Larson: The question comes in, "With the cultural
emphasis on politics as the answer to the problems, what are some thoughts on how to
flip these conversations to the real answer, to Christ?" Mohler: I think we've always got to press
behind whatever people think the question is to the question that's behind the question. And so, ultimately if someone's against human
trafficking, why? If that's the issue, why? Why would that be wrong? Why are human beings of any worth? Why do we have a moral obligation to one another? Why? And you can always get the conversation back
to someone looking at you with a look on his or her face in sheer annoyance that you're
making them answer these questions or even think about them. But the reality is, that's what we do. We just keep pressing the things back, why? We're two-year-olds why, why, why? Because the further we press back with why,
the closer we get to the fundamental questions. And so when I meet people, regardless of what
they tell me their position is on an issue, I just always ask the question, "Why?" And then I keep pressing, and I think that's
-- well, you might say that's presuppositionalism. Yes, it's at least in part, it's rooted in
that, but it's also classical apologetics. It's just making people give answers, and
you just press back. Godfrey: Making people think, and I'm sort
of an election junkie. I've always loved to sit up late, watching
election returns come in. I found out it's easier to sit up late watching
election returns come in in California than in Florida, but what you quickly discover
as an election junkie is that the day after the election, a campaign has been begun for
the next election. And one thing we can say to people who are
really worried about politics or avid about politics is, "Have you ever thought that there
is some stability beyond politics? That there is some resting place, some certainty,
some assurance. And if you're worried," I think a lot of people
are worried what's happening to the republic. And what we can assure them of is there's
someone in charge, there's someone who knows what He's doing and that the we can look beyond
all of the ebb and flow of the moment to, if I were a Calvinist, I'd say a greater election
that is stable. Mohler: Amen. I talked just this week about the fact that
for many on the left, politics has become religion. And in a secular age, you see the secular
left increasingly unsecular. They're just politicizing…they're making
a religion out of their politics. My warning is that can happen to conservatives,
too, if we're not careful. We can treat politics as far more important
than a Christian ought to think. You can make it far less important than a
Christian ought to think. But if we despair or think that the kingdom
has arrived based upon an election, then we're making politics religion, we ought to be warned
of that. Larson: Dr. Nichols, a question came in, "What
are the qualifications that Ligonier used to define evangelicals in the State of Theology
survey. In other words, how do we come up with that
definition of evangelicals?" Nichols: That's a great question. You can go to thestateoftheology.com for that
survey, and you'll see the numbers. There were 3008 people surveyed and of that
3008, I'm going from memory here, I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 800
thereabouts are labeled "evangelical." So that's that demographic category. For that survey, which was conducted by LifeWay,
which is the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention and a well-respected research
arm, we partnered with them to carry out that part of the survey. For that survey, it's a self-identifying label. But we also have in the survey, it's 34 statements
that you have to respond to. The last four were supplied by the National
Association of Evangelicals, which took what was an old, from David Bebbington, historian,
the so-called quadrilateral to define evangelicals. Took that fourfold quadrilateral and turned
it into statements with some slight revisions. And so, there's both a self-identifying label
and then an actual litmus test, as you will. And it's Biblicism, the authority of Scripture,
it's conversionism, the necessity of a new birth, it's also crucicentrism (the necessity
of Christ's atoning death on the cross), and then an activism (the idea being active in
faith) in the sort of slight twist that that fourth question put to it was not only must
we know the gospel, but we must be active in sharing the gospel. So, we're talking about this as both a self-identifying
label and a bit of a litmus test. But all of you all have talked about this
many times. This is a very difficult label, "evangelical,"
and it's one of those labels that the more elasticity that gets applied to it, eventually
it's going to snap. Where it's going to be so elastic that it
sort of loses its identity, and that's what we're seeing. It's been alluded to numerous times, that
reductionism of just trying to get to the lowest common denominator and reduce and reduce
and reduce. That makes this label very difficult. And then you throw into the mix the political
use of it at election time, now it gets even more difficult. But back to the survey, it's a self-identifying,
but also a litmus test. Larson: "I'm a millennial, and many of my
friends and acquaintances do not believe attending church is important to their walk with Christ. How would you respond to their erroneous thinking?" Lawson: Christ died for the church, Acts 20,
and Christ is the head of the church. And every believer has been placed by the
Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. It's totally unimaginable that someone for
whom Christ has died, and someone who has been placed into the universal church would
not be a participant in the local church. There's just really not even a theological
category for that. So, as one who pastored a church for 34 years,
