Sproul: Most of these questions are directed
at John. They want to know how he really feels about
Joel Osteen. Michael Horton: He did prevaricate a lot. Sproul: Lots of good questions. We’ll try to get through as many as we can. My job is just to moderate, not to be on the
panel. So this will be… you two guys will be under
the gun. Although I did have a question directed specifically
to me that I thought just out of courtesy, I’ll answer that first before we get started
because it touches the very essence of everything we’re concerned about. And it says, R.C., will Big Ben be the quarterback
for the Steelers this year? And then the second part is, can they win
without him? Well, so far Ben has not been charged with
any crime. However, if he is charged, it’s almost certain
that he’ll be suspended for a significant amount of time. And that may be the least of his problems. I know that the Pittsburgh Steeler organization
is extremely displeased with him for what he’s done to the image of the Black and
Gold, and I wouldn’t be surprised for the Steelers to sanction him in some way, even
if he isn’t charged. And the question, can they win without him? Of course. What kind of a question is that? You know, I used to tell my students, there’s
no such thing as a stupid question. That was a stupid question. Dr. MacArthur, you talked about the assurance
of salvation as if someone who lacks or doubts has not… has not looked forward to the next
life and is concerned more with this one. How would you see assurance in the light of
Calvin saying all Christians doubt and also in view of the ordo salutis. And we’re going to pay close attention to
the ordo salutis here. There’s no messing around with the ordo
salutis. Okay? Right? John MacArthur: Right. Sproul: We don’t play with the ordo salutis. John MacArthur: When you’re talking about
assurance, you’re not talking about anything in the ordo salutis to start with. You’re talking about the believer’s personal
confidence. You’re not talking about security. You’re not talking about perseverance. You’re not talking about the eternality
of salvation. You’re talking about whether or not the
believer experiences that sense of… that reality of salvation. And I agree with what Calvin said. Every believer doubts at points in life. And those doubts may come and go in every
believer’s life. They may be stronger in one person’s life
than in another. They may be related to circumstances. They may be related to personality kinds of
things. Some people are naturally more doubtful and
more melancholy or whatever. But all I was saying was that Peter gives
testimony to the fact that the testing of faith produces assurance because then you
know your faith will stand. I can only tell you from the standpoint of
looking back over my life. My faith is stronger now than it’s ever
been because it has stood every test. When… when… when you have the largest
disappointments you could possibly have in life, when they come in and tell you your
wife has broken her neck and fractured C2 and C3, and your son has a tumor, and those
kinds of experiences, there was absolutely the opposite of what you might expect in faith. Faith was elevated immediately. There was a great grace poured out, strengthening
of faith. I found myself when they told me that my wife
was airlifted after a fractured neck, and I didn’t know all the details, I sang hymns
all the way to the hospital. I can’t explain that other than to say that
I don’t have a human faith, the same kind of faith I have when I drink a glass of water
out of the tap. This is supernatural kind of thing. And I think that when I’m talking about
assurance, I’m talking about the development of enough evidences in life of trials in which
faith literally grows and is strengthened. That diminishes the times of doubt and gives
you a greater and greater assurance. All I was saying was that sometimes when persons
lack assurance, it’s because they haven’t suffered enough to have a tested faith. And that tested faith is what… is what assures
the believer. That’s Peter’s whole point there. Sproul: Okay. Abraham was going to slay his son. How is that a good thing? I would be thrown in jail for doing the same
thing. Mike? Michael Horton: Wow, answer this with fear
and trembling. Sproul: Now that’s an illusion to Kierkegaard. And how did Kierkegaard answer it in Fear
and Trembling? Michael Horton: God is basically able to do
anything that He wants to do, or even beyond that, His will is unhinged from His nature. God can decide to do anything. And of course, we believe God can’t decide
to do anything. God can only decide to do that which His nature
delights in. And it can’t be… so… so right at the
outset, we can’t say that God commanded something that was evil. The… the fact of the matter is that not
only did God spare Isaac and spare Abraham from having to sacrifice his son, but He sent
His own Son at His own expense to be the Savior of sinners, so not only… there’s always
a danger in trying to figure out the problem of evil philosophically, to resolve it philosophically
so that we’re okay with it, rather than realizing that God has solved it historically
at the cross. That’s where we see exactly what Abraham’s
almost sacrifice of Isaac foreshadowed… what it foreshadows, and there God’s justice
and God’s mercy are completely reconciled. But you never could have figured that out
until it happened. That’s the way… and it’s an unfolding
plot. Sproul: You know, in theology when we talk
about the law of God, we make a distinction between the natural law of God and the purposive
law of God. And when I talk about the natural law of God,
we’re not talking about natural law. That’s a different question. But we’re talking about those laws that
