Chris: We've got some folks here who are ready
to ask you some questions. And let's go ahead and go to our first one. And we've really picked a zinger of a question
here for you to start out with. LAWSON: Hi Dr. Sproul, I'm a big fan of
yours and I met you in 1999—I'm sure you remember. And we all would like to know how many hole-in-ones
have you made? Dr. Sproul: Well, you are a big fan. You need to go on a diet. LAWSON: I resemble that remark. Dr. Sproul: I've had two holes-in-one. The last one was in 1967. But I did also have a hole-in-three, which
is even more rare. LAWSON: That's right. I've played that. It was a number six-
Dr. Sproul: That's exactly right. LAWSON: … at the Legacy. You hit one in the water, re-tee it and hit
it in the hole. Dr. Sproul: Right. LAWSON: Yeah. Well, everyone here loves you and we're just
having a great time. So wish you were here. Chris: Dr. Sproul, we've had some folks asking
about just how you're feeling. We know that you had a knee operation a few
years ago and still struggle a little bit with that, as well as some effects of COPD. But you're looking great today. Dr. Sproul: Thank you very much. I'm feeling fine, Chris. Can't walk very well because that surgery
didn't work, but that's the way it goes. Chris: Well, we're hoping to be able to get
some of these folks down to LA on May 1st for the concert, for the hymn project down
at Grace Community Church. They really enjoyed hearing about that. Dr. Sproul: Great. Chris: Alright, we're going to go first here. Could you introduce yourself and ask your
question? Jim: I'm Jim Webb for Southern Washington,
and I didn't receive your reply if you did reply to a question that I sent in sometime
back. I'm a little bit older than you are, but I've
been following you since very early in Renewing Your Mind in the Northwest. And I've been not only a fan, but I consider
myself a student. And I'd like to ask you where you are in Preterism
at this time. Dr. Sproul: Pretty much the same place where
I've been all along, Jim. I am not a full preterist. I am a partial preterist because I think that
the majority of the material found in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in a 70 AD. But I still look forward to a future return
of Christ and the final consummation of the kingdom. Jim: Thank you very much. Dr. Sproul: You're welcome. Lee: Hi Dr. Sproul, my name's Lee Henderson. I live in Placerville, California. And in the conference as mentioned earlier
by Dr. Steve Lawson that new truth is heresy. And I was curious if there's any type of heresy
that we should be aware of that's essentially new in this generation. Dr. Sproul: Well, if new truth means new discoveries
from Scripture, then they usually are heretical. It's not that we don't discover new things
in the scientific enterprise every day as we explore creation. I think what Steve had in mind was new insights
to Scripture like the new perspective on Paul and that sort of thing. After 2000 years of the most careful and rigorous
examination of Scripture by the world's best minds, it's highly unlikely that anything
new is going to come forward that wasn't already discovered at some point in the past. And so it's a question that if somebody comes
up with what's considered a new insight, we need to be very careful before we swallow
it hook line and sinker … it's even possible that somebody could come up with a new insight
on Scripture that nobody's thought of before, but it's unlikely. Lee: Thank you. Tess: Hi, my name is Tess, and I was wondering
when we pray, do we pray to the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit? Dr. Sproul: Yes. We pray—our worship and our prayers and
all of the attending things are Trinitarian from beginning to end. Now, when we look at the function of the different
members of the Godhead with respect to prayer, we see that the second person of the Trinity,
Christ, intercedes for us as our great high priest. And that's why we usually pray in the name
of Jesus. But also, the Holy Spirit assists us in articulating
our prayers to the Son who carries them to the Father. And so we make that distinction. But remember, we're distinguishing among persons,
three persons of one being. And so all that we do in this case is fully
Trinitarian. Tess: Thank you. Dr. Sproul: You're welcome. Kuli: Hi, my name is Kuli Lynch, I'm from
Pittsburgh, California. My question today is about God's will. I've heard that God has a decretive will,
a perfect will, a permissive will, a will of command. So Dr. Sproul, how many wills does God have? Dr. Sproul: Well, before I try to answer that,
let me ask you how many Pittsburghs you think there are? You know, there's another one in Kansas or
in Missouri. You are in the right city, just the wrong
state. Kuli: Okay. Dr. Sproul: When we talk about the will of
God, it gets rather complicated because in the New Testament, there are two different
