The Narrow Path 09/16/2026

Steve Gregg: Good afternoon, and welcome to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and, as usual, we're live for an hour. This is the case generally speaking every weekday afternoon with few exceptions, and we have an open line for you to call if you have questions you'd like to call and ask on the air. We'll discuss on the air questions you have about the Bible or the Christian faith or matters of disagreement you have with the host. We welcome you to call about that too. You can call in if you're a Christian who sees things differently or if you're not a Christian and you simply object to Christianity or the Bible or you have serious problems with either of those things. I'd be glad to talk to you. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737 if you'd like to be on the program. All right, we're going to go to the phones. Well, let me better announce this, that this Saturday, which is just a few days off, we have a Men's Bible study in the morning in Temecula. This happens once a month. Temecula Men's Bible study, Saturday morning, third Saturday of the month. That's this Saturday. We welcome you to join us if you're a guy and if you're in the Temecula area. You can find out the location at our website, thenarrowpath.com, and look under announcements. Likewise, about a week later, I'll be speaking for a week in different locations throughout Michigan. Lots of towns. I'll be speaking every night, some daytimes too. If you are in Michigan and want to know if I'm going to come near to where you are, go to our website, thenarrowpath.com, look under announcements, and you'll see where I'm speaking in Michigan. That's going to be actually the whole first week of October. All right, we have calls waiting and we have one line open. Not anymore, it just filled up. So, we'll talk to Daniel in New Rochelle, New York. Daniel, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Guest (Male): Hello, Steve. My question today is, in the Bible, it talks about when the three men that never died. I think one was Enoch. So, I want to ask you, why did God translate these men? Why did God take these men up to heaven without them dying and nobody else?
Steve Gregg: That's a very good question, but it's not one that we have an answer to. You know, Elijah, as far as we know, was not a better man than his successor Elisha, and yet Elijah was taken up into heaven alive, whereas Elisha grew old and got sick and died of an illness. Both of them had raised the dead. Both of them did similar miracles. Actually, Elisha, the second man, did more miracles than Elijah did. And yet, Elijah had the privilege of being taken up in a whirlwind up into the sky, we assume to heaven. Now, Enoch, actually Enoch's the only man that we're specifically told he didn't die. It says that God took him, and we assume that means took him to heaven. It does say in Hebrews chapter 11 that he did not see death. So, we have a specific reference to Enoch not dying. Elijah, we're not told that he didn't die, but it's assumed since he was taken up alive, whether he died or not is not mentioned, but we assume he did not die. So, that makes two men. Why did God pick them? Well, we know so little about them that would answer that question, and we're never told the answer. It's just one of those factoids of the Bible that we know to be true because we're told, but we don't know why it was true. So, I can't help you there, or with a lot of other things either that the Bible doesn't tell us. Not everything we wish to know is told to us in the Bible, but everything God wishes for us to know is. But apparently, he doesn't have any interest in us knowing his reasons for doing that with those two men. We'll talk next to Joseph in Detroit, Michigan. Hi, Joseph, welcome.
Guest (Male): Steve, pleasure to get through and have this inquiry. I've been a recording artist who's done music for over 20 years, and recently over the past year or two, as my walk with the Lord has gotten stronger, I feel like he's been calling me to do gospel music instead of secular. I recently heard you when someone called in they asked about a certain artist and you said, "Yeah, they're pretty good," but, you know, you liked rock and roll. I have this conflict of I know that in the Bible it says selfish ambition is a sin. I have this conflict that doing music unless it's gospel is a sin or it's wrong and I can't seem to get rid of that desire. I know that the Lord wants to use me to bring him glory through my music, but I still have the urge to do secular music and it's something that's conflicting with my spirit. I did speak to someone who is a follower and they said that, you know, we are God's children and he gives us things like toys. You know, we're his kids, and music could be one of the toys, and it's not a sin to enjoy other genres of music, but I just feel like if I'm not doing gospel, that is not doing the will of God. It's selfish ambition.
