Open Q and A with Steve Gregg

[Music] frankly no no limit on what question you may ask there are limits to what questions I can answer that's a different story you can ask any question I'm comfortable being asked if I don't know the answer I will not pretend I don't have a reputation I'm planning to maintain of knowing everything I don't know everything and so if I don't know I'll be glad to tell you but I'll be I'll do my best to answer your questions biblically and why don't we pray first and then we will just take your the first question thank you Father for your word we thank you for your people your church and for the Spirit of God who teaches us from your word that you've given us and I pray father that we will be led by your spirit both in the questions that are asking and the answers that are given so that you will be our teacher tonight as we always hope you will be and we ask these things in Jesus name Amen alright David did you have a question I thought it's a microphones coming I'd just like to thank you for your music tonight praise God and if I give you my email I'd like to copy that last song so I can learn it carry on the tradition okay I don't have it recorded but I could send you the words I suppose so do you play guitar I'm learning okay yeah maybe I can even show you maybe make a video of how the guitars play that would be amazing yeah send me your email you know that was written by a man named Bob Ayala who I don't know where he lives now but he lived in Tyler Texas for a while but he's a blind a blind Hispanic folk guitarist who reminded a lot of people of Jose Feliciano who is also a blind Hispanic vote guitarist but and he sang a lot like him and played and he wrote that song and because he was blind he had to be driven to his concert so I had the privilege sometimes of being his driver to the concerts and I learned that song from hearing and play it all the time and he later moved to Tyler Texas and worked with Keith greens ministry down there and and when Keith died and there were these Keith green memorial concerts around the country ba-bye although sometimes playing there but he made a couple of CDs maybe many I when I last saw him was many years ago and he had made two CDs and I asked him have you did you record miracle worker and he said no and I said why not I think that's one of your best songs and he said well it's not contemporary enough so it's too old-fashioned so he's not I said but it's powerful he said well you know when you make a album you're supposed to be contemporary so anyway he but he did on one of his CDs rewrite it more of an in a rock and roll way they had most of the same verses in the same lyrics and he had a chorus he added to it that we've thrown after every few verses and I didn't like it as much maybe I'm just old-fashioned I just like you know the original but he was a good musician a good singer and a good songwriter but when he rewrote that song I didn't like it did you find it there okay well you know he renamed it on his album when he renamed he named it as who who is this man or something like that I course he had to had a repeated who is this man but maybe he's recorded it since okay yeah he may be too many people complained and maybe he recorded in the old way I don't know but apparently he's got a website Bob Ayala spelled aya la I've not talked to him for years I haven't heard anything from him for years so what he may have available there at this point I don't know okay yes court couple of questions in gone 13 Harry used yes can me a word people what context that was used right the word parish in John 3:16 and in many other places in the Bible where that word is found in our English Bibles if I'm not mistaken I'd have to look at it be sure I think it's the word Apollo you me which does mean - its tri-state parish destroyed or it's also translated lost interestingly enough one of the Bible says that Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost it's the same word which is strange because lost and perish don't seem like the same thing yeah but but that's one of the English translations of the same word obviously it has to do with being ruined or destroyed or something and and you know those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view of Hell they would say that even though sinners perish or are destroyed they would say they're not annihilated but destruction can be very thorough without annihilating something like if you're if you drop your cell phone it hasn't been annihilate it's still there all the parts are still there they're in the physical universe but they're just it's destroyed you know and so they would say destroyed can mean ruined however it you know it does have a variety of translations that are English Bibles one other thing that in 20 revelation 20 huh well who does the casting that's a good question I don't know you know Jack Chick sort of depicts it as angels in his comic books but I think he's using some imagination it may be it may be that it is the angels you know in the story of Lazarus Richmond the angels came and took Lazarus to the Abraham's bosom so maybe we should understand that when souls who have died are transported maybe God uses angels for that I wouldn't suggest that it was necessarily Jesus who did so or God but it would be at his command who actually does the casting I don't know I guess once of coming the answer is yes you know God wouldn't send us to hell mm-hmm and so we cast ourselves into it yeah so but you know I don't know I honestly don't know a good preaching point though yeah there's a lot of good preaching points out there that it's hard to prove from Scripture yes over here Rachel why did dispensationalists believe that there's a difference between the kingdom of God in the kingdom of heaven well why do the dispensations think there's a difference in the kingdom of God in the kingdom of heaven I think it's because of some of the things that are said about the kingdom of God and about the Kingdom of Heaven and it's it's I've read the dispensations books and I've been a dispensation and I have to say I've never been clear on what that distinction is except that the impression I've gotten is they believe the kingdom of heaven can refer to the church in the present age but the kingdom of God refers to much larger issues including the church and the unit the whole universe and the whole plan of God and and the millennium and all that they believe the kingdom of God is a broader designation and that the kingdom of heaven is more narrow this is I think the impression I've gotten and and I'm not even sure all dispensationalists would be well I was a dispensation teacher for years I never could have answered that question any better than I could just now which isn't a very good answer but I believe that's the impression I've gotten from reading you know the big-name dispensational commentators now I just would make this point to distinguish between the kingdom of God in the Kingdom of Heaven is a mistake they are identically used interchangeably in the Bible Matthew is the only book in the Bible that uses the term Kingdom of Heaven and that's because it's a heat Brae ISM and Matthew is writing Matthew is the only New Testament book written to Jews other than the book of Hebrews and so Matthew and Hebrews are the only New Testament books written to Jewish list readers and Matthew doing so retains the Jewish idiom that Jesus used Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews he is Jewish idioms Mark and Luke tend to take those Jewish idioms Jesus use and try and try to paraphrase them so that their Gentile readers can make sense of them for example the Jewish idiom the abomination of desolation which Jesus used in the Olivet discourse Luke paraphrases it for Theophilus who was a Greek he paraphrases the abomination of desolation to me when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies so it's totally a different rendering but it's a it's the interpretation now Jesus often used the term Kingdom of Heaven because that was a Jewish idiom and the reason it was is the Jews were shy about using the word God in any connection very frequently just like some Hebrew roots