Let's dive in. How can I defend confidently when I have uncertainty
and how do I fight doubt? I'm trying to find it because I think we need
to look at the Great Commission, and then I need my glasses. Thank you, Dr. Godfrey. "Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee
to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw Him they worshiped Him,
but some doubted." These are the disciples and some doubted,
and what Jesus did was gave them the Great Commission. So I think we should pause over that expression
that "some doubted" and that might give us… recognize that we have sympathetic folks here. You know, there are many levels on which to
answer this question and there are many different kinds of doubt. I've just finished a series on Ecclesiastes. I'd never preached on it before. I've done Bible studies on it many times mainly
because I wasn't sure which opinion about Ecclesiastes I should adopt. But I decided this year that since I'm 65
I'm going to die shortly and I've never preached on Ecclesiastes so I just need to dive in. And it was staggering to me because I know
this book, I have read it many times, but it was staggering to me how honest Solomon
is about doubt. About this world does not make sense. This world under the sun can be unfair. Life can throw curveballs at you. Actually, God can throw curveballs at you. You can be hit in the side of the face and
you're completely stunned. But it was the honesty of that that actually
was its redemption that we do live in a world where we don't have all of the answers. There are huge moral injustices in this world
and not just in the world of unbelief, but it's in the church, it's in our lives, it's
in the lives of those whom we love. You know, a young couple who get married and
they're expecting their first baby and then this baby has multiple issues and all of a
sudden their life is going to be different from here on in and it's not the dream marriage
that they thought it was going to be. And the marriage that ends up in divorce and
what happened here, where did this all go wrong, who's to blame? And those are honest doubts I think that the
book of Ecclesiastes seems to face head on, and I think one of the things that I came
away with at the end of the series of Ecclesiastes was what a gift this was and is from the Lord
that we don't have to pretend with our sense of injustice, with our questions of why, and
why me, and why now, why so harsh? The gospel can cope with all of these things. And so I think that dealing with doubt is
being honest and I think God wants us to be honest. You can throw all the arguments you want and
the gospel will stand up at the end of the day. I was thinking Derek has approached this very
helpfully from a sort of big question of issues that surround us, but as I heard him I was
also thinking that one of the biographers of John Calvin said that John Calvin was a
singularly anxious man. Now, he wasn't a very good biographer but
he may have been on to something that Calvin does seem to have had as a recurring theme
of his theology "How can I be certain? I want to be certain. I need to be certain. Certainty is crucial." Calvin defined faith in terms of certainty. "Faith is certain," Calvin said. Well, but Calvin was also aware that people
had plenty of doubts and one of the dangers of doubt is you can begin to wonder do you
really have faith at all. And what Calvin I think very helpfully said
is that for the Christian doubt comes from the outside to attack faith and therefore
the antidote to doubt is faith and the antidote to doubt is all the things that build up faith,
reading the Word, hearing the Word preached, the fellowship of God's people, the encouragement
that we receive in praising God together, so that as faith is built up that anxiety
of doubt is reduced or fought. And so I think that it's helpful to focus
on faith as an antidote to doubt not allowing doubt to sort of redefine faith or undermine
faith, but to answer doubt with faith. It's also interesting that in the 17th century
that in the Westminster Confession, I know you subscribe to the other Confession, but
in the Westminster Confession…earlier, better, but go ahead. Probably the best worded chapter in the entire
Confession is the chapter on assurance and it demonstrates the degree to which the Puritans
struggled with the issue of doubt, that faith itself is certain but the experience of faith
can often be something else and there was no attempt made on the part of the Calvinists
of the 17th century to avoid that conundrum but actually address it head on. Dr. Lawson, what does it mean biblically to
be "called?" "To be called," what does that mean biblically? Well, there are different calls in the Scripture. There is the call to faith in Jesus Christ,
which is the effectual call and that call is irresistible. It is the summons of the Holy Spirit to lay
hold of the elect sinner and draw them and bring them into saving union with Christ. So, there is the call to salvation, there
is the call to service, and there is the call within that to preach. And so, I mean, I could articulate the different
subheadings under that. So to be called, it would depend on which
call you're referring to. There's also a third call, which is just simply