Steve Gregg: Well, let me jump in here. There's nothing in the Bible that says you have to do Christian music if you're a musician. Of course, the only kind of music we have any record of in the New Testament is praise and worship music like from David and people like that. But that doesn't mean that's the only possible use of music. It's like in the Bible all the dreams that are recorded in the Bible are revelatory prophetic dreams, but that doesn't mean that all dreams are revelations and prophecies. The Bible has a certain focus on certain things and generally the things it includes are related to the faith. Whereas, I mean, everything you do is related to your faith too. But to be related to your faith doesn't mean it has to have religious lyrics. I think too many times people assume that religion and spirituality are somehow the same thing. Larry Norman, who was one of sometimes thought of as the father of Christian rock music back in the late 60s and early 70s, made some Christian albums and then he started interspersing some love songs in there that weren't specifically Christian, had no Christian specifics in the lyrics. Some people began to complain that he was starting to do secular music. He said, "Yeah, I can understand why you complain about that. After all, what does Jesus have to do with love?" What he meant is love is part of the Christian life too. To make songs about love, how is that bad? Unless of course they're lewd songs and they're obviously a Christian should never write music that is inappropriate simply because it brings the thoughts down to things that people who are Christians try to keep out of their thoughts. But love songs aren't necessarily evil songs. I mean, they can always be very pure and there's many of them that have been. And yet they're secular in the sense that they're not religious. The word secular means not specifically religious. So, if you write music about history or about love or about politics or things like that, they should reflect your Christian values but they're secular and there's nothing wrong with that specifically. So, I mean, I can't help it if your conscience tells you you can only do Christian music. That might be God telling you to only do Christian music. I don't know. Or it might be that you're just too legalistic about it. I don't know. I'll say this, I listen to and sometimes will play Christian music. I don't go out and publicly play Christian music but on my piano at home I sometimes play some secular songs. They're songs that there's nothing objectionable about and that I like from my youth and they remind me of times that were spiritually good times, but they're not Christian songs. I also know hundreds of Christian songs I sometimes play. So, you know, I don't feel like I'm more spiritual when I'm playing one kind of music than another because as a Christian everything I do should be a reflection of my life which is committed to God. I would say the same thing for you but on the other hand you have to go by God's leading. If you feel guilty when you play secular music it may be that God is telling you to give it up. I mean, it's possible that for some people before they were Christians or when they were nominal Christians music was kind of an idol to them and maybe fame was an idol to them or something like that. And if so, I couldn't say that God won't tell you to give up secular music. He might. He never specifically told me to give it up but then I was never a performer of secular music. But again, I knew Christians who were. I've known Christians who had pop 40 bands, type stuff, cover bands of secular music. I don't know of anything sinful about that. It's what for some of them it's what they do for a living and if it's not coarse, if it's not immoral stuff, then I wouldn't be critical of it. But you just have to go with your own conscience. Everyone does. In my case, I don't know that I'd ever have occasion to play secular music in front of people whereas I sometimes do Christian music, and I don't know that I'd want to play secular music in front of people but that doesn't mean I think it's a dirty thing. Some songs are dirty and those are ones I wouldn't really want to play for any audience. Anyway, so that's I guess something you're going to have to come to terms with as a musician.
Guest (Male): That really helps. Thank you.
Steve Gregg: All right, brother. Thanks for your call. Let's see, Samantha in Shoreline, Washington. Welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Guest (Female): Hi there. Thank you for taking my call. I just have two questions and then I'll listen to your answer on the radio. Can you explain to me or help me understand church discipline when there is a legal separation versus a divorce? After 16 years of marriage, my husband confessed to infidelity. This was two and a half years after I discovered it. I just thought I would ask him and he confessed. And then we were supposed to be working on these issues, but he never said anything. And this happened in January. And then on Mother's Day, he sent me a letter saying he wanted a legal separation. And because of the ongoing deceit and the betrayal, I just said, "No, let's just go ahead and get a divorce." So I'm trying to understand how church discipline works when one person says "I want a legal separation" without a reconciliation plan versus the person like me saying "No, I want a divorce" because I don't think he's addressing the issues. My second question is how do you look at when a person consistently and regularly seeks family members or friends or deacons at the church or elders at the church for advice for his marriage and just ignores his wife?
Steve Gregg: Well, stay on the line if you would because I need some more information. So he cheated on you a couple of years ago, you're saying?
Guest (Female): Well, this has been ongoing. I have since found that he has struggles with pornography. It was two years ago I found receipts.
Steve Gregg: I see. And did he confess to you that he's had affairs or stuff like that?
Guest (Female): Only until I asked him. So I just completely blocked the issue out of my mind and then in January of this year, it popped back into my mind and I asked him.
