SPROUL: We're going to get right to it. Here are some ground rules for the Q&A. In order to get as many questions answered
as possible, I'm going to set this principle that we don't all have to answer every question. So, after we have like two answers, we'll
go to the next one, okay? And I don't have to answer any of them. Here's the first one. Oops! I may get in on this one. Oh, well, this is The Great Kreskin. "Where did Calvin stand on arguments for God's
existence? Did he use them or did he view belief in God
as properly basic?" Go ahead, Sinclair. FERGUSON: Well, there are two views on this,
and they're probably near the western and eastern extremities... SPROUL: ...of this panel. FERGUSON: ...here of this panel. But happily, we both agree with Calvin. Now, did you make up all of these questions,
R.C.? SPROUL: No, I didn't even do this one. Vesta brought this one in. Is that it? FERGUSON: Well, what do you expect me to say? I'm your guest. SPROUL: This is a man of real convictions,
as you can see. FERGUSON: I'm just trying to let you down
gently. I think there are layers in answering that
question. I think to me the most fundamental layer is
the way in which Calvin in the first book of The Institutes operates with twin principles. One is what he calls the cognitio Dei insita,
"the implanted knowledge of God," and the other is what he calls the semen religionis. And to me, the basic principle of the cognitio
Dei insita is very much related to his view of man as the image of God, which means that
as he says in the opening section of The Institutes, it's not possible for a man to come to any
kind of self-understanding without simultaneously coming to a sense of the being of God and
some sense of the nature of God. Or as I would put it had I been Calvin, it's
impossible for a human being to escape divine revelation because he is actually the apex
of divine revelation. He's made as the image of God. And in that sense, I think Calvin says that
the knowledge of God is a kind of inescapable given, but then when he works with the semen
religionis, which I take to be more or less a consciousness of what that means and what
that then goes on to imply for an individual, that seems to me to be a much more variable
thing in Calvin. SPROUL They turned my mic off. Is this on? There, no. This is a terrible thing. FERGUSON: Is this one working? SPROUL: There we go. You know, we make a distinction in historic
Reformed theology with respect to God's revelation and with respect to His general revelation,
that is, the revelation that He gives to the whole of the universe, to all people. And we distinguish between what's called "mediate"
and "immediate" revelation. And there's no question, I don't think, that
Calvin taught that we all have as creatures in the image of God an immediate general revelation,
that we have what he called a sensus divinitatis, a sense of the divine within ourselves. He followed Augustine on this. You know, where Calvin talks about knowledge
of the self and knowledge of God, Augustine said you can't be aware of yourself as a self
without at the same time being aware of yourself as a created, dependent, contingent being
so that self-awareness carries with it in its bosom, as it were, an awareness of God. But the dispute is about how Calvin would
work with the external evidence of mediated general revelation, that revelation that comes
in and through nature like Paul describes in Romans chapter 1 and the like. If I can just make a parallel with the way
Calvin approaches the proof of the Scriptures, in The Institutes early on, as we all know
that, he gives what he calls the indicia or the evidence for the divine character of Scripture,
and he says that the indications or the evidence is so overwhelming as to stop the mouths of
the obstreperous and to provide proof of the trustworthiness of Scripture. However, Calvin makes an important distinction
between proof and persuasion in there, where he says even though the indicia is compelling
objectively, no one is adequately persuaded of the truth of the Scripture until or unless
they receive the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. But the point that classicists as myself insist
upon is that what the Holy Spirit does is not bypass the evidence or create some secret
Gnostic knowledge that no one else has. But as Calvin speaks of it, he uses the term,
our English term "acquiesce," that by the work of the Holy Spirit I acquiesce into the
indicia; that is, I submit to the evidence, which submission I would not do apart from
the work of the Holy Spirit. But we all believe that, I think. Is that coast happy with this coast? FERGUSON: You are, but you know, all men are
seeing your progress, R.C. SPROUL: They're all what? FERGUSON: Seeing your progress. SPROUL: Oh, I see. Good! We got another question here. SPROUL JR.: It's a strange new respect award
you earned, I think. SPROUL: "How would you explain what being