Torah observant people are today they don't even want to write the word God they write G - D because they think the word God is too sacred to write or to speak well the Jews didn't think it was too sacred to write or speak but they didn't want to speak it too often because they thought if he used the word too frequently it cheapens it it makes it a common word and so they would find euphemisms to replace the word God with when they were be talking about God so they would say they'd used the word the most high or the the Ancient of Days or you know similar things to that they'd also use the word heaven frequently you can see it in the story of the prodigal son when he comes when he decides to come home his announcement to his father is I've sinned against heaven and in your sight of course he means I've sinned against God but heaven is a word that stands in for God now you'll find that Jesus when he spoke of the kingdom he sometimes called it the kingdom of heaven and sometimes the kingdom of God and Matthew retains both phrases where Mark and Luke only retain kingdom of God although interestingly there are many passages in Matthew which render have Jesus saying something about the Kingdom of Heaven and Mark's version says kingdom of God about the same the same statements and even Matthew uses them interchangeably in a certain place in Matthew chapter 19 when Jesus is talking about the rich young ruler after he's left he's talking to his disciples he said how hardly shall a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven again I say to you it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God now I said the same thing twice he even said he was saying the same crisis again I say to you so he he says I said at once I'll say it again but in the first instance he said it's hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven when he repeats himself he says it's hard first and during the kingdom of God it's not a difference for example in Matthew she says the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed which is indeed the tiniest of seeds but when it has grown it becomes a great tree and and birds nests in its branches the same parable and Mark says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed obviously these terms are interchangeable Jesus use them interchangeably Matthew's Gospel uses them interchangeably and then when you see compare the even the occurrences of Kingdom of Heaven and Matthew when those same statements are rendered in mark or Luke they don't they don't say Kingdom if and they think kingdom of God so to make a distinction between those two phrases is a distinction without a difference they are actually two ways of saying the same thing they're interchangeable terms thank you one more one more question so I started listening to your lecture about the origins of Satan and Wow so you know I believe that Satan was a covering cherub with you know all these instruments and and being the worship leader in heaven that's what I've learned okay so those are just traditions of man well they're not found in Scripture they are based on an interpretation of Ezekiel 28 verses 12 and following Ezekiel 28 12 says this is a prophecy against the king of tyre now many people read that to mean well not the human king of Tyre certainly but the spiritual principality behind the king of tyre who is Satan now first of all I want to just say the Bible never indicates that Satan is the spiritual principality behind the king of tyre though of course Satan is the ruler of this world the Bible suggests that different kingdoms have different demons like there was the Prince of Persia that Daniel was told about and the Prince of grisha there could have been perhaps a prince also of Tyre but that would be a demonic entity not Satan himself to identify the Prince of Tyre or the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 as Satan is strictly artificial there's not a line in there that suggestive I will tell you what there is in there that makes them think that though and I just want to Steve did you ever read Ralf Woodrow on this subject yes when I read Rolf wrote would run this he said exactly the thing that I have been saying for years but I'd never heard anyone else say it was it I was asked to teach on spiritual war for many years 40 30 35 years ago to teach a series on spiritual warfare for youth with a mission which is why lamb and in one of their schools so I prepared it and I wanted to have a lecture on the origin of Satan which of course I now have in my own series that you're listening to and I help strictly the traditional view Satan was originally Lucifer he was originally an angel he was originally a musical maybe those choir director of heaven as some people say he he led a rebellion and perhaps a war against God in heaven he he was thwarted and he was cast to earth became what we call the devil today and he's angry at God for that reason and resists the you know Christians for that reason and so forth that is the standard view and I just felt I just go and find the scriptures about that for my lecture because I was gonna make that point and I looked at the scriptures I knew which scriptures to use but as I looked at them again this is like what the preacher of rapture thing once in a while the light goes on I just saw it's not there it is not there let me give you the entire case for the idea that Satan as a fallen angel one is Isaiah 14 verses 12 through probably 16 that's the only passage in the Bible that uses the word Lucifer the word Lucifer is not found anywhere else in the Hebrew or Greek or English Bibles it is found in the Latin it's a Latin word Lucifer is a Latin word and it just means light bearer or some would say the dawning light or the star of the dawn or something like that speaks of a luminary it's not a proper name it appeared in the Latin Vulgate which the whole the whole Latin Vulgate is Latin and when it was translated into English by early English translators they followed the Vulgate and they took Lucifer to be a proper name so they kept it in Latin even though they translated the rest of the Latin into English so we have in in Isaiah 14:12 how art thou fallen from heaven o Lucifer son of the morning how are you cast down etc and it goes right you have said in your heart I will ascend you know among the stars of God I will be above like the Most High and so forth but you'll be cast down to Sheol he says now that being so this identification of Lucifer with Satan is very ancient at least in the church as old as Tertullian that's in the 2nd or 3rd century AD Tertullian identified Lucifer was Satan the Bible doesn't the Bible nowhere identifies Lucifer as Satan in fact in the in the passage where the word appears the only passage where the word appears Isaiah 14 if you go back to verse four or so you find that the prophecy is addressed to the king of Babylon now as far as we know that's the regular king of Babylon because Isaiah thirteen and fourteen or two chapters in a row that are addressed about the fall of Babylon when the Medes of the Persians would destroy them chapter 13 begins to be a prophecy against the king of against Babylon before at the end of chapter 13 it mentions that the Medes will destroy Babylon in chapter 14 continues as a proxy against the king of Babylon that's an earthly nation with an earthly king and at one point it says to the king of Babylon how are you following o radiant one oh you know light-bearer o star of the dawn how are you following from heaven you said in your heart I was among the stars of God and so forth now somewhere along the line there was a tradition that arose and it may have been among the Jews even before Christians came along I don't know how far back it goes but it's very early in the Christian church if this is a prophecy about satan satan is not mentioned by name in it no no form of the word devil or satan or anything like that it's used in the passage anywhere and everything about it sounds like it's about the king of babylon because the king about of babylon embodies than the nation of babylon in the prophecy and the theory origins of babylon were at the Tower of Babel and the Tower of