Steve Gregg: Okay, I'm trying to get a picture of where things stand. Did he file for legal separation? Does that mean he left you? He's living separately?
Guest (Female): No, we still live in the same house.
Steve Gregg: Okay, but are you cohabiting as a husband and a wife?
Guest (Female): No, we stay in separate rooms.
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, so you're just wondering if you have grounds for divorce?
Guest (Female): No, I'm not wondering if I have grounds for divorce. I'm wondering about church discipline. Right. Because we have yes, he goes to church. I stay at home and watch the sermons online. It's really hard for me to go.
Steve Gregg: Okay, so are you wondering if the church should pursue church disciplinary action against your husband? Is that what you're asking?
Guest (Female): No, against me, because I'm the one that filed for divorce. We have I understand that, but they reference the scripture verse that says God hates divorce, and not the one that okay.
Steve Gregg: Yeah, he does. He does, and he hates the person who causes it too, which is often the cheating partner. Now, let me ask you, is the church pursuing church disciplinary action against you?
Guest (Female): I believe that's going to be the case once the divorce is final, because this happened to another family about 10 years ago.
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, it seems to me, I'll tell you this, you don't have any question about whether you have grounds for divorce. Now, grounds for divorce means it's legitimate to get a divorce. That's what having grounds for it means. If a person gets a divorce when they don't have grounds for it, that's it's not legitimate to get a divorce. It's immoral. But if you have grounds for divorce and you get a divorce, by definition, you haven't committed a sin. So why would they why would they do that? I mean, there's actually no there's no reason for church discipline against somebody who hasn't committed a sin.
Guest (Female): Well, I think it's because he has said he has repented and he's not doing that again. But I have since found an avalanche of additional information showing that he struggles with porn, other receipts from other years, and I'm just finding this out. He never confessed when he was doing it.
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, are you in communication with the leaders of the church? You say you don't go to the church. Have you talked to them about this situation?
Guest (Female): Yes, and I'm painted as the person who's doing wrong. I should be humble, well not humble, but I should just accept what has happened because God hates divorce whether he works on those issues or not. And he didn't even share with our leadership that he was struggling with pornography.
Steve Gregg: Right. So does that church not believe that there are grounds for divorce? They believe there's no grounds for divorce?
Guest (Female): I believe so.
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, then I disagree with them and if you're going to get a divorce, you're going to have to find another church anyway. I mean, obviously, if they would excommunicate you for getting a divorce and you're going to get a divorce, then you're done with that church unless you're going to call off the divorce. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't call off the divorce. I don't know what you should do. I think you have grounds for divorce, but even you may have heard my story before. I had grounds for divorce in a previous marriage but I didn't pursue a divorce because I believe in reconciliation, I believe in forgiveness and so forth. I had repeated grounds for divorce that were given to me by my wife's behavior and I just stayed until actually she ran off and divorced me. But that's just me. I won't break my vows even if somebody breaks theirs toward me. My integrity has always been more important to me than convenience or happiness. Integrity is a great thing to maintain. It's good to have a clear conscience. And so I just but I'm saying if you
Guest (Female): What would you do in a situation where the other issue is he has consistently since day one we were married sought his mother and his siblings for advice? For example, instead of him talking to me about
Steve Gregg: Right. Well, shame on him for that. Shame on him for that. He should talk to you. That doesn't mean he can't talk to other people in his life too. I mean, if he's concealing everything from you and talking to them, I'd have to wonder why. Maybe I don't know, maybe you don't react well when he brings things up that he can talk to them about. I do not know that. But certainly, it's desirable that a man would have his wife be his chief confidant. And if he's keeping you out of the loop and going to everybody else, that's well, that's something he should not do. That's not exactly grounds for divorce in itself. If you weren't going to divorce him for the other thing, then this wouldn't make it necessarily okay to do it. What I would prefer, but you don't have to do what I prefer, I'd prefer that everyone in your circumstance would continue to seek the repentance of the sinning spouse. Once he's given you grounds, which he has, you can give up on that anytime you want to. But of course, as Christians, we don't want to do just whatever we have permission to do. We want to do what pleases God most. And God might be much more pleased if you were patient and he came around and changed his ways. And by the way, being patient on your part could mean you're not going to let him live with you again. I mean, if he's filing for separation, I assume he's moving out. Or is he planning to live in the same house with you and still have separation? I'm not really clear about all of that. But I just think that there's issues there that you might need to leave that church.
