Questions & Answers with Ferguson, Mohler, and Nichols

it's delightful to have you gentlemen thank you for being with us at our winter conference and we'll just jump right in if God's special revelation is infallible and I think by that I mean Scripture is infallible is general revelation also infallible yes absolutely God does not lie everything that he reveals he reveals perfectly according to his own nature the problem with general revelation is not that it fails but that sinful human beings fail and that given the fall we cannot not fail so that that's why we're entirely dependent upon special revelation but whatever God does he does perfectly in what he does there is no error to use the language in which infallibility emerged the Lord Himself makes very clear that his word never fails to do what he sends it to do and by the way this is again where Agustin made the point that natural revelation does not fail to condemn which is another point of Romans chapter 1 we are the L therefore without excuse why are unbelievers as tyst into this why are unbelievers such poor interpreters of general revelation well because they're spiritually blind and I was thinking when when dr. Mohler was speaking that I was listening to the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale of the Kings new clothes and it just takes a little boy who sees clearly to ask the question there's nobody else in the room seeing clearly because it's obvious he's got nothing on and this is I referred to Nicodemus earlier on that was a religious man but in a sense he really epitomizes a universal man in the sense that what is before his face he is not able to interpret rightly because he no longer has the appropriate starting point he resists that starting point dr. Mahler was saying not only is he deceived but in many cases he is also self deceived and so he has persuaded himself of the accuracy of his own interpretation but when you begin in the wrong place and are going in the wrong direction it is inevitable that you you not only misinterpret some things but at the end of the day you can never interpret the whole thing properly it seems to there are and I think you brought this out in terms of the suppression and in the levels that are there even culturally it seems that there are degrees to this poor interpretation it almost seems to we can the more calloused we become to not seeing God then we just continue to drift further and further away and so we can be faced with the truth with that that almost generational callus this hard for that truth to penetrate but the problem is not the truth you brought this out very clearly the problem is is the person the the receiver it's never on the object side it's always on the subject side in this knowledge well I was thinking about Isaiah 44 when when he was speaking about the Penguins where I saya says you know there you are and and you get a lump of wood and you you're cut it in two you throw a piece on the fire and while you're warming yourself you make your God and it is laughable if we just saw it was laughable and the longer I've known him the more I've begun to think that now he is such a great popular communicator we could have the al Mohler comedy show because like his address this afternoon really demonstrated how laughable is but also demonstrated this this position that if you start in the wrong place you can turn penguins into homosexuals but what you cannot do is turn to male penguins and to being parents over and is you know it is fairly obvious isn't it it is nature itself teaches us but when you have rejected nature as the creation of God and you hate God in whatever form as Paul ends up saying in Romans 1 then you go to extraordinary lengths as he was saying to reinterpret the whole of reality and you can never altom utley do it consistently and that's why it's such hard work and the verbs that Paul uses and in 1:18 through 32 you have you have to do a tremendous amount of work to try and keep God out of your life and the more able you are the more you will do that with what you think of as intellectual sophistication then so well said and I think of a couple of things in this the statisticians talk about the principle of the reversion to the mean you can google and look it up it's it's just interesting in other words the things tend to level out in ways that aren't expected you can have a deviation from the mean but it thinks over time tend to revert to the mean okay so eventually you can't have penguins if you keep if you keep handing chicks to what you're calling gay penguins you eventually don't you got to get those eggs from somewhere and so what's amazing is heterosexuality still happens and and there's it so in other words everything is fine in theory until you need a baby when you need a baby you need an egg and you need a male contribution you've got to have and and and every human being yet born was born in the womb of a woman just as things tend to revert to the mean Gloria Steinem early feminists she's still alive today that's important because she said a woman needs a husband like a fish needs a bicycle she's married now to a man and so you just you just look at all these things and you realize yes this is just so in other words God and and Richard Dawkins the most famous of the New Atheists admitted that he likes going to Christmas services and the Anglican Church so it just in other words there's their testimonies to the fact that sinful human beings can't we can't even keep our rebellion straight at some point things trip us up and that's an important testimony to the most haunting issue though of suppressing the truth and righteousness to me it is that what we are told is a human beings when offered the truth and a lie that word exchange we prefer the lie to the truth that is extremely helpful to understand helps us understand ourselves thank you in Romans 1 when Paul says that God has given them over who are that they that Paul is referring to I hoped to have answered that in my message they are we we are they us we are we have seen the Anna is Genesis 3 that is humanity