distinctive Greek words, both of which are translated by the English word “will.” It would be nice to say that if you wanted
to know which kind of the will of God the text was speaking of in a given a situation—we
look in the Greek and we say, well, if it's one word, it's that meaning. If it's the other word, it’s the other. Unfortunately, those two words are often used
interchangeably, so that doesn't help. But from the context of Scripture, we do distinguish
amongst several different words with respect to the will of God. For example, we speak of His sovereign efficacious
will. And we define that as that will which comes
to pass by necessity from the very force of God exercising that will. Sometimes we refer to that as the decretive
will. For whatever God decrees necessarily, by the
force of His sovereignty, comes to pass. But then we distinguish also the preceptive
will of God. This is where God reveals to us the commandments
that He gives, that He wants us to obey. But the very fact that God commands us to
love Him with all of our heart is not a sovereign, efficacious act of His will. Or we would automatically love Him with all
of our hearts. That is to say we can resist and disobey. In fact, we do disobey the preceptive will
all the time. And then we talk about the will of desire
or His effective will; what it has to do with God's disposition. That it doesn't please Him to send the wicked
to hell. He takes no delight in the death of the wicked,
in the sense of a gleeful enjoyment of their negative outcome. Nevertheless, He still decrees or commands
these people to be punished. And there are other nuances of the will of
God that we can find in the New Testament, but those are the three most significant that
are most frequently used. A passage you hear all the time in discussion
is that one that Peter uses when he says, “God is not willing that any should perish.” What does that mean? Well, if it’s a sovereign efficacious will,
then what? No one would perish. Or at least, no one in the category of any,
of which he's described. Now we hear that passage—God is not willing
that any should perish—I first ask, “Any what? Any grasshoppers, any orangutans, any human
beings?” Well, if you want to find out the answer to
that, you look to the antecedent to the word, and it's the word “us.” God is not willing that any of us should perish. So if that's the case, then I would assume
that's the sovereign will of God. If it means not any person, then the text
proves too much. It would mean that God is sovereignly decreeing
that nobody perishes. And if that's the case, no one would perish. And so it gets very complicated when you get
to the individual text, but the individual text has to be interpreted by the immediate
context of the text, and the context of the rest of Scripture before we land definitively
on which particular view of the will of God is being used. Kuli: Thank you. Dr. Sproul: You're welcome. Don: Dr. Sproul, my name is Don. In Pilgrim’s Progress, one of the most important
phrases about death: Hopeful a Christian come to the river and they are told, “You shall
find it deeper or shallower as you believe in the King of this place.” What is the biblical meaning of this sentence? Dr. Sproul: I think that refers to this—that
if you understand who the Lord of life and the Lord of death is, then our swimming in
that death is in a very shallow place because it's not something that's going to absolutely
overwhelm us. On the other hand, if we have a superficial
view of the King of kings and we think that death is not presided over by God, then the
place of the water is the depths that will destroy us once and for all. Now, I'm responding to your quotation of that
because I haven't read that book in 30 years. And if I had it in front of me right now,
I may give you a different answer, but that's my prima facie response. But you have the men there that are with you
in this conference that could give that a more precise and accurate answer than I am
giving you right now. Don: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. Dr. Sproul: You bet you. Martine: Good afternoon, Sproul. My name is Martine, I'm from Placerville,
California. My wife and I have benefited from your ministry
for a couple years now. So I just want to say thank you. And my question was, could you define Theonomy. And if you have time, elaborate on your views
on the subject. Dr. Sproul: Yes, Theonomy, the word itself
is made up of two parts, two words that are put together—the word theos which means
“God,” and nomos, which is a Greek word for “law.” And so the word itself simply means “the
law of God.” Now, all Christians believe that we are to
obey the law of God whenever He gives it. But that doesn't mean that all Christians
are theonomists in the sense of this particular movement. This particular movement, which was generated
in the 20th century, is a movement that is trying to restore the significance of the