the external call which is the witness that is given through the preacher, through the
parent or whatever that invites lost sinners to come to Christ. So the free offer of the gospel is a call
to come to Christ. As I said earlier, that can only go to the
ear; it cannot go to the heart. The Holy Spirit must take it from the ear
to the heart and that is the effectual call. And of course that's mentioned all through
the Bible. And then there is the call to service. So those would be the three, and the question
you asked is what is the biblical meaning of "to be called?" Obviously, the one who is called is passive,
the one who is issuing the call is active, and that call for salvation and service must
come from God Himself. There's not an audible voice that we hear
as it relates to coming to faith in Christ. It is the Word of God that is brought home
to the heart by the Holy Spirit that apprehends and lays hold of the sinner. In reality, it's a subpoena that comes from
heaven that overcomes the resistance of the sinner's heart. And then the call to service, I mean there's
so much to be said about that as well, but it is God singling out within those who have
been called to Christ to a certain vocational calling. Some of those would be preachers, but there's
also vocational calling as well to an area of service as unto the Lord. So I don't know if I totally understand the
question completely, but it's a great answer. Could we find a question to spark that answer? See what I have to work with up here… Dr. Godfrey, how should understanding the
history of the world, both biblical and secular, shape our reaction to modern events and future
events? That's a great question and I'm sure Steve
would have a great answer. You're correct. So I'll give my B answer and then he can give
the A answer. I think what a study of history does, both
biblical history and secular history, is really help us see that we're not quite as unique
as we'd like to believe we are. Our age, I was just saying to some folks here
at the break, as Americans we want to either live in the best time ever or the worst time
ever. We have to be superlative. We can't be content with being just at a kind
of crummy time, and so by studying history we can see that on the political stream there
have been really great presidents and really awful presidents and however you rank the
current one, the Republic is likely to survive. It's not guaranteed, but it's likely to survive. Politics has been a nasty business in America
through most of the history of the Republic. If you know that you're not quite so discouraged. You know, what's really dangerous to read
about the modern world is to read ministers because ministers in every generation think
they live in the worst time ever. And ministers are forever complaining and
of course that's their calling to confront any age with its failures and to call them
to a better way, but in the process they may leave the impression that we're in the worst
place ever. And we're in a bad place I think, but it's
nowhere near the worst place ever and we need to pray earnestly it won't get any worse. So, I think, you know, this is Calvinist comfort
at its heart. "Cheer up, things could be worse," and history
will do that for you. How does personality come into play with apologetics? How can introverts be good witnesses for Christ? By the power of the Holy Spirit, and you read
the book of Acts when you look up every time someone is filled with the Holy Spirit either
at the end of the verse or in the following verses it says they opened their mouth and
spoke with boldness. The word "boldness" means "all speech," that
you tell it all and that you hold nothing back. If you do a personality study of the twelve
disciples, you see very different personalities. Extroverts, Peter speaking out before the
others speak. Others more reserved. But when they are filled with the Holy Spirit,
which is much like being filled with wine, they are liberated to speak the truth with
great certainty and with great confidence. And so, yes there are different personality
types, but the Holy Spirit is greater and He gives a great assurance as we give our
testimony and we speak up as we're filled with the Holy Spirit. So, I think that's at the heart of the answer
and of course some people are more reserved and introverted, other people more expressive
and naturally speaking. For example, Calvin was very much an introvert. Luther was an extrovert. Yet, nevertheless, they were both as bold
as a lion and blew the trumpet that needed to be sounded. So, I think the key really lies with God in
the man. But, I think speaking for introverts, you
may be surprised but I am. I think it's important to realize that boldness
is not a personality attribute and that introverts in a quiet way can be just what someone needs
at the right moment and so those of you who are shy and retiring like me you can be sure
that the Lord can bless the witness you bear as well and that sometimes a softer, gentler
word is just what's needed by someone when it's brought by the Holy Spirit. Well, and someone who's an extrovert can also
bring a soft word. So…no, seriously, So, I don't think we say