not a part of humanity there is no unfallen humanity there is no uncorrupted humanity there is no humanity that does not there only q is the gospel of which Paul is on a shame because it's the power of God unto salvation it's the only explanation for how anyone is redeemed from that having been given over Steve I think that's confirmed by the endpoint of Paul's argument in 1:18 to 3:20 isn't it that all all have the mouths closed before the judgment-seat and if one could put it this way doesn't the gospel teachers that none is saved who has not been under the wrath of God for one not under the wrath of God would not need to be saved so that there's a kind of simple logic that I think underlines that whatever the divergencies and manifestation may be and they you know we all have our own form of it you know that's so true and so important we are rescued from the domain of darkness and delivered into his kingdom of marvelous light there's no one who is not in the domain of darkness by default well that gets back to Adam federal headship oh there you go just gonna say we think of we are by by nature children of Wrath and we Paul includes himself and we I guess every theological student has had hopefully has had the reading experience I had in in in an institution that went back to the Middle Ages and I'm reading the medieval theologian Anselm and he's having his little conversation with his friendly monk bozo and with a little exasperation he says you have not yet considered the greatness of the way of sin and I think you know that should be imprinted in our understanding because when we don't consider the greatness the way of sin we find ourselves and difficulties asking questions like well these folks in Romans 1:18 following seemed a pretty raw bunch and we are not like that you know we need we need to begin at the right starting point in the divine analysis of the human condition or will not come to the right ending point for proper Christology is general revelation sufficient no by no means because only by special revelation and not general revelation but only by special revelation are we given for example what we find in the prologue to John's Gospel in beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and then we are told that it was through the word and the word alone that the cosmos was made only by special revelation do we have the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Colossians telling us that that the entire universe is created in order that in all things Christ might be preeminent that that's all by special revelation but Christ is himself special revelation definitively the word is special revelation the first principle of special revelations the speaking God who speaks consummately and savingly in his own son we're on a roll here you know John 1 is a great help if we're struggling with this precisely because it makes the point that all things were made through him but cannot and does not stop there that the redemption regeneration the new birth acceptance into the family of God salvation in a word comes not by his mediation of creation but by his work in Incarnation and redemption so it's all the answer innocence is packaged for us there in John Eve even if he wasn't especially thinking about the question the sort of ties back to the question of the infallibility of general revelation and I think sometimes we speak of the attributes of Scripture clarity necessity authority and sufficiency but it's really the attributes of revelation the issue then is what is the intention of general revelation what is the intention of Scripture but each of those the sphere of general and the sphere of special revelation are authoritative necessary clear or perspicuous which is a not so clear word meaning clear and sufficient for what God intended them to be this has been a tension point in reformed theology especially in the twentieth century especially in the person of the Neo orthodox theologian Karl Bart Bart went so far as to deny the reality of general revelation as a no ethically important category for the church and he did so because the German Christians and that that's not a compliment that's the that's the the Nazi term the the German Christians had argued for Nazi theory using a form of general revelation that they claimed was revealed in nature and you can find this in the corrupted thought of the Nazi regime well that that's an example of how not to do theology you you can't you can't start from the misuse of a category and and just deny it because it's been misused but that led to some very good discussion amongst the reformed especially in the last half of the 20th century when this has been a major category the very first address I was invited to give as president of Southern Seminary was to a meeting in which dr. Henry and I presented the two papers on evangelicals and natural elation and that natural law reasoning because by the time we reached the early 1990s there were evangelicals who are tempted with the other way which was to kind of follow the Catholic path of trying to argue all the major big moral issues simply on the basis of natural law and so my great friend and that was Calvin you know the natural law is there but it isn't compelling on sinners and deal with it so it is interesting to know these are questions that sometimes have urgent real-life significance and the biggest question for the church is where do you turn we don't turn to natural revelation we turn to Scripture these next two questions are sort of related so I'm going to read them both and then if you want to take them one at a time how can you logically explain God to a non-believer its apologetics now as you're thinking about that here's a related question how would you respond to it agnostic who claims that there is insufficient evidence to prove God's existence so how are we proving God's existence but let's keep in mind there may be one who would claim that's insufficient evidence for God's existence well I think there are probably various ways to do it and often it depends on who you're speaking to I think we always