Questions & Answers with Challies, Godfrey, Lawson, and Mohler

so this would go along with the question or this would go along with the topic I just raised as far as getting resources to other places should our resources be more focused to our own increasingly godless countries or other countries that are rapidly growing in Christianity if you make enough donations to Ligonier we won't have to make that choice wouldn't that be wonderful that we could really try to meet the needs of our own countries but also really make sure that there are resources going around the world I couldn't help as a historian but think of the irony that we have to struggle to make Calvinist works available in French we owe a lot to a Frenchman maybe we ought to keep working at that what is new Calvinism and how does it differ and how similar is it to Reformation Calvinism [Music] well I think the new Calvinism has focused on the five SOLAS and the five doctrines of grace I don't know that it's as full orbed as Reformation theology was in the 16th century which was more comprehensive and I do think the new Calvinism has majored in some very important doctrines and not the least of which would be sovereign election and effectual calling I think doctor enough sanctification still needs to be worked out and and emphasized and taught and preached on the pursuit of holiness the outworking of regeneration that that's just a very quick synopsis it's not as well developed as as it was in the sixteenth century it is ironic or fitting that the two Baptists up here they're answering this question but the new Calvinism is it just just as Steve said there's very good news in it for us and that is that so many evangelical Christians and younger evangelical Christians looking for a big God theology and not buy it and they're turning to scripture and so it's not coincidental that they are embracing reformed theology and for that I'm very very thankful I'm thankful that it begins where it begins with a big God theology it needs to develop into a big church theology to have lasting gospel influence and and there's a issue sanctification a doctor of holiness is just really important and so I'm hoping the hope is that this new Calvinism will grow into that but look whether there would be some up here I'm sure who would say that if you're not a form of Presbyterian or in the Reformed Church then you're synthetic I will simply say we're Baptist by conviction but I consider myself fully reformed but that's that's why we can still have someone believe in truth and in a big God theology in a big church theology then this is exactly the right place to have a discussion about some of the things things that make the right big Church theology Tim you've kind of chronicled the new Calvinist movement for well over a decade now what are the ebbs and flows I think there's a lot of guessing a lot of people here are Dutch Reformed and if you're a Dutch Reformed then you're reformed theology is anchored in the three forms of unity if you're Presbyterian you're reformed theology is anchored in the Westminster confessions your Reformed Baptist in theory you're reformed theology is anchored in the one didn't Baptist confession or something I think when we talk about new Calvinism we're talking about people who have adopted Calvinistic soteriology how people get saved but they haven't anchored themselves in the deeper reformed tradition and so it's it's new in the sense it's not anchored in the old and I think the call for new Calvinists is to become old Calvinists to keep going back into these deep deep traditions and so your starting point when questions arise how does God save people what does it mean to be sanctified your starting point is well let's go back into our traditions see what it says to us and then be as consistent as we can with that confession that tradition can you explain the difference between regeneration and the effectual call and how they work together would love to understand this better well when I think of new Calvinism I think of Abraham Kuyper he was accused of being a new Calvinist so there are a lot of new Calvinism all right regeneration a regeneration is the sovereign work of God in the human heart to bring newness of life to bring deliverance from blindness and death and evil and the that work comes through a calling that is rendered efficacious by the Spirit of God in the heart so regeneration is the immediate work of God in the heart effectual calling wants to remind us that God works through means almost always and so that would be a distinction there if the calling is effectual it's because of the work of the Holy Spirit if real regeneration has taken place it's because of the work of the Holy Spirit but there's a slight difference between the call to newness of life and the reality of newness of life planted in the soul not bad for a historian now that theologian should in examining reformed theology and dealing with the subject of the elect how do we deal with disappointment of those dear to us who don't appear to have had their heart regenerated and no signs of coming to faith well I think we have genuine sorrow in our heart for anyone who is outside of Christ and we do not know who the non elect are until the day of their death if they die in unbelief without Christ but there's always hope until the end that they would yet come to faith in Christ so but as long as they are outside of Christ I'm even Paul says