'Reformed' means?" That's one for you, Alistair. BEGG: Well, you start by reading your Bible,
and then you become biblical; then you're Reformed. SPROUL: You have to understand this man likes
simple. How about you, Steve? You got anything to say about that? LAWSON: The question is, "How do you become
Reformed?" SPROUL: No. LAWSON: Or what is... SPROUL: How would you explain what being "Reformed"
means? LAWSON: Well, obviously you've got an entire
book on that. So, you don't know the answer to that? Well, to be "Reformed," obviously there are
certain landmarks on that. I think the five solas of the Reformation
is one point of beginning, especially, sola Scriptura. To be "Reformed" is to base one's convictions
on the authority of Scripture and for there to be a sound interpretation of that Scripture. At the heart of that is the saving gospel,
grace alone, faith alone, in Christ alone. And I think that out of the Reformation there
came, you know, a century later into the Westminster Confession and out of the assembly, you know,
a fuller broader definition of what has come to be known as Reformed theology in that. There came to be a Baptist version of that
in the London Confession and then the Philadelphia Confession. And I know in your book that you move out
beyond the solas and include covenant theology and other nuances of theology that would be
very strategic in the defining of Reformed theology. SPROUL: Okay, Dr. Sproul. SPROUL JR.: Sir. SPROUL: How does Calvin's piety that we've
heard about differ from Wesley's sanctification? SPROUL JR.: You know during the first question,
if I had an opportunity to address that, which I'd rather than this one, I thought to myself,
you know, I don't feel particularly strong in historical theology, but I'm fairly certain,
going back to that first question, that Calvin never actually read Van Til. In the same way, I think you can end up in
some pretty dangerous places when you start asking questions from one era of people in
another era, that you are certainly going to have overlap or certainly going to have
historical continuity in our theology but we're not going to use language always in
exactly the same way. Obviously, a critical difference between Wesley
and Calvin on this particular issue is going to be profoundly related to issues of personal
eschatology. One of the things that I've noticed is that
when you read through your Bible, which is how you get Reformed, that sanctification
and glorification are almost always, if not always, intimately connected. You can't read about one without the other. And Calvin, because he was so centered on
worship, and going back to what I had to talk about last night, that gets us into where
we're going to be when we die. We're going to be worshiping. And so, there's a very much personal eschatological
element of pursuing becoming more like Jesus, beholding the glory of God more and more that
you have in Calvin, whereas you have in Wesley a frankly profoundly disturbing, I don't know
how in the world a Wesley or anyone who embraced the most peculiar elements of Wesleyan theology
deals with the warning in 1 John, "If anyone says he's without sin, the truth is not in
him." That's not, I don't think, merely saying they're
mistaken. I think it's a much more severe condemnation
that that. And so, I guess at the end of the day, the
simple version is Calvin was biblical, Wesley wasn't. SPROUL: Alright, in what manner, Sinclair,
would you say is the most critical difference? FERGUSON: Well, you know, Wesley right from
the beginning of his Christian life, he was profoundly influenced by the pietistic movement,
and there was much in that movement both to understand because of its reaction against
a sterile orthodoxy. And in addition to that, there was much in
it that you know most of the Reformed hymnbook still have the hymns of von Zinzendorf and
other Pietists often translated by the Wesleys. But I think I would summarize it by saying
Calvin thought about the Christian life from the outside in and Wesley thought about the
Christian life from the inside out. In Calvin's thinking, first of all, there
was a very strong covenantal foundation. Secondly, there was a very strong emphasis
that arose out of that on the principle that all of the indicatives of the gospel lead
to moral imperatives. And the third thing was that Calvin placed
great emphasis on the idea of what he called mortification and vivification, mortificatio
and vivificatio, in which the external pattern of Christ's death and resurrection became
imprinted on the whole life of the believer and that that would be true until glory. And I think because Wesley didn't operate
with those objective pinions to the way he thought, he really thought only in terms of
sanctification about internal sin and about the possibility of being free from that internal
sin, which he, you know, he believed that there were others who had found that kind
of sinless perfection, although I think to give him credit where credit is due he never