need to remember the necessity of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit I think we also need to remember that ungodliness and unrighteousness go together and I think we also need to remember there is a kind of in Bill arrogance in atheists and agnostics by definition they stand over against the revelation God has given and so we mustn't be drawn into the notion simpliciter what I need here is simple reasoning I think of Augustin Augustin how do we say him in Florida Augustin you know so so what draws him to Christ remember his soliloquy in the confessions to Ambrose when he says it wasn't so much your great teaching although he was a princely preacher because I didn't really expect to find that in the Catholic Church and that's that's fairly typical isn't it people don't expect to find it but that you were kind to me now in a certain kind of apologetics we are calculating the individual we will send to this I mean one of the great intellects of Western civilization how how would we put together the potato head I think most of us would miss out kindness and so I think that's a very important element that the Christian life itself the way I respond is of immense importance and simply thinking on the level of logical reasoning would be mistaken second thing I would say and they now can take up is for me a very big principle and I think it's an apostolic principle is the impossibility of the consistency of the sinner intellectually so I go to my great detectives and I ask so so what are they doing and what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to be my my FQ Poirot in the situation and I'm looking for the loose threads of inconsistency because this one who is in a sense the prodigal you know he has he has wasted the inheritance of his creation I won weigh-in is how can I bring him to himself so what what mirrors do I shine upon him that will reveal to him the inconsistency of his own reasoning about himself and the world for example the the illustration I used earlier on of Kingsley Amis is it kind of pretty you know staggering illustration of the same thing that out of his own mouth as a as a kind of pre Dawkins atheist but in a literary world he gives you the loose thread you know and at least you know as I've seen an n they in the conversations with those who are the significant atheists and agnostics of the time in a sense the problem with the media is that they don't know the gospel well enough to see the loose threads of inconsistency and to pull on them and then to sure the unravel the end the unraveling of the intellectual dimension and then also they in my experience they never probe the unraveling of the moral dimension and the combination of unrighteousness and ungodliness because atheism agnosticism are not purely intellectual phenomena you know their whole person phenomena and we all I think we always need to take account of that so in that sense I think we're approaching people in a multi-dimensional way and we are looking we're looking to see what the Holy Spirit will throw up in the context of the encounter yeah I'm gonna take the question at face value the first question you know what logical case would you make for God let's just take that out us on terms for just a moment well I think when you think about classical Christian apologetics you have to realize it always moves two ways it always moves towards subversion and affirmation so we're always trying to help people to understand the inadequacy of every other worldview so certain form of presuppositional ism so the problem is is that most atheists aren't I mean I don't think theologically we don't believe there are any atheists but even psychologically and logically they can't keep their story straight just just dr. Ferguson was talking about Kingsley Amis and that thread so if you are an atheist and remember that atheism is a modern idea that there really was very little possibility of atheism Charles Taylor the greatest scholar of secularism points to three great ages of belief the first was impossible not to believe and then the modern age impossible not to believe and now amongst the intellectual elites a third condition impossible to believe Richard Dawkins nacelle said it took Darwin to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist you had no other explanation for why the world exists so if you try for a moment to be an atheist subversively the problem is everything has to be merely naturalistic and materialistic and that means everything everything if you exclude the possibility of a creator then you exclude the possibility of any design any meaning you actually deny the possibility of you because it turns out that in a naturalistic frame and and and people are working this out Sean Donahue's new book who thinks he is an atheist it makes the same thing clear he's the one the argues we there is no god but we kind of have to live as if there is one because if there isn't one then there's no meaning there's no love there's no morality okay so that's not a good way to live it's not a good neighbor to have so we need to live as if they can't they cannot keep their story straight so when I say there's no you the naturalistic understanding of humanity is that there is no dualism there's no body and soul there's no spirit there is no you except whatever chemical processes are taking place in your brain well you know the thing is I don't think any human being can hold to that when I debate atheist one of the things I throw out is how can you explain him others love for her child if you're an atheist the only thing you can say is this is an evolutionary factor children to survive better if their mothers love them and if they don't okay I get that in natural selection can come in here but are you telling me that's all you really believe is going on seriously there's no real love there's no real knowledge that's extremely difficult and then logically we can always come along even with the two mystic five proofs because again that they're not wrong it's just that we don't believe that anyone but by the Holy Spirit can be convicted