I think that that would call into account serious question about that person's personal
relationship with Christ, meaning, do they even know the Lord? Because 1 John says one of the tests that
you have been truly born of God is that you love the brethren. And if you're not a part of a local church,
you're a very selfish person, and you love yourself, and you want to do what you want
to do rather than giving your life in service and ministering to those who are a part of
a local church. That's God's design for Christianity. There's no such thing as a lone ranger Christianity. That is so foreign to New Testament Christianity,
it's antithetical to New Testament Christianity. So, I can't even imagine someone who is a
true believer in Jesus Christ who does not want to be a part of a local church, and further
who is actually not a part of a local church unless of course circumstantially hindered
being, for example, in a rest home and not able to physically come to church. But I think it seriously calls into account
the genuineness of their salvation to not want to be a part of a local church. Therefore, you're not wanting to sit under
the preaching of the Word of God, which is the primary ordinary means of grace. You're not wanting to worship God in a corporate
setting, and you're not wanting to give to other people as God has designed it in a local
church family. So you know, Hebrews 10 says, "Forsake not
the assembling of yourselves as is the practice of some," and I would say those "some" are
those who did not come all the way to Christ, who trample underfoot the precious blood of
Christ, who insult the Spirit of grace and show themselves to be apostate. Larson: Does attendance at a same-sex wedding
imply acceptance of same-sex marriage? Mohler: Yes. Yes, because you need to recognize that attendance
at a wedding, those who are in attendance are considered to be the celebrating party. So I mean, that…and made very clear, for
instance, in The Book of Common Prayer, which is the order of weddings that's most familiar
in church weddings in the United States. "If there be anyone here who knows any reason
why these two should not be lawfully wed, let him speak now or forever hold his peace." I think that should answer the question. It doesn't answer the question of how you
handle this in friendships and in family, it just simply says that you are there to
say this is right. And, you know, if you go and you don't hold
your peace that would be an interesting headline story. But I don't think that's what you're going
to do, and so I think Christians are looking for a way. And look, it's not just a wedding ceremony,
it's also, you know, there's the entire celebration of the wedding. And we don't know exactly what it means in
every situation. When you have next-door neighbors, how do
you relate to them? How do show Christ's love? How do you act grounded only in truth? How do you have a conversation? How do you build a relationship? So, there are a lot of interesting questions
there but to me, the wedding ceremony is a very easy question simply because even of
the language that is invoked, and in the history of The Book of Common Prayer the reality was
that if you stayed, you were a…so long as you lived, a testifier to the fact that they
were lawfully wed "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." So if it's attending or not, a ceremony like
a swearing-in, then that's one thing. That's not what this is, this is the covenant
of marriage being claimed here. You either believe it is or it isn't. Larson: What law did Christ obey for His active
obedience? Adamic, Mosaic, moral law, other? Godfrey: All of the above. Yeah, so there was an original covenant of
works given with Adam, which required perfect, perpetual, personal obedience, and that is
in some way echoed in the law of Moses. That's a big discussion, but in some way echoed
in the law of Moses, summarized in the moral law, and Christ fulfilled it all. Not only the moral law, but the ceremonial
law, and all the equity of the civil law of Israel. So at every point, as law echoes through the
Scripture, Christ obeyed it all perfectly. Larson: At what point does God create a person's
soul and join it to a physical body? Godfrey: Is there a traducianist here? Are you? Did you hear that confession? The distinguished Dr. Mohler has confessed
himself to be a traducianist, close. Almost, almost persuaded. Mohler: I think it's most consistent in the
same way that we understand the federal headship of Adam. I think that's the easiest, most consistent
way to understand that. But it doesn't answer, the problem is it doesn't
particularly…I'm trying to avoid saying what it means. That will save us a lot of time. Godfrey: And help keep you all from error. I mean, if they don't know what we're talking
about. Mohler: So, why don't you define the terms? Godfrey: Well classically and historically,
there were two approaches to the creation of the soul. The creationist view that said God immediately
creates the soul at the conception or some such beginning moment of the body. Mohler: Fertilization. We mean…we don't mean conception the way…you
don't mean conception the way modern doctors speak of it. You mean when God says, "Let there be life." Godfrey: Yes, whatever you say. And the alternative point of view historically,
all the way back into the ancient church period was the traducianist, or that the soul is
passed from the father, in particular, the parents into the…So is the soul immediately
created in the new life, or is the soul in some way passed from the parents to the child? Mohler: That's exactly right. And there is no clear biblical answer to this,
and the traducianist basically doesn't have an answer to the question, when? Other than the same thing as the creationist,
when God says, "Let there be life." But the question is "What's prior to that?"