claimed it himself. SPROUL: And so, we're talking about the doctrine
that developed out of Wesley. This is the concept of perfectionism where
Wesley at least believed that a person can and should gain a perfect love and that went
beyond the whole idea of people in this world through a second work of grace can receive
the gift of perfectionism. FERGUSON: That's right. And it developed later on into various forms
of higher life, that sanctification came to you not by the progress of the Spirit's work
in your but by virtually a separate act of faith. SPROUL: Yes, we've talked yesterday morning
during the preconference about the progressive character of sanctification, which would be
Calvin's view as opposed to this sudden burst higher, deeper filling of the Spirit by which
you kind of have a premature fulfillment of the eschatological promise of glorification. FERGUSON: I did actually meet a lady once
who told me that she was sinlessly perfect. SPROUL: I've met two. FERGUSON: And I... SPROUL: Wonder if it's the same lady. FERGUSON: It may well have been the same lady. Was she as irritated by you as she was by
me? SPROUL: Yes. Well, I had a lady and a seventeen-year-old
young man who told me that he had reached perfection. And I took him to Romans 7 and he, of course,
said that Paul was speaking about his previous life and I was able to persuade him that he
was speaking of his present struggles. And he agreed with that. And I said, "Now, let me see if I have this
right. You're seventeen. You're saying that you possess a higher righteousness,
a higher-level sanctification, right now than the Apostle Paul did when he wrote Romans?" I thought that that would be the end of the
discussion. He says, "Well, yes." What do you say to somebody like that? FERGUSON: Well, did you spank junior for saying
that? SPROUL JR.: You know, when I blush I blush
all the way up here. SPROUL: I'm just going to grab one out of
here. Okay. For Dr. Sproul. "You have written that justification is monergistic
and sanctification is synergistic." This must be addressed to you, because I didn't
ever say that. "Wouldn't this mean that we can contribute
something to our salvation?" First let's describe the difference between
monergism and synergism. Steve? LAWSON: Well, monergism would be there is
only one agent at work bringing about the result. Regeneration is monergistic, that it is God
who is acting on the human soul that is at that point passive, creating a new person
by the new birth and giving the gift of repentance and faith. Synergistic is there are two agents that must
cooperate together and work together at the same time. So, an Arminian view of regeneration would
be the Savior is waiting but we have it in our capacity to open the door and to let the
Savior in under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Reformed is monergistic. Regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration produces faith. And so, then the question is, "With sanctification,
is it synergistic?" And the answer to that is yes, because we've
become a new person in Christ. SPROUL: And we're told "to work out our salvation." LAWSON: Exactly! SPROUL: "With fear and trembling, for God
is at work within us, both to will and to do," so that in the progress of certification
that we've just discussed I am working with the work of the Holy Spirit, cooperating with,
and so on. But at the point of the beginning of my Christian
life, at the point of regeneration, I contribute nothing to that. LAWSON: Yeah, it's what can a dead man do? Nothing. SPROUL: And that's not a little something. That's what my son used to do every day at
junior high. LAWSON: I remember in class one day, the professor
says, "What can a dead man do," talking about regeneration, and a voice from the back of
the room just said, "Stink." SPROUL: Stink? LAWSON: Yeah, stink. So, that's all that a dead man can do at the
point of his regeneration. SPROUL: But there's a second part of this
that we haven't touched on. "Wouldn't this mean that we contribute something
to our salvation?" Now, Alistair, do we contribute anything to
our salvation? BEGG: The only thing we bring to it is the
sin for which we need to be forgiven in terms of growing in grace and in the knowledge of
Jesus. Then, we're not contributing to our acceptance
with God, neither we're not affecting our place in Christ by having a very good week
or by having a very bad week, because all of our acceptance is always on the strength
of Christ's blood and righteousness. But we also have to take seriously the move
from what is true to what needs to be true from, as Sinclair says, from the indicatives
to the imperatives. And Paul moves in all of his epistles, I think,
there fairly quickly, Colossians, "In light of this, since then you have been raised with
Christ," a position that you could never achieve for yourself, "put these things off and put
these things on." But we're not in the doing of that making