Guest (Female): Okay. Thank you.
Steve Gregg: All right. God bless you. And you might want to just stay single and tell your husband that you'll consider forgiving him if you see real strong evidence that he's changed, and not just for a few months. Might wait years. You can still stay faithful to the marriage and be separated for years if that's what it takes to gain his trust, or for him to gain your trust. And if in the meantime he goes out and has more affairs, I guess he's answered the question for you. Rick in Maine, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.
Guest (Male): Yes. Hi, Steve. Nice to talk to you. I've been a Christian all my life. I haven't had a moment where I can remember not being a follower of Jesus. I'm an imperfect person, but I strive to be the best I can be in the grace of God. But I've always believed that there is life outside of this planet, that there is life in the universe, that God created life elsewhere. And you hear a lot of things and I've always been interested in stories about UFOs and aliens visitation and so forth, and this fan of sci-fi and so forth. But I want to know in your opinion, what is it that a Christian should be should a Christian be not a believer in life outside of this of this earth? Given the fact that Nephilim and so forth, the sons of heaven came down and found the daughters of men to be, you know, take them as wives and so forth. I mean, there's a sort of a inkling in Genesis about, you know, that there is there was something going on.
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, let me jump in before we run out of time here. And there's some strange noises on your line too. Well, first of all, the Nephilim, the Bible does not represent them as aliens from another planet, nor the sons of God. There's no suggestion that the sons of God are aliens from another planet. Some people believe, in fact it's a very popular belief, that the sons of God were angels who sinned. And we know there are angels who sinned, but in the Bible, angels are not aliens from another planet. They live in heaven. They're the angels of God in heaven. So that's not the same thing as biological creatures from other planets. Now, what should you believe about life on other planets? Well, I don't know. I don't have any special information about that. I'm not an insider to what our government knows about recovered spacecraft and things like that. So I don't have any real information about that. And the Bible doesn't give any at all. I mean, there are certain things that people have sometimes pointed to in the Bible as if it was saying this could be a flying saucer, like what Ezekiel saw in Ezekiel chapter one. But he said it was the throne of God and the chariot of God and the glory of God he saw. Now, if someone says, "Well, I think he saw a flying saucer and mistook it for God," well, then probably you need to find another book to read than the Bible because it means that Ezekiel's wrong and not an inspired prophet. I take everything in the Bible as being from God and therefore I don't think things that some people might apply to alien interplanetary beings, I wouldn't see it that way because the Bible doesn't describe them that way. Now, if there are interplanetary beings, maybe we'll run into them, maybe we won't. I can't think of any practical reason to speculate about it. If they are there and we're never going to see them, then there's no sense us bother to think about them because we're never going to contact them and nor they us. If they are going to contact us, well, I guess we'll know it when they did, and we won't know it until they do. So this is one of those things that you can believe what whatever you want about it and you won't it won't make you more or less a Christian. But the more you think about it and wonder about it, the more you'll be thinking about things that aren't specifically useful for a Christian to be overly concerned about because they either exist or they don't. If they do exist, we'll either have contact with them or we won't. If we won't, then they might as well not exist as far as we're concerned. If we are going to have contact with them, we don't yet know what that'll look like or what dangers that may pose or what opportunities that may provide. We'll just have to discover that at the time. In any case, God will never change and you know, we can walk with God and trust him for everything and if the aliens come and kill us all, fine. That's okay. Something's going to get us. That would do. Anyway, it's not something I can get very interested in. But if you are, that's fine. That doesn't mean you're not a Christian. The Bible doesn't have any teaching on that subject one way or the other. You're listening to The Narrow Path. We have another half hour coming up but we need to take a break. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Let's hang in there and I'll be back for another half hour.
Steve Gregg: Welcome back to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for another half hour taking your calls if you have questions about the Bible or the Christian faith or you disagree with the host and want to say so. This is one place you can say that and you're welcome to do so. We have a couple of lines open on our switchboard so you could probably get through. We only have a half hour so don't waste any time. The number to call is 844-484-5737. That number again, 844-484-5737. And again, if you live in Southern California or you're going to be in Southern California, we do have a Men's Bible study in Temecula Saturday morning at 8 o'clock which I teach. And you can find information about that if you're interested by going to our website, thenarrowpath.com, and under the tab announcements. All right, our next caller today is Tom from Dallas, Texas. Hi, Tom, welcome.
