that. That seems to be completely the opposite of Jesus's last teaching when he washed the feet, saying that was the lowest position. And the apostles said that they're going to devote themselves continually to prayer. But shouldn't that be through whatever they do?
Steve Gregg: Well, first of all, they weren't saying "we are above this work." They had been doing that work and the other work too, and they said, "Hey, there's just too much work here. We can't do everything. Let's delegate some of this to these people." I believe what Jesus told them is we need to be servants; whoever's going to be chief is going to be the servant of everybody. But being a servant in the body of Christ means you serve with the gifts that God gives you. Now, the apostles had special gifts and a special calling to preach the gospel. They were the only ones doing it, frankly, at that time. Stephen and Philip, who were appointed as deacons at this particular time, later also preached the gospel. But at this time, up to this point, only the apostles were preaching the gospel and someone had to do it. But they were also in charge of the administration of the distribution of food to 3,000 people. And they just said, "Hey, we can't do all of this well, so we're going to appoint some people to delegate part of it to." He's not saying it's below us to serve tables; we're just too good for that. No, anyone can serve tables. Jesus had given them the specific task of preaching the gospel, and that's what they said. "We really need to devote ourselves to that, and we don't want to leave the other undone. So we're going to delegate that to someone else." So no, they're not shirking service. They're recognizing that their service lies along different lines to the body of Christ. The body of Christ needed the apostles to teach the word of God and to preach the gospel. That's providing an essential service according to the gifts God gave them and the calling. Other people have other gifts. Some of them are called to serve. There's actually a gift of service mentioned in Romans chapter 12 as one of the gifts of the Spirit. So they appointed some people to that kind of service. Everything we do in the name of Christ for the benefit of others is service. They had a special service that others did not have. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. We have another half hour coming up. 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 are live for another half hour with an open phone line so you can call in. We can talk and have a conversation about those subjects that you raise through your questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or your disagreements with the host. We'll be glad to talk about those too. The number to call is 844-484-5737. And I want to remind Southern California listeners: tomorrow is the one day a month that we have a men's Bible study in Temecula. 8:00 Saturday morning. Feel free to join us. You can find out more about that by going to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and look under announcements. It has all that information there. All right, let's see who's next. It's Lori in Lewiston, Maine. Hi, Lori. Welcome.
Lori: Hi, Steve. How are you? I have a question and I'm not sure exactly why they believe what they do. So my question is, when you receive the Lord as your Lord and Savior, and you give up your life and repent of your sins, isn't that when you receive the Holy Spirit when you're born again? Now, why is it where do they get the scripture to back up a second baptism of the Holy Spirit? I've heard people saying you're not baptized in the Holy Spirit; it's a second event.
Steve Gregg: Well, it's not always a second event, but it's sometimes a separate event. Now, what I mean by that is it's one thing to be born of the Spirit, to be regenerated, to be, as Paul put it in Ephesians 1, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which means you've received the Holy Spirit indwelling you. He brings you to life from spiritual death and you are now a child of God. That happens to every person who's truly repented and come to Christ and is devoted to Christ. The Holy Spirit does that. Okay. Now, everyone therefore who's a Christian has the Holy Spirit. But the Bible speaks of being filled with the Spirit as if that's not something all Christians have. Because the same Ephesians 1, Paul said to the Christians there that they've been sealed with the Holy Spirit when they believed. But he tells them in chapter 5 the same people they need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. So it's one thing to have the Holy Spirit; it's another to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, of course, a person who is filled with the Spirit also has the Spirit. But it's not always the case that someone who has the Spirit is filled. We read, for example, on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 and verse 4, that the people were all filled with the Holy Spirit. But then later on in chapter 4, they were threatened with death by the Supreme Court and they had a prayer meeting. It was a very powerful prayer meeting and it says in chapter 4 of Acts, verse 31, "When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word with boldness." A lot of these were the same people who were filled with the Spirit in Acts 2:4, and now they're filled with the Spirit apparently again. Now, that doesn't mean that they became unconverted or unsaved