ourselves any safer or any more secure as a result of our activities. Our activities are giving evidence of the
reality of our relationship in Christ. SPROUL: So, your answer would be, "We don't
contribute anything to our salvation." BEGG: Yeah, I guess. SPROUL: Would you agree with that, Sinclair? FERGUSON: That's the Scottish view. So, we don't really expect anyone else to
fully understand it. But the language is difficult, isn't it, because
there's synergism and synergism? And when we say that "God is at work in us
to will and to do of His good pleasure," we include in that notion that God is not the
one who does the believing and the repenting. We are the ones who do the believing and the
repenting. If that's synergism, then that's biblical
synergism. This is simply the question of how do we define
the synergisms. That's what Alistair is saying. SPROUL: I think there's another question of
language here, and that's "contribute to our salvation." In popular use of the word "salvation," it's
used almost as a synonym for our justification because if you're justified, you're saved. But we know that in the Bible "salvation"
is in the past tense, the imperfect tense, "we were being saved," "we are saved," "we
are being saved," "we shall be saved." Now, in terms of our future state of rewards,
which is part of the fullness of salvation that is wrought, do our synergistic works
contribute anything to our rewards in heaven? Steve? LAWSON: Well, I'm not certain that I totally
understand how the question is framed, but I will say this. SPROUL: "Keep it simple, R.C." LAWSON: I will. We do cast our crowns back at His feet, emblematic
that all things are from Him and through Him and to Him. And so, yes, sanctification is synergistic
in that I am responsible to participate with God as we "work out our salvation in fear
and trembling and as God is at work within us both to will and to work His good pleasure." But yet even in the reward and at the judgment
seat, we still cast our crowns back at His feet again. I mean, "You're the one who chose me. You're the one who regenerated me, converted
me. You're the one that did all of this and so
why would I keep this crown?" I mean, again it keeps going back, I think,
pointing towards "I am what I am by the grace of God." SPROUL: Right, but what does the Bible mean
that we will be rewarded according to our works? LAWSON: According to our works? Well, it certainly underscores that we will
individually stand before the Lord and He will review us and that we will be rewarded
according to our faithfulness as to what has been entrusted to us and the capacity and
the opportunities and the motives and the doctrine and the method and all of that. SPROUL: So, in that sense our works would
contribute something to our final state, wouldn't they? LAWSON: Yes sir. I mean, we're saved by grace; we're judged
by works. SPROUL: Alright, the works count nothing for
our justification. LAWSON: Yeah, correct. SPROUL: Zero. LAWSON: Correct. SPROUL: But yet the New Testament at least
twenty-five times talks about that we will be rewarded according to our works, and Augustine,
of course, said that in that case it's not because those works objectively merit a reward
or impose an obligation upon God to reward them, but Augustine's phrase was, "It's God
crowning His own gifts." So, we still bring nothing in our hand, yet
God graciously distributes rewards according to our level of sanctification. Does that make sense? LAWSON: Yes sir. "Behold, my reward is with me, to give to
each..." SPROUL: Would you commit yourself to that? LAWSON: I'm walking forward right now. SPROUL: And on we go. Let's go. "What is a pastor to do when expositional
preaching is passively received by the congregation to whom he preaches? Should he stay and keep preaching or should
he find a congregation who receives the preaching?" Sinclair? I'm trying to find an easy one there for you. FERGUSON: Well, now, that's an interesting
question. You know, my best friends say behind my back
when they're talking about sustaining a long-term ministry, and Alistair is the person you need
to ask this question to. The simplest answer to sustaining long-term
ministry is leaving it every so often to go and teach in a seminary. You know, I've been in three congregations,
and I think in all of them in different ways expositional preaching has been received and
expected. I think the challenge probably is the timing,
and I don't think you can very easily prescribe for somebody that the time has come to go. I think that's actually one of the most difficult
questions in the ministry, and I think it usually is indicated to somebody by external
providences that match internal restraints. But I think the first thing that you do is
you understand that first our Lord's preaching wasn't received. So, the fact that it's not received is not
a sign to go. Secondly, you need to pray and pray and preach. You also need to ask the question whether