Guest (Male): Hello, Steve. Let me first say thank you so much for your heart and your kindness and compassion for this young lady that's having trouble in her marriage. I feel for her, a lot of that goes on, and we appreciate your sound counsel. My question today is on penal substitutionary atonement. I'm a non-Calvinist in a Calvinist church and that is never mentioned, but I directly asked our pastor about that, "Do we believe that?" I don't know if I believe it or not, but he does. Anyway, I just wanted to see what your thoughts are on penal substitutionary atonement. Thank you.
Steve Gregg: Okay, Tom. Thank you for your question. Well, I don't have any problem with penal substitutionary atonement, but the thing is there's other views of the atonement too. And there's at least five different views of the atonement, there could be more. And these all have been held by Christian theologians throughout history. And the reason there's so many is because the Bible seems to support that many. In other words, there's something called the Christus Victor view which is very popular today and which many in the early church held, which is different than penal substitution. There's something called the public justice view. There's something called the ransom view and there's some others out there too, the moral influence view and such. These are different views of the atonement and people seem like they want to always pick one of them and say, "Okay, this one's the right one." And then they have to find ways to discredit the other ones. I don't feel or don't know why we'd have to pick just one of them. I think what God accomplished in Christ's death, in the atonement, is multifaceted. I think he accomplished a great deal and I don't know that we have any one analogy in our experience that would fully give us the whole picture. And so that's why I think the Bible uses a whole bunch of different analogies and tells us different aspects of what Jesus accomplished. I think they're all true. Now, some people have trouble with the penal substitution one because it teaches that we were sinners and therefore deserved a penalty, a punishment. Jesus was not a sinner and he took our sins on himself and took our punishment instead of us so that we can now by our faith in him be forgiven because we sinned but he suffered. Now, people have trouble with that for various reasons. Some would say, "How can someone who's innocent actually justly suffer for people who are not innocent?" I mean, it might be a nice gesture to offer to do that, but how does that really how is that really just? How does an innocent person suffering for crimes he didn't commit, how is that really how's that align with justice? That's one of the objections they'll raise. Another is, "Why would God require punishment if he wants to forgive us anyway?" If God wants to forgive people, why doesn't he just forgive them? Why do you have to sacrifice Christ or anyone else? Why there have to be a payment made? And those are some of the questions people ask. Well, you know, those are interesting questions to explore, but even if they seem unanswerable or maybe they're even offered rhetorically, it seems to me you can't get away from the fact that the Bible says that he himself bore our sin in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sin might live unto righteousness, in 1 Peter chapter 2, I think that's verse 24. We know Isaiah 53 verse 6 says, "All we like sheep have gone astray. We've turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord laid on him," meaning the Messiah, "the iniquity of us all." This seems to be the meaning of the ritualistic sacrifices of the Old Testament, that the animal which was an innocent victim received symbolically by transfer the sins of the sinner and then became took the penalty and was killed because the wages of sin is death. God set up a ritual where people could go to the priest with a lamb or a bull and they could lay their hands on it and confess the sins, and symbolically the sins were now on the animal even though it had committed no crime and then the animal's killed in its place. That's a substitutionary penalty, penal substitution. Now, to my mind, I just have a hard time getting away from that. Nor do I feel like I need to get away from it. That there would be some aspects of the atonement that we don't have any perfect analogy for in the natural world is to me not surprising. I mean, to say for example, "Why would it be just for Jesus to suffer on our behalf?" Well, maybe maybe we're making it too much like a courtroom situation. Obviously, if I committed a crime and someone else stepped up and said, "Here, kill me instead of him," that would be a nice gesture but it wouldn't be justice because I'm the one who deserves to die and he and he doesn't. So that wouldn't actually be justice. On the other hand, the Bible does suggest that God did something with Christ that's unique. And what God can do doesn't have to really parallel exactly anything that we can do or can't do. That Jesus somehow stood in the place of sinful man, that God allowed that and he took the penalties for the sins of the world. It's kind of hard to avoid the fact that the Bible says that in several places. It's not the only thing that the Bible says about the atonement, but it's one of the things it does say. So my position is I got no serious problem with penal substitution, I don't think it's the only thing we know about the atonement. I think the other views all have merit too because the Bible does support, for example, Christus Victor view which the idea that when Jesus died he conquered Satan. Well, the Bible says that quite plainly in Hebrews chapter 2 and verse 14 or in Colossians 2 and verse 15. Very plainly that he crushed or he disarmed or he destroyed the devil and the principalities and powers through the cross. Okay, so that's true. But that doesn't mean the other views aren't true also. You know, the ransom view, you know, that Jesus said he gave his life a ransom for many. That's a little bit different, paying a ransom for someone to set them free is a little bit different than dying in their place, but it's, you know, it's got its aspects of parallel with the atonement. So, and there's more. Public justice view, I never did quite understand that, but the moral influence view is that Jesus set an example by his obedient death that we should be like him. Well, yeah, the Bible says that too. The Bible says we should imitate him and he's the perfect example. So, I mean, you know, people many Christians are raised with the penal substitution view and then they learn there are other views which they find more attractive and in doing so they think they have to reject the penal substitution view. I don't. I don't reject the penal substitution view, but I don't deny the other views either. To me, it's very artificial to say which of these five or six views actually is true. Why not say all the above? That's at least the way I look at it as I read the different views, I see there's scripture on the side of all of them. All right?