come from God that are rooted and grounded in His nature, which as you just said. And there’s nothing that could ever abrogate
that law. There’s no circumstance conceivable that
would be a good thing to worship an idol. Okay? That if God permitted that now where He forbad
it in the Old Testament, He would be going against His own nature. But the purposive law has those laws that
had in history, as you’re pointing out, a particular purpose, like the kosher laws
of… dietary laws of Israel, the sacrificial system in the Old Testament. It would have been a sin to disobey them. It would be a sin to reinstitute them because
there was a historical purpose behind them. Now the question you have to ask is, is the
prohibition of killing a human being based on the nature of God or is that a purposive
law? If it’s a purposive law, He could suspend
it at any time for His own holy purpose, which He did at that time. He had every right to require the death of
Isaac. He didn’t owe that life to Abraham. And Abraham… It’s like the policeman on the street when
the light is red, and the cop’s on the corner, and he waves you through. You obey the cop rather than the light. And if God gives you a direct command, then
you’re responsible to carry it out, which is what Abraham tried to do, but that’s,
you know, that’s asking for special revelation like we don’t get. John MacArthur: Yeah. I’m thinking in the book of Acts where the
apostles responded the leaders of Israel, do we obey God or man? God always trumps man. But I think the bigger issue would be, does
God have the right then to command the death of anyone? God didn’t just tell Abraham to kill Isaac. God told all the Israelites to completely
obliterate the Canaanites. The truth of the matter is that no man has
a right to live, take one more breath. Since the soul that sins shall die and the
wages of sin is death, the fact that we even take another breath is God suspending the
just punishment… Sproul: Exactly. John MacArthur: …so at any point that God
would command death for anyone that would be within the frame of His righteousness and
His holiness and His justice to bring that to pass. It is that God shows Himself to be a God of
grace. He’s the Savior of all men temporally and
physically, especially of believers spiritually and eternally. But I think He puts His grace on display by
not giving the sinner what the sinner deserves in the moment the sinner deserves it. So any suspension of capital punishment to
any believer born… unbeliever born into the world is a pure act of God’s common
grace extended to man. So what He asked Abraham to do in taking a
life would be perfectly within His right because Isaac was a sinner and deserved the same thing
the Canaanites deserved or anybody else deserved. Sproul: Good job, John. If… Here’s one now. This one is… Here’s one good one for you. You know, I love it when I hear questions
that I’ve never heard before in my whole life, which is… you know, we’ve been listening
to the same questions for 50 years, and – well, at least I have, you haven’t – and when
you get a new one, it’s really exciting. So John, you’ll like this because you have
never heard this one before. If Samson was to never touch a dead body,
how’s come he killed a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey? Bet you never heard that one before. John MacArthur: No, I never heard that one
before. I’m not sure I needed to hear it now. Are you saying he violated his Nazarite vow
by picking up the jawbone? Sproul: Well, that’s what apparently is
what is being… it didn’t even take a Nazarite vow to be defiled by coming in touch with
a dead body. John MacArthur: No, I know. I understand that. Yeah. But you know, he was pretty accustomed to
breaking every imaginable vow. Yeah. This was not anything new for him. Sproul: Can we make a distinction between
a body that is in the state of decomposition and decay, that is, unclean ceremonially? John MacArthur: You mean, how long the donkey
was dead? Sproul: Yeah. Well, it’s a jawbone. He’s obviously… he’s a skeletal form
now. No, he’s not doing well at all. Even… Even Billy Crystal couldn’t raise him from
the dead. He wasn’t just almost dead. He was long gone. All of the decay and corruption of the rottenness
of decomposition was all done with. John MacArthur: Okay, if that makes you feel
better, we’ll go with it. Sproul: It’s good for me. What do you think, Mike? Michael Horton: It’s pretty much sealed
up for me. Sproul: Please comment on the concept of seeker
sensitive. Who seeks whom in the process of salvation,
and how does contemporary American evangelism tend to get it right or wrong? John MacArthur: Well, I think there is only
one true Seeker, and that’s God, and that’s why Jesus said He had come to seek and save
the lost. John 6, our Lord said, “No man comes to
Me unless the Father draws him.” So God is the true Seeker, and Romans 3 says,
“No man seeks after God,” naturally, and yet you have to include Old Testament, “If
you seek Me with all your heart, you’ll find Me.” That’s the prompted heart that God has moved
in His direction that responds. But I think we often say in our church, there’s
only one Seeker who shows up every Sunday here, and that’s God who seeks those whom
He has chosen as love gifts to His Son, and He is the true Seeker. I think it’s an illusion to think that men
are running around seeking God on their own. I think they are seeking the kind of stuff
that shows up in the prosperity gospel and in the kind of American evangelicalism that’s
so highly successful – all the temporal things, all the things that are connected
to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is all
a part of fallen flesh. But the sinner does not seek the true and
living God. Sproul: Thomas Aquinas was asked that question
once, and he said that people look around and they see unbelievers seeking desperately
