WEBB: Okay, our first questioner; I believe
we met you last night, you're from Arizona. Would you state your name and where you're
from and your question for Dr. Sproul? QUESTIONER: My name is Kristi Althof, I'm
from Sierra Vista, Arizona. Thank you for being here, Dr. Sproul. So my question is, in chapter 23 of Deuteronomy,
it states that a Moabite shall not enter the Assembly of God even to the 10th generation. How then, does David come before the Lord
at the tabernacle when he is a descendant of Ruth who is a Moabitess? SPROUL: Well, I think that's easy. David was David, and he was able to transcend
all of those problems vaguely related to Ruth. But again, that's a general and generic prohibition. And I also think that it's a statement that
is somewhat elliptical. And what an elliptical statement is in Scripture,
is something that is left out that is to be supplied on the basis of the general understanding
of the teaching of the Word of God. And even though it's true, that in terms of
descendancy, David was from the descendant of a Moabitess, but, she was not a practicing
Moabitess. She was one who embraced the religion of God. And so I think that that gives her a pass
as far as that prohibition, because I think the implied elliptical understanding is that
somebody who is a practicing Moabite cannot come into the presence of the Assembly of
God. I hope that's okay. But I hope the rest of the questions aren't
as hard as that one. (Laughs). QUESTIONER: Good afternoon, Dr. Sproul. My name's Jordan Brock, I'm a new student
minister in Reedley, California right outside of Fresno. And my question for you today is as a new
student minister who preaches and teaches to middle school and high school students
every week, how can I respectfully respond to parents, people in the church and sometimes
even pastors over authority over me who encourage me to entertain the students, sometimes even
dumb down our activities at expense of faithful teaching of God's Word. How can I respond in a respectful way? SPROUL: Well, again, I think with a spirit
of humility and patience and long suffering, recognizing that these people are in authority
over you. Yet at the same time, we know that we are
to respond and obey all who are in the situations of authority over us unless, they command
us to do something God forbids or forbids us from doing something that God commands. And so, I think that you have to deal with
the ethical issues of that and though you give as much respect and humility as you possibly
can, you have to be consistent with the mandate that God gives you in your ministry. QUESTIONER: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. SPROUL: You're welcome. QUESTIONER: Good morning, Dr. Sproul. My name is Officer Wyatt Foster, I'm a peace
officer. I'm used to testifying in court and just saying
my name like that. My question for you this morning is, if Jesus
and Paul used harsh words against their opponents in Scripture, does that give us permission
as believers today to do the same? SPROUL: That's a good question officer, and
I'll try to answer it to you. Unfortunately, I can't answer it for you this
morning, because I'm in Florida and it's afternoon for me. So you're going to have to accept my afternoon
answer and apply it to your morning inquiry that you gave. Surely, you have evidences of Jesus and Paul
using language that today, we might even regard as being intemperate. That's one of the reasons why down through
the ages, Christians weren't all that hesitant to use some very fierce language as you saw
in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century on both sides of the debate. But at the same time, we have provisions in
teaching of Scripture - but first of all, I'm not Jesus and I'm not the Apostle Paul,
that I don't speak with the absolute authority that they do. God is not a respecter of persons. We have to show respect for everybody that
comes into our orbit. And so, I think that we should do everything
in our power to avoid that kind of inflammatory language that we may be tempted to use in
the middle of the heat of controversy. But I think again, we are to show a certain
charity even to those who are fiercely against us. QUESTIONER: Thank you. WEBB: R.C, before we go on, we have a rather
timid group here because we don't have that many questioners. So I want to encourage those of you to come
forward. Now, you've heard the old saying that there
are no stupid questions? R.C doesn’t believe that. SPROUL: I know, but I think I'm about to hear
one. WEBB: R.C, that was not the segue I was anticipating. But we do have a special questioner here for
you. MACARTHUR: I'm working hard to think of a
stupid question. No, listen, I played golf with you a few years
ago and you certainly weren't at that point playing the game that you played before and
that you loved. And I just want to deal with the truth and
I know you do too, is it true that you got a hole in one, recently? SPROUL: No. I got a hole in three recently, which was
even more extraordinary. A hole in three occurs when you're on a par
three and you put your first shot in the water, and you tee it up a second time and that time
you hit it in the hole. So, I had a hole in one twice removed. MACARTHUR: Hey, if you're a pastor, you get
a mulligan. So it's a real hole in one. SPROUL: Thank you, John. I won't forget that. QUESTIONER: Hello, Dr. Sproul. I have a question about, has there been any
evidence of the change of opinion since the Manhattan Declaration or a clear understanding
from the evangelical community as a whole from then? Have you seen any change because of your stance
and MacArthur’s? SPROUL: I haven't seen anything that's all
that provocative. I've talked to some of those who were signatories
of the Manhattan Declaration, and I'm not going to mention any specific names. But I've had some people who are in a strong
leadership position of the Manhattan Declaration who've told me that they agreed with me now
on my problems with it, and that they regretted having signed it. But as far as the general response and the
general evangelical community, I haven't really seen much of a change. And I see that there is this ongoing sense
that the Reformation is over and that we share unity in the gospel with people of other religions,
and that sort of thing. And that's pervasive among the evangelical
world today. And I think we have to be patient with it