Babel was an ambitious project made by men who wanted to ascend among the stars of God and and be like God and so Isaiah reminds them this is how Babel and began you thought you were gonna rise among the stars God but you're gonna be cast unto shale now by the way this thing you thought you'd you know ascend into heaven but you'll be cast out of shale Jesus borrows that language in matthew dana is my bible down there i don't have it up here with me there we go thank you in Matthew chapter 11 I believe it is Jesus is prophesying against Capernaum and he says you would be as you would ascend to heaven but you'll be cast down to Sheol or Hades is the Greek rendering of she'll let me see if I first remember that is for you Jesus used the very same expression for Capernaum as isaiah uses there it is yeah Matthew 11:23 Jesus said and you Capernaum who are exalted to heaven will be brought down to Hades which is the Greek rendering of shale now I don't know if you have a Bible that has like cross references in the columns if you do and you look at Matthew 11 23 you're likely to find a cross reference there - Isaiah 14 because Bible Translators know that Jesus is quoting or alluding to that passage using the same language now he's not saying that Capernaum is blues hurts just saying the same thing can be said about Capernaum that was said about babbling ambitious not they just send to heaven but no they're gonna be cast down to Sheol or Hades now when you read further I think it's around verse 15 in Isaiah 40 14 still speaking to the same person he says those who see you shall narrowly look upon you and say is this the man who shook the nation's oops a man is addressed not an angel there's no suggestion that Lucifer in the passage is intended to be addressing an angel or a superhuman or anything other than the king of Babylon I mean you can read it in there if you want to and I won't I won't condemn you because I did for many years assuming that was what it was meant but there's nothing there and the people who say that it means that don't have they don't have another Bible than the one you can read that's the thing we have to remember when we hear people say things about interpreting the Bible and I say well my Bible doesn't say that they must have another Bible that says that no they don't they have the same one they're just reading into a passage something they were taught to read into it and it's a very long tradition that Lucifer is a reference to Satan now I think the evidence in the passage is that Lucifer is a reference to the king of Babylon it's not a proper name it's a it's a divine or not divine but a royal title star of the morning glorious one you know even Jesus is called the morning star in Revelation chapter 22 and that's the same same kind of expression Kings can be called your mass your majesty you know your your great one you know you shining one morning star me there's there's in the Orient especially okay flatteries of Kings that are used and and that flattery is used of the king of Babylon in addressing him in Isaiah 14 the same phrase is used to refer to Jesus because he's great king also so anyway the passage itself says that the person being smug who is a man if we want to say it's an angel we're just gonna have to add stuff to the Bible that isn't in fact we have to deny what is there we have to take some words out of them and put it in the words we want to be there there's no suggestion anywhere in Isaiah 14 or elsewhere that Lucifer is anything other than the king of Babylon and he's and Lucifer's never mentioned in the Bible anywhere else and by the way if you're not reading the King James for the New King James I do use the New King James usually I am now but if you read any other modern translations you won't even find the word Lucifer there you'll just find it rendered something like Morningstar or something like that which is a proper translation of the Hebrew word the fact that the early English translations retained the Latin word from the Latin Vulgate was a mistake it would seem to me they thought they treated like a proper name is just another Latin word in an entirely Latin text so it this is a huge mistake I think that was made by early translators and many have fixed it I mean the modern translators don't do that anymore they don't render Lucifer as a proper name because there's no reason to believe it is nor is there any reason in the passage to believe that Lucifer so addressed is an angel or certainly that he's the devil so the that's one of two passages that are used the other one is what I mentioned earlier Ezekiel 28 which is about the king of Tyre and that's the one where they get the idea of him being a cherub and having musical instruments and so forth and that again comes mostly from the King James but but but much of it is in the text in Hebrew as well some of it comes from the King James rendering but the point here is it says this in he in Ezekiel 28 12 son of man take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre now by the way that two chapters previously are also addressed to the king of Tyre and nobody suggests that that's addressing the devil in any of those suddenly though the king of Tyre has been addressed for three chapters at this point two and a half chapters suddenly we want to make the came to our be someone other than the king of tyre now suddenly we think it's the devil why well because of some of the things that are said to him you were the seal of perfection full of wisdom perfect in beauty you were in Eden the garden of God every precious stone was recovering sardius topaz in diamond barrel onyx and jasper sapphire turquoise and emerald with gold the workmanship of your timbrels and pipes that's musical instruments was prepared for you or the King James is prepared in you on the day you were created you were the anointed cherub who covers I established you you were in the holy mountain of God you are back and forth in the midst of the fiery stones you were perfect in your ways from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you by the abundance of your trading that's an interesting observation by the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within and you sinned therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God and destroyed you Oh covering cherub from the midst of the fiery stones now there's often said this can't be a reference to the king of tyre for a number of reasons one it says you're a cherub a cherub is like a heavenly being ezekiel actually describes cherubs in chapter 1 and in chapter 10 of his book they like have four faces a face like a LOX a face like a lion a face like a lion a face like a man they have they have four wings and they stand at the four corners of God's chariot and accompany him as he travels this is the cherubs now the king of Tyre is called a chair of them and so they said that can't be a man he's a cherub and then it says you were in Eden the garden of God well there's a limited number of characters that were needing the garden of God even Adam and Eve didn't stay very long how many characters do we know of in Eden well there is God there was the serpent there was Adam and Eve and isn't that pretty much the whole list and therefore the argument is if he was a cherub in the Garden of God he wasn't God or at him even he must have been a serpent he must have been the devil that's how the idea comes that this was the devil if there's a problem with that one more than one one serious problem is a the person spoken to is not literally a chair but all if you turn over to chapter 31 of ezekiel you'll find an address to the the assyrian king and it said that he was a tree in the garden of god he was a tree in eden well I don't think any King was a tree in Eden I don't think any of the Kings in the Middle East were cherubs in Eden being an Eden is obviously a poetic expression just like we'd say you were in paradise you know the point is that this is all written in poetry every line here is in poetry and poetry uses imagery figures a speech and to say you were a cherub in Eden doesn't have to be taking any more literally than the king of Assyria being a tree in Eden okay now