in the interim. It does suggest, though, that though we have the Holy Spirit given to us, we don't always walk in the same fullness of the Spirit. This is our obligation. Paul tells us to be filled with the Spirit. So what is being filled with the Spirit? Well, obviously, as these people are filled with the Spirit, they were bold, they were empowered, and those things were present as a result of the Spirit filling them. But earlier in Acts, in chapter 1 and verse 5, Jesus told the disciples, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." So he used the expression "baptized in the Holy Spirit." By the way, he borrowed that term from John the Baptist himself. John the Baptist said, "I baptize in water, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I'm not worthy to carry, and he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." So John the Baptist was the first one to mention being baptized in the Spirit in contrast to being baptized in water. Then Jesus picked up the language of John the Baptist in Acts 1:5 and said, "John baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Now, what happened then, of course, was Pentecost where they were all filled with the Spirit. That apparently was the baptism in the Spirit that he predicted the previous chapter. I think everyone would agree with that. So being baptized in the Spirit was being filled with the Spirit. Now, there's another thing Jesus said on it in the same period in the same context because in Acts 1:8, Jesus told the disciples, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you'll be my witnesses." So he spoke of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, which apparently was the same thing as being baptized in the Spirit because both expressions were used in the space of three verses from each other. And both of them refer to what happened in Acts 2:4, which is when they were filled with the Spirit. So these terms are being used interchangeably. You're baptized in the Spirit when you're filled with the Spirit, when the Spirit comes upon you, when in fact you receive power from the Holy Spirit. Now, in my understanding as I read the book of Acts, it was the common experience of Christians to be converted and baptized in water essentially the same day. And also the same day, to have hands laid upon them so that they'd be baptized in the Holy Spirit as well as baptized in water. Now, this was a separate thing. We see this, for example, in Acts 19 where Paul met some people who had a misunderstanding of the gospel and he taught them about Jesus and it says, "When they heard that, they got baptized," meaning in water, "in the name of Jesus." And it says, "And then, when Paul laid his hands on them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit." So they believed and were baptized, presumably that's what brings them into state of being saved and having the Holy Spirit. But they also at the same time or immediately afterward had hands laid on them so that they were filled with the Spirit. Now, this indicates that the early Christians got filled with the Spirit at the same time, that is to say, in the same sequence of events at the time of their conversion. But being filled with the Spirit was not the same thing as believing. It wasn't the same thing as being baptized. It was something that after they believed and were baptized, hands were laid on them to be filled with the Spirit, which suggests that this is a separate thing. We could say it was a second thing, but it probably happened within seconds or minutes of the other things. So in the early church, it was the commonplace thing was to preach the gospel. When people were converted by the preaching, they'd baptize them in water and lay hands on them and they'd receive the fullness of the Spirit. Now, there's exceptions to this because God doesn't have to stay in the box that we might try to build for him. In Acts 10, Peter was preaching to Cornelius's house. And while he was preaching, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. They started speaking in tongues just like they did on the day of Pentecost. And they were baptized in the Spirit. But they weren't even baptized in water yet. But Peter, when he saw that they were filled with the Spirit because of the manifestations, said, "Who can refuse water to those who have received the Spirit the same as we have?" Meaning who can refuse to baptize them? So he ordered them to be water baptized. Now, in this case, the order happened differently than before. Normally, they'd believe, be baptized in water, and then have hands laid on them to be filled with the Spirit. In this case, they believed apparently while Peter was preaching, they got baptized in the Spirit without anyone laying hands on them, and then they were baptized in water, which is one of the ways that God shows that this is not a mechanical thing. These factors are present when people get saved, but they don't always have to happen in the same immediate order or whatever. All Christians in the early church experienced these things at some point. So, now here's the problem. There are people today who we preach to them and they believe and we baptize them in water, but we may or may not do what the apostles did and the early Christians in general. We may or may not lay hands on them to be filled with the Spirit. The church I was baptized in when I was a child, or I was 12, they didn't do this. And it wasn't until four