the things that we know only God can give them – forgiveness, peace of mind, reconciliation,
all the benefits that we only can get from Christ – and he said but we mistake that
people seeking the benefits that only God can give them from actually seeking God. The sinner wants the benefits without God. All the while the metaphor of the Bible is
that we’re fleeing from God. We’re fugitives from God. We’re hiding from God while at the same
time wanting all of those benefits. And this has radical implications though. We’ve seen a revolution in worship in America
designed on the basis of designing worship for the unbeliever. He’s an unbeliever, but he’s seeking,
right? I mean, that’s ghastly. Since when do you design worship to please
unbelievers rather than to please the living God? [applause] And I’m all for evangelism and
all of that, but the purpose of the assembling together of the saints on the Sabbath day
is not primarily evangelism but for the offering of worship by the people of God to God. And then as soon as we start designing worship
for something else, we’ve departed from the Biblical model. John MacArthur: I think the trend is to let
the world design it for you. Sproul: Yeah. Here’s a question specifically addressed
to Dr. Michael Horton, who is professor -- is it J. Gresham Machen professor of Systematic
Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido? You ready? You mentioned – yes, you did, Michael – the
names of some well-known persons in our society who were born and raised up in evangelical
and fundamentalist homes, yet they are now, either don’t believe in God or are even
anti-God… You know, that’s not an either or there. If they don’t believe in God, they are anti-God. Let’s get that straight. I wonder what some of the reasons would be
that cause this, and what remedy to we have? Why did that happen? Why does it happen so often? Michael Horton: Well, doubtless a whole variety
of reasons that the two of you would know better than I having spent more years on earth. Wait… beep, beep, beep, beep. No, that’s one of the things that fascinates
me looking at for all of the difference and all of the different reasons. People were in bad churches. Well, people were in bad families, and they
managed to sort of stay together. But the more church becomes voluntary, the
more you don’t have to hang out with these people who have hurt you or what have you. People are going to get wounded in any family,
and that’s true in the church, but I think sometimes a lot of people…. There’s some people who really have been
victims in their church. They’ve been victims of really horrible
preaching, teaching, heavy-handed discipline and… and so forth. They really haven’t understood the gospel. I think a lot of people just wander away,
and it’s because it’s not really addressing their… their crucial questions. According to one study, 60% -- I’ve seen
one that goes up to 80, but I don’t… I’ll go with the lower one – that 60%
of those raised in evangelical, Christian homes, 60% will be unchurched by their sophomore
year in college. And I look at that and I think you can see
that frankly with a lot of the Enlightenment leaders who were raised in Pietist homes where
it was all about the heart, not doctrine, and then eventually they said, well, we really
don’t want the heart much either. A lot of the founders of Protestant liberalism,
of course, were raised in Pietism. And I think a lot of today’s liberals – I
think of Brian McLaren and a whole bunch of people on the emergent side of things – they
all grew up in megachurch sort of Willow Creek orientated environments. And it’s just this… this downplay, deeds
not creeds. Have you heard that before? Well, that’s Immanuel Kant. This has been over and over and over again. And he got it from his Pietist upbringing. So I think that the downgrading of doctrine
and the significance of doctrine is there. And you look at the way a lot of… a lot
of young people today have never really grown up in the church. You say, “What are you talking about? I’ve been a Christian all my life.” Well, tell me about your Christian background,
your upbringing. They have nothing like morning and evening
worship services that they go to in their past. “Well, what do you mean? No, I went to church.” Well, no, you went to the parking lot. Then you went to the youth group. I’m not against youth groups, but… really
the nursery, the youth group, and then Inner Varsity or Campus Crusade in college, and
then you wonder why they don’t join a church. They never have joined a church. They’ve never been a part of it. So I think we’ve got to incorporate people
from the earliest ages into the life of the communion of saints that they are baptized
into. Sproul: But we also have to remember that
none of them were born Christians, and there’s a whole lot of reason is that they just never
were converted. They could have been in wonderful families
and wonderful churches and still not be converted. Or they could have been abused, and that happens. And it really does happen. You know, when we get a question like this,
I think of one guy who was a Jew, and his family were devout in their practice of Judaism. His father was a businessman, and he moved
his family to another town, and in this town the majority of the merchants were Lutheran. So this guy took his family and joined the
Lutheran church, clearly for economic reasons, not for spiritual reasons. Michael Horton: Like Nietzsche’s parents. Sproul: And this… And this young fellow saw that, and he said,
“All religion is about is economics.” And Karl Marx was very bitter about what his
father did when he joined the Lutheran church and made him join the Lutheran church. So they see that. I mean, people see that. So even though, they are unconverted, they’re…