my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is for their salvation Romans 10 verse 1 immediately after The Hardball theology of Romans 9 so Paul was not dispassionate he was compassionate towards those without Christ and he begins Romans 9 verse 3 by saying that he would will it he would be willing to be a curse for them for theirs if that meant their salvation so we we are not stoic believers that would be a total contradiction in terms our heart yearns for any lost person to come to faith in Christ it's only intensified and multiplied when it's a family member and a loved one who yet remains outside of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ and that is just the way that it must be Jesus himself wept over Jerusalem that did not respond to his overtures of invitation to come to him for saving grace so we are brokenhearted believers towards those who are without Christ we are not indifferent and that that's the flaw of hyper-calvinism that really just doesn't care that just becomes passive as it relates to evangelism and passive as it relates to praying for the Lost and in God forbid and we were talking back in the speaker's room I said to dr. Mohler I'd rather you be an Arminian than be a hyper-calvinist Arminians at least try to win people to work addressing that to me personally no sir I know you well sir I know your well but you made it fully in principle yes and only in principle meaning we were discussing that and the hyper-calvinist is not burdened for there unsaved friends and family members the Armenians are and while their theology is superficial at best nevertheless they believe in the 3 R's that that Whitfield and Wesley both preached ruined by sin redeemed by the Saviour regenerated by the spirit and would press that to the heart so we must be burdened for the lost and I remember reading in one of your articles many years ago dr. Mohler you know we've read Calvin's Institute's and we've read Spurgeon sermons an election we also need to read Spurgeon on the soul winter and and and that's very true yeah I appreciate Steve on this so much and that answer I would I would just add that we should be no less persistent than an Arminian in sharing the gospel with our loved ones yes or with anyone else that's not a rightful distinction between reformed theology and our minyan theology we have an explanation in the decrees of God before the foundation of the world that explains to us how all of this comes together in the plan and purpose of God but as Bob said the means of grace the means by which the gospel comes to us this is this is not a distinction that reformed theology has a different answer to that than a biblically minded Arminian but that aghori for just a bit we'll let that go I would just add to that I agree entirely with them that while we wait and and grieve in our hearts that we have friends and relatives who are not converted we also have to be comforted by confidence in God that he has a good and wise purpose amen so we're not left in despair or hopeless because we have a Heavenly Father who cares for us and we'll provide it but he will do what's right and with each individual's absolutely yeah Reformed believer can there's a biblical category we can rest that does not mean activity but in the glory and sovereignty of God we can rest that's a very important category so there's one question in three parts here and you'll you'll see what I mean here do children need to hear the gospel in order to be saved what about children who die in infancy is there an age of discretion well children definitely need to hear the gospel to be saved no one will ever be saved without hearing the gospel Romans 10:17 faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ that's a genitive a source meaning the word about Christ and so that's the previous verse is how shall they believe unless they hear etc so you must hear the gospel to be say that's why we're so committed to missions that's why we're so committed to the task of evangelism that there's no other way God's not dropping you no tracks out of clouds to people to get you know the gospel to them nor is anyone being saved out of a lack of knowledge of the truth of the gospel so that answer the first of those three questions clear as a bell you must hear the gospel in order to be saved but we had this discussion in Lancaster Pennsylvania but go ahead there is a special category that this question presses upon us like the category of the infants who died in infancy all right well that's I entered the first question that's the second question yes oh I agree with you that generally speaking and the raising of our children they need to hear the gospel everybody needs to hear the gospel but there is this special question about children dying in infancy who have not had an are not old enough to be able to hear and process the preaching of the gospel and in the history of the Reformed churches and the reformed theologians there have been a variety of approaches to that question BB Warfield for example the great American Presbyterian theologian said that he believed that all children dying in infancy would be saved so that's one point of view that had a number of defenders historically another point of view is expressed in the Westminster Confession of faith elect children dying in infancy will be saved now that's true everybody would have to agree with that but it doesn't get you very far in knowing who are the elect children now