of sin and brought to a right knowledge but we do believe that God sometimes uses arguments like that to help to show the fallacies of a non theistic worldview and so this is just one of those things if you're counting on a logical case for God to lead someone to faith in Christ you don't understand the gospel but the gospel is not irrational and and so the Lord uses even the conversations you have with people in ways that you can't always understand sometimes subversively sometimes affirmative ly now the thing on agnosticism that to me first of all I can have begrudging respect for someone trying to be intellectual respect for someone trying to be a consistent atheist there's a begrudging intellectual respect I can have very little respect for agnostics precisely because of this question an agnostic either believes the question is not important enough to answer or there's insufficient evidence the problem is then what is sufficient evidence for believing anything so as decart understood in the dawn of modernity the hardest question to ask is how we can be certain of our own existence cogito ergo sum you know I think therefore I am was the best the best formulation he could come up with because there is no way to come to a logically satisfactory affirmation of why you believe well you exist excuse me or while you know you exist your way you have any confidence in your own existence you can use sensory perception well how far is that gonna get you are you gonna use logic that's what that that that's what decart tried to come up with and the cart was never actually satisfied with it he just said that's the best provisionally I can come up with at the end of his life the cart basically fell back into theism as the only explanation so again you know that don't discount logic God made logic is a revelation of God's own character and being in creation logic is one of the gifts that he has given us but logic never redeems and we need to keep that in mind you know I was greatly helped by our C's book defending your faith and I think what he helps us see there is we we can look at this in sort of steps there is an idea of God exists that we can argue for and that we can help someone see we can find the inconsistencies they need to give an account for the reality that exists then RC wants to say well now we need to talk about God's revelation so we can move from that God exists now we can start talking about scripture we can compare Scripture with other religious texts and then once we read scripture we can say well this is who Jesus is and there's a sense in which I think as we think about apologetics in American context and I think you said this if you were dropped down or one of you said this if an of angelical were to be dropped down into this pre-christian Greek world they would start talking about Jesus is here to save you from your sins and they don't even have a concept of sins or Jesus or God and in some ways we might be moving into that you know you say I saw a bumper sticker the other day I shop there for I am and you know we're just living in this world where people are anesthetized to the reality of the immaterial world and they need to be reminded yes there is a God and yes you are accountable to him so I think we think about apologetics and this is where there's some differences if you look at classical apologetics versus the presuppositional camp I want to distinguish a little bit between arguing for the existence of God then arguing for the authority or to gain a hearing for Scripture and then argue for the exclusivity and sufficiency of the work of Christ so what does Paul mean by declaring that all creation is groaning for full redemption well he says that in the context of I need to go back to this in Romans 1 to aid in my own view the central and foundational passage is 5 12 to 21 I think if you look at his reasoning in 118 following he he eventually in fact he gets you in 5 1 through 11 to all the privileges of the gospel okay and in 5 12 to 21 he takes you down into the foundation of that the the loss in Adam the gain and Christ and then he takes you up from there now in Christ these things are true number one you've died to the Dominion of sin but you're not yet free from the presence of sins or put it to death you've died to the condemnation of the law but you're not perfect according to the laws requirements and therefore you struggle with your sinfulness and then in Chapter eight a what he says about Christ and eight three to four and then as he works this through it says lo he is coming up on the other side of this reality that Christ has finished his saving work and is now applying that saving work but the goal of that is saving work is not just the forgiveness of sins it is that in the second man and the last Adam there will be the that the final rest are not only the final restoration that is a return in terms of doing what Adam failed to do and dealing with our sin but there will be a movement forwards in the application of his work to the whole of creation so Adams work if I you know we don't usually speak about the person in the work of Adam but there is a person and work of Adam and the person work of Adam is rebellion dominion of the devil sin corruption and the corruption of creation Christ in the person and work of Christ there is the victory over Satan Genesis Lee 15 there is the propitiation that takes place of the wrath of God that is dealing with our guilt in justification there is the adoption into our family there is ultimately the resurrection transformation but since he is the second man and the last Adam his work does not stop there hit the goal of his work is the redemption of law all of creation and not just the redemption of the whole of the creation in terms of bringing us back to the Garden of Eden but the consummation of creation in terms of the fulfillment of what it looks like Adam was created to do as I often put it to take the little garden his father gave to him until what that garden out till it came to the ends of the earth so until that is the case until that is the case if