what is not being received is expositional preaching or my expositional preaching and
engage in some serious self-examination. SPROUL: I know when I get ready for Sunday
morning, I prepare for preaching, but when I step up into the pulpit, I feel one hundred
percent helpless, that I know that I'm just flapping my gums unless the Holy Spirit accompanies
that Word. And so, the reception of the Word I don't
think I can do a whole lot about, but the Holy Spirit can do all kinds of things. And at some point, we have to really entrust
the preaching to the Spirit to make sure that we're doing true exposition, that we're faithful
and accurate in our presentation of the Word of God and then get out of the way. And sometimes, the Holy Spirit is not pleased
to bring the people alive and sometimes He is. FERGUSON: I think, you know, Alistair must
say something here. I think it's often true in congregations that
the congregations themselves don't realize how important they are because they're all
looking at the preacher. And we need to find ways of helping our congregations
to understand, especially those that do appreciate exposition, that their intercession for the
ministry is absolutely vital to what happens. And I think we all experience this when we
preach, don't we? It's drawn out of us. SPROUL: Would somebody else like to speak
to this? Alistair, anybody? BEGG: Well, yeah, I mean one of the things
is that I think it's Packer in one of his books he talks about...it's okay to mention
him here? SPROUL: Sure. He's not a Baptist, but... BEGG: That's two of us. The need for an expectant praying preacher
and an expectant praying congregation, the synergism that exists in seeking together
the divine dialogue whereby the Spirit of God chooses to engage the listener through
the mouth of a mere mortal by the power of the sufficient Word, that this hugely mysterious
existential event is supposed to take place. And the idea that this can be engaged upon
lightly or carelessly or unpreparedly or thoughtlessly or arrogantly contributes significantly to
the absence of effective preaching. And if a pastor is not held in check, first
by the Scriptures and then by a congregation that genuinely cares for him but not enough
to believe that he is the oracle of God, but cares enough for him to pray for him, then
I think you've got a chance. I would say that to whoever asked the question
that they receive it passively, well, that's a start, isn't it? I mean, that's pretty good on an average Sunday. I'll take that, you know. Nobody threw anything at you. You know, John Knox would have settled for
that in St. Giles' Cathedral, you know, "There goes another stool!" And then, of course, to ask the question as
has been said about what we're doing, because one of the reasons that people have a reaction
to preaching is that there's a lot of really boring preaching and it's really poor. And I know, because I've done a lot of it. So, stay a wee bit bit longer, I'd say. Stay a wee bit longer, try harder. SPROUL: And here's another one I know we're
going to get all kinds of disagreement on. "Did Jesus as man and God have the ability
to sin or did His holiness prevent Him from sinning?" I'll just throw that up for grabs. Who would like to speak to that one? SPROUL JR.: I'll take a crack. SPROUL: Go! SPROUL JR.: Jesus, in the words of Augustine,
had the freedom to sin, but not the liberty to sin. Or did I get that backwards? SPROUL: That's right. SPROUL JR.: Okay, good. Thank you. I can proceed further. What we mean by this, and this is the same
kind of paradigm Augustine had, that Edwards had, in his essay on the freedom of the will,
which will answer this as concisely and clearly as could possibly be imagined. The basic gist of the answer is Jesus was
free in the sense that there was no external arm-twisting behind Him keeping Him from sinning,
but He did not have the moral ability to sin in the sense that there was an internal natural
moral restraint against Him doing it. Jesus could no more sin than the Father can
lie. The Father can't lie, not because there's
a God above God, you know, shutting His mouth before He lies but because God is a law unto
Himself. His will and His nature are one and the same. Because He has no desire to lie, He will not
lie, and then the same thing is true about Jesus. Now, touching on His humanity, touching on
His deity, His will is always and only to do the will of the Father. Now, I mentioned last night I like ice cream
and I eat ice cream. Do I eat ice cream because I'm forced to or
do I eat ice cream because I want to or do I eat ice cream because I'm forced to because
I want to? FERGUSON: Why do you eat ice cream? SPROUL JR.: Let's talk about ice cream for
a while, shall we? BEGG: I would like an ice cream. SPROUL: This is a simple man, simple pleasures,
right? Sinclair, how would you answer that question? FERGUSON: I think there's something not quite
right about the question actually, which might sound like a cop-out to it. Here I think this is what R.C., Jr., is on