years later that I realized that this is something that normally was done in biblical times. And so I found someone else who did lay hands on me and I was baptized in the Spirit. So with me, there was a four-year gap between the time I was baptized in water and the time I was baptized in the Holy Spirit. Now, it shouldn't have been that way. If I'd been converted by the apostles or by those who were first-century Christians, I would have been baptized in water and the same day they would have laid hands on me and I would have been baptized in the Spirit. But that didn't happen because churches, I was in a denominational church that didn't believe in that stuff, so they didn't do it. But that's the problem. Since the time of the apostles, churches have kind of made their own ways and done different things and sometimes they leave out things that the apostles did or add things that the apostles didn't do. So the challenge is to find out what really was done normally in the apostolic church and see if we can approximate that as best as possible so that we can also approximate the results: the revival and the power and so forth that was in the church, which we don't see in our churches much today. So anyway, your friends who are telling you you need to be baptized in the Spirit, they may be right or they may be wrong. What I would say is this: the baptism in the Spirit is an empowering thing that happens when you're filled with the Holy Spirit. This does happen to some people the moment they're converted. I've known people who have been baptized in the Spirit the moment they came to faith, the moment they became a real Christian. Like in the New Testament, they about the time they baptized in water is also when they laid hands on them and they got baptized in the Spirit. That was the normal practice. Therefore, the early Christians could fairly assume that if they met any Christian, that person would have been both baptized in water and baptized in the Holy Spirit because that was normal practice. But what was normal for them has not been necessarily normal over the past 2,000 years in various churches, and so it is possible that a person may be a true Christian for years. They will, in fact, possess the Holy Spirit because that's what makes you a Christian, really. I mean, that's how we know we're Christians, because he's given us of his Spirit, the Bible says. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he's none of his. Paul said Romans 8:9. So, you know, if you're really a Christian, you have the Holy Spirit. But whether you have been baptized in the Spirit or not, I don't know. I won't say you weren't because it doesn't always require the laying on of hands. I'm assuming you never did have the laying on of hands or else you wouldn't be asking the question. But even without the laying on of hands, many times people have been baptized in the Spirit like the house of Cornelius was. No one laid hands on them either. So the short answer—I've kind of given you a rambling answer—the short answer is being baptized in the Spirit is something distinct from salvation, but it may and should happen generally at the same time. If it doesn't happen at the same time, then it would be desirable for it to happen later because you can be saved and receive the Spirit and not yet have been baptized in the Spirit. And we see this, for example, in Acts chapter 8 when Philip converted a bunch of people in Samaria and he baptized them in water and they were saved and they were rejoicing in Christ and in their salvation and so forth. And then, but he didn't lay hands on them for whatever reason we don't know. Peter and John came from Jerusalem and laid hands on these converts of Philip's and they got filled with the Holy Spirit then. So there are cases where people are converted and baptized but not yet baptized in the Holy Spirit. But this was, I believe, the exception in biblical times. And unfortunately, it's not such an exception now. I think there's a lot of churches who lead people to Christ, but they do not minister to them in the baptism of the Spirit, which is perhaps why so many people are regarded to be Christians and do not exhibit the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, which was so characteristic of Christians in the first century and should be in all centuries. So that's how I would answer that, Lori. I appreciate your call. God bless you. Barbara from Roseville, Michigan. Welcome to the Narrow Path.
Barbara: Oh, hi Steve. I just have a comment and a question. Yesterday you were talking to someone and you were saying that if she was uncomfortable with the people speaking in tongues and dancing or whatever they were doing, she should talk to the pastor or leave the church. And then I was thinking about David, how he danced all outside of his clothes and said he would get more base than that. But my question is regarding the caller who wanted a Christian community where everybody is saved and we all live and work together and everything. And I thought about that Jim Jones thing. My question is, when they took all that Kool-Aid, the poison, they had a choice, I guess, for those men either to shoot them or they took the Kool-Aid. They took the Kool-Aid and all laid and died or whatever. Was that suicide that they did? And also, is that a prophetic event that took place? Is that inside of the Bible somewhere because that's a pretty big thing. So I'll just hang up and listen.