and I like the symmetry and the theological pattern of understanding the tie between the
federal headship of Adam and that we are all of Adamic seed and understanding from whence
comes the soul, which is the first question answered by traducianism, is from whence,
not when. Godfrey: The complicating factor comes along
with the doctrine of original sin. So, if God immediately creates the soul, is
He immediately creating a sinful soul which would be impossible. So, how does the sin get attached to the soul? Mohler: You're asking the wrong man! Godfrey: Well, I know. I'm just showing my broad mindedness, but
the creationist response is "the soul is an undying spiritual creation of God that cannot
be created by dying creatures." So, it's complicated. There's, I think, not a really clear answer
in the Bible or in convincing theological discussions of these things, and that's why
the discussion and the difference of opinion continues. The really important thing to remember is
we all have a soul. So, don't lose…never lose…in the midst
of really interesting theological discussions, never lose a hold of the fundamentals. Larson: In our nonjudgmental age, how do we
defend God's goodness in instances of His justice in the Bible? Lawson: I didn't hear the end of the sentence. Larson: In our nonjudgmental age, how do we
defend God's goodness in instances of His justice in the Bible? Lawson: I don't know that I totally understand
the angle of the question, so as I hop in to answer, I may be going down the wrong path
which is, "How can there be God's goodness that is shed abroad on all, and then yet there
be justice?" Mohler: The massacre of the Canaanites. It's a theodicy question. Lawson: Sure. Okay, then you answer it! Yeah, no…go ahead, seriously. Mohler: We need to recognize, by the way this
is a very important issue here, that the most cogent, powerful, anti-theistic arguments
being made right now are moral arguments, not rational arguments. And that's a shift in apologetics from where
in the early 20th century year, your Bertrand Russells and logical positivism, people like
that said there's not enough intellectual…there aren't enough, sufficient intellectual grounds
to believe in the existence of God. Now it is you believe in God, that's immoral,
and especially the God of the Bible. And you know, it's not as if God doesn't answer
that question in the Scriptures. He's not going to answer human beings. He's going to display His character, and only
at the end of history will everyone understand the judgment and justice of God. In the meantime we who are believers, just
as Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament, have to understand that
the God who is right is just. And He who reigns over all the earth is just. And whatever He does is just. Our concept of justice is derivative and corrupt. We have it because God is just and He has
given us in His image an understanding of justice, but we would not act justly if justice
were entrusted to us. We have to trust that God acts totally, perfectly
justly, because justice is His. And who is the grasshopper to complain of
the justice of the Creator. But that's what we're looking at here, and
we have to confront these arguments had on. But ultimately, there is no rescue from the
Bible. You know, we believe in every single word
of the Bible and that means that whatever God does is just and if you can't handle that,
you just can't handle that. But this is the issue, then where was the
justice on the cross? If you want to look at injustice, well, where's
the justice from the human perspective in that He made Him who knew no sin to be sin
for us in order that in Him we might be the righteousness, become the righteousness of
God? You know, God's justice is so perfect that
those who come to faith in Christ are saved. And His justice is so perfect that anyone
who does not will suffer eternal punishment. The Old Testament conquest of Canaan, this
is where Christopher Hitchens, one of the Four Horsemen of the new atheism, now dead. But Christopher Hitchens said, "You know,
I don't understand the theological liberals who say they want to get rid of the Old Testament
and that vengeful, bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament and just cling to sweet Jesus." He said, "I have to wonder if theological
liberals have read the book of Revelation." And there's enormous truth in that. If you don't like the book of Judges, you're
going to hate the book of Revelation, where He comes with a sword and it's coming from
His mouth and will come to rule with a rod of iron, and that chapter ends with what makes
Canaan look like a preschool Sunday school party. If God is just, then it is right, and He is
just and it is right. Nichols: Let me just that add something here. In terms of how we think about God's attributes,
I think sometimes we need to guard against pitting them against each other. It's very easy to do that with justice versus
mercy, or wrath and love. And one of the great doctrines of God is the
simplicity of God, that He is not a being that is composite and we see this, even reflect
on this. Go back to this wonderful scene where Moses
is asking to see the glory of God and if you look at that, what God tells Moses is, "I