Old Testament law to the lives of the New Testament Christian. Historically, within Reformed theology, we've
always maintained that there is some portion of the Old Testament law that carries over
into the New Testament. The sacrificial system does not serve for
the ceremonial law, is abrogated. And the dietary laws, we know were abrogated
in the book of Acts. But what we call the moral law is we say as
Reformed people, “Thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery,” that sort of
thing. That all still applies to the New Testament
Christian. To deny that any of the Old Testament law
applies to the New Testament Christian has historically been called antinomianism or
anti-lawism, anti-Old Testament law. Theonomy has come about to speak against the
widespread antinomianism that has infiltrated the church so much in our day. But they go beyond simply saying that the
moral law of the Old Testament applies to the New Testament Christian, and argues that
the civil sanctions of Old Testament law such as execution for homosexual behavior or for
publicly disgracing your parents, that sort of thing—that those civil sanctions as you
find in the Old Testament, should also be applied in the new covenant situation. And that the Christian should be trying to
establish a kind of theocratic state in which the Old Testament laws continue to be applied
in our day. So there's been a lot of controversy over
that and I'll say this, on behalf of the scholars who originated this movement; they've done
some of the finest work of anybody in the last hundred years on the meaning of the Old
Testament law. And so I have a great appreciation for them
though I'm not counted as a member of their camp. Martine: Thank you very much, Dr. Sproul. God bless. Dr. Sproul: You're welcome. Jim: Hello, Dr. Sproul. My name is Jim and I minister in a mainline
domination church still. And we are wracked with the issue of homosexual
marriage and similar things these days as you're probably aware. What is the path forward for the church in
reaching out in God's love and compassion, but yet truth to the homosexual community
around us? Dr. Sproul: Well, the rule of God is the word
to reach out to people in all walks of life and all circumstances and sorts. And that Jesus is our supreme example of reaching
out to sinners. But He doesn't reach out to them to tell them
to continue in sin. And so to be loving and kind and respectful
to people who are involved in what the Bible not only considers sin, but rather gross and
heinous sin, we are to express a loving concern for them, but not at the same time indicating
approval. Now, you mentioned that you were a member
of a mainline church, and there are mainline churches who have, in my judgment, stopped
being churches on issues just like this because they will not exercise discipline in the event
of gross and heinous sin. And when a church does that, it stops being
a church. And in my judgment, I would say that you need
to get out of it if you're in a church like that. Now, let me back up and just say, just yesterday,
I was reading Calvin again. And Calvin was talking about how we ought
not to leave a local church or a denomination on insignificant grounds. It would have to be something of a gross and
enormous transgression of biblical Christianity. But I think this is one of those. And also, I don't know which church it is,
but there are churches out there that publicly and ecclesiastically endorse abortion on demand. I don't think you can stay inside there and
try to reform it from inside. You've got to get out of there. But anyway, that's not what you asked me. You asked me how we’re supposed to treat
the homosexuals. And we're supposed to treat them with the
love that Jesus would be, and we should be Christ to our neighbor and that we should
be as kind and as gentle as we possibly can while we're telling them that they need to
repent of their lifestyle. Jim: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. Al: Hi there Dr. Sproul. I've been listening to your radio program
for a long time—very much enjoy it. And again, my name's Al Norman. But I had a question on what's the difference
between the Reformed doctrine and the dispensationalist view of that type of doctrine. Can you explain a little bit the differences
between the two? Dr. Sproul: How much time do we have? Al: I think only 15 seconds. Dr. Sproul: Let me say this, that usually
when the two schools of thought are compared or contrasted, most of the attention is given
to Eschatology; the doctrine of last things and how we understand the events surrounding
the return of Jesus. Historically, however, with classical dispensationalism,
the differences between dispensationalism and Reformed theology are radical. Dispensationalists, of course, have this view
of interpreting Scripture on the basis of the interpreting according to these different
dispensations and so on. But more significantly, is the significant
difference in soteriology. Customarily, dispensationalists say that they’re