Steve Gregg: All right. Well, no, the Bible never predicted Jim Jones or his little community in—was it Guyana? Was that where it was? So no, he's not that significant. In fact, the Bible never mentioned Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell or any of the cult leaders of modern times, most of whom have much larger followings than Jim Jones ever did or ever probably would. Was it suicide for them to take that drink? Well, technically it was. But if they knew they're going to die either by a bullet or by the drink, I don't know. I'm not sure if someone says which way do you want to die: by bullet or drink? If you choose drink, I don't know that you're really guilty of committing suicide since you probably would prefer not to die at all and you're just choosing which way you're going to die. So I don't think God would hold that against them since they were not really given a choice between living and dying, but two different ways of dying. Now, you said you thought of Jim Jones when I was talking about a Christian community. Well, the caller was talking more about the Amish. The Amish have never killed anybody. They don't even believe in violence of any kind. They just want to live according to their standards. Now, I don't think of the Amish as a balanced Christian community, but I do consider that many true Christians are among the Amish. And I don't see anything necessarily wrong with Christians who are wanting to please God living in—I don't want to use the word compound because when we think of a compound, we think of Jim Jones or something like that. But like a neighborhood. Having their lands and homes adjacent and they cooperate together in life and things like that and they look out for each other. That's actually a pretty good thing to do, I think. Now, I don't believe that the early Christians necessarily lived in compounds, but they did share things in common and they met together daily and so forth and they ate together. So they obviously were very involved in each other's lives. The actual domiciles where they lived is of little concern. It's more the way they lived rather than where they lived that mattered. Sometimes people start intentional Christian communities in order to create that kind of a relational dynamic. And I don't have anything against that. But it is true that many times a group that splinters off from the normal churches may be led by a person who becomes a cult leader type person. It's just very attractive to that type of personality to take over a group like that or to start a group like that. On the other hand, a pastor of any church can have exactly the same personality. He could be a Baptist or Presbyterian or Pentecostal—you name it—or he could be the Bishop of Rome. It could be anybody leading a church. That person can be tempted and succumb to the temptation to want to control people and abuse people and things like that. So it's not where you live; it's how you live. As far as David dancing before the Lord, yeah, David did do that. And if someone did that one time in their life like David did, I wouldn't be critical at all. But I would say if I'm going to church to encounter God and instead of encountering God, people are behaving in ways that are distracting from God, I'd find another church to go to. All right, let's talk to Eric from Nebraska. Hi, Eric. Welcome.
Eric: Hi, Steve. Thanks for getting me on. I've been listening to this one preacher on the radio and he's basically saying that once you become a Christian, you're basically covered and good because God so many times in the Bible says believe that Christ died for our sins and you will have everlasting life and saved forever. But then I'm wondering this one verse that always comes to me is when he talks about when you're lukewarm, he will spit you out of his mouth.