Guest (Male): All right, thank you. My pastor will be excited to know that he agrees with you, who I've been promoting very profusely. So, thank you very much.
Steve Gregg: All right, I don't know very many Calvinist pastors who would rejoice to be to agree with me, but that's great. The more we can find to agree on the better.
Guest (Male): Well, we're working on him, we're working on him.
Steve Gregg: All right, God bless you, Tom. Thanks. Bye-bye. Okay, let's talk to Fred from Alameda, California. Hi, Fred, welcome to The Narrow Path.
Guest (Male): Yes. I have a Christian friend in terms of God's judgment and or face in the white throne judgment, he was saying that it depends on how much light that you've received. And the more light you're given, the more you're responsible. And then J. Vernon McGee and Billy Graham were talking about they agreed that there's something called the age of accountability, and it's either 13 or 18. And the idea is if you die before that age then you're automatically going to heaven. And then some will say some people will say, "Well, once you receive the gospel, then you're responsible to be accountable to God." So I just wanted to ask you, which of these views do you support?
Steve Gregg: Okay. Well, first of all, there is an age of accountability. Now, there are people who don't believe that. In fact, Calvinists would normally be among those that don't believe that. Now, I'm not saying that there are no Calvinists who believe that, but I think it goes against Calvinism and the people I know who have who have ridiculed this idea of an age of accountability have been happened to be Calvinist people. And I can see why they might because they believe in total depravity and what they believe is that everybody is lost unless they are elect. And if you are elect, you are elect before you were born. And therefore, if you're one of the elect once you're born, there's no way you're not going to be saved no matter what age you die, whereas if you're not elect, there's no way you're going to be saved no matter what age you die. In other words, it's not like you're okay until you reach a certain age and then maybe it's decided whether you're going to be saved or not. Now, I'm not a Calvinist, so I have no problem with the age of accountability and it's a good thing too because the Bible teaches it. In Isaiah chapter 7 and verse 16, it talks about a child being born and it says, "Before he shall know to choose the good and to refuse the evil," the land which you dread shall be abandoned by both its kings. It's talking about a political, a geopolitical event that's going to happen within a few years, less than three years actually. And he says there's going to be a child born and before that child knows to refuse the good and choose the evil, these kings will be gone. Now, in other words, we don't know what age that is. It turns out that those kings were gone within about three years of the prophecy. But some people think, I think the Jews probably would think the age of accountability would be say 13 because that's when they bar mitzvah a young boy. And it's considered that prior to bar mitzvah, he's kind of his covenant status with God is based on his relationship with his parents. Whereas after bar mitzvah, he's kind of becomes a son of the law, son of the covenant, and he's kind of responsible for his own actions. And that would be kind of like an age of accountability. Christians don't generally bar mitzvah and but some might agree that age 12 or 13 could be a reasonable age. Some would put it much earlier. Some would put it later, perhaps. Not many probably. But the truth is we don't know what age that is. But God does, and God knows each person. I assume since people are not developmentally equal as they're growing in their minds are forming and soforth as little children, I would assume not everyone reaches that age on the same calendar date of their life. I think God is just assessing how much do they know, how much don't they know. Now, you talked about a friend who said God will judge by how much light you had. That's kind of what we're talking about here. How much does the child know is kind of like how much light does he have. We will be held accountable for the light we have. Jesus made that I think pretty clear when he said in Luke 12 verses 47 and 48, "That servant who knew his master's