an put this way the church is a kind of miniature reflection of being back to Eden not yet perfectly but the kingdom of God has come the restoration does take place taken but all this not yet garden and saw if an put it this way outside of this realm in the created structures then the way in which part is he using a metaphor personification what is he doing he is saying just and he and he uses this groaning analogy about ourselves we who have the first fruits of the spirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly that's an interesting combination we groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for the adoption the redemption of our bodies and so he sees us surrounded by a created order that is being redeemed by Christ and he personifies that created order as in an in an inanimate way in the structure of creation in an animal way in the creatures that God has created longing to share in the very reality in which we long to share and so as the Spirit works in us who groans inwardly and we groan inwardly as we wait eagerly the whole creation groans inwardly what's his name Canon Phillips JB Phillips has this wonderful translation of the creation waiting for the redemption of the children of God the sons of God they are longing the creation longs for it because only when that takes place does the final resurrection redemption of creation take place and the way he translate so because the Valpo uses conveys the idea of of stretching out the neck so the picture is you're at the school gates at 3 o'clock when the children come oh and they come flying out and there is mother who is only 5 feet 6 and all the mothers in front of 587 and she's she's craning her neck to see to see her child and Phillips translation is a I need to be able to remember it because it's the punchline now they the whole creation stands on tiptoe waiting for the sons of God to come into their own and that's terrific I think we just got a biblical theological lecture and she charged tuition for this dr. Moore I would gladly charge tuition for this I'm sorry no it was contrary thank you I'm embarrassed I love how these questions can give bonus thank you wonderful why did God create a people that he knew would sin well we know is what scripture tells us and the the best word here is ordains God ordained that it be so does Scripture tell us why decreed did it be so does but the Bible tell us why and the answer is yes but I without going through an entire lecture of biblical theology let's just think of how Calvin organizes the Institute's of the Christian religion there just think of the major division between the knowledge of God the Creator and the knowledge of God the Redeemer had sin never happened and had Redemption not been God's plan for before the creation of the world then humanity would have known him as creator but never known him as Redeemer God's greater glory is that because of what he decreed before the creation of the world he is known amongst the elect not merely as create or but as Redeemer to his greater infinite glory that is the only reason we are given and it is all that we have and all that we need it is to God's greater glory what is the relationship between common grace and general revelation it depends who is answering the question so let me let me take it let me take a start as a Scotsman and not a Dutchman I think I think one good way to think about the relationship which I think is maybe better than asking questions about the difference is that God manifests his common grace not just through what he has created but how he governs what he has created so in his in his Providence so Jesus says you know the Sun shines on the righteous and the unrighteous I I often think a weddings you know when you've these two beautiful people in front of you and everybody thinks they're so well matched it is an amazing thing that a couple of really ugly people have a good marriage the unbelievers of stable marriages that you know and you can go on and on and on and on and of course you know in in a sense whether we call it common grace or not it is a great clue to help us not to lose sight of the sheer goodness of God to a fallen world and it really I I find that really helps us to appreciate the good things that we enjoy and not just not just to condemn them as though we ourselves were atheists and did not believe that God were continuing to to operate in the world and to me a clue Calvin you know Calvin essentially says this if with respect to our relationships with people if we lose sight of the notion that man is made as the image of God we will not have lenses through which we can see what francis schaeffer used to call you know the greatness as well as the tragedy of man and that i think that opens up such an ability to appreciate what is present yes also in unbelievers without losing our theological moorings and with our recognition that God is God is a God of tremendous kindness you know as you were emphasizing today this is this you're bringing to these poor people the lesson but that God is good and God is kind so this is actually related how is it that unbelievers can come to reasonable conclusions regarding morality while denying the existence of God well it is because of the fact that God's character revealed in the natural world is so powerful I go back to the fact that unbelievers can't keep their story straight and and so there there is the possibility and so you look at all the ancient moral systems or philosophies alive you you update it to contemporary conversation number one we can't ever take God out of the equation because we believe every single human being is made in God's image so there is no Christian way of understanding a naturalistic answer to any question so we don't presume what the secularists presumes that there actually is a person whose cognitive faculties are not created by a holy God who created every single human being in his image created them His image in this sense and and so there we don't believe that there is any such individual so they're actually not operating simply out of no there's no