they’re exacerbated by being wounded this way and that way. There’s thousands of illustrations. But the second part of the question is, what
do you do about it? Well, you just do what the church has always
supposed to do. You preach the gospel and amazing grace. John MacArthur: I think… I think what you’re saying is what John
says in 1 John 2:19, “They went out from us because they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would have continued
with us, but they went out from us that it might be made manifest they never were of
us.” From the human viewpoint, you nail it, hypocrisy
is deadly to a young person, legalism, a stranglehold of the external with no real change in the
heart, superficial gospel, I think a low view of God. I think, you know, without being heavy-handed,
I think if you have a balanced presentation of the attributes of God and the glory of
Christ, somebody might walk away from it, but they would have a harder time becoming
a public critic of it because they would be attacking the majesty and the beauty and the
glory and the full understanding of God. So I think if… one of the reasons in the
years I’ve been here, 40 plus years, 25 of those years we’ve been going through
one of the four gospels. And it’s Christ every week, Christ every
week, Christ every week, every week, and if you’re going to walk away, and you’re
going to condemn this church, you’re going to condemn the… the glory of Christ that
dominates this church. That’s a little harder to do than to condemn
all the people sitting in the pews. So I think it does relate to the message from
the human view, but from the divine perspective, they go because they never really were a part
of us. Sproul: Alright, well here’s another question
with the statement, “please, please answer.” Why hasn’t anything been said about the
spiritual formation movement? We’ve heard all these other ones. Please address this, main people: Richard
Foster, Dallas Willard. And both edited the Renovare Study Bible,
which says Genesis is made up of myths and traditions. Dallas Willard says (quote), “You do not
have to have a relationship with Jesus Christ to be saved.” And the church is immersed in this sort of
thing today. What do you think about it? John MacArthur: Well, there are… there are
seminaries that have been evangelical and Christian colleges that have evangelical testimonies
and histories that have started departments in spiritual formation and sucked and drunk
all the Cool-Aid that’s coming out of these guys. And I personally, having read Dallas Willard,
and there are many others. You know, they go back a long way. I have no real assurance that any of these
people are Christians. I mean, I would go that far. There’s a statement that sounds to me like
a statement from somebody who doesn’t understand salvation, but while the language is there,
I just… I have no confidence that there’s a real
understanding of the real understanding of the doctrine of salvation with these people. Way too much intuition, way too much experiential
stuff, but what amazes me is how it has literally become a department in traditionally evangelical
environments. Spiritual formation and it’s mystical, and
it’s intuitive, and it’s experiential, and it’s tied to these kinds of things that
I think disappointed Christians pursue as if there’s some secret knowledge. It goes back to that deeper life, Kessick
[sic – Keswick] kind of approach. Michael Horton: Yeah, I… just recently,
I hadn’t read them before, but I did recently for this book follow-up to Gospel Driven Life
on the Great Commission, and the part of their… their… their concern is that there isn’t
sufficient discipleship going on in the churches, the way they interpret discipleship. But they are very clear about it. Discipleship for them doesn’t mean being
a part of… it doesn’t revolve around, it doesn’t center on being part of a local
body of Christ. It centers on you going inward, doing things
by yourself, going inside of yourself, and then the methods have absolutely nothing to
do with the ones that Jesus commanded, which are all communal. Preaching the gospel, baptizing, teaching
them everything that I have commanded you, that’s all something that creates a community. It’s not something I take over to the corner. As Martin Luther said, “Read the Bible by
yourself in a corner, and every man will go to hell in his own way.” Now, this is a guy who wanted everybody to
read the Bible, but he said you don’t read the Bible by yourself. You’ve got to read it with a communion of
saints. And I… I’m just very concerned that this is a shift
back to Medieval spirituality, and there’s strong criticism of the Reformation tradition
among these folks. Many of them are Quakers, Methodists, and
Anabaptists. And so there’s a history of antagonism toward
the Reformation stream and being a little closer to the mystical, Medieval system there. And Arminianism just, I think, makes sense
within a Medieval spiritual set of practices. But it’s fundamentally different from the
Reformation approach to faith and life. A lot more that could be said but…. Sproul: Thank you. Here’s another question. Many exhort that millions are dying apart
from Christ, and that we must therefore urgently reach them, but doesn’t this conflict with
John 6, “All that the Father has given Me will come to Me.” John MacArthur: Yeah, well, the only way they’ll
come is by hearing the gospel. So you know, we’re not supposed to figure
out, like Spurgeon said, “You don’t pull up a shirt and see if people have an E stamped
on their back.” You know, the mandate is clear. We go into the world, and we preach the gospel
to every creature. The secret decree of God is known only to
Him. Our responsibility is obedience, and no one