extroverts always give loud witness, introverts give gentle witness. I don't think it works that way. And I agree with you that boldness is not
a personality thing. It's a fruit of the Spirit in reality. It's produced by the Holy Spirit in the man. What are the different approaches to apologetics
and which one do you prefer? So, this could obviously be a seminary level
course. So, in a matter of 30 seconds for each of
you how would you answer this, different approaches to apologetics and which one do you prefer? So, in the 20th century we saw basically three
schools emerge. There was the evidentialist approach. I guess the best exemplar of that would be
Josh McDowell of marshaling a lot of evidences, his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. There was also the presuppositional school
and the exemplar of that would be Cornelius Van Til and sometimes associated with Westminster
Seminary, Van Til, of presuppositionalism. And then there was the third approach that
was called classical because it was seen not only as using classical arguments but also
of, of a history, but articulated as the classical and in many ways Dr. Sproul was a key figure
in articulating that as a particular approach to apologetics with the book he co-authored
with Arthur Lindsley and with John Gerstner, Classical Apologetics. So, as the 20th century, we could see that
taxonomy of those three approaches. And of course, I'm a classical apologist. I'm whatever R.C. is. That was the mike drop right there! He got in the water. Bob Godfrey just got baptized. Let me say it before Bob does. Wouldn't, wouldn't you know the Baptist would
drop it in the water? There, you're in. He's been converted to sprinkling. That's all you need. Just a little dip will do you! Meanwhile back at the ranch… Let's get back to the question. You know, I'm at a Ligonier conference so
obviously I have enormous respect for classical apologetics as R.C. did it, and he did that
probably better than anyone that I've ever heard. And when you listen to R.C., you think that's
the way to do it. You know, are there clear lines of distinction
between Dr. Sproul's classical apologetics and the Van Tilean presuppositionalism, and
I think it depends on who the presuppositionalist is, that, that, that difference can be exaggerated
and it wasn't just a point, but it was actually a spectrum and so since I'm at Ligonier I'm
with R.C. As an introvert, I'm taking the fifth. He's a baptized introvert. Well, I have taught at the Westminster Seminary
all my life and been surrounded by the Van Tileans and been very impressed by the work
of Cornelius Van Til. But I have also been impressed over the years
as I've spoken with R.C and heard his critique of Van Til and heard Van Tileans critique
R.C. that there is a major talking past one another on some of the issues. And what Dr. Van Til was particularly concerned
about was that we not approach truth as something neutral and uncertain. Dr. Van Til believed that as a Christian we
ought to be certain, sort of brings us back to the beginning, and that we enter into a
conversation not to try to find truth but because we know the truth. But talking to R.C., I find that there's a
great conviction about that on his part, too. The Van Tileans would say, "Well, the classical
apologists assume a kind of neutrality and think they can argue people into the kingdom
of God." That's clearly not what R.C. taught. So, there is a major talking past each other. I think it is very helpful in thinking about
people and communicating to people to realize they come at any discussion with presuppositions. They come with certain attitudes deep in their
own heart. And we come as Christians with presuppositions
as well about the truthfulness of our faith. So I don't know that we have to be set against
one another. And Cornelius Van Til, for example, wrote
a book of Christian evidences. He thought there was use to evidences. There is a use to arguments, there's a necessity
to arguments, and so that's all a historian has to say. This person writes, I am cautious in what
I need to understand about the dreams being reported amongst Muslim peoples, dreams of
Jesus, true/false/concerning/joyful. What am I to make of these reports? Well, I think the whole issue is extra biblical
special revelation. Is there in this day extra biblical special
revelation? And I say, no, and I think that everything
that God has to say as special revelation is contained in the 66 books of the Scripture
and that with the book of Revelation the canon of Scripture was completed and was closed
and everything that we need to know is contained in the Scripture. And that dreams and visions for today, I think,
are nothing like let's say the dreams and visions in the Old Testament and during the
New Testament times. So, I'm one that believes that the Apostles
and the prophets laid the foundation for the church, Ephesians 2:20, and the special revelation
that has come to the church has come through the Apostles and the prophets. And the foundation is only laid one time and
that's at the beginning of the building project. And that was laid in the first century. The foundation is not put on the roof in the
last century before Christ comes. And the foundation is not supplemented at