human being we believe as conscious is operating simply out of natural knowledge we do not believe that that person exists but we also believe that God has revealed enough again I just get back I mean I don't go back to the the Penguins but let's just put it this way you may say that sexuality is a matter of choice or affinity or whatever but if you want grandchildren you must hope that your children are heterosexual if you want the race and in other words I know adoption IVF oh yeah just forget that for a moment just realize even that still takes a sperm and an egg so in other words there are certain facts that cannot be eclipsed or denied even by the people who say they're denying them and so yeah we really kind of reject the premise it's a well intended question but we really reject the premise because we of the imago Dei we believe that God is there in the cognitive faculties of that thinker who may be thinking they're thinking naturalistically and are trying to think as naturalistically as they can the very fact that they exist is a non naturalistic fact I think there's a sense in which the secularist poses there are two worlds there's the world they inhabit and then there's this world of fiction that religious people inhabit and the reality is this is the world God made and they have to keep borrowing from our world for their world to make sense and they bump into God they're constantly bumping into morality or perfection or beauty or justice this is what I call the Atheist conundrum it drives him crazy a theist would like to be called something other than a theist but they're always gonna be called a theist because the only thing that distinguishes them but at least in their hypothetical existence is the fact that they deny God but the problem is where did the idea of God come from that they're denying and why does it refuse to go away why does atheism as a word only makes sense with the alpha primitive in front of theism it drives atheist crazy if they if they pause to think about it for just a moment the default can't be non-theism otherwise you would not have to be an atheist we will be an atheist I guess if you it just doesn't work that way one of the things that I've written about I wrote about several years ago was an article that appeared in a scientific journal actually several other now but it's asking the question why is it that children appear to be so resistant to evolution and the the the answer is that evidently by some artifact of evolution children make the inference that there must have been a creator designer because everything else they see is the result of some kind of design somebody built the house somebody built the car somebody did this therefore somebody built me and and and then one of them went on and I you can google the article and find it in my name one of these scientists went on so far as to say is it is extremely difficult to break that pattern of thinking yes it is not because of evolution but because of the imago Dei that child is not making a wrongful inference the child is just being honest I'll stop yeah you know I've noticed many if many atheists are so angry about God which psychologically is a phenomenon that you would be so angry about something that doesn't actually exist and you know this this point at this point so helpful for us that since we are living in God's world if you're going to live in God's world and unless you're going to unman or on women yourself if you're gonna live in God's world you're under a necessity to accommodate yourself to God's order of things so that not to put too fine a point on it you have to keep stealing from a Christian world and life view and an illustration of which fell into my lap when I was 17 I was in my first year at university it was the end of my first teram one of my professors who might had was vice president of the British Humanist Society a y1y humanists want to form of society as kind of extraordinary and I happened to be in the University Bookstore when I had this professor's voice from the other side of our of a bookcase asking one of the the bookstore attendants this was the vice president of the British Humanist Society do you sell Christmas cards here and I wanted to be like one of the fallacies in the fields on the Sabbath afternoon you know and leap over the bookcase it caught you stealing but you know it was said and it was said in complete complete innocence that she obviously never dawned on her that she was actually stealing from the gospel in order to have some happiness around December the 25th it was kind of staggering yet the hardest argument to make with a straight face as a secularist is human dignity which is one of the deadliest realism we can come to but secular explanations of human dignity all fail and and yet even a Peter Singer at Princeton who says that you know pigs have higher cognition the newborn human infants and their forever have greater dignity and even in the light of that kind of horrifying nonsense you you're gonna be hard pressed to find any sentient human being who faced with a fire is going to leave the human infant and grab a pig the it that the imago Dei shines through is general revelation and act of divine accommodation from one point of view anything God does add extra if he is going to communicate in any sense to that which is add extra it's going to be an accommodation the only alternative is that he recreates another God you know anything anything less than God is an accommodation of the divine but not just a general accommodation you know that the reformed tradition really wants to emphasize it's a it's an accommodation of love and it's accomodation and in the theological sense and not in the compromised sense well thank you both for your time earlier and also for this Q&A thank you you

Channel: Reformation Bible College

Views: 8,552

Rating: 4.787879 out of 5

Keywords: rbc, reformation bible college, questions and answers, bible conference, sinclair ferguson, albert mohler, r albert mohler, stephen nichols

Id: zkcvs8RJxWU

Length: 50min 0sec (3000 seconds)

Published: Thu May 02 2019