four-point Calvinists with respect to the five points of Calvinism, where they embrace
four of the five—the one they deny is limited atonement. That's another matter. And that's of course, a significant matter. But the biggest difference I think, is between
the understanding of what happens when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person and brings
them to saving faith. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of
the carnal Christian. The idea of a person can be converted to Jesus
as savior, but not as Lord. That he can be truly regenerated and have
no moral change in his life and still be saved. Reformed theology has no time for that whatsoever. We don't acknowledge anybody's ever been reborn
by the Holy Spirit without being changed. Because regeneration sovereignly affects a
change in the person's life. And if there is no evidence of that, no fruit
of that, that indicates that the person was never converted in the first place. And so I would say to you, look carefully
at the dispensational view of regeneration and you'll see that what is the heart and
soul of the basic differences in terms of the whole system of theology. Al: Thank you. Dr. Sproul: You're welcome. William: Hi, Dr. Sproul. My name is William Staley, I'm from Fresno,
California. And this is my first Ligonier conference,
and I wanted to say that I'm truly enjoying myself. So I have a question for you. In the Bible, God changes the name of Jacob,
which means “deceiver” to Israel. And God continues to call Himself the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And I wanted to know what your understanding
of why God continues to call Himself that. Dr. Sproul: That's an interesting question,
a good question. Because usually, what happens in Scripture,
that when a person's name is changed, it indicates that their character has been changed by some
act of God's grace. Abram becomes Abraham, Saul and Paul, and
everything. Yet at the same time, there's not an absolute
discontinuity between their former name and their new name. And one of the things that makes this question
that you've asked even all the more complicated, is because when God changes Jacob's name to
Israel, sometimes after that, God will still refer to Jacob as Jacob. And He'll refer to Israel as the nation of
Israel, and not specifically Jacob himself. And yet other times, He's referring to Israel,
meaning the person Jacob, whose new name is now Israel. And if you try to work all those together,
you better be prepared for an Excedrin headache number three, because they can become very,
very difficult. But again, God originally revealed Himself
first to Abraham as Abram. And then He revealed Himself to Jacob while
Jacob was still Jacob. And then He reveals Himself to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. And so when God reveals Himself by the name
of the one who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He's talking about His history
with his people. He is the one who revealed Himself to these
three persons. We could say the same thing in the New Testament,
that He's the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Saul. Or we could say He's the God of Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and Paul. Does that help? William: Yes, thank you. Dr. Sproul: Good. Wen: Good afternoon, Dr. Sproul. I'm Wen Ling from San Francisco. Before my question, I wanted to express my
gratitude for your book Chosen by God. I read it like over 20 years ago. It really deepened my appreciation for God's
grace. My question is related to this; many evangelicals
believe in Arminianism. How did this error in doctrine affect their
walk and are they still saved? Dr. Sproul: You know, I
get that question a lot—“Are they still saved?” I certainly hope so and believe so because
I was one for five years after I was converted, before I became reformed in my theology. And I believe that I was in a state of grace
at that time. And I think that that Arminianism is an extremely
defective and weak theology, and one that has serious consequences and ramifications
for the church in general and for the Christian individual in particular. But are they saved? I always like to say yes, but by a happy inconsistency. If they really believe what they say they
believe, then I don't think they would be saved. Because they will affirm justification by
faith alone, the work of Christ and all of those orthodox things. But you ask them why is it that they're saved
and their neighbor isn't? They will say that God gave grace both to
them and to their neighbor, but they said yes to that grace and cooperated with it. Their neighbor said no and rejected it. And so I say to my Arminian friends, “So
you did the good thing, they did the bad thing. So you have something to boast, they have
only sin. And so you have done the right thing, they've
done the wrong thing. So your work in the final analysis is the