will let My goodness pass by you." And then immediately we have God saying, "I
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will harden whom I will harden." And there they are, put right together in
this one being of God. So, as you wrestle with these things and think
through these things, just be careful to maintain that simplicity of God and not pit these attributes,
or the God of the Old Testament versus the God of the New Testament. That's a horrible thing to do, don't pit these
things against each other. Mohler: Or the fact that God's justice is
somehow a negative thing, whereas mercy is a positive thing. That, that's an insult to God. His justice and His mercy, again, they're
the same because He is One. But to fail to call for God's justice is to
fail to honor and worship the one true and living God. Godfrey: I think when people are pressing
us on that point, it's appropriate to press back and ask them, "Do they believe that in
human experience there are wicked evil acts that deserve punishment?" And most people are not so depraved as to
deny that. And one of the few good things that could
be said about the Nazis is they give us a great example of where most people will agree
there were egregious, wicked acts that had to be punished. Well, if there are egregious evil acts in
history that have to be punished, then who gets to say what are the evil acts that have
to be punished? And if there is a God, He gets to say. And that's, I think a line of argument we
have to press, that taking the moral high ground by the secularist is ultimately inconsistent,
because they can take the moral high ground that they are taking only if they ultimately
deny there are any evil acts that are to be punished. Larson: I have been assaulted with troubling
thoughts to the point that I have begun to doubt my salvation, and the Lord's love for
me. I don't know why now, after walking with the
Lord over 35 years. I don't know what more I can do but stay in
God's Word and prayer, but they persist. Please help. Lawson: Well I would say first of all, 1 John
5:13, "These things I have written unto you that that you may know that you have eternal
life." It is God's gift to true believers that they
have the assurance of their salvation. The Holy Spirit who convicts of sin and who
calls us into relationship with Christ, who regenerates us, is the very same Holy Spirit
who gives the assurance of salvation. Assurance is an inside job by the Holy Spirit,
and it really does not come from a pastor or a parent or an evangelist. It comes from the Holy Spirit, ultimately. There are external evidences of assurance
of salvation, which is a changed life, but there is the inward witness of the Holy Spirit
from Romans 8. I think those who would doubt their salvation
and doubt the love of God usually comes from someone who's not sitting under the regular,
systematic preaching of the Word of God, the truth that they so desperately need to hear
that God uses to bring the assurance of their salvation. They have been sitting under such a weak presentation
of the truth that they don't really have the anchor for their soul that they should have. So obviously not knowing who wrote this question
and not knowing where they go to church, but as someone who has pastored and met with untold
numbers of people about this, their assurance of salvation, I have found that more times
than not it's because they're not under the preaching of the Word of God and their soul,
their heart lacks the strength that is provided by the Holy Spirit through the medium of the
Word of God. So, there are many other things that can be
said from that. I think you need to know by what basis does
anyone have assurance of salvation, and it certainly in an understanding of the finality
and the sufficiency of the death of Christ upon the cross to take away all sin in the
life of the one who believes. And there is now therefore, no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus. It would be unbelief to reject that. It is true, saving faith to accept that. And then also with that, as I just mentioned,
there is the evidence of a changed life. And 1 John gives, like, nine evidences of
the one who has been born of God and everyone who is born of God these evidences, these
changes will be seen in a life to such an extent there's no way that anyone could pull
this off on their own. This is a work of God. There is no explanation but that God did it
in a person's life. And if you don't see the evidence of a changed
life, then you have serious reason to question the validity of your conversion because, "Not
everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does
the will of my Father in heaven." And again, not to even know who wrote the
question and not to know any of the background, nevertheless as a pastor for 34 years, most
people who came and asked that question were people who did not have faith in Christ. And so, I was not quick to rush in and say,
"Oh no, no, we all know you're saved," because that's not always the case. And in more times than not, in my experience,
of course I was in the deep South where everybody's saved, and you have to get someone lost before
you can get them saved. They needed to come to the realization that