more than that even if you take it literally that he is it was a cherubim Eden and I think this is a not a not a reasonable way to understand it but let's go with it let's just take that as a point of argument suppose he is talking to one who was a chair of an Eden that's not the serpent there was a chair have been eaten in Genesis you might remember after Adam and Eve sinned God put a cherub to guard the weight of the tree of life so they wouldn't eat it in other words if Ezekiel is referring back to actual persons who were in the Garden of Eden he's not addressing the serpent he's addressing the cherub now we have no reason to believe that the cherub that guarded the way Tree of Life defected there's no evidence of that in the Old Testament unless this is telling us that but this is all figurative what I think he's saying is that you were a you know an important character like like the cherub who guarded the way to the Tree of Life you are a guardian of your people and that's what Kings were supposed to be you're supposed to be a guardian if you people you're the guardian cherub who covered and you were in the Garden of God is no more literal than that the Assyrian King was a tree in the Garden of God just means you were in paradise she had it made you were perfect in beauty perfect in wisdom some people say well that's got to be the devil because no human is perfect in wisdom well but it's a it's a hyperbole actually if you would look at earlier in the same chapter chapter 28 in verse two son a man saved this to the Prince of Tyre thus says the Lord God because your heart is lifted up you say I am a god I sit in the seat of gods in the midst of the Seas yet you are a man and not God though you set your heart is God he said verse Allah behold you are wiser than Daniel there is no secret that could be hidden from you with your wisdom and understanding you've gained riches etc this is he this is sarcastic oh you're wiser than Daniel he's basically saying you think you're so wise oh yeah you were perfect in wisdom but you did some really stupid thing when you rebelled against me right and if you look back at the previous chapter which is addressed to the is a description of tyre also it says in in chapter 27 verse 3 as tire is figuratively described as a ship there's a lot of figurative in these Paul in these prophecies say to tyre you who are situated at the entrance of the sea merchants of the peoples on many Coast lands thus says the Lord God o tyre I've said or you have said I am perfect in beauty oh so that's what tyre says about self I am perfect in beauty now no one suggests that tyre in chapter 27 is the devil but tires self-description was I am perfect in beauty in chapter 26 28 he says the King Cyrus says he says you were perfect in beauty perfect and wisdom but really not so much because iniquity was found in you and that's not so wise after all is it and then he says by the abundance of your trading you were corrupted trading tyre was a merchant city it was a seaport is the wealthiest seaport on the western Mediterranean Shore just north of Israel and it was wealthy and it became proud and it had to come under destruction Alexander the Great was used by God to destroy it as a judgment on it this what he's predicting but the point here is I don't know that anyone has a theory that an angel in heaven got corrupted by trading what did he have a did he open up a chain of stores up there or something how did he Satan got corrupted by trading in heaven I don't think so but what about those musical instruments you see some people say well Satan he was uh he was probably the choir director in heaven really where do you get that well from this one place it says the workmanship of your timbrels and harps was in you from the day you were created someone is taking that so literally to say this creature had timbrels and harps musical instrument into its body like limbs like you and I have arms and legs he had timbrels and harps so he was obviously a musical creature and then the leap is made well maybe he was musical so he gave me the leader of the singing there's not a word in the scripture of Satan ever haven't been a musician ever haven't been even an angel but it's all comes to this verse the workmanship of your temples and harps was in you from the day you were created but what's it saying it's saying that the music and the celebration of the parties and so forth were part of Tyre from the earliest days they had their musicians they had their instruments and so forth although modern translations actually changed timbrels and harps to sockets and settings like in jewelry sockets and settings and it follows immediately after a list of gemstones says you were covered with gemstones you had every precious stone for your covering he's talked about how King covered with gems the sockets and settings of the gems and so forth were were a part of his you know opulence and so forth in others if you what we have is a a failure for modern Christians and maybe some ancient Christians to really understand Hebrew poetry interventive compare Scripture with Scripture if we want to make this person whose address literally a chair of an Eden then he's not the devil because the devil was not a cherubim Eden he was the de serpent in Eden the cherubim someone else and so there's no suggestion here that Satan is in view or even a real cherub because that's I believe it's a figurative thing I don't think there's anything about satan's origin in isaiah 14 or in ezekiel 28 if you can find it feel free but i just covered all the evidence for it and it's very weak what about the new testament doesn't the new testament tells satan's a fallen angel not really in Luke chapter 10 I think it's verse 18 Luke 10 you yeah verse 18 G said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that certainly seems to confirm our traditional picture of Satan a fallen angel well Jesus doesn't say he was an angel who fell actually in the Old Testament Satan is seen in heaven but he's not an angel in the Old Testament he's an accuser he accuses job he accuses Joshua the high priest in Zechariah chapter 4 the few times that we actually see Satan in heaven in the Bible in the Old Testament he was not an angel he was a devil and we don't have any evidence that when Satan fell from heaven he changed from being an angel to being a devil it's just an I saw Satan fall from like lightning from heaven you have the same kind of imagery in Revelation 12 verses 7 through 9 where it says there was war in heaven Michael and his angels made war against the dragon and his angels dragon is Satan and it says and he could not prevail and the dragon who is also called the devil and Satan was cast out of heaven okay so Satan is cast out of heaven jesus said in John 12:31 he said now is the judgment of this world now shall the Prince of this world be cast out meaning at the cross Jesus at the cross defeated Satan and he's often depicted as being cast out Jesus could foresee that in Luke 10 because his disciples had come back and said even the demons are subject to us in your name and he said I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven that is the ministry of the disciples casting out demons was like the the imminent downfalls Jesus could see it prophetically it's coming up and in in John 12:31 he says now is now shall the Prince of this world be cast out there's no evidence that Satan was a it was an angel before this in fact jesus said in speaking to the Pharisees in John 8:44 he said you are of your father the devil he was a murderer from the beginning the devil is a murder from the beginning that's not what I was taught first John 3:8 it also says the devil sent from the beginning well I actually had the impression that the devil as a sinner was sort of a an acquired nature after falling from being an angel there's not one word in the Bible that says the devil was an angel he's certainly supernatural he does say the Bible does say he's a spirit he's the spirit that works in the children of disobedience in Ephesians and and he is called the the god of this world he's called the Prince of this world and it does say the angel Satan himself appears as an