once again as is so often the case the Dutch Reformed have it right we're playing to the hometown crowd there do you know how seldom might have a hometown crowd whoa is the California that's right the canons of dort I believe and we probably don't have time to have a full biblical discussion in this I believe the canons of dort have it right godly parents first head of doctrine article 17 godly parents may believe without doubt that their children dying in infancy are elect and saved now my Presbyterian friends were often sort of horrified by the confidence of that statement I believe it's a proper relating of covenant to election but that's a big discussion and I believe however it's based solidly on the scripture because David when his son died in infancy clearly believed he would see his son in glory again and I think he knows that only by the character of the Covenant not by special revelation I did notice that you said there's no time for an in-depth Bible study as soon as I opened my Bible I can't go very far in depth but I can say that in history the Christian thinking of this there were only been three options which is no children are saved infants speaking of this none are all are or some are and the some are has been explained by the Roman Catholic claim that the sacrament of baptism is what is necessary we don't believe that in the sacred total and and sacramental understanding of Roman Catholicism there have been reformed answers that our covenant 'el just such as the one offered here from the canons of dort I will stand with Warfield and with Spurgeon in in believing that in the sovereignty of God all children all infants are amongst the elect and I I just I just want to share one verse with you just just one it's one that it is is quite neglected on this issue and when you ask about an age of discernment there is an age of discern in the sense that even self-consciousness older children are capable of a self-consciousness the younger children or not but we believe in an original sin and total depravity so there's never a moment when the child is not a sinner and then is a sinner there is a moment when the child is more aware of sin I came to Christ when the Holy Spirit opened my heart to know not only that I sin but I am a sinner and the only remedy is Christ the the only the verse I just want to hold out here because this is in Deuteronomy chapter 1 and it's a verse 39 and Moses says to the people guess God speaks through him and as for your little ones who you said would become a prey and your children who today have no knowledge of good or evil they shall go in there speaking of the land of promise and as you went to David I'll go to to Moses here and say I find confidence there in God's purpose for those who who die without having a knowledge of good and evil but those were covenant children and and I think the point at the cannons that the canons of dort make is we do have revelation and knowledge about the Covenant 'el relationship of our covenant children we don't have any biblical revelation that explicitly tells us what happens to non covenant children dying in infancy and so the canons are simply quiet they're they don't they need a affirm nor deny the possibility of the salvation of those children but you know non covenant children who are you know totally depraved cannot be easily seen to be in a good situation that that doesn't help a Baptist because we do not believe that the covenant is extended to the child we believe that covenant blessings are extended to the children of Christian parents but not the Covenant itself until there is a confession and profession of faith so you know that's an error that can be remedied [Music] come on my people but it was referenced last night and then there's a question along the lines of people who want to unhitch from the Old Testament because some Old Testament truths are hard to understand for example how do we discuss the Canaanite invasion especially the killing of young children well either the ways of God are right or we're lost either the Word of God truthfully tells us God's ways and indeed the Bible is God's Word then we're lost we are left with the impossibility of explaining to ourselves or to others any of the inscrutable dimensions of the will of God all we know is God's will revealed so we cannot rightfully interrogate God as to his purposes other than the revealed purposes in the conquest of Canaan we can understand pragmatically that the children would arise as the enemies of Israel we get we can understand that this flies in the face of modern sensibilities but so does the exclusivity of the gospel so if people feel like they read that in the Old Testament and they go I don't trust a God who might have done that then you actually don't trust a God who says that salvation is accomplished in the cross and atonement of his own son and only in that atonement the moment we begin to say God is going to be held to a standard of justice that that I will determine independent of him then we're lost theologically I mentioned in my in my message today we have to come back to Romans chapter 3 our assurance is that God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus and and we have to read the Old Testament the same way we read the New Testament with that same confidence and and and particularly in relation to the Canaanite invasion scripture does tell us that God waited patiently they refused to repent they filled up the