is going to come to salvation apart from the truth. 1 Peter 2 again, as I mentioned earlier, or
1, where we’re begotten again by the word of truth. Faith comes by hearing the word concerning
Christ. How will they hear if there’s not a preacher? How will there be a preacher if the preacher’s
not sent? And the responsibility of the church, of course,
is to send the preachers. That’s the method that God has chosen. No gospel, no salvation, so that the work
that we do is… is not… it’s not the primary cause. It’s simply a means that the Lord has determined
to use the preaching of the gospel, and that is our responsibility across the face of the
earth in every generation of the church. Sproul: Okay. There’s a trend today of conservative Bible
teaching churches trying to (quote) “take the good” from secular movements and using
their methods without compromising the message – take the method without compromising the
message. How’s that work? Michael Horton: Badly. The… Well, here’s… I mean, here’s the thing. There is this… is this almost Gnostic assumption
that the body and the soul are disconnected. And it’s simply not the case. Our practices form our beliefs as much as
our beliefs form our practices. You know, we’re… you can’t… you can’t
glue an Arminian view of how you bring people to faith and nurture them in that faith to
a set of convictions that are basically inimical to Arminianism. And that’s what a lot of people are trying
to do. Give him credit, Charles Finney was consistent. He was a lot more consistent than a lot of
us are. He said, “Look, there’s no original sin. People are not born innately depraved. They can regenerate themselves if they believe. No substitutionary atonement, no justification,
therefore, our goal is to find,” – these are his words – “excitements sufficient
to induce repentance.” And then he found them. And they aren’t any methods that you find
in the Bible, but that’s okay because he knows that he can find efficient methods. And now, a lot of… a lot of people say,
“We just jettisoned….” I left it out of my notes, but I had it in
there, quotes from Tony Jones from the emergent movement, who says, “We just jettisoned
the magisterial sermon from our services.” And the Bible now becomes a conversation partner
in a group, as we have our conversation. And I think, that’s a Quaker meeting. That’s not new. That’s been tried. And it’s, you know, your inner light, pooled
ignorance. Let’s all just sit around and share our
inner light instead of having the Word expounded and explained. So you can’t… if you believe that the
power is in the gospel, and it has to be preached and taught and expounded, and you believe
in baptism and the Lord’s Supper as means of grace, if you believe that, it is impossible
to take the methods of the church growth movement or any of these other movements of pragmatism
and consumerism and staple them on to that. [applause] Sproul: That applause was far too mild, but
go ahead John. John MacArthur: I’ve been thinking a lot
about a passage here in Mark 4. I just… this is really… this is a whole
section, Jesus’ Magna Carta on evangelism, and He says, “The Kingdom of God is like
a man who casts seed upon the soil. And he goes to bed at night and gets up by
day, and the seed sprouts and grows, how he himself doesn’t know.” So that is my mandate for evangelism. Sow and go to bed. Michael Horton: That’s great. John MacArthur: I am not in charge of the
results. And you say, “Well, you’d be more effective
if you had… if you had a designer seed bag.” Really? So I need to get a designer seed bag. Is that the idea? And you be a lot more effective if you had
a T-shirt while you’re sowing that had a skull and crossbones on it because that would
really communicate to the dead, blind, ignorant people cut off from the life of God, if you
just had that T-shirt on. Or if you could just back-up your sowing with
rock and roll music, that would really make an impact. I mean, what kind of ridiculous stuff is that? The bottom line is in the parable of the sower
earlier, He says, “A sower went out to sow.” That is all that is said about a sower, and
he went out to sow seed. All it says about the sower is he went and
sowed. All it says about the seed is he threw seed. The rest of the parable is all about the state
of the heart. It’s not the skill of the sower, and the
seed is set. It’s the condition of the heart. Now if you’re under the illusion that Finney
was under that you can change the heart, then you’re worried about all of that cultural
accoutrements that you want to embellish, and you think that has an impact. It wouldn’t matter what the seed bag looked
like. It wouldn’t matter what the surrounding
situation was like. All that really matters is the seed that is
fixed and set in the Word of God. The seed is the Word of God, it says in the
account of the parable in Matthew. That’s all we need to know. The power is in the Word. We sow the seed. It goes into the ground. It does what it does. We don’t know even how it does it. The soil produces crop, and it uses the Greek
word, automate. It produces automatically. It’s a divine automatic. First the blade, then the head, and then the
mature grain in the head, and when the crop’s ready, he puts in a sickle and the harvest. It’s almost like 1 Corinthians 3. Somebody sows. Somebody waters, and boom, here comes the
increase. Now, if you’re under any kind of illusion
that anything matters but the sowing of the seed, then you don’t understand how this
really operates. It’s a divine miracle. And only God can make it happen. Sproul: It’s not just a question about understanding
it. The church doesn’t believe it, John. John MacArthur: No, they don’t believe it. Sproul: They don’t really believe it. John MacArthur: And the unbelief of this is