will and did not prepare himself or do according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know yet committed things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required. And to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." Now, he's saying that in the context of knowing the will of God or not knowing the will of God, some have been given more and some less. Those who have been given plenty of knowledge of what God's will is, if they don't do it, they're more culpable and deserve stricter punishment. Those who really don't know very much about the master's will and do wrong things, well, there may be punishment for them but it'll be lighter because God's going to hold people more accountable for the more they know. Now, in my opinion, a child before he reaches the age of accountability doesn't know much of anything. Not anything that would make him culpable before God. But at the age of accountability, that's by definition is when he becomes accountable for his own actions. Now, even after that point, people who are old enough to know right from wrong don't all have equal amounts of understanding or equal amounts of light. I was raised in a Christian home. I was taught the Bible from my childhood. I have had a lot of light and I lived in America where I have Bibles and I have lots of teachers and things like that. I had a lot of advantages and therefore I'm very responsible before God. And when I stand before God, I can't plead ignorance much. Obviously, I'm ignorant of some things but I'm, you know, I've been given much in that particular area and I'm going to be held to a higher standard of accountability for it, reasonably. Some people even as adults they know very little. They've never heard the gospel. Some have never heard of the Bible. Some have never heard of the God of Christianity. They've heard of Jesus. Now, how's God going to judge them? Well, I don't know exactly, but I know that he takes that into consideration. Now, some people think, well, God's default attitude toward sinners is he's pretty angry and hates them. But if we can give them enough light and if they understand it well enough to respond and get saved, then they've just barely escaped by the skin of their teeth the wrath of God. Now, the Bible teaches that God's default toward sinners is love. He loves sinners. He so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. Greater love has no one than that, than to die for someone else. And God sent Jesus to die for the whole world and the whole world were sinners. God loves sinners. Jesus scandalized and offended the Pharisees because they called him a friend of sinners. And they had good reason to call him that. He's the best friend sinners ever had. A physician who comes to a sick person with the cure is the best friend that sick person has, and Jesus said he is like a doctor. Doctors don't aren't angry at their patients. They want to help them. And Jesus and the Father are the sinner's best possible friends. But also because God is a just judge, you know, if the sinner doesn't receive the mercy that God supplies, there are consequences. Not because God is enraged but because a person's already on a path to destruction and if they don't turn to Christ they'll stay on that path to destruction until they end up destroyed. So, your friend who said God will judge by how much light we have, there is truth in that. Exactly what that looks like I don't know, but God does. When he addresses every person, he knows exactly how much he gave them in terms of information and light. He knows exactly what they should have been able to do with that and he knows exactly how responsible they should be held for it. Beyond that, I can't really give any more I don't really have any more details. So we'll just have to live with that or else find someone who knows more than me about it. All right? Thank you for your call. Let's talk to Alonzo in San Diego, California. Alonzo, welcome.
Guest (Male): Hi, thank you. How are you doing, Steve? I have a question in regards to voting. As Christians, and this is just as Christians, do you think that we should be indulging in voting? Such as, I mean, in my opinion, voting for somebody like Trump, who I believe isn't a follower of Christ. Do you think that's something as Christians we should be indulging in or should we separate ourselves from that?