about is that the ninth chapter of the Confession, it's the same in the London Confession, on
the freedom of the will and the point that it makes that throughout all the stages of
our human existence, in Eden, in the fallen condition and the regenerate condition, in
the glorified condition, there's no external compulsion upon the will. When people say, "I did it against my will,"
strictly speaking, that's not true. Strictly speaking, that's not true. Somebody points a gun at you. I say, "I did it against my will because he
was pointing a gun at me." No, you did it totally consistent with your
will because you chose to live rather than to die. So, in that sense of an external compulsion,
then I think it would be right to say in that sense Jesus was sinless. There was no external compulsion, nor was
His will constituted in such a way that it was internally compelled to sin. I find the difficulty of the question lies
in the fact that it almost regards sinlessness as though it were a kind of commodity, as
though it were a kind of something in me, something in Jesus, you know, He had something
special in His DNA, as it were, that protected Him. When I think what the New Testament is constantly
saying, "He was tempted in all points like as we are" and at every point He resisted,
even when it came to the extremity of being apparently in Gethsemane willing to do what
everything in His humanity said to Him, "I cannot possibly will to do this," that He
bowed that will to the will of the heavenly Father. SPROUL: Some people think that the divine
nature prohibited the human nature from ever exercising a moral choice to sin. I find that a docetic concept. FERGUSON: Yeah, I think that would bring us
back to Calvin saying, "You end up then with a humanity in Christ that isn't identical
to our humanity and therefore can never equip Him to be the Savior of our humanity." And I think that's a really important point. SPROUL: He could not be the new Adam either. FERGUSON: That's right, absolutely! SPROUL: Alright, here's one. "What is your definition of the difference
between a Calvinist and an Arminian?" R.C.? SPROUL JR.: Well, I was taught, I won't say
where, I was taught to practice a very particular shibboleth for finding non-Reformed people,
non-Calvinists. And it's very, very simple. And you'll like this, I think. The simple test is, "Do we believe that regeneration
precedes faith or do we not?" If you believe that God the Holy Spirit changes
you such that you embrace the work of Christ by faith instead of believing that you embrace
the work of Christ by faith and then the Holy Spirit changes you, then you're one of us. If you have the opposite view, you're on the
other side. SPROUL: I do think that is the litmus test
where you can argue about all other things, but in the order of salvation if you believe
that the Holy Spirit simply makes possible your regeneration but you hear statements
like, "God does ninety-nine percent, but that last one percent you have to do," there's
some kind of island of righteousness left in you whereby you have the ability to cooperate
with the grace of regeneration or not cooperate with it. That would be semi-Pelagian and Arminian,
whereas the Reformed view says there's no island of righteousness, that original sin
leaves you with total moral inability to cooperate with grace until or unless God the Holy Spirit
changes the disposition of your heart in regeneration. That's what we're getting at when we say that
regeneration is monergistic. It's not ninety-nine percent God's work; it's
a hundred percent God's work. And I would say that's the biggest difference
between the two. Do you agree with that or not, you guys, anyone? FERGUSON: I think it's, you know, experientially,
"Long my imprisoned spirit lay. Fast bound in sin and nature's night; Thine
eye diffused a quickening ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; my chains fell
off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee;" despite the fact it was
written by an Arminian. BEGG: And also, sorry this, but in Packer's
book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God he quotes the dialogue between the two characters,
whom I have forgotten now, but they're talking with one another about the distinction between
Arminianism and Calvinism. And I can't remember who was involved but
the Calvinist is pressing the fellow on his views, and he says to him, "Do you believe
that God is the initiator?" And the fellow says, "Yes, I do." "And do you believe that this is entirely
a work of grace?" And he goes through the thing to his Arminian
friend and the guy answers correctly to the shibboleths, as it were, to which the man
replies, "Then your Arminianism is my Calvinism." And there's something about that I like in
the sense that I have many, many friends whose minds are
not as clear on these things as we might hope for them to be. And they are what they are, not so much by