decisive factor for your being saved. Where the bad work of your neighbor is the
decisive factor why they're not saved.” Now, when I say that to my Arminian friends,
to their credit, they always say, “No, no, no, no, no, no. I don't believe that I'm saved on the basis
of my works, and that my neighbor is damned by his bad works. I don't believe that.” They don't believe that, but I'm telling them,
“But that's what you should say if you're going to be consistent with your theology.” But fortunately, they're not consistent with
their theology. Wen: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. Participant: Hi Dr. Sproul, I join others
here in thanking you for your ministry. For the most part, my spiritual walk has been
one of the Norman Rockwell suburban. I walk in faith, but besides praying and financially
supporting the persecuted church, how can Americans even share in—right now as we
speak, people all over the world and being tortured and killed for Christ. I have no clue what that's like. How can we prepare our hearts besides prayer
and financially supporting them? I have no idea when Christ says, “I've been
persecuted, they'll hate Me and they're going to hate you,” I have no idea what that means
other than maybe an argument. I mean, my greatest joys have been, “I found
a parking spot, I got the job.” And those are fine, those are great. But what do we do as Americans? What do we do in this in this affluent country
with my affluent face, despite my own struggles, I have no clue what it's like to be persecuted,
none! What do we do? How do we prepare our hearts? Dr. Sproul: Well, that's a great question
but we don't want to underestimate the importance of praying for these people, for our brothers
and sisters, because that's an important work that we do. And God hears the cries of His people as He
has for centuries and millennia, actually, when people groan out to Him in the midst
of this persecution. If you have any direct personal knowledge
of any of these people, writing them or visiting them is an opportunity. I think of back in the sixteenth century when
the French Huguenots were arrested and were on trial and were going to be executed. And John Calvin picked up a pen and wrote
to them and encouraged them and prayed for them. And that's all he could do. He couldn't stop their execution, but he did
encourage them and they were greatly encouraged by that ministry of Calvin. And if you really want to know what to do
to help your persecuted brethren in the world today, instead of asking me, ask Franklin
Graham. Because Franklin Graham is tireless right
now in blowing the whistle to the American government saying, “You're standing by watching
these people being systematically exterminated simply because they're Christians.” And in the United States of America, the seeds
of that kind of persecution are being sewn. And we're starting to see them develop in
a way that was unthinkable 10 years ago. So you have to be deeply involved in the intercession,
speaking up on behalf of your brothers and sisters. And at the same time, preparing yourself and
your loved ones for what in all probability is soon to come to us. Participant: Thank you. Participant: Dr. Sproul? Dr. Sproul: Yes. Participant: Dr. Sproul? Dr. Sproul: Hello. Participant: Now, you know where we're located. Dr. Sproul: Yes, and I heard a rumor this
morning that they might have an NFL team out there next year. Participant: Dr. Sproul, where does evil come
from? Dr. Sproul: Oakland. Participant: Where's that? Dr. Sproul: Oakland. Jim: Dr. Sproul, my name is Jim Blyth, and
I'm from Oakland. Dr. Sproul: How's the snake doing there these
days? Jim: I thank God for men like you. And I mean that sincerely. I thank God for raising up men like you. My question is about Lazarus. The Lord raised him from the dead. Where did his soul go for those three days
that he laid in the tomb dead? And was he mad when he came back? Dr. Sproul: First of all, I can tell you where
his soul wasn't. It wasn't in Oakland. We have every reason to believe that once
his soul departed his body, it went where all the souls of believers went—it went
to heaven. And that it was brought back when he was raised
from the dead. And I guess, the last part of your question
presumed that part of the answer because you're asking, was he mad that Jesus brought him
back? But remember, if he would've just spent three
days in heaven, if you will, he would have been sanctified enough by then to have been
completely delighted and pleased to come back to help to fulfill the glorification of the
Lord Jesus Christ in his own, that is in Lazarus resurrection. So no, I don't think for a second that he
was angry. He may have been a little bit disappointed. But I don’t think that he would have been
angry with Jesus. Jim: Alright, thank you. David: Hello Dr. R.C. Sproul. My name is David Hanson. I'm 18 and this is my first Ligonier conference. And I'm working at my church and I'm starting