Steve Gregg: Well, Trump is definitely a very imperfect person and I don't have any convictions about him being a Christian or not. In the next election, he's not going to be one of the people running, but we still might not have any devoted Christians running. Hopefully we will, but we don't very often. Very seldom do we have a choice between two people where one at least is a very devoted Christian. When people vote, they're deciding on what persons will choose the governing policies for a secular nation. America is a secular nation. Not all people in history, not all Christians have had the opportunity to make choices like that. Most Christians in history have lived under kings and emperors and things like that and didn't have any choice in who's going to make the policies and many times because of that the Christians were fed to lions or burned at the stake or otherwise persecuted. Now, we God has this I was just talking with the previous caller, "to whom much is given of them much is expected back." I think we've been given opportunities that very few Christians throughout history had and that is to make some decisions about what kind of policies our whole nation is going to live under. Now, our nation means people. And God loves people and we should too. And you know, if somebody's going to make policies that are going to take away people's rights, take away their money, put people in prison for having thoughts that are unauthorized by the government, I mean, that's what many governments do. That's what governments have done throughout history. This government has not for the most part done that, but there are people who would like for this government to do that. So in a sense if we vote, we're not voting for a pastor of the church, we're voting for the policies that we and our children, our grandchildren, and our neighbors are going to live under. Now, loving your neighbor as you love yourself means you do unto others what you would want done to you. I don't know how you feel about it, but I'm awfully glad that generations before mine made the kinds of laws that have caused me to grow up in a free country and where I was not starving to death, where I've got access to good medical care if I can afford it, and so forth. Where there are laws that protect my rights. I like that. I mean, I don't deserve it and many Christians never have had those privileges and and the next generations might not either depending how we vote. But the thing is, if I love my neighbors as I love myself and I'm glad that I have received such freedoms, then I want my neighbors to have those freedoms too. Now, for me to vote, some people say we shouldn't vote because we're citizens of another country. Yeah, we are. We're citizens of heaven but we live on earth and we're here to do good to our neighbor. That's what the whole story of the Good Samaritan was about. The Good Samaritan found some guy who was badly treated and he did what he could to alleviate him and give him a better outcome. And we should have that toward our neighbors too, our fellow citizens. We should hope that whatever we do will enhance a better outcome for them than let's just say something we might otherwise do which ruins their lives. I think if we vote for people who are going to do very bad and unjust policies, then we're doing a bad thing. If we vote for people who are going to make policies that are going to enhance freedoms, I mean, let's just pick the right to life that babies in the womb have. I mean, we have and I'm not a member of any political party. I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I'm not a party person. I'm an independent. But let's just say we know there's one party that believes that people should be able to abort their babies, kill their babies, their living babies, kill them, murder them. Right up until the time they're born and anytime before that in the womb. Now, that's murder. That's the shedding of innocent blood. The Bible says a land will be cursed if they shed innocent blood and that a land cannot be atoned for that sheds innocent blood except by the death of the one who sheds it. That's what the Bible says. Now, we might say, well, we're not going to kill the people who do the abortions. Fine, we're not going to kill them, but that doesn't mean we can approve of them. You know, we we have to realize these are babies that are being murdered. Now, the Republican Party hasn't been much better at getting rid of abortion than the Democratic Party has, but the Democratic Party is officially for it and many in the Republican Party are not. And so since over a million babies a year are usually killed this way, if if one vote or voting for one candidate who wins can either save a million babies a year are going to be slaughtered, hacked to pieces in their mother's wombs, painfully, bloodily, or a different candidate where they won't. To me, I don't see how a Christian can not feel that that's there's some duty there. Now, of course, if one candidate will end abortions but will get us into other kinds of immoral behaviors, then it's more difficult. And sometimes there may be a case where we can't vote for anyone. But if we don't vote for someone, it's not because they're not a Christian, it's because the person we need to vote for is the one who's going to make policies that preserve the rights of our fellow citizens because we love our neighbor. And if we don't love our neighbor, we don't care what the policies are or what happens to our fellow citizens. But if we do, we're going to want to help people. And voting is something we can do. Not everyone can. Some Christians in other countries don't get the chance to vote. We do. And therefore, I consider it to be a responsibility. It doesn't mean we promote Christianity through politics. I don't believe in that. For example, I don't believe that any politician should make it mandatory to go to church on Sunday, for example. That's something your relationship with God, frankly, is something between you and God. The government doesn't have any right to tell you what you do in that. But you know, it's we're not talking about legislating Christianity, we're talking about legislating freedom and security for innocent people like babies in the womb. Or frankly, like people who are regularly being killed in the streets in Chicago or or people who are being murdered by persons who have come unvetted in this country and they were they were murderers before they came into the country and they prove themselves to be unchanged when they get here. Those kinds of things are concerns to God and to any Christian, it would seem to me. And if someone says, "Well, it's not a concern to me," well, okay, that's between you and God. We've been given opportunities. We'll be we'll answer to God for how we use those opportunities. If we didn't do anything, fine. We buried our talent in the ground and we'll see how that works out at the judgment day. Anyway, brother, I appreciate your call. I wish I could talk to the others who have called, but I don't have time, we're out of time. But we do have tomorrow, if the Lord tarries, and you can call back then. I hope you will. You've been listening to The Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we are listener-supported. If you'd like to write to us, you can write to The Narrow Path, P.O. Box 1730, Temecula, California 92593, or go to our website thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.