just because they grew up in church or walked an aisle or something like that, that didn't
mean you're in. And in a genuine new birth experience, God
the Holy Spirit gives assurance of salvation. So even with a question like that, there may
be others here who can identify with that. I think it's a soul-searching question. Godfrey: But let me say, I don't think you
should search your soul over that alone and that's the limits of a question-and-answer
period like this. We can answer theological questions, we can
answer pastoral questions generally, but I would say to this dear soul, find a godly
pastor who can examine the whole of your doubts, the whole of your life, the whole of your
faith, and really lead you to the promises of Christ and to life in Him. So it's absolutely true that doubts sometimes
arise because you're not converted, but Ursinus in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism,
when he gave evidences of true faith, said the first evidence of true faith is doubt,
and he meant by that by and large in the world people don't doubt their salvation if they
are not connected to salvation in some way. William Perkins said, "A desire for grace
is an evidence of grace." So this is a delicate spiritual issue, and
I urge you to find some wise Christian, preferably a wise, faithful pastor who can really talk
this through and decide what is the problem. Is the problem a lack of assurance or a lack
of faith and help you resolve your problem. Lawson: And some people are obsessive-compulsive
in their personality and temperament, and everything has to be perfect and they kind
of go through life, it's hard for them to accept certain things. And there are personality issues that come
to the surface. But just to even follow up on what you said,
yes you need to talk to a spiritual leader, whether it's a pastor or an elder or a teacher. But at the end of the day that man cannot
say you're saved. At the end of the day that's a work of the
Holy Spirit in the heart of someone, and the pastor can only ask diagnostic questions and
help frame the picture. But at the end of the day, the God who saves
is the God who gives assurance. Larson: I don't always pick the order that
these questions come up in. Godfrey: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Larson: Just remember we have a lot more to
get to, and this could be is a long conversation. "Are our children saved, or will they go on
their own journey? The Bible says, 'You and your house will be
saved.'" Godfrey: Yes and no. Paul said your children are holy if you're
a Christian. I believe, and my church officially teaches,
that holy children dying in infancy are elect and saved. So if you're worried about children dying
in infancy, I think those holy children are saved. As children grow up, and we may have some
slight differences of opinion on this point, as children grow up who are children of the
covenant and have been marked with the seal of the covenant, they are holy unless they
reject the covenant in unbelief. And so our duty as parents, I believe, is
always to be calling our children to faith, just as ministers are always calling all of
us to faith. Our job as parents is not, in the first place,
to encourage doubt in our children. It's to encourage faith in our children and
to call them to live as the holy children of God. But some of the brothers may see things differently. They'll be wrong, but you should still listen
to them. Mohler: Oh, we're going to have to decide
how much we want to talk about this, brother. So, I am a Baptist and that's not a surprise. That's not a press release, and this is a
conversation that goes on. But I believe that the child is receiving
covenant promises through Christian parents that explain that the child rightly raised
by Christian parents is raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord that comes with
spiritual benefits, but that the child is a sinner who must make a positive confession
of Jesus Christ as Savior and must be converted, genuinely converted. And that's why we disagree about baptism,
in no small matter. Godfrey: I agree with what you just said. Mohler: It didn't sound like what you said
was conversion, but rather just not rejection of the gospel. Godfrey: Well, I think both those things can
work together. I don't think they have to be set at odds
with one another. But I don't think you should raise a child
in a Christian home and say, "You're not a Christian because you have not been converted
yet." I don't think that's the way to talk to our
children. I think the way to talk to our children is
"You need to be loving Jesus, you need to be trusting Jesus, you need to be resting
in Jesus." Mohler: I do talk that way to my children,
well, but I…do without hesitation. I also want them never to remember a time
when they were not taught to love Christ and raised in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord. But I want them to know at a specific, and
I don't mean a moment and a date and a time, I mean I need their profession of the fact
they have come to know not only that they sin but that they are sinners and that they
need a Savior. And come to know the Lord Jesus Christ as