a Bible college in the fall. My one question is, what advice would you
give to young theologians or young preachers? There are quite a few young people here. Like, what would you say to yourself when
you were 18 wanting to do ministry? Dr. Sproul: Well, I would say the advice is
very simple; get in the word and get deeper in the Word, and stay in the Word, and live
in the Word, and then get back in the Word and get deeper in the Word. And that your whole sanctification will be
based as Jesus' prayer indicated in John 17 on the Word of God, which is truth. And so the best preparation you can have for
any vocation that God calls you to, or your whole life in general, for your family and
everything else, is to get the mind of Christ. And that comes through a serious, serious,
diligent study of His Word. David: Thank you, doctor. Dr. Sproul: You’re welcomed. Chris: Just a brief announcement—one of
the pastors here at the church said that we have some cars that are parked, I guess in
a no parking zone. And so if you are there, we need you to move
those cars as soon as possible, please. Dr. Sproul: And that gives us a nice example
of antinomianism. So you say, “Well, the dispensationalist,
please move their cars.” Ravi: Hey pastor, my name is Ravi Barrick
and the Lord has used you to feed me with a lot of spiritual truth. And so I can't thank Him enough for that. Really quick, I see God so loved the world
that He gave His only begotten Son. That same word is used, “As Jacob as I loved,
Esau have I hated” in the Greek. And I have a hard time understanding that
God loves His elect as He does the wicked. When God says too many on that day, “I never
knew you,” I believe that is talking about a love. Is that wrong? Does He love the wicked the same as He loves
His elect? Dr. Sproul: No. Let me say a couple of things about that. First of all, when the Bible says that, “God
so loved the world,” it doesn't say that He loved everybody in the world equally. But here's the world, the generic cosmos. God loved this fallen world enough to send
His only begotten Son into that world to save believers. Note that it doesn't say that He sent His
Son into the world to save everybody in the world, but rather to save those who would
put their faith in Him. Now in theology, we distinguish among three
different kinds of the love of God. We talk first of all about the benevolent
love of God. God's good will is bene-volence; His Goodwill
which He gives to the whole world. And we talk about common grace, where God
is kind to all sinners in the world to some degree. Then there's the will of beneficence, and
that is His good actions. God pours out His goodness upon all mankind. The sun falls on the unjust as well as upon
the just. But there's a third type of love, and that's
the love that we call the love of complacency. And there, the theological term, “complacency”
is not referring to an attitude of being at ease in Zion, the way we speak about being
complacent. Rather it describes that special love that
He has for His Son and those who are in His Son who are adopted into his heavenly family,
which are the redeemed or the saved. So that there is a special love that God has
for His redeemed that He does not have for the wicked, where the Bible at times will
speak of God's abhorring the evil doer, for example. Kelly: Dr. Sproul, it's a privilege to have
this opportunity to speak with you. My name is Kelly, I'm from Sacramento. What kind of advice would you give for a person
that feels called to proclaim Christ on the streets and wants to do that in a good way
that honors Christ? Would you have any advice for a street preacher? Dr. Sproul: Yes, I would ask him to contact
Saint Andrew's Church and get in contact with a man by the name of John Barrows, who preaches
on the sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic here in Orlando every day, and is one of the
most gifted and devout men of God I've ever met in my life. And if I were looking for advice on how to
do street preaching, he's the man I'd ask. Kelly: Amen, thank you. Alex: Hello Dr. Sproul, my name is Alex. I'm from Foster City, California. My question is, should the church receive
Roman Catholic baptism as valid? Dr. Sproul: Well, that's a difficult question. And it's a question that Reformed people are
divided upon. The basic question is this: was the Roman
Catholic baptism that was administered done in the name of the Trinity and done with water
with the intent to mark the person with the promises of God for His covenant? If you’ve come to conclusion that that was
the original intent of the Roman baptism, then it would seem to me that it is not a
requirement that that person be re-baptized. Now, the other side of that coin and the other
side of the position that people in the Reformed church take is this—they say that since
in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic church condemned and anathematized the gospel,