angel of light some people use that to say he's an angel but then he says it's no wonder then that his ministers are transformed into ministers of righteousness innards his ministers Satan's ministers aren't really ministers of righteousness they transform themselves are they impersonate ministers righteous so Satan impersonates an angel of God - but the Bible doesn't ever describe him as an angel in any passage it never says that he fell from being an angel to being the devil as far as we know he was a sinner from the beginning as it says or as Jesus said a murderer from the beginning now I say as far as we know because I'm not this is one of those several subjects and you've heard me talk about some of them already earlier this week then I don't I'm not sure about we don't have a lot of information we have nothing in the Bible that tells us Satan's a fallen angel well we don't have anything that Baba tells us otherwise either unless when Jesus said he murdered he was a murderer from the beginning but it's possible to interpret that to mean from Genesis 1 in the beginning from that point on he was a murderer but he was better before that but just never recorded to be it's possible that Satan is a fallen angel that cannot be ruled out from the data of Scripture but it cannot be affirmed from the data of Scripture is simply a tradition and it's like you people just say boy the more I listen to you the less I know about anything yeah join the club the older I get the less I know for sure because things I used to know for sure we're not biblically established I knew them for sure but there's no basis for knowing them for sure the older the more I study the scripture I realize this was a tradition this was tradition now sometimes traditions can be true and especially if the church held it for 2,000 years you know it's got a good pedigree but I'm not here to say Satan was not a fallen angel I'm here saying if he was the Bible doesn't tell us so it may be otherwise he may not have been but he might have been I'm not I'm not trying to slant one way or another of that okay another question I follow I have someone who's he's a brother who can tolerate me and you've been you you don't know it but you've been deconstructing theology for me for many years I was a preacher's kid and so I had all the traditions he admits whenever he during debates like this that although we cannot find biblical scripture on its own he reads these other books that are not in the Bible like Enoch whatever that is I've never read it okay but whatever ever he gets that he gets some of these other books and there's so much in those that support bringing those suppositions into the Bible and he's saying he's admitting he goes well here's the problem if you read this you're going to see in a Bible that way the idea that and I thought you would know more about that from the Book of Enoch the Book of Enoch was written two centuries before Christ by somebody who is not Enoch and it does speak of Satan being a fallen angel I would suspect that there there are teachers and and there are people who are part of the early church in the medieval church that you know did I don't know why I've never read it I I'm not even interested in doing so but from what I understand I have it yeah from understand many people have you know and then how do you get that out of your head yeah well when you find that there's nothing that the Bible actually says affirming something that we have believed we really have two choices one is to say at this point I have to remain undecided because the Bible does not have the information available apparently God did not choose to reveal it so I either if being undecided or guess and I can't think of any good reason to guess because I can't have any confidence that my guess would necessarily be true so I can remain undecided that's why I stand on the Satan thing the other option is go with tradition in which case you'd make a good Catholic because the Roman Catholics believe that the scripture is not the only Authority for doctor but the authority comes from the Bible and church tradition they believe church tradition is equal to the Bible in authority and that's how they differ from Protestants the reason Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic Church at one of the reasons was because he didn't believe that tradition had the same authority of Scripture he believed in Sola scriptura means scripture alone and that is the principle difference or one of the principal differences between the Roman Catholic branch and the Protestant branch of Christian Roman Catholics believe Scripture and church tradition are equal and so they believe the traditions as much as they believe the scripture so as the church generates new traditions like About Mary being sinless or Mary being assumed into heaven or Mary remaining a virgin all her life that's a church tradition I don't accept it because the Bible doesn't say it but the Catholics accept it because it's tradition now Protestants face the same conundrum at times they often aren't told the veces throat because their pastors teach these things as if they weren't tradition and I I for one am a very conservative person in my temperament I don't like to change I was raised completely fundamentalist conservative mainline you know traditionalists and all these things and and yet as a teacher I've been obliged to teach every part of the Bible I've taught through the bottom more than 16 times verse by verse the whole thing and more than that and and to be twenty-two years on the radio answering Bible questions which means I need to know the answer if possible at least I don't want to give the wrong answer I can say I don't know the answer but I can't I I don't want to give the wrong answer we teachers will have a stricter condemnation the Bible is a stricter judgment for teachers than for other people so I don't want to give wrong answers I'd rather give the right answer sometimes the right answer is I don't know I don't have the information available but to give a traditional answer that I think might not be right or could possibly not be right and not tell my listeners that that might not be right it's dishonest I think and unless a listener says well my denominations traditions they're as good as Bible for me well then they could be a Catholic and probably should be because they're only Catholics not the Protestants are the ones who believe that tradition is as good as Bible I'm I'm very strict Bitlis estai I believe that if you can't find it in the Bible shouldn't be affirmed it can be guests you can guess you can speculate but you shouldn't affirm what the Bible does not affirm about the things that we couldn't otherwise know I mean there are things we could discover scientifically but we can't discover where the same as a fallen angel scientifically if he the only way we would ever know that is if the Bible told us and it doesn't we know he's bad he either is a good angel who became battery is bad from the beginning like Jesus said no really those are options all right anyone else I know it's getting late I know a lot of us get up early I'm getting up early hi um so I've heard there was an unforgivable sin or unpardonable sin in that having to do with blaspheming the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12 is there an unpardonable sin and what exactly is considered blaspheming the Holy Spirit here's what Jesus said about this it's Matthew 12 31 therefore I say to you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men anyone who speaks a word against the Son of man it will be forgiven him but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven him either in this age or the age to come now jesus said he used the term blaspheming the Holy Spirit and he also talked about a person who a sin it will not be forgiven now I I shy away from the term unpardonable sin because the Bible doesn't use that term what it says is those who this will not be forgiven does that mean because they did something that is impart about or is it that because they've done that they are in a state of heart that they would never meet the conditions for pardon and as they would never