conviction as they are by default. And my desire and design for them is to see
them come, if you like, to a solid, you know, experiential grasp of biblical Christian Reformed
faith, but not as a result of me challenging their loosely held views that they have been
largely untaught in and unable to articulate. In other words that, if you like, the discussion
for me is a nice discussion to have but when it comes to just meeting and greeting people
I want to start, you know, with Christ. I don't want to start with my systematic theology. SPROUL: But there is a historic difference
between two sets of views. BEGG: Absolutely! SPROUL: Arminianism and Calvinism, where their
point of conflict is reduces to that one you mentioned, but there is, you know, the five
points of Calvinism as a result of the Arminian protest against historic Reformed theology
that they denied total depravity, they denied unconditional election, they deny a limited
atonement, they deny irresistible grace, and they deny perseverance of the saints, where
Reformed people affirm those five things. BEGG: Right, yeah, and all I'm saying is that
the people who are apparently on that side of the fence, apart from sort of aggressive
ones that I haven't met very many, most of them don't know where they are. SPROUL: Oh, I think that's true too. BEGG: And I think in the British Isles, and
Sinclair can address this, but in the British Isles I think the sort of underpinnings of
evangelicalism at its best have sort of Reformed tendencies at least or Reformed convictions,
if you just listen to people pray, but if you were to put them up against a wall and
ask them to articulate these things or even define them, you may find that they will not
answer your questions in the way that you might hope, but it's not out of conviction. Does that make sense? FERGUSON: I think both Alistair and I would
say that we experimentally (or is it experientially?) we both came to Reformed theology through
our Bibles rather than through our Berkhofs. We found Bible and then we discovered there
was this guy Berkhof believed the same things we did. How insightful of him! But I do think, you know, because there are
very high emotional points in Reformed theology, extent of the atonement, predestination tending
to be the big ones, that regeneration actually is a great way into understanding how the
gospel works because Jesus teaches about regeneration in John chapter 3. And you can take any believer who loves the
Lord Jesus, you can take them to John chapter 3 and say, "This is what the Lord Jesus taught." And, "Oh, if it's okay for Jesus, it's going
to be okay for me." SPROUL: When I was converted to Christ, I
had never heard the word "justification," and I wasn't saved by my faith in the doctrine
of justification by faith alone. I just found out later what had happened and
that's articulated by the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The same thing is true with election. I mean, I didn't think or wonder whether this
was synergistic or monergistic. I just knew I was a sinner saved by grace,
and I guess that experientially is what you guys are talking about. BEGG: Well, and if you think about the thief
on the cross that I mentioned in passing this morning, I mean, if he was to get the question,
R.C. Junior's question, before he got in through
the gates of heaven, he'd be a total wreck. SPROUL: That's right. Okay. BEGG: Yeah. SPROUL JR.: But if he was asked afterwards,
he would have got it right. BEGG: After a few years of eternity, yeah. SPROUL: "How do you distinguish, if you do
distinguish, preaching from teaching?" How are they different, Steve? LAWSON: Well, teaching is the conveying and
the clarification of the content of the truth and the one who has the gift of teaching is
one who is making clear the truth, where I think preaching goes yet further. He must be a teacher, but there are elements
of persuasion, conviction, consoling, motivating that where preaching goes beyond teaching. Now, we even talked about this at the last
pastors' conference. And your teaching goes way beyond teaching
to preaching, and it has nothing to do with the volume of the voice. I mean, when you lower your voice and whisper,
it's louder than anyone else who's escalating their voice because there's passion and there
is great intensity that is being communicated. But I personally think that preaching goes
beyond teaching and all preaching must include teaching, but all teaching does not necessarily
include preaching. SPROUL: You can impart information without
admonishing and... LAWSON: Right. SPROUL: Let me see what else we got here,
real quick. FERGUSON: Don't you think there's an element
in preaching that isn't in teaching of the exhortation and the application? There isn't by definition and the exposition. I mean, there's exposition that's common to
both teaching and preaching, but teaching doesn't require exhortation and it doesn't