measure of their disobedience so this is a just judgment that's visited upon them and it is a pictures so right it is a picture of eschatological judgment the wages of sin is death so it's God is not being unjust our foundational premise is God's Word is true therefore we say that truth equals God's Word isn't that circular thinking when discussing truth with unbelievers what is my starting point can I just leap into this this is I think such a common question and it intimidates so many people but there is no answer to fundamental questions that is not essentially circular you're just choosing on the basis of evidence and reason and we believe with the eyes of faith what is the right circle so in the Enlightenment they tried to say let's get out of the circle of Revelation it operates simply on the basis of reason and so who's the great symbol of that we're an aid to cart what is this most fundamental saying cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am there's no more circular argument in the world than I think therefore I am I am therefore I think I do not like green eggs and ham I do not like them sam-i-am this is this is all you've got and so it's not that we are just choosing I like this circular reasoning rather than the other we come to understand this circular reasoning makes sense of the world and the way nothing else does this circular reasoning explains how indeed there is a self to ask the question and and so we have evidence for the Scriptures we have evidence for the inspiration of the scriptures but fundamentally we're still having to do the thinking and so it is just don't don't don't be intimidated by someone who says it's a circular argument just just ask them okay let's so let's have your argument how do you know you are even existing right now in order for us to have this conversation the only possible answer is going to be circular okay now we're honest and and I would say beyond that in in sort of practical terms I think Jesus helps us as always in a remarkable way when he says my sheep hear my voice and follow me so that we certainly have abundant intellectual arguments to make but in the end of the day intellectual arguments or any kind of arguments or any kind of Appeal only connects where the spirits at work so that people recognize the voice of the Savior and follow it so we should be sort of comforted by that and not too anxious all the time resting in the Providence ago Tim and your own travels where have you seen different manifestations of people coming into conflict with the truth of the Scriptures and how do they process process that and some of the different cultures that you've seen around the world well I think every culture is grappling with essentially the same thing which is what is true who is true and and who is trustworthy we talked earlier about how people can only come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the gospel and so one of the dangers when somebody asks a question like that is to give them truth to do this full apologetic and to try and help them see but never to preach the gospel and I think we have to be very careful that we don't we don't take confidence in our ability to give them a compelling answer without also telling them the truth of who Christ is and what he's done for them so the end of the day it's not answering their questions that will save them it is the gospel and yeah you can get to the gospel by answering their questions but I'm always concerned but you know and whatever group comes knocking on your door and you know you can go to John chapter one and you know you can argue with them about the meaning of words there that's that's great but you've got to give them the gospel and it's the same when somebody comes with those fundamental questions preach the gospel that's what is powerful that's what's strong how would you respond to a person who is justified their homosexuality by saying that all references to homosexuality and the Bible refer to rape and violence and that homosexuals don't agree with that either the first thing you say is that's not true the first premise is absolutely false it's profoundly false in text and in context whether it's the Levitical passages where the passage is to live with a man as with a woman that that is not implying rape the the rape case of which they probably will be talking about is is the rate that took place at Sodom and and we and understand that yes we should be thankful that almost everyone will affirm that rape is wrong no matter what the category but the consummate most important text in the Bible is Romans chapter 1 where it is clearly not the context of any kind of rape or the consents not the issue in fact it's the affirmation of consent that is the issue not the denial of it it is desired that is contrary to nature and Paul's whole point is is not to begin there he begins with natural revelation and general revelation which reveals even the invisible attributes of God and he says but they are without excuse so it's actually a demonstration of the corruption that has come into our thinking in in our depravity such that we exchanged the truth of God for a lie and the homosexuality we interestingly the Romans chapter 1 is the first reference explicitly to female same-sex relationships in all of ancient literature the very first it's implied in some Greek literature but Paul doesn't imply it he explicitly names it and then men likewise he says forsaking the