repent you know a sin I could predict that somebody will never be pardoned if I believe that what they're doing is something that God would never pardon or I could believe they won't be pardoned if I believe that even though God would pardon it they will never repent and therefore they will not be perfect pardon he's simply predicted they will not be forgiven he's not saying why now it may be that because it's a sin so bad that even God said oh I mean I can tell her anything but fact but I don't know that that is the case because elsewhere in Scripture we read that the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin if we confess our sins he's faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness there's no exceptions suggested but it does require that we confess our sins and there are people whose hearts become so hard that they're just not inclined they don't feel like conviction they don't they won't repent they won't confess the system so they won't be forgiven and it's probable that what Jesus is describing that was two more there's several different possibilities of course but we it's it's an obscure statement that Jesus doesn't explain any more than we just read but one possibility is that the it's a condition so hardened you're so hard-hearted but you'll just never repent and therefore you'll never be forgiven if that's what it means then he's suggesting that what the Pharisees did exhibits that kind of a hardness of heart and therefore if they have such a hardness of heart they won't ever be forgiven they'll say anything even blasting the Holy Spirit now what had the Pharisees done in the passage they had said that Jesus was casting out demons by Beelzebub the Prince of demons and Jesus correct them said no I'm casting out demons by the Spirit of God and therefore the kingdom of God has overtaken you now you know the Pharisees saw the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus and they said that's the devil that certainly is blaspheming yeah we're calling the Holy Spirit the devil and it's in that context that Jesus says if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit that won't be forgiven and therefore some people think and they may be right now what he's talking about is people getting so hard-hearted that they have no conviction at all even about calling the Holy Spirit the devil himself such people may have such a hard heart they have never repent and will not be forgiven that's one very common interpretation another common interpretation is that anytime you attribute to the devil anything that's the work of Holy Spirit that's blasphemy of spirit I have problems that I've for certain reasons because sometimes people accidentally without having a heart heart may mistakenly think that's the devil and it's really the Holy Spirit there are people who think for example that all speaking in tongues today is of the devil and yet what if it isn't what if in fact it is a gift of the Holy Spirit and a Christian says no I think that's the devil well they're making a mistake but are they really hardened against God are they just making a mistake people who have soft hearts or God could be mistaken I don't think God is gonna damn someone eternally just because they though they did their best they misunderstood something it would be more if you if you know it's the Holy Spirit and you say it's the devil that'd be a different thing but certainly people can mistake he'll work with the Holy Spirit for the devil there are certain things that happen in Pentecostal churches then I I mean I'm a I'm a full gospel person myself but something is I've seen in Pentecostal churches give me the creeps I mean I've been in Pentecostal churches a really day there's screaming and running up and down the house and it seems like demon manifestation rather than the Holy Spirit and I'm in climbing that's the devil that's not the Holy Spirit Oh what if I was wrong you know it wouldn't be because I hate God or I'm got a hard heart it's just because I that's what it looks like to me you know but the Pharisees I think didn't have that excuse I think they were hard-hearted and I think Jesus is saying he didn't say they had committed sin he said if a man does he won't be forgiven he might be saying you guys by saying what you said are dangerously close to falling into this situation I'm describing and if you if a person gets that far they won't be forgiven not because God just says I'm sorry that's the one thing I can't but it's said it's it's a something that can't be forgiven because they won't repent their hearts too hard to even be convicted about it I think that's what's talked about maybe there are there's other theories but one's good enough to go in my next question it's on speaking in tongues because I was taught that being baptized in the Holy Spirit it you had to speak in tongues yes and they had to lay hands on you and it was almost like they wouldn't relent until something came out of your mouth yes so what are your thoughts because I'm having a hard time like if somebody does speak in tongues is it from God I believe the gift of tongues is a genuine gift to the Holy Spirit but like every genuine gifts really good it can be faked by demons or even just by the flesh you know I actually believe that some people have genuinely fallen down under the power of the Spirit I don't think it's all that common well once someone does it anyone can fake it and I've been in meetings for everyone's expected to do it and just the power of suggestion to get people to do things that are of the Spirit it may have been in some cases the Holy Spirit who caused someone to fall but once it's become the norm anyone can do it because they're expected to in Pentecostal culture people are expected to speak in tongues it's it's called the initial evidence doctrine the tongues is the initial evidence of being baptized in the spirit and they say therefore unless you speak in tongues you have not been baptized in the spirit now I'll just say this I believe in speaking works and I myself speak in tongues but I didn't I didn't the moment I got baptized as I got baptized in the spirit and it was months before I spoke in tongues and I don't believe everyone has baptized in spirit eventually even speaks in tongues speaking in tongues is never said to be the initial evidence of the baptism Holy Spirit where'd they get that they get it from a couple data one is in the book of Acts there are cases a few a handful of cases where people are seen to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and in three of those cases that we're told they speak in tongues right at the time they get filled in spirit and they spoke with tongues and sometimes they prophesy but we shouldn't say prophecies the initial evidence it's just that these are phenomena that happen there are three different cases in the book of Acts one is in Acts chapter 2 and Pentecost another is in Acts chapter 9 no it's not 9 it's it's in chapter 10 when Cornelius is household our filters first they speak in telling some of them and then in chapter 19 of Acts Paul meets seven people in Ephesus he leads them Christ baptized in water lays hands on them and they and they speak in terms to receive the spirit so we have three cases in the book of Acts where people are filled with spirit and they speak with tongues we have two other cases in the book of Acts where people are filled with spirit but it doesn't say whether they did or not speak in tongues they might have or not you cannot say we've got five examples of which three include the phenomenon to do not and therefore it always must because there are two in which for all we know they may not have they may have I'm not saying they didn't we just don't have a biblical affirmation about it the other evidence they used is from mark chapter 16 where it says these signs shall follow those who believe this is mark 16:17 in my name they shall speak with new tongues they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover they should if they they shall take up serpents if they drink any deadly thing it will no harm that they'll cast out demons and so forth they and speaking in tongues is listed as signs that will