widespread. Sproul: Absolutely. When I preached here, when I spoke at your
graduation a couple of years ago and preached from Luther’s last sermon before he died. Luther starts that sermon by saying, “What
a fine gospel we have.” And then he goes on in his last sermon to
talk about how people are running to Trier and other places for the relics to find Joseph’s
pants and that kind of thing because they think that they can find power somewhere better
than in the gospel because that’s why they do it. I mean, it’s the same thing in our churches
today. We’re just not chasing after Joseph’s
pants, but we’re still looking for ways to improve the gospel. A more powerful church is grown by every means
possible except the one God’s ordained. He’s put the power in the Word, and it’s
through the preaching of the Word that He has decided He’s going to save the world. And we can’t improve on that. But we can “deprove” on that and depart
from that, and that’s what we’re seeing in a grand scale right now. But here’s another one. Can God regret and wish – like God regretted
making man, making Saul king, and Jesus said, you know, in lament over Jerusalem, “How
often I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not.” You know, it’s like He’s saying, “I
wish you would, but you won’t.” John MacArthur: I think you ought to answer
that. That is right in your wheelhouse. Michael Horton: It is a kind of R.C. Sproul question. John MacArthur: That’s an R.C. Sproul question. Sproul: Well, you know, that’s funny. I wrote it. [laughter] But we do have these passages in the Bible
where it speaks of God’s repenting of having done this or having done that, ruing it or
regretting it. And a whole theology has sprung up in recent
years over that, this whole open theism heresy, which denies the omniscience of God, and that
God just didn’t know how… what was going to happen, and He can’t know what human
beings are going to do, and so He has not only a plan A but a plan B. If plan A doesn’t work, then He’ll throw
away plan A and try plan B, regret the mistakes that He made the first time around. What a dreadful doctrine of God this is. Wow. Talk about… open blasphemy is what that
is all over the place, but you can’t get away from the fact that the Bible does use
that language. Now two things I want to say. We have throughout Scripture anthropomorphisms
and anthropopassionisms, that is where human… where God is described in human forms or in
human terms. The Bible tells us that God has a strong right
arm and He uses the earth as His footstool. But we know when we read those texts that
that’s metaphorical language, and it doesn’t mean that we’re to interpret it that God
really has a right arm because He’s a Spirit. And he doesn’t really mean that He has long
legs that He stretches out and uses the earth as His footstool. But nevertheless that kind of language is
used. This is one of the principles that Calvin
spoke of when he talked about that God addresses us as an adult addresses a baby by lisping
and communicates to us in human terms and human… because that’s the only terms we
know. We don’t have any other point of reference. But at the same time, as we find this kind
of language, particularly in the narratives of Scripture, we have in the didactic portions
of Scripture, the clear warnings not to take these statements as if they were univocal
statements, comprehensively defining the character of God. For example, we are told, “God is not a
man that He should repent.” Even though the Bible uses that human language
in narratives, saying that God repents, then we’re reminded this is just a metaphorical
matter of speech because God being God is incapable of repentance for many reasons. First of all, He has nothing to repent of
because He’s perfectly holy. Second of all, repentance involves a change,
and He is immutable. Third of all, repentance or regret implies
that He made some kind of a mistake at least in judgment, which would throw a… a cloud
over His omniscience, so just about every attribute of God is compromised if you take
those terms univocally. Michael Horton: May I throw in something from
1 Samuel? Sproul: Throw it right in here. We’ll knock it right out of the park. Michael Horton: A great example of what you’re
talking about is 1 Samuel 15, where in verse 10 we read, “The Word of the Lord came to
Samuel. I regret that I have made Saul king, for he
has turned back from following Me.” And then over to verse 29, “And also the
Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man that He should have regret.” And how do you… how do you reconcile that? Well, by realizing that this is… this is
a story and as you say God is speaking baby talk. He is making Himself havable, you know, putting
Himself within our reach, within our grasp by expressing Himself in this way. And from a human perspective, it would have
looked like God repented, but then the same narrative says, “I’m not a man that I
should repent.” So it…. John MacArthur: And I think the extremity
of it, when God does that, it’s a way of saying the worst that could possibly be said
about this person or this situation is I wish it had never happened. Like Judas, I wish – it doesn’t say it
that way, but “would have been better for that man if he had never been born.” Well, who’s in charge of that? But the implication in all these situations
to us that would be a human way to express regret, I wish that had never happened. I wish that person had never lived. That would be a human way at the most extreme
level. You know, that’s more extreme than saying,
“You know, I’m sorry they turned out the way they are.” To say, “I wish that person had never been
born. I wish that nation had never come along. What happened to that city of Jerusalem is
tragic, etc., etc., beyond words.” So I think that is the extreme way to demonstrate