various times in the progression of the church age. So that is why we preach the Word. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the
Word of Christ." That's why we send missionaries. That's why we send preachers. So that would be my firm answer on that and
if that is not the answer then we've opened Pandora's box to every extreme. I mean, I can't even make sense of what few
dreams I have. I mean, they're all just obtuse and weird
really. And I'd put no stock in present day dreams
and visions, and I think that the case is made in the New Testament for that and I do
not think there is a case made for it being extended to today. So that's why we're going to have to send
missionaries. That's why they have to suffer and be persecuted
in Muslim countries. That's why we need to print Bibles and have
Bibles distributed in Muslim countries, and it's going to have to be a real person going
in there with a real Bible and preaching the Word and witnessing and praying and being
willing to suffer for the consequences of advancing the gospel. Sometimes I've seen Cornelius in the book
of Acts used as an example for this, but if you follow through that whole account it actually
contradicts that idea because it's Peter going to him as a person and explicitly teaching
him about the gospel and so we find the examples from Scripture specifically pointing to a
preacher and the explicit preaching of the gospel. And I think this is an area we have to pay
very close attention to. You may talk about pluralism in our day but
as an evangelical church or as a Reformed church we're really susceptible to inclusivism
and what we find is this idea of we have this again continuum. You've got pluralism, many ways to many gods. We have exclusivism, one way, one God. But there's this middle-of-the-road inclusivism
that says, "Well, what if there are many ways to the one God and what if there are multiple
ways beyond the explicit preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ?" And you see many self-professing evangelicals
promoting various views within this inclusivism space on that continuum and dreams is one
of them. It's an area that we need to pay close attention
to and stress that there is one way of salvation, the explicit preaching of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, one way to the one true God. I certainly agree with what's been said and
I think it's a critical biblical and theological comment on it. But as a historian I think we can also say
that when people claim to have had certain experiences and experience certain phenomenon,
we don't have to just say it didn't happen at all, but we can also ask, "How do we understand
this?" A parallel would be people who speak in tongues. I've known people who speak in tongues. I've heard them speak in tongues. That's the phenomenon. How do we interpret that theologically? Is that the same speaking in tongues that's
described in Acts 2? And my belief is it's not the same. So where does this phenomenon come from? Well, I think often people experience what
their teachers teach them to expect to experience. And so if you're taught that to be a Christian
you have to speak in tongues, you'll be able to speak in tongues. But that's not a gift of the Holy Spirit;
it's a natural phenomenon and I've even read a lot about the dreams in the Muslim world. I've heard some missionaries talk about it,
but I suspect it's sort of the same. I suspect you'd be able to trace that the
people who have had the dreams have heard about other people who had dreams, and lo
and behold they are having the same dreams. So, very often we have the kind of a religious
experience we're expected to experience. If you go to a very emotional church you may
well have a very emotional conversion. If you go to a Dutch Reformed Church, they'll
drive the emotions out of you. Sorry, that's just to my Dutch friends. Many times as we witness to unbelievers, we
tell them, "God loves you." Psalm 5:5 states, "O, God you hate all evildoers." Does God love everyone or just the elect? It reminds me of that excellent answer I heard
from Steve Lawson. Well, God has a general love for all people
which is expressed in common grace. He sends the rain to fall on the just and
the unjust. He causes the sun to shine on the righteous
and the unrighteous. He allows unbelievers to enjoy marriage, to
have children. There are expressions of God's general love
that shine upon the non-elect. They are allowed to go to a doctor and to
have the benefit of medicine, they are allowed to enjoy music, they can enjoy sports. That's all an expression of the general love
of God. But the Bible does say, "Jacob I loved, and
Esau I hated." And so there's a distinction that is made
as it relates to God's saving love. In Ephesians 1:4 and 5, "He chose us in Christ
in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before
Him. In love, He predestined us unto the adoption
of sons according to the kind intention of His will." And so there is a saving love that God has
that is restricted to His elect, those who were chosen before time began. And that's what the word foreknowledge means. In Romans 8:29 when it says, "Those whom he
foreknew he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, and those whom he