follow those who believe and something you see if you're a believer the sign will be that you speak in tongues you could as easily say the sign will be that you pick up serpents and there's some churches that say that - I don't think they're right the truth is well first the truth is that that particular passage in mark isn't in the oldest manuscripts and a great number of Bible scholars think it was added later but even if we accept it as genuine which I'm inclined to do he's not saying that every believer will speak in tongues or take up serpents or drink poison but that these signs are the kinds of things that will follow the believing community the first before it says preach the gospel to every creature whoever believes is baptized shall be saved those who do not believe should be lost and these signs will follow those who believe it knows you go out disciples go out to territory where the gospel to be preached for the first time a bunch of people believe and there will be these signs that accompany the phenomenon of people believing not everyone's gonna do the same things Paul himself said in first Corinthians 12 there's different gifts that different people have but there will be signs you notice what he's saying is the power of the Holy Spirit will be manifested in various signs in in the new Christian communities that are founded but but he's not saying that everyone there is going to do all those things but where there is a Christian those who believe is the Christian community and these signs will be where they are now speaking in tongues if we're going to say that says that you have to be speak in tongues to be fill this very you actually should say yes speak in tongues to be saved and there are some Pentecostal groups United Pentecostal and have to start churches and so forth to believe you actually have to speak in tongues not just to be filled with spirit but to be saved these are very radical and I think they're mistaking first of all mark chapter 16 verse 17 but other Pentecost groups that are not that radical Assemblies of God Foursquare Church of God Cleveland Tennessee and other Pentecostal churches they have a milder dr. and that is simply that tongues is the initial evidence of being baptized in the spirit but even that is not affirmed in Scripture I believe in speaking in tongues I speak in tongues myself but I can find no scripture that says that all Christians do or must or that all spirit-filled people do or must there is an association between tongues and being fills the spirit in some of the passages of the Bible but not all of them and therefore to extrapolate from those few to make it a universal is simply not handling the Bible in a responsible way that's my question another question okay I have one so you mentioned earlier that Matthew and Hebrew were the only two New Testament books written to Jews to Jewish Christians to Jews in general and then can you explain James 1:1 well to brief James 1:1 says James a servant of God and a brother he says and of the Lord Jesus Christ he says to the 12 tribes which are scattered abroad greeting some people think the 12 tribes is an emblem for the spiritual Israel the church I'm more inclined to think he is writing to the Jewish Christian community and therefore my original statement should be modified James he does he's speaking to Christians to be sure he's not writing to unsaved Jews because he says in chapter 2 that he says do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect to persons and in chapter 3 talks with rich men I think it's chapter 3 talks about the Richmond he says do they not blaspheme that worthy name by which you were called so his readers are called by that worthy name of Jesus and they're told not to hold that with hypocrisy or respect of persons but they are choose to I think and the reason I would take his twelve tribes in verse 1 of chapter 1 literally is because we know that James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and his heart was for the Jewish mission and at the Jerusalem Council for example you know he he agreed with Paul and and yet he wanted Paul to remember the sensitives of the Jews and even in Galatians 2 when Paul some 17 or 14 years after his conversion met with Peter and James and John a Peter and James actually I think it was he's and John yeah he said that they they agreed with his gospel but they said he would be an apostle to the Gentiles and they would go to the circumcision so we know that James saw his mission as primarily focused toward reaching Jews and so when he says he's writing his epistle to the 12 tribes I suspect he really literally means the Jews there there is of course the another opinion available and that is that he's using 12 tribes spiritually of the spiritual Israel do you think that that that scattered is the disparate or possibly the scattered and scattered and from the persecution yeah is he talk about the Diaspora which you know was back in the days in 722 BC when the 12 tribes were scattered by the Assyrian destruction of the northern kingdom well the Diaspora was a continuing phenomenon in the days of James but you're right the Christians in Jerusalem had become sort of a Christian diaspora and because they'd fled from persecutions or he might have just them in mind yeah it's a good good observation question I got one I got one I got one the other night you said that you have 1,500 messages but you also said that your viewpoint has changed over the years so of those 1500 messages are we likely to stumble on something that you no longer ascribe to well it's not important to ascribe to what I ascribe to it anyway so if you hear something I say you can't just believe it anyway but I will say this about the 1500 messages at least 600 of them have been added in recent years since the last time I counted last time I counted there are only 900 but somebody more recently counted him said there's 15 so there are some quite old lectures on the website but most of them have been updated and replaced in the last decade of when I haven't really changed my views significantly on anything the ones that are the oldest would be a few of the verse-by-verse treatments of books of the Bible that I haven't taught through recently in others would be a difference of opinion about some passage as I'm going through a passage but on my my topical teachings of which there's many hundreds of them they're all up to date and in others I don't think you'll hear anything there that I don't currently agree with and there's not many of the other type either ivory taught through most of the books of the Bible in the last decade and but some of those tapes or some of those lectures were on cassette tape record back in the 80s that's a long time ago but I've made a point in the last decade or so to try to reteach as much as possible those lectures and we've put the newer lectures on whenever I've done so some of the Minor Prophets I haven't done in the last decade but I don't think I've changed my views on any of them and that since the eighties you went to the first my first commentary and we went to the sequel in Isaiah and you discussed tonight Lucifer the sentence fall if we were to go to those commentaries and have someone that we knew listened to them would those commentaries at those same exact spots be addressing that subject or which should we go to one of your topical areas well if you're thinking about the fall of Satan you can get it from the topical series okay oh you have on spiritual warfare okay try for serious I think the second lecture is the origin of Satan but I will say if you listen to the old the Ezekiel election on there are very old I've taught Ezekiel four or five times since that but not in a situation where I'd want to record because I've taught it with translators in Spanish and Korean audiences so I don't want to replace an English lecturer with one where I'm half of its in Korean half of English but I do want to teach it strictly in English again to get it but the recording of Ezekiel is awfully poor quality but if you can stand to listen to it I will make the same points about Ezekiel 28 there and as far as Isaiah 14 I have Isaiah more recently