Savior and make that abundantly clear in an understanding there's a before and after. That may be the biggest difference, what defines
the before-and-after. That's a good discussion for us to have, but
that's why believers' baptism follows from our understanding of conversion, and that's
our understanding of regenerate church membership, and that's what it means to be buried with
Christ in baptism and raised to walk in the newness of life. It's a very clear before-and-after conversion. Lawson: Can I just add something, just very
quick? Yeah, the Bible is very clear that it says,
David writes in Psalm 51, "In sin did my mother conceive me." That does not mean that her conception was
done out of wedlock. It means that David was a sinner in the womb
of his mother. And Augustine well argued, if that's not the
case, there would never be death in the womb. That there is that one that has been conceived
in the womb is a sinner and therefore, there can even be a death before the delivery, because
there's death in that womb. David goes on to say, it's either Psalm 57
and 58 that, "I came forth from my mother's womb speaking lies." So, the only way to get into the kingdom of
heaven, Jesus said to Nicodemus, is "You must be born again." That there was something desperately wrong
about your first birth, that you were born in spiritual death. Ephesians 2 verse 1 makes that crystal clear. No matter how old you are, no matter how young
you are, that until you are born again, you are spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. No matter how many times you've been brought
to church. No matter how much water's been sprinkled
on you, you are separated from a holy God because of your sin. And the only way to enter into the kingdom
of heaven, I'm going to say it one more time, the only way to enter into the kingdom of
heaven is for you to be sovereignly, monergistically regenerated by the Spirit of God and given
faith and repentance. I think we do a tremendous harm to evangelism
and the preaching the gospel to give children any thought that they are a Christian until
they have actually entered into the kingdom of heaven. Now, I know there's a difference in opinion
among us. But if we can't get that part right, then
I think our evangelism is enormously hindered. I'll never forget the night my daughter was
converted. She rode in the car with me to church that
night, and I was preaching John 17 verse 1, "Father, the hour has come. Glorify the Son that the Son may be glorified
in You." As we were driving to church I told her, "You
need to be born again, and I can't do that for you. And I'm the pastor of this church. You, as you hear me preach tonight, you need
to ask and pray that God will act upon your soul and upon your heart." And I remember that night, she did not come
back. I took our three sons home, my wife took her
home and she didn't come in until…they didn't come in till 10 o'clock that night, and I
thought, "Oh my goodness, now I'm going have to go up to the bedroom, and this is going
to be a huge, you know, parental night talking with my daughter" who had been very resistant…not
very resistant, but resistant to us and she came in and walked into the den and said,
"Dad, I've been born again." And we went upstairs and got her three brothers
and brought them down to the den and she said, "I want to ask for you to forgive me for the
way I've acted towards you, but I have been born again." If I had given her any hope that she was right
with God until she was born again, I would have misrepresented the gospel to her. Now, as to the question in Acts 16 "and your
whole household." This is really interesting. For two consecutive years after I was in class
with R.C., the entire class at the end of semester left, and I was left in the room
one-on-one with R.C. And for two years in a row he said, "What
do I have to do to get you to be a Presbyterian?" And I said, "R.C., I would love to be a Presbyterian. You have better pulpits than we have." So I literally, I stuck out my arm and I said,
"Twist my arm, make me a Presbyterian. I would love to be one." I seriously would. And he said "Acts 16." And I said, "R.C., you didn't read the next
verse. Everyone in that household believed in Jesus." I said, "I would love to accept that, but
this says they all believed in Jesus." Now a one-year-old cannot believe in Jesus,
a two-year-old cannot believe in Jesus. Godfrey: So is a one-year-old or a two-year-old
lost if they die at one or two, is that what you're saying. Lawson: No, no. I think they are lost, but I do believe that
one-year-old or that two-year-old does go to heaven, and we are left with an implication
that is not directly stated in Scripture, but I do believe from David and from Job and
from other passages that that infant does…God applies the grace of God is the implication
that we would have to make and that one does go to heaven. So I do believe that. Godfrey: Well, you see, I think then on a
number of points we're agreed. We mustn't miss where we are agreed. I believe all our children are born in sin,
as you articulated it. I believe all our children need to be regenerated
sovereignly by the grace of God. I think, I think the difference in some ways
is this question of how we raise our children and whether -- I'm rather opposed to the notion