Steve Gregg: Actually, let me just jump in because we're almost out of time here. What Jesus actually said is that the lukewarm church he would vomit out of his mouth. The word spew in the King James doesn't mean spit; it means vomit. He'll eject them violently from his body. And so it is possible for a church to be vomited out of the body of Christ and no longer be part of it. Of course, that's talking about a church; it's not talking about individuals. Even if God brings an end to a church in a particular city because it's so offensive he doesn't want it misrepresenting him, that doesn't mean that everybody who was in that church is no longer a Christian. They'll find some other way to fellowship, I'm sure. But those threats that are made in Revelation 2 and 3 are really to churches as congregations, talk about their fate and the danger they're in as churches, not necessarily the fate of everyone in them. No one is saved because they're part of an organization, and nobody is lost because they're part of an organization, meaning an organized church. People are saved or lost because of their heart toward God and their obedience to God. Now, these people who say you can't lose your salvation because of the promises God makes, I don't know of any promises in the Bible that says that if you are an unbeliever, it's okay with God because you once believed. In other words, if I believe in Christ when I'm seven years old and by the time I'm 10 years old, I couldn't care less about Christ and I live 50, 60 years and die an atheist or a Satanist, the fact that I followed Jesus when I was seven years old does not count in my favor. Read Ezekiel chapter 18, or frankly, any part of the Bible. There's no part of the Bible that indicates that a former believer who is now an unbeliever is saved. I had a pastor once tell me, "Well, you don't believe in the security of the believer then." No, I believe in the absolute security of the believer, 100%. I don't believe in the security of the unbeliever, even if he used to be a believer. A believer by definition is somebody who believes, present tense. If you once believed and you don't believe now, then you're not a believer. The promises of God are to people who are faithful believers, people whose trust is in God. They believe with that kind of faith that James and Paul talk about: a faith that works through love, a faith that produces the new life that's characteristic of Christianity. Those who have that faith are saved. Those who do not have that faith are not. Now, the fact is there are some people who once had it and don't now. Well, what do I say about them? When they had it, they were saved. When they don't, they aren't. That's simply consistent with everything the Bible says on the subject. God knows who's in relationship with him and who's not, and that relationship is marked by faith in Christ. So if you have faith in Christ, you're saved and you've got security. I've got absolute security because I'm a believer. Now, you might say, "Well, what if you stop believing later on?" Well, then I won't have security anymore. If I become an unbeliever, I won't have security. But that's up to me. I've already made my decision. I'm going to follow Jesus, no turning back. Therefore, I'm not afraid that I will become an unbeliever. No one can make me do that. I would have to make me do that. And there's nothing in the world that can make me do that. You can put a gun to my head; it won't make me not believe in Christ. There's nothing you can do to make me an unbeliever. But there are things I could do. I could decide I don't want to be a believer anymore. I don't want to follow Christ anymore. I want to be disloyal to Christ just like some husbands and wives are disloyal to their marriages and they're not married anymore. A marriage is supposed to last forever; the assumption is both parties are going to be faithful and loyal to each other forever and therefore they'll be married till they die. As long as their life continues, they'll be married. Yeah, but not if they become disloyal and abandon each other and take up with other people instead. And the same thing with Christ. Promises are made to us that pertain to forever and ever and ever. Eternal life. That's on the whole assumption that you're a believer and that forever you will remain a believer. And by the way, there's no good reason ever to stop being a believer. Some people do; there's never a good reason. People stop being believers because they don't want to pay the price to continue following Christ. And if a person doesn't want to pay the price, but they want Jesus' price that he paid still to apply to them, they're looking for kind of a one-sided bargain here. God makes a covenant. Covenants are two-sided. Marriage is a covenant, and there's two parties making promises; both parties have to keep their promises. The covenant God made with Israel: two-sided. God said, "If you do this, I'll do that." That's what a covenant is; it's a contract. We have a covenant relationship with God. He will be faithful as long as we continue to trust Christ. Now, by the way, if our faith is weak, he's still faithful. But if we decide not to have any relation to Christ anymore, he doesn't force us. He doesn't force us to stay. And there are very, very foolish people—people more foolish than I can even imagine anyone being, but I've met them—who once knew Christ and they decide, "Yeah, I don't want to do that anymore." Okay, God's not going to make you be a Christian. If you're not in Christ, though, you're not saved. Period. So you that's why Jesus said you need to abide in him. That means remain in him. The word abide means remain. He said, "Remain in me like a branch in a vine." Why? Why shall I remain in him? Because being attached to the vine is where the life comes from. Jesus said in John 15:6, "If anyone does not remain in me, he's cast forth as a branch and withered, and they gather them and burn them." So the life of the vine is not in a detached branch. So that's where we have to remain in Christ. I'm out of time, but I appreciate everyone who's called. You've been listening to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. We are listener supported. You can write to us at The Narrow Path, PO Box 1730, Temecula, California, 92593 or go to our website, thenarrowpath.com. Have a good weekend.