and it's more up-to-date - well it's all in one place the origin of Satan there I deal with all the verses in the Bible that are used where when I'm going through Zika I'm gonna deal with Ezekiel primarily any others yes I was just gonna say over your many years of research and study what to you stands out I are just is most profound or you know ideas or things that you've stumbled upon that don't I've changed my view on yeah or just even I would even say like cuz you said like hell and and revelations not your really your thing whatever but so what is and then at the same time you know maybe what is some profound things that you have well [Music] you know the thing is when I was a young teacher I sat under very thorough expositor teaching under dispensational teachers and and basically learned all about the dispensational to him the whole Bible Chuck Smith taught through the whole Bible every couple of years I went through it a few times with them and I had a mind to understand and remote and remember and repeat what he said which is I did I was mimicked him until I did my own studies and had to change my views so most of my revelations I've gotten have not been positive but negative like it was real revealed to me that what I was teaching wasn't true you know or or it wasn't firmed in Scripture and that's a hard thing by the way some people just like to be novel and they'll just chase any strange new view I don't like being novel it's hard when you've taught something publicly for years to come up say you know I was totally off on that you know I've had to do that on many subjects my views on the millennium on the tribulation on the rapture you know eschatological things in general on the other discourse I've I suppose one of the most significant changes that has happened in the last I'd say 30 years is move from a futurist understanding of much of prophecy to what we'd have to call a preterist understanding of much of prophecy basically a lot of prophets Old Testament and New Testament prophecies I had been taught to see them as references to the last days or to the second coming of Christ or to the Future millennium now that I've taught through all the prophets verse by verse dozens of times now that I'm familiar with them and I'm familiar with how the New Testament writers interpreted them by quoting them in certain context I've come to understand a lot of those prophecies were actually fulfilled in the past and they're not references to the end times and that that was a earth-shaking change for him but but it happened about 30 years ago the hell thing I was teaching solidly without question the traditional view of Hell right up until maybe 10 years ago means I taught it for 40 years now I began to hear some 25 years ago I began to hear that some good average Eliquis had moved toward conditional immortality people like John RW Stott and Clarke Pennock who were evangelical scholars and leaders that I've really respected they came out in the middle 80s and said that they had moved to conditionally immortality I thought they were wrong but I still respect him I didn't change my view then but I began to be aware that there were other views that a true evangelical Christian might believe but I was pretty solidly in the traditional camp for years after that I'd only say the last 10 years probably that I really have taken very seriously alternative views of Hell so I haven't changed radically in the last year or two or anything like that I mean a lot of my big changes happened when I was a younger teacher when I've been teaching for twenty years or thirty years or something but now 20 years after that the changes are fewer and far between I hope it's not because I'm less teachable than I used to be but it's just maybe that I've just kind of disabused myself of some wrong ideas and maybe I've settled on the right ones now I don't know I'd like to think that but who knows what I may have to change in the future I always have to be open to it I didn't know that was ya revelation is not it's funny I've only written books on Revelation and hell and they're not my they're not my thing revelation I mean I I obviously know something about revelation because I wrote a commentary and read 50 commentaries on it writing it but I consider revelation not to be such a important thing compared to certain other matters the same thing was about the view of Hell I don't care which view of hell is true although if some of them make God look better than others and I hope they are the true but I don't feel like I have to know what what is essential and has always been essential in the from the beginning of my ministry till now and only gets more so and not less so is that it's all about following Jesus that's what it is it's all about in Jesus trusting Jesus following Jesus obeying Jesus and that's what discipleship is and that Christian duty all comes down especially to love a love has strong moral implications and I think everything Jesus taught is mandatory but I think everything Jesus taught is an explanation of what it means to love so you know that you know it's my my my views get simpler as I find out that all the peripheral things have become more questionable you know it's like the simplicity that is in Christ Paul was afraid the church might be moved away from the simplicity that is in Christ and you know when you get all caught up in Calvinism versus Arminianism or dispensationalism you know against some other view or this view of hell versus this one I don't get caught up in those I try to be I try to study everything but I try to keep the focus on the one thing needful remember Martha and Mary she said Martha Martha Martha you're concerned about all these different things but only one thing is needful and mary has chosen that one thing and it will not be taken from her so I think the older I get the more simple I get the more I think and it's just because I didn't intend to you know it's just that the things that were more complex I still discuss them in the context of people who want to discuss them but I discussed them with some detachment I don't care if someone's a Calvinist or not I don't care if someone's a dispensations or not I don't care if someone holds a traditional view of hell or not I don't care I mean it'd be nice if I agreed with me but if they don't they can be as good a Christian as me if they love Jesus and follow Jesus that's what it's all about so that'd be my focus all right if anybody has one last question we'll give him one more okay so it's not biblical per se I've heard you say multiple times Jesus people mm-hmm I just didn't know if that had any negative connotation nowadays cuz I I like that term it's simple it gets right to the point you know I just didn't know where it came from it came it came from the Jesus Movement in the early 70s people didn't want to be called by any religious tag they just want to be Jesus people now critics of the movement call them Jesus freaks because the word freak had been used of people who are like you know drug freaks and a lot of these Jesus people had used drugs and have been hippies and so forth and now they were called a year now at Jesus Freak you know well it was sort of like Yankee Doodle or something is its intended as a pejorative but the Yankees picked it up said we'll take that you know and the Jesus people didn't mind being called Jesus freaks it Jesus Freak now and then has always been a pejorative except when used by Jesus freaks about themselves you know you know it's but but Jesus people would only be pejorative in the terms you know in the in the mouths of people who hate Christians in general or who hate Jesus yeah I don't think I don't think any Christian would object to the term Jesus people though some would object to the term Jesus freaks today but back then we didn't object to either term and you know being one of Jesus people as is our glory in his arm pride you know I mean not that we're proud but not ashamed [Music] you [Music]

Channel: Chocolate Bayou Worship Center

Views: 1,015

Rating: 5 out of 5

Keywords: steve gregg

Id: xxtj1BPDDYk

Length: 71min 51sec (4311 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 12 2019