God’s disappointment with someone’s behavior, but it doesn’t mean that in actuality, as
you’ve already heard, that God is winding His way through circumstances and correcting
His judgment as He goes. Sproul: Here’s another one. If God has a general love for all people,
when does He start hating people, or is that from the beginning? Now this is a good question because, you know,
one of the banes of our preaching today is the minister who stands on television there
in his pulpit and says, “God loves you unconditionally.” How in the world does the pagan interpret
that statement? Well, I don’t have to do anything. I don’t have to repent. I don’t need Christ. I don’t need an atonement. There are no strings attached. God loves me unconditionally. Unconditional love is what I enjoy from God,
you know. So we’ve got to talk about the love of God
and how… does the Bible ever say that God hates people, besides Esau? Does not God in sacred Scripture say that
He abhors the wicked? He hates them. So how do you… how do you reconcile that with the love of
God? John MacArthur: It says He’s angry with
the wicked everyday in Psalms, angry with the wicked everyday. I think all of God’s attributes operate
in full at all times, so that God can love and hate at the same time. I think we would understand that. We would understand that there are two sides
to us. There are things that we love so much we hate
everything that’s opposite that or opposes that. But I… But I think to understand God’s love is
that it’s manifest in common grace. God’s love is, I think, expressed by Christ
in Matthew 5 where He says, “Love your enemies and be the sons of your Father.” “Walk in love,” Ephesians 5, and demonstrate
that you’re the sons of God. God loves with common grace. The sun shines on the just and the unjust. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. The unregenerate wake up and smell the coffee
and watch the sunrise and fall in love and have children and enjoy the richness of life
and the bounty of this world. That’s one aspect of God’s love, the common
love, the general love. I think the opposite… I mean, the other side might be gospel opportunity
is extended. Preach the gospel to every creature. They are given the opportunity to hear and
to believe. All of those aspects of the withholding of
judgment, that’s… that’s an evidence of God’s love. He grieves over Jerusalem. He finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Those are all aspects of that. But as far as the iniquity that is part of
their lives and that the guilt that they bear for that iniquity, God has to hate that because
He’s a holy God. When you move to believers, I think the best
language is in John 13, where He says He loves them eis telos. He loves them to the finish, to the end, to
the max. It’s the same language that speaks of “eternally.” He looked at the disciples, and it says of
Him, He loved them eis telos, to the limit. That’s another kind of love. And it’s the kind of love that’s celebrated
in Ezekiel 16 where after describing the horrors of Israel, he says you’re the people of
the covenant and pours out a final note of love on them. But I think when the sinner does not respond
to the grace that is offered, when the goodness and kindness of God doesn’t lead the sinner
to repentance, then hate takes over. At what point that happens, maybe Pharaoh’s
an illustration of that. He hardens his heart. He hardens his heart. God hardens his heart, if you can see any
kind of distinction there. Sproul: In systematic theology, you know,
we have the right to make distinctions. It’s our stock and trade. And when we talk about the love of God, we
distinguish among three types, which you have just done Biblically. We talk about His benevolence, His love of
benevolence, benevolentia, His good will towards all man. God takes no pleasure in the death of the
wicked. You say, His basic disposition is positively
one of kindness toward a fallen world. And secondly His love of beneficence is His
good deeds, which you described in terms of His common grace, the rain falling upon the
just and on the unjust. John MacArthur: To me, if I can just stop
you and say one thing. The greatest illustration of common grace,
I think, was the healing ministry of Jesus, which was totally indiscriminate. Sproul: That’s right. And then we talk about the love of complacency. And there the term complacency doesn’t mean
what it means in our contemporary uses of it being smug and all of that, but it has
to do with that special love that He has for His son and through His Son to those who are
indwelt by His Son, who are in His Son. There’s that love that goes to the ages. But we don’t have that. We have almost a romantic view of God, that
God loves everybody in terms of the love of complacency in the salvific sense unconditionally. That’s not true, and that’s a false message
that we… we give. Here’s a practical question, although they’re
all practical. If you’re in a position of leadership in
a church that preaches man-centered sermons or shallow sermons, is it okay to leave that
church even though you have a sort of influence among the congregation? This is a question we get all the time. When is it okay to leave a church or when
is it necessary to leave a church? Sometimes it’s necessary. Sometimes it’s not necessary but okay. Sometimes it’s not okay. How do you counsel people about that? John MacArthur: The first thing I tell people
about is the seven churches of Revelation. If you happened to live in Laodicea, there
was only one church. If you happened to live in Sardis, there was
only one church. If you lived in Pergamos and Smyrna, there
was one church. And our Lord commends those in those churches
that had some deep problems, so deep that He even told them if they continued in the