predestined he called, justified, glorified," etc., the word "foreknowledge" does not mean
"foresight." That text does not say that God is foreseeing
events. He is foreknowing individuals. And ginosko in the Greek, yada in the Hebrew
means "to enter into a loving saving relationship with." In Genesis 4 verse 1, Adam knew his wife and
she conceived and gave birth to a son. It's the most intimate relationship that is
a love relationship that is represented in the biblical word "know." Jesus said, "Depart from me you who work iniquity. I never knew you," Matthew 7:23. And Jesus said, "I know my own and my own
know me." That's synonymous with "I love my own and
my own love me. My sheep hear my voice and I know them." In the previous verse, He says to the Pharisees,
"You do not believe because you're not one of my sheep." So there is a special saving love that is
poured out of God for His elect. So there is a distinction in the love of God. There is a general common grace love that
God would extend to all people in that it's His goodness, but it's not a saving love. His saving love is within the sphere of those
whom He chose before time began. He set His heart upon them in a distinguishing
way. So, I mean, there's many more verses to be
cited but just to get a quicker answer to a very profound question that deserves a profound
answer. "Nevertheless Jacob I loved and Esau I hated." And yes, Psalm 5 verse 5, it's also in Psalm
7, it's also in Psalm 9, and it's also in Psalm 11 that God hates not just the sin,
but He hates the sinner who commits sin that is outside of Christ. So it says even in Psalm 7 that God as the
divine warrior who takes the bow of His justice and the arrows of His wrath and puts them
into the bow and they're aimed right now at the sinner and it says that God has indignation
with the wicked every day. It's not just at the end of the age, it's
not just in hell and eternity future; it's this very moment. Yet God graciously with love extends the offer,
the gospel, to those who are under His wrath. And even the elect were under His wrath. Ephesians 2 verse 3 says we were children
of wrath, even as the rest, and so God has extended His saving love to those who were
under His wrath. So we do have to make that distinction. And Psalm 5 is still in the Bible. And you can't pull a hyper-dispensational
card out and say, "Well, that was just the Old Testament." No, it's in the New Testament as well. Romans 1 verse 18 says that, "For the wrath
of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men." That's a real wrath that is abiding upon everyone
who is outside of Christ experientially. So that's an important distinction that must
be made, and I think the whole of Scripture would bear that up. I just want to add something very quickly
just to what you're saying. I think this idea is a bit of a miscalculation
that we are better served in proclaiming the gospel from the platform of affirming God's
love. I think that's a miscalculation. One of my favorite books of R.C.'s is the
little book Saved, and the whole question of "What are we saved from?" is where he starts
and then, "What are we saved by?" and "What are we saved for?" But we start with what we are saved from,
and it's exactly what you articulated. We're saved from the wrath of God. And this was the preaching of Edwards. This is "sinners in the hands … the bow
of God's wrath is bent … the spider dangling over the pit of hell." We have this sense in the 21st century that
we can only present the gospel from a platform of affirming God's love of this individual
in front of us. I think that's a bit of a miscalculation as
to how we can present the gospel. Sure, and I said yesterday in the seminar
that the Holy Spirit has come into the world to convict men of sin and righteousness and
judgment, and those who are outside of Christ are under the judgment of God and are headed
to the judgment of God. And you have to be…to be saved means to
be rescued from ruin. It means to be delivered from destruction. You're not saved from loneliness. You're not saved from insecurity. You're not saved from a bad job or a meaningless
life. You are actually saved from God, and there
is only one who can save from God, and that is God Himself. And so we are saved from God by God for God
is the truth of Scripture. I remember vividly in college seeing a Christian
friend witnessing to a non-Christian and saying to the non-Christian, "God loves you," and
the non-Christian says, "Great! Then I'm in good shape," and the Christian
had no comeback. I mean, if you really are going to say unconditionally
to people, "God loves you," then you are a universalist and I don't think you have that
universal statement anywhere in Scripture. Yeah, Hebrews 2:3 and 4, "How shall we escape,
if we neglect so great a salvation?" Escape from what? Escape from the wrath of God. And then later in Hebrews 10:26 to 31, this
later warning passage, "It's a terrifying thing to fall in to the hands of the living
God," is what that says. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the
Lord. So, that needs to be preached from pulpits
and that needs to be expressed and we speak the truth in love, and there is this gracious,