that she ceased being a Christian body at that time. So that therefore, all of her ordinances and
sacraments would henceforth be invalid. Now the question is, becomes more foggy when
we go back in church history to the Donatist controversy in which priests who had caved
to the pressure of persecution and were numbered among the so-called, lapsey, those who had
lapsed in the faith and they continued to administer the sacrament. Even though they had lapsed from the faith,
was their baptism valid? Augustine dealing with that issue at the time
answered the question in the affirmative that yes, their baptism was valid because the validity
of the baptism is not determined by the one who administers it. But the one who is administering it is administering
a promise that God makes to people to receive certain benefits of the work of Christ if
and when they come to faith. And so the integrity of the sacrament rests
with the integrity of God, not with the one who administers it. So you have these two sides. The way I generally treat it is this: that
if a person who had evangelical baptism as an infant for example, and comes to me and
wants me to re-baptize him, I won't do it. If a person comes to me who was baptized in
a Roman Catholic environment as an infant and comes to me and says, they don't believe
in the validity of that baptism, would I baptize them? I usually will. So it's one of those questions that's really
complicated and complex, but I've basically told you the gist of my view here. Alex: Thank you. Dr. Sproul: You bet. Michael: Hello, Dr. Sproul, my name is Michael. I'm from the San Francisco Bay area. I like to begin by apologizing on behalf of
the Giants for the shut out that Bumgarner threw against the Pirates last season. Dr. Sproul: Thank you very much. It wasn't a very nice thing that he did. Michael: No. Yeah, he felt horrible bumping the Pirates
out of the first round. My question is this: how is it that the Roman
Catholic Church regard the Apostle Peter as the first Pope when the Roman church didn't
exist in Peter's day as it does today? Dr. Sproul: Well, they believe, the argument
that they give is from the Caesarea Philippi confession where Jesus pronounces His blessing
on Peter. He says, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah,
thou art Petrus and upon this rock I will build My church.” And at that point they believe that Peter
was instituted by Christ as the first Bishop of Rome or the first Pope. From a historical perspective, we don't have
absolute certain information that Peter was ever even in Rome, not to mention being the
Bishop of Rome. But most of us will grant that he probably
was in Rome at one time or another and could even take the position that he was Bishop
of Rome. But it was several, many, many years later
that we saw the rise of what's called the mono episcopacy, where the Bishop of Rome
was considered primus inter pares—the first among equals, and that gradual elevation of
the Bishop of Rome to the pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church took a long time to establish. Michael: Thank you very much
Tracy: Hi Dr. Sproul, my name is Tracy from Torrance, California. My question is related to, we've heard a great
emphasis on truth and the use of our minds as we approach God and certainly reverence
towards God. How does that translate into a corporate church
body in terms of worship versus emotion? We see a stoic, reserved attitude versus a
very expressive emotional. How do you balance those? Dr. Sproul: Well, it's a good question to
ask about balance because we're not stoics. If we have a clear understanding of the majesty
of God, His beauty of His holiness and His glory, and understand it in our heads, our
hearts should be a flame and on fire to express that with joy and worship and adoration, and
all the rest. So emotion is not a bad thing in worship,
it's a good thing in worship. But if the mind is bypassed and there's no
understanding, then you're talking about emotionalism, not just simple passion or feeling or emotion. And I do think that we have seen in our day
a serious departure from the gravity of sacred worship, whereby our minds are almost removed
from the whole process. I think we're going to pay the piper for that
in the long haul. Tracy: Thank you. Robert: Hello Dr. Sproul, my name is Robert
Vasquez. I have a question. I spend a lot of time studying the law and
one of the things that I've kind of like come about that I thought was a really interesting
question is, I know that there's laws that talk about during sacrifices that you pour
out the blood of the sacrifice, and that you're not to drink the blood. But I was wondering is there's some sort of
significance in that in contrast to the communion where we are drinking the blood of Christ? Dr. Sproul: Well, yes, in one hand, the prohibition
against drinking blood is one that I think is given more than any other reason for health