that we put pressure on our children to have a specific experience and moment of conversion. Some of them will and those who do, I rejoice
in that. I rejoice in that, that's the way the word
the Lord works in some of our children. But in others, there's a time they never know
except of believing in, knowing, living for Jesus. And to say to them, "You can't really be trusting
Jesus because you never had a crisis experience," I don't think is accurate to the Scriptures. I think it is possible, I think, I believe
with Luther that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb because he leapt for
joy in the presence of Jesus in Elizabeth's womb. Well then, he's going to grow up as a regenerated
person with faith all through his life and doesn't need a crisis experience. Lawson: Go ahead, Al. Mohler: Yeah, I think we do need a crisis
experience. I think that's what being born-again means. That's what I hope and pray for in my children
and in my grandchildren. I don't want it to be an artificial crisis,
I don't want it to be an orchestrated crisis. When you say "a moment," I cannot tell you
the moment when I became a Christian. I can tell you the moment when I was nine
when I believe I came to know not only that I sinned but that I am a sinner under the
conviction of preaching. And I just desired Christ. The gospel was explained to me far more completely
over the next several days. I can't point to a day. We used to have this stupid song that used
to be sung. You know, "On a Monday, Jesus saved me," and
people would stand up if they were saved on Monday. You know, there's a sense in which I was saved
on a Friday and on a Sunday two thousand years ago, but there's another sense in which I
had to be born again, and I don't know when that happened exactly in a moment in time,
but I know that I was a lost child who deserved nothing but hell and then was saved by the
grace and mercy of God, and I came to know the sweetness of the gospel of Christ. I came to know what it meant to be born again,
and I don't believe there's going to be anyone in heaven who has not been born again, and
I think Jesus made that just emphatically clear in John chapter 3. I don't believe that John the Baptist was
regenerated in his mother's womb. I do think he leapt with joy for Christ when
he was in Christ' presence, and I want my children to do that, too. But I want them to know the Lord Jesus Christ
as Savior and Lord and be born again. I think that's even more important. Larson: See? I knew it was going to take a while. We've talked about this just internally, and
I've heard some of you remark on this publicly as well, is that we can have this conversation
because we have a commitment to the authority of the Scriptures, and we can do in fellowship
with one another, and I think that's one of the wonders of Ligonier Ministries is the
breadth of perspective on certain issues and yet a solid conviction. Lawson: Yeah, Chris. Am I on? Okay. I think it goes back to the large heartedness
of R.C. Sproul, and I rejoice that Ligonier, while
holding to the exclusivity of salvation in Christ alone, that R.C. embraced me, embraced
Al and others. In fact, Ligonier ended up really in many
ways being a haven and a refuge for so many Baptists to find truth, and I'm so grateful
that R.C. was so secure in his relationship with the Lord that he did not keep us out,
but allowed us to have access to this ministry and I rejoice in that. Mohler: Yeah, I just want to come back and
affirm what Steve just wonderfully said. And I just want to remind us all that R.C.
prompted this conversation, orchestrated it, made sure this conversation took place even
in the context of a Ligonier conference. And so, we shouldn't be afraid to do this
as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are, to make Chris's point, we're the last
people on earth who can have an honest theological disagreement because we believe that truth
matters and we're actually honoring the truth, we're honoring Christ, and I believe we're
honoring the purpose for which Ligonier Ministries was established in having this conversation,
which I guarantee will continue after this question time is over. Lawson: Yeah Chris, and just to add one more
thing, there's the substance of the gospel and there's the sign of the gospel. Where we agree emphatically unto death is
in the substance of the gospel. The difference would be in the sign, and that's
a totally different matter. I mean I'll go to the stake and die for the
substance of the gospel. Even with my convictions, I don't know that
I really want to die for the sign of the gospel, but I'll die for the substance of the gospel. Godfrey: Can I just, can I just add that I
want to be clear that our position, my position is not that baptism saves the baby, but baptism
is the sign of the covenant in which the child is already included. And I think that's what "your children are
holy" means and that as that child grows up that child needs to be instructed in the meaning
of baptism that that child will have faith in Christ. So, the point that we are all agreed on, I
think, is our children need to have faith in Christ, and that's what we need to raise
them for. Would you thank our panelists this afternoon?