loving offer of the gospel that God extends to His enemies to be reconciled to Him through
the blood of the cross. You bringing up Hebrews 2 reminds me that
was R.C. Sproul's last sermon text. And so you can go out on YouTube or just go
on Google and type in "R.C. Sproul last sermon," and we've published it
out there and it's transcribed, but that very passage from Hebrews 2. I have a friend who grew up in the church
but is homosexual. She is looking for validation of her lifestyle
in the church. How can I lead her to the truth? This is one of the most difficult issues that
we probably face as a church in 2018, and increasingly within our society more and more
of our young folk are just completely confused about sexuality and gender and so it's more
and more likely that we now have those who will confess to same-sex attraction. And I think I would want to make a difference
between that issue and a homosexual lifestyle and the condoning of a homosexual lifestyle. And therefore, the church has to be careful
in the language it uses about homosexuality, that we condemn the sin of homosexuality,
of homosexual behavior. And the same-sex attraction is also a sin,
but it's a sin that has to be resisted. It's a sin. And the church needs to provide the help that
may be necessary to help them live that if necessary celibate lifestyle if that is a
besetting sin, but it is sin. It's not something neutral. It's not just part of my personality, and
you take a personality test and this is what I am. But as a pastor, I face this more and more
and more as each year goes by, and this last year perhaps I've seen it more than I've ever
done in my entire life. And so, it's something that the church has
to have a very, very, very deliberate, loving, gracious gospel answer to. Does people who had proclaimed Jesus as Lord
and Savior but then commit suicide, are they truly saved or are they like the seed that
was choked out by the weeds and trials of life? Well, that would depend on the individual. Some people who commit suicide are believers
and there is the eternal security of the believer and they would go immediately into the presence
of God, though the taking of their own life was a sinful act. Others who claim to be Christians would be
like those who say, "Lord! Lord," but do not know Christ and then take
their life and rather than waking up in heaven they wake up in hell. And so it would depend did they truly know
Jesus Christ in a personal saving way and if they did His sheep will never perish, "neither
shall any man pluck them from my hand for my Father who has given to me is greater than
all and no man shall pluck them from his hand." So, suicide in and of itself is not the unforgivable
sin; unbelief in the gospel is the unforgivable sin. So someone can commit suicide. If they are a believer they would go straight
to heaven. If they're not a believer but simply a false
convert who is deceived about their own relationship with the Lord, then they would go straight
to hell forever. It's the same with anyone else. Do you know Jesus Christ as your Lord and
Savior? Have you been born again from above? But once born, always born; you can never
be unborn once you're born into the kingdom of heaven. I did a funeral this year of a man I would
call a friend. I knew him reasonably well, a member of the
church. And you know, he put a gun in his mouth and
pulled the trigger. And yeah, people's lives can be messed up. They can make reckless decisions, find themselves
in really bad circumstances and feel as though there's no way out, unable, unwilling to face
the consequences of their actions, but they were believers and they sinned. And it wasn't my job at the time to address
was the suicide a sin. The question that I wanted to address as a
pastor was, "What am I going to say to his wife and his sons?" and to be able to give
them assurance. He was a believer. He professed faith. There was no question about that. And that suicide, suicide as an unforgivable
sin is a Catholic doctrine; it is not a Protestant doctrine. And I think it's very important pastorally
at that moment. Now, six months later, a year later, you know,
we may go back and address some of this with the family. But I think at the time of a suicide it is
very important, especially in the case of somebody who is a believer and for all that
we could see made a credible profession of faith but fell at the end, that that was not
the unforgivable sin and I fully expect to see this person in heaven and there is forgiveness
for this too. The blood of Christ covers all sin. Is it acceptable for women to take leadership
roles in the church, to preach and to pastor? No, 1 Timothy 2 is crystal clear, "I do not
allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." When you teach the Word of God and preach
the word of God, you have assumed a posture and a position of authority because you are
telling someone what they must believe and you are telling someone what to do and you
speak with the authority of Scripture. And I think a woman can teach other women. I think a woman can teach children, but in
the church to assume the pulpit or to serve as an elder, that is restricted to men only
and this is the way God set up the church and it's a reflection of even the headship