natural use of the woman and that that just isn't that isn't that isn't rape in the first Corinthians passage Paul carefully uses and it's a little more technical than we want to get into in the moment but let's just say he uses the Greek language and he uses the words that would be used in a male homosexual act and he names both of the participants and declares both to be sinful now what makes that important is that in classical Greek and Roman morality it was it was only sin or shame for the passive partner and so I'm not being nearly as explicit as Paul but the Apostle Paul makes very clear it is in every essence so every single declaration in Scripture about human sexuality is amazingly consistent in pointing to the fact that God made us male and female that he made us for each other that he established marriage as the only rightful demonstration of the conjugal relationship that it is always to be a man and a woman and and as Jesus says in Matthew it is always God's intention that it be a man and a woman in that covenant or relationship and in the Bible's justic the Bible is amazingly specific so that I'm aggravated by the question because not not that the person who asked you because it's not his question I'm activating at the premise because it is absolutely false and it's one of the mythology spread by those who are trying to normalize homosexuality or the whole LGBTQ array by arguing that the church has misread the Bible for 2,000 years and that's just another very dubious principle that the Bible that the the entire Christian Church has misread the Bible for 2,000 years that it doesn't mean what it says it as reform Christians it has been my experience that we are very concerned about truth and that is good the truth without love for other Christians and those who don't know Christ is a noisy gong tone matters we also don't want to compromise truth how can we practically in our day-to-day interactions with others deliver truth in love we touched on this a little bit earlier today but here it is again well you would have a genuine heart of love it's not play-acting by toning down the range of my voice that you actually genuinely care for other people and love other people in the Lord even unbelievers and so you you do speak in a way all of us know who are married as we speak to our spouse it matters not just what you say but how you say it further there is a time actually to speak bluntly and directly so it's not that we just have become effeminate as men in the way we confront or teach there is to be a manly vigor in the church and there are times we speak prophetically and there are times we we confront just as a father would have to confront a disobedient child and Paul even said to the Thessalonians I cared for you as a nursing mother but I also implored you as a strict father and so it's not either/or it's both and so there are times in our witnessing and talking to unbelievers that we do speak to them in softer tones but there are also occasions that do require a strong statement of truth that comes across in a way that is not passive and so I'd even as we're talking about speaking the truth and love I don't want us to get the idea that like who the Baptist was all wrong or that Amos was all wrong or that even the Lord Jesus Christ was all wrong Matthew chapter 23 he said whoa and he's you know scribes and Pharisees so there is a time in a place for that but everything first Corinthians 13 we it should be out of a heart of love but even when we speak strongly that should be motivated by love sometimes to get the attention of the one to whom we speak I I think one of the skills we should cultivate is often for us as reformed Christians is good listening and I think when you when you study the Scriptures really carefully and look the places at which Jesus responds somewhat bitingly and sharply as opposed to the way places where he responds with great sympathy and empathy he has listened closely to what's being asked of him and is able to penetrate the way will never be able to do the hearts of those who are speaking to him and so those who are just trying to trap him he usually rebukes sharply but those who are really troubled he were he responds sympathetically and I think sometimes as Christians we don't always listen long enough and carefully enough to know exactly what's being asked of us so that we'll know the right tone as well as the right message to respond so cultivating good listening I think is a is a key as well related to that how does this role of social media contribute and detract from our response as well as contribute detract from the Great Commission Tim you've spent a lot of time studying kind of our internet moment that we're in yeah I think our technologies have grown up faster than we have in a lot of ways we have abilities to speak across the world in instant and many people most people just aren't mature enough to handle that this medium has come on very quickly and given us new reach we don't fully understand it we're not fully aware yet of the dangers that can come or the problems that can come when we use these media so I think there's being a lot of damage done there's a lot of good that's happening through social media but a lot of damage as well and I'm interested in seeing ten or twenty or thirty years from now how we assess all that if in the end we we see that Twitter really set the church back for a time because so much was being said so thoughtlessly