direction they were going, He would disown them. But He commends those who haven’t soiled
their garments. I think you have to look at your options and…
and if you’re in a situation where there are problems and issues but… but you don’t
really have an alternative, I think there’s understanding with the Lord with regard to
that. And there may be some good done and accomplished. But if you have an option, and an alternative
to go from a church that dishonors the Lord to a church that honors the Lord, I don’t
think that’s a tough decision. I think you need to go where the gospel is
proclaimed, Christ is exalted, where church is really functioning in a Biblical way, if
you have that option. I… I encourage people, speak to the leadership,
go directly to the leadership, express your concerns, see if there is any interest in
change or repentance. I don’t… I don’t think you want to tear the thing
to shreds. I don’t think there’s any virtue in that,
that sort of un-says everything that you’re trying to say about doing things that honor
the Lord. I think you have to, you know maybe… Maybe God will write Ichabod on the church. Maybe the Lord will fight against that church,
but that’s His battle to fight, not yours. But I do think you are as a believer responsible
for your own spiritual development and growth, and you need to put yourself in the place
where that is maximally going to happen, and I think if you have alternatives, you need
to take those alternatives. Sproul: I agree with that. Often people leave over trivial matters, and
they shouldn’t because there’s this community that’s a covenant community that you’re
in, and you don’t leave over every peccadillo, but if your soul is in jeopardy and your family’s,
you’ve got to run for your life. John MacArthur: And that’s a good point
that you make. People leave for the most ridiculous, stupid
reasons. First of all, they don’t want to join a
church to start with. I am a strong advocate of church membership. That’s a real battle today. You understand that. Many of these independent churches, take the
whole Calvary Chapel movement, they don’t believe in doctrinal statements or church
membership or church boards. And people are just floating in and floating
out. You don’t have any real identification. You don’t know who you’re shepherding. We…We deal with that all the time because
we practice church discipline. So the question always comes up, this person
is a member of the church. Who are these non-member people that float
in and out, and what is exactly our responsibility toward them? People want to consider all their options. Like you said, you put on somebody’s playlist,
and you’ll find out what church they go to by the music. I wish that God would just shut the music
down for about six months, and then we’d find out who went where, and the truth would
really be revealed as to what people are after. But I do think, there’s just way too much
of this personal offence stuff, or it isn’t the style I like, and people migrating around
to their own spiritual detriment. Sproul: Here’s one for Dr. MacArthur. In regarding miracles and answers to prayer,
how does Matthew 17:20 and John 14:13 – I’m only asking you because you’re the only
one up here who’s going to know what those references are. Stop me if I’m lying, Mike. How does Matthew 17:20 and John 14:13 fit
into prosperity Christianity? John MacArthur: Well, let’s just take John
14:13 and 14, Jesus in the Olivet discourse says to the disciples, “If you ask anything
in My name, I will do it that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” That is a promise. Obviously, our faith can move mountains. Our faith can… can… is a factor, is a
part, a component in… in the things that God does. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous
man avails much,” as James say. But I think the key in John 14:13 and 14 is
that phrase, “If you ask anything in My name.” I think if you know anything about the use
of names in Scripture, you understand that that’s the… consistent with who He is,
and being consistent with who He is, is being consistent with what He wills and what He
plans and what He purposes. So our Lord is simply saying, “Anything
you pray consistent with My will, I will do it that the Father may be glorified in the
Son.” You know the essence of prayer is lining up
my life with the purposes of God. And if I don’t pray, God’s going to do
what He’s going to do. I believe that. But I’m not going to be able to give Him
glory to the degree that I would if I was engaged in praying in the direction that God
was working. So I think it simply gives us the opportunity
to glorify God, to honor God when our prayers are poured out to Him within the framework
of His purposes. And as those purposes unfold, we are able
to give Him glory because we’ve been a part of the process in our prayers. Sproul: We have to be careful that we don’t
have a simplistic treatment to isolated texts. You have to read the whole teaching of Christ
with respect to prayer. “If any two of you agree on any one thing
in My name, it shall be done for you.” Now how many of you would like to see the
war in Iraq end tonight? We’ve got more than two here in agreement. How many would like to see a total cure for
cancer tonight? Can we agree on that? Obviously, that was not the point. John MacArthur: No, that’s not even talking
about prayer. It’s talking about church discipline, and
two or three witnesses in a discipline situation. But that doesn’t stop people from… you
know, context doesn’t mean much to those people. Sproul: Well, our time is up for this. We still have some questions, but we still
have more Q&A time coming up. Don’t we, Chris? What do we do now? Chris Larson: First thing we do is thank you
all for your contributions.