reasons. Because except in the most primitive nations
in the world, the drinking of animal blood can be fatal to human beings. And how I contrast that with a drinking of
blood of Christ is that I don't think we drink the blood of Christ. I think we drink wine, which represents the
blood of Christ. But if we would be able to drink the blood
of Christ, the blood belongs to His human nature, not to His divine nature. The divine nature has no blood. And if you're drinking the blood of Jesus
in Boston, Sacramento, London, and Paris all on the same day, that would mean that the
human nature of Jesus would have to be spread around the whole world. And for that to happen, He would have to have
the divine attribute of ubiquity or omnipresence. Which historically, the church at Chalcedon,
when it defined Orthodox Christology, said that the two natures; he has a real human
nature and a real divine nature; vere homo, vere Deus. And that the two natures, the mystery of the
incarnation are without confusion or mixture, separation and division; each nature retaining
its own attributes. For the church to be drinking the actual human
blood of Jesus in more than one place at the same time, in my judgment, is a clear violation
of Chalcedon and biblical Christianity. So I don't think we should talk like that. Tony: Good morning Dr. Sproul. I thank you for everything. My name is Tony. I was born at Providence Hospital in Oakland,
California, but I come from Elk Grove. This my question: when I was growing up, I
was taught the fourth commandment was, “Keep holy the Lord’s day.” Is that still a commandment for us, and how
can we as twenty-first century Christians really keep holy the Lord’s Day? Dr. Sproul: Thank you for that question. The great St. Augustine said that nine of
the ten Old Testament laws from the Decalogue are carried over the New Testament except
the one that isn’t, is the law regarding the Sabbath. As much as I love Augustine and appreciate
him and I’m indebted to him, I disagree with him on that point. I think the New Testament still carries the
sanctity of Sabbath forward, thought it changes it from the seventh day of the week to the
first day for the week in honor of the resurrection. But the big debate among the people who are
still Sabbatarians is whether we follow the continental view of the Sabbath or the Puritan
view of the Sabbath. The continental view of the Sabbath said that
the church on the Sabbath day every week should be involved in corporate worship—that that’s
a mandate. That’s still in effect. And secondly, that it is a time of rest and
cessation of their normal labor. And then the rest of the time can be spent
in recreation. The Puritan view is not only no labor, also
no recreation. And the rest of the time given over to worship. And that’s a debate that’s been going
on for centuries and will continue to. But one thing both have in common is that
the seventh day is to be sacred, and especially, a time set apart for corporate worship. It’s a holy day, really the holy day that
God Himself has set apart. And that the establishment of the Sabbath
was not established simply at Sinai, but was established in creation. Which means that it’s always in effect in
this world. And we’ve lost a lot in our culture by the
desecration of the Sabbath Day. Tony: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. Chris: Alright, our last question. Bill: Good afternoon, my name is Bill Vander-Kooi
from Fresno, California. And the theme here is on the book, The Pilgrim’s
Progress. And years ago, I was at one of your conferences
and I bought your first novel, Johnny Come Home. Is that worth any money now? I’m just curious. Is that a classic that I might have in my
library? Chris: Can somebody check eBay real quick? Dr. Sproul: It’s the great American novel. Bill: What’s that? Dr. Sproul: It’s the great American novel. Bill: Okay. And my next question is Pilgrim’s Progress
is a classic. What do you read to kind of inspire you beside
the Bible? What books have really challenged you and
encouraged you? Dr. Sproul: I have a tendency to gravitate
towards the great classics of Christian literature to the works of Augustine, to the works of
Aquinas, to the works of Calvin and Luther, Edwards, Turretin—those are the people I
keep coming back to again and again and again, because I think they’re the best that the
Lord has given us in the history of the church and I commend them to you as well. Bill: Thank you. Chris: Well, Dr. Sproul, could you maybe show
us a little bit of another gentleman that you lean on there, sits right there on your
desk and he whispers in your ear often there. Can you show us who’s there? Dr. Sproul: Well, every time I have a lecture,
he just goes like that. Chris: Can you hold it up a little bit for
us? Dr. Sproul: Yeah, he agrees with me all the
time. Chris: Martin Luther, right there. Thank you, Dr. Sproul. Dr. Sproul: You’re welcome. Thank you all out there.