and so hurtfully or did it really contribute or what combination of those two I think one one good rule of thumb is never debate something on Twitter until you've debated real life debated with somebody about that in real life or at least discussed it with somebody in the real world so if you want to go online and talk about race or talk about justice or talk about immigration or any hot topic talk to somebody maybe in your local church somebody maybe who's slightly different from you talk over those things have an honest real-world conversation and then maybe you've got some things you can take to the online world that'll be more helpful than just off-the-cuff comments you know what I never blog I never read a blog I'm innocent or one might say Kippur and incompetent or old absolutely well but what I've observed from a distance of the people I've known who blog and get in some trouble blogging is that they in my experience this is mainly males and you can comment on that maybe but in my experience it's mainly males and they're talking on the blog that way they would talk with a buddy at Starbucks and so they're being snarky and sarcastic and kidding and sharp and the problem is the person reading the blog is not seeing the smile on the face it's they're not seeing the wink of the eye they're only hearing all of this sharpness and it is really a problem it is I think it's probably more of a problem and I think Tim really got to this it's more of a problem than we surely recognize for one thing digital media present a form of crack cocaine in in a social setting and it up in things such that it's now considered irresponsible if a Christian leader does it respond within you know 15 minutes to something posted on social media which frankly I will never see somebody's got to tell me it's there there's an entire new reality and their entire new expectation but I think most of us feel guilty at least responsible that we better check our phones fairly regularly just to make sure there's still the world there or a wife there or you know in other words it really is I gave Christian parents to think it's irresponsible if they can't locate their teenage kids on a find me app you know immediately all the way haven't figured out all this means but I want to come back to Bob for just a minute and just say I do remember that the Lutheran Reformation in particular was a war of blogs it wasn't in social media it was in statements often hastily printed or pasted up on a wall and and so the it isn't to be foregone as we can just ignore that arena of thought but Bob is exactly right we need to be rational I know what Tim said about real-life discussion we need be careful and we need to and we need to write everything assuming that it's going to be seen for 500 years how do you share Christ with people who have been abused by church leaders well we begin by not excusing the church leaders and one of the more distressing things in life is to hear about church leaders who've been abusive but you know we have to overlook that because they're so gifted from the Lord well that's just terrible appalling to be utterly rejected so we have to have enter into a measure of not that we can understand what the abused person has gone through if we haven't been abused but that we take their side we support them we express our compassion in the first place for them how do you weeks and then we go on to talk about the gospel I thought one of you guys to bring that up but yeah I don't understand how sharing Christ is is that an evangelistic saying then if so what I would say to someone who's been abused by a church leader is exactly what I would say to someone who has not been abused by a church leader the gospel is the gospel the gospel doesn't change in the situation the gospel is forever the same so I don't understand the question entirely we would need more follow-up on what does it mean to share Christ with someone who's been abused by church leaders does that mean they need the Lord that their unregenerate and unconverted if so then we share the very same message here's a follow-on question to this how do you help people who are struggling to forgive people who had terrible sins committed against them rape abuse childhood trauma especially when the person or the who's sinned against them are not remorseful or repentant or maybe they are unable to ask for forgiveness maybe they've died or lost contact with them so people are struggling to forgive people who've had abuse committed against them I think this is an issue that we just have to confront very honestly and soberly and compassionately I am very aware of the reality of abuse sexual and otherwise often undertaken by those who are in a pastoral position or the position of Christian leadership which creates a unique context of vulnerability for someone who comes thinking they're going to receive the council and ministry of Christ and receive something very different Bob's right the first thing we have to do is name it for what it is the question that came there was and and I appreciate what Steve said and and and in the answer to that first question I would say a part of what we do is we point to Jesus how does Jesus handle people look at the Gospels we don't measure we've got to indict pastoral malpractice by pointing to the example of Christ and the Apostles look at Paul look at Paul actually how he actually handled people responding to people but when you say forgiveness this