and submission that's in the Trinity itself. God the Father has assumed the role of headship
and the Son has chosen to submit to the will of the Father and the Spirit to the will of
the Father as well, and we see this in the Trinity. So, when you come into church, you should
see something that is totally counterintuitive to what you see in the world. You should think you're in another world,
you're in another place. The church should not try to be as much like
the world as it can possibly be. The church should try to be as much like heaven
as it can possibly be, and things are different in the church. So, this has been a discussion in terms of
grounding headship and the Trinitarian relationship. And Derek maybe could you expand on this discussion
as well? Obviously the biblical text applies here as
well. Yeah, well let me just add this, my fundamental
appeal is to the exegetical teaching of 1 Timothy 2, 1 Timothy 3, etc. And I know as we get into this Trinity debate
there are other things being brought to the table, but those texts speak so clearly and
to the point that you would have to invent a way not to accept what it explicitly says. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm not sure I want to go into the whole
Trinitarian thing that might open a Pandora's box, but there is clearly in Scripture an
analogy between the relationship that exists within the Trinity and the relationship of
Christian marriage and the role relationship that exists between a husband and a wife. And I think that that much cannot be denied. You know, Sunday morning is my most countercultural
moment. And I preach on Sunday morning to women who
are CEOs of multimillion dollar companies, who make decisions on a daily and weekly basis
in seven figure sums and more and yet they cannot be an elder in my congregation. And to yield on that point means that I would
have to interpret clear statements of Paul as culturally conditioned statements belonging
exclusively to the first century and if I do that I might as well give up. I cannot say anymore I believe in the inerrancy
of Scripture. It is a meaningless statement if I do that. And therefore, I have to stand where Scripture
stands. Now, I do think that there is some exegetical
room for a difference of opinion about whether women can be deacons, whether they can serve
in that capacity and whether the diaconate is an authoritative role. And I think the issue of Phoebe in Romans
16 is open to debate for sure. But, on the role of the eldership or preaching
I think the Bible is very clear and the question is a very countercultural question in 2018
and I think it's a question of whether or not we are willing to stand with Scripture
or with the culture. And let me say that I certainly agree, but
again from the historical point of view the way we now conservatives read the New Testament
is the way the church through almost its whole history has read those documents. So, to come along and say all of a sudden
the church for 1,900 years read the New Testament incorrectly and now we suddenly read it correctly,
just on the surface of it that seems profoundly unlikely. Possible I suppose, but profoundly unlikely. And the consequence for the church is serious
because when you look sociologically at the church in America, it tends to be an institution
that draws a lot more women than men and precisely for that reason some churches have said, "We
don't have enough men to take leadership." Well, the more women establish themselves
in the leadership of the church sociologically, the more men are unlikely to come. And you can complain about that. You can say, that's right or wrong, but it's
proven itself over and over again historically. And so you know, it's not just the Bible and
theology, although those are the critical things but also experientially men need to
be told to stop being lazy and take responsibility and that's important. Briefly, let's end on this. How does one deal with brothers and sisters
who make secondary issues a primary issue, or the other side of it is how have you gentlemen
gotten past various issues with others or each other such that you're majoring on the
majors and minoring on the minors? Well, I'm still friends with people who baptize
microphones, for example. Well, at least I didn't sprinkle it. Well, what I have so appreciated about the
fellowship with people at Ligonier is we, Steve and I, don't have to pretend that the
issue of baptism is not important. I think the question of baptism is very important
and I assume Steve does too, but we can respect one another as sincere believers in the Bible. We can agree to continue to study the Bible
on this point. I've helped Steve to see there are no Baptists
in heaven. They all become Presbyterians on the way up. But you know, I think there is an attitude
that says in order to agree we have to agree that our disagreements are not important at
all. And I don't think that's true, but I find
when I talk to a Baptist about baptism or talk to a Lutheran about the Lord's Supper,
I am so much more stimulated to think profoundly about those things. It's very helpful and I then I come away rejoicing
that I'm not a Baptist. Let's end there. Thank you, gentlemen!