require the person to say that we appeal to every man's conscience in the sight of God. LAWSON: Right. There's an urgency about preaching where you're
calling for people to commit their life right then. I mean, with teaching there's always the class
next week. FERGUSON: Most teachers don't make the microphone
wobble as Steve does. Even the demons tremble, but this morning
those of us who were sitting near the front, it was, it was...now, you know, that's gone
beyond teaching, hasn't it? SPROUL: So, that's the sure...when the microphone
trembles. BEGG: That's it. FERGUSON: Oh, you really know it's happening
when the microphone trembles. SPROUL: Yes. FERGUSON: But you know I think another thing. Let me put words into Alistair's mouth. If you don't know the difference between teaching
and preaching, you've probably never heard preaching. I think that's true. SPROUL: Well, I think that's true too. I like how you said that, Alistair. BEGG: Yeah. I'm going to use him more often. Now, I am a ventriloquist dummy, you know. We've taken simple to a new level. The late professor Murray when asked this
question, I know he asked the question... SPROUL: Wait a minute. Do you guys ever quote anybody that's not
a Scot? BEGG: No, no. There are so few of us, we have to stick together. Murray asked a friend driving in Scotland,
"What's the difference between a lecture and preaching?" And when the fellow stumbled around for a
while, Murray said, "No," he said, "You don't have it. Preaching is a personal, passionate plea." And his colleague in the car said, "And what
is that?" And Murray said, "We beseech you on Christ's
behalf be reconciled to God," and that that he said was the distinguishing feature that
no matter where the person was in the task that they understood that what God had achieved
in Christ needed to be brought to bear upon the listeners and that it demanded from them
a response. It wasn't simply a "Take it or leave it." And coming back to the passive issue, you
know, I'm not sure that active, effective, imaginative, creative preaching produces passivity,
and so you know, again, passive preaching probably creates passive congregations. SPROUL: Alright, here's one...I don't...what
time are we supposed to be done here? BEGG: 3:30. SPROUL: 3:25. We got one more and this is it. "Where did the doctrine of prevenient grace
as a universally applied measure of grace, parentheses, (Roman Catholic/Arminian application)
come from? When was it established? For...well, it doesn't matter who that's for. Sinclair, you take that. FERGUSON: I missed the middle of the question
there. I was blowing my nose. SPROUL: Where did the doctrine of prevenient
grace come from? First of all, tell everybody what prevenient
grace means. FERGUSON: Well, it means grace that comes
beforehand, and it depends what you mean. If you're speaking about prevenient grace
in the true sense, then it comes at least as early as Genesis chapter 3. If you're speaking about prevenient grace
in the historic Roman Catholic sense, then it comes...now, I'm no expert on this but
it comes...Alistair is saying, "You're no expert on anything, pal. Just don't try to pull the wool over our eyes." BEGG: I didn't say that. FERGUSON: It really comes out of the notion
that I think you begin to see in the early fathers that something is given to you in
baptism. SPROUL: Yeah, it's tied historically to the
church's doctrine of baptism where the grace that is given in baptism is a prevenient grace. It comes before justification. In the sacrament of baptism, the grace of
justification involves an infusion of righteousness, the righteousness of Christ, but for it to
be effective to yield justification, this coming before grace requires, according to
Rome and it was certainly canonized at Trent, what they call assentiri et cooperari, "an
assenting to and cooperating with" that grace in order to have the desired result of justification. Now, the Arminian tradition has its own doctrine
of prevenient grace, which is not the same as the Roman view but it certainly has similarities,
this grace that comes with the offer of the gospel and their sayings that "I can't be
saved without grace. I'm not a pure Pelagian." But this goes all the way back to Pelagius'
cousin Semi, you know, where they said but God's grace is necessary for me to be saved
but that that grace that comes before is synergistic, it brings us back to the beginning, rather
than monergistic. In classic Arminianism, prevenient grace demands
a response of cooperation, an assent before the desired result, in this case of regeneration,
can take place. So, it's been around a long, long time. FERGUSON: I think this is why Charles Hodge,
the elder Hodge, said he was much more concerned about the ghost of semi-Pelagius than he was
about the ghost of Pelagius. SPROUL: Exactly! FERGUSON: Because the ghost of semi-Pelagius
was alive and well. SPROUL: Exactly right! Alright, what do you say about our panelists
here? Thank you, very, very much.