is a question that has haunted the 20th century it's haunted the secular mind has haunted the Jewish mind how do you ask survivors of the Holocaust to forgive and I think that's where we as Christians have to understand our theology of forgiveness is not sentiment nor is it moral surrender our understanding of forgiveness has to be deeply biblical which means it follows it follows the fact that as we confess our sins Christ is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness I don't believe there is any obligation to offer forgiveness as moral surrender to some whose unrepentant forgiveness in the light of the fact that God will judge and forgiveness in the light of the fact that we have been forgiven our sins of infinite or and and therefore we do not withhold forgiveness on theological grounds but what is often implied in that question is a definition of forgiveness as moral surrender I'm going to give up this moral cause I'm going to give up this moral claim I don't think that's a biblical doctrine of forgiveness and I think we have to confront that as well how do you explain to an unbeliever or a new Christian that God's wrath is love well I heard Burks say that last night and really started my wheels turning and I don't know that I've totally got the the airtight sentence answer to that it's just even as dr. Mohler said the attributes of God are indivisible and it's not that God has part wrath and part love and part truth the totality of his being is love the totality of his being is wrath and so a God without wrath would be unloving in that he would never carry out the vengeance that we would that we have suffered and he says vengeance is mine I will repay and so rather than us having to take matters into our own hands a loving God steps in and defends the defenseless and defends those who have been unjustly abused and God is the Avenger and the afflictive wrath upon those who deserve that wrath to justify his and glorify himself but but also to step in on behalf of those who have suffered it would be totally unloving for me as a father if my daughter was being raped if I did not step in and inflict great harm upon the one who is doing damage to my daughter until the police can get there I can assure you it'll be more than prayer that I'll be giving and that's the most loving thing I could do is inflict great harm upon the one who is doing great harm to the one whom I love and so we are not passive us and neither is God a pacifist so it is a very loving thing for God to do this really in protection of his people and to fulfill his own justice but the button the Bible tells us that God's exactly amen they got the Bible tells us that God loves is the first object of God's love is himself or there is nothing greater than himself his proper direction of his own love is to himself the Bible never says God is wrath I understand the point that Burke was making is exactly right there there isn't there isn't a division in God but it but the Bible never says God is rat the Bible does say God is love the Bible says God is just and God is righteous his wrath is the demonstration of his justice and his righteousness at the present time and at the right time it will be revealed in fullness and it will be completely consistent with God loving His Holiness and again we do we have to use these words separately God being God in His perfection will reveal his ultimate will as God in perfection in both redemption and in wrath and it will be in measure to his holiness and his perfection last question and we have just a few seconds left but I figure we could squeeze this one in is it worth driving an hour to go to a church where the true gospel is preached amen yes yes but in a commuter church culture like our own we often drive by seven or eight gospel preaching churches in order to get to the church we prefer to go to so yes if there's no church between you and that one where the gospel is being preached drive an hour we have several people who drive an hour to come to our church every Sunday so they can hear the gospel but be careful the matter of preferences that you're not so developing preferences that only that church matches the the fine details of your theological preferences or your worship preferences or something else and remember that the church is more than hearing sermons the church is a community of faith and so you have to commit yourself in your our driving to being part of a community and sharing in that community and showing love in that community and if an hour is too far for that and there's another church where you hear the gospel closer you should make that choice don't hear heresy drive an hour to hear biblical exposition but then work hard says the Baptist to establish a gospel church within minutes thank you gentlemen this afternoon you

Channel: Ligonier Ministries

Views: 13,002

Rating: 4.9176955 out of 5

Keywords: ligonier, ligonier ministries, ligonier conference, ligonier canada, canada, ontario, southern ontario, ligonier conference 2019, reformed, reformed theology, reformation theology, theology, tim challies, challies, robert godfrey, w robert godfrey, steve lawson, steven lawson, steven j lawson, ablert mohler, al mohler, mohler, albert r mohler, askligonier, ask ligonier, biblical answers, theological questions, ligonier q&a, christian, bible, questions, answers, biblicla, teological

Id: XqYd_PvVcUI

Length: 48min 22sec (2902 seconds)

Published: Sat Nov 16 2019