and yet at the same time, we have to maturely resist it. QUESTIONER: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. SPROUL: Yes sir. QUESTIONER: Hi, good morning, Dr. Sproul. SPROUL: How’re you? Good afternoon. QUESTIONER: I'm Colin Ann, from Portugal. So my question is in Genesis 6:6, says, “The
Lord regretted that He made man on earth.” And so, my question in this is, how can the
Lord regret something if He knows everything from the beginning? SPROUL: Ok. Thank you very much for that question. It's a very good question, a provocative question. Obviously, if we look at the whole context
and teaching of sacred Scripture, we know that it's utterly impossible for God to regret
anything, including the making of this corruptive and rebellious creature called mankind. But the Bible speaks in human language on
many occasions. As Calvin said, God stutters when He speaks. He stoops to our level and speaks to us as
children. And so, you'll read that God owns the cattle
on a thousand hills. And we know that that is language that is
symbolic and personification. And we know that God is not literally a cattle
rancher who comes down to the O.K. Corral every now and then to have a shootout with
the devil. And so, even though the Bible uses human language
or what we call anthropocentric language to describe God, including such anthropocentricities,
as stating that He has regrets. God is immutable and omniscient. He knows what He's doing from all eternity
and He knew what would happen before it happened. And so there's really no ultimate possibility
for regret. Again, that's speaking in anthropomorphic
language - that is language in human form, because we are anthropoid, we are humans. And that's how God speaks to us in our language. But again, the Bible in these narratives statements
like that will then balance it out later in the didactic statements and say, “God is
not a man that He should lie or that He should die” or that sort of thing. So I think that’s just a matter of literary
understanding. QUESTIONER: Thank you. SPROUL: You're welcome. QUESTIONER: Hi, my name is Deanna. I was part of a long conversation last night
with a couple of friends, and we were discussing double predestination. And my question is, what is double predestination? SPROUL: There's a lot of misunderstanding
about double predestination. There are some communities that believe in
what they call single predestination. Meaning, that God has eternally decreed to
save certain people that He's appointed for salvation - that is the elect. But as for the rest, He simply passes over
and still holds out the opportunity for those people to be saved. Now, often, double predestination is expressed
in what we call a synergistic fashion, or a fashion that is called positive-positive
decrees. In this respect, double predestination would
mean that God positively decrees and determines in advance those whom He will save, namely
the elect. And, in the same method, He decrees the damnation
of the sinner, and just as on the one hand, He creates positively saving faith in the
hearts of the elect in an equally determinist fashion creates fresh evil in the hearts of
the reprobate to make sure they don't come to belief. Now, that is not the Reformed doctrine of
double predestination. Reformed theology does teach that double predestined
in so far as not everybody will be saved. And so it's double or nothing, really. You can't have single predestination and just
ignore the non-elect, unless you're a Universalist. But the distinction is this, we have what
we call a positive negative decree or an asymmetrical view of election. I have an essay on this whole subject in the
Festschrift that was written for John Gerstner several years ago, where I wrote extensively
on this subject of double predestination. But the positive negative says that God positively
involves Himself in working faith and creating faith in the hearts of the elect, while He
simply passes over the non-elect without forcing them into unbelief or creating any kind of
fresh evil in them. So it's positive on one hand where He intervenes
to create faith negative, and the other hand where He doesn't intervene and create fresh
evil. I hope that clarifies it a little bit for
you. QUESTIONER: Yes, thank you. QUESTIONER: Hi, Dr. Sproul. My name is Martina Saia and I'm from Mission
for Christ Indonesian church. I've learned your book about TULIP in ‘94
when some students from Indonesia went to reform theological school in Orlando. And my question is, is it necessary for church,
for pastors in a church setting challenge congregation to accept Jesus Christ as their
personal savior? Because many churches sent missionaries far,
far away as far as Africa, as far as Asia. But what about congregation in the church
setting? Is it fair that they are challenged to accept
Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Thank you. SPROUL: Thank you. Augustine wrote many years ago that the church
is a corpus permixtum - that is a mixed body that includes both wheat and the tares. And the tares grow along with the wheat, and
we can't read the hearts of people. Now, I don't think that it's appropriate to
preach every Sunday on evangelism and talking about trying to call people to salvation every
single time. Because the purpose of church and the sermon
primarily, is to develop the growth of people who have already made a profession of faith. It's a gathering of Christians. Now again, since I've just said a moment ago
that there is a mixed body, you would be naive to assume that everybody who's in your congregation
on Sunday morning is a born again person. And so it is appropriate to call people, not
just to a profession of faith, but to have a genuine profession of faith. And not only do we have, is it appropriate,
but it's necessary. We heard the end of John MacArthur's message
on Acts 17:1. He talked about - that God said the days of
ignorance are over. And that He now commands all men everywhere
to repent because He's appointed a day by which He will judge the world in righteousness,
and He's appointed the judge who is the resurrected Christ. And so I think we have to make that aware
to our congregations, even though they've made a profession of faith. I warn my people all the time that a profession
of faith never saved anybody. It's the possession of faith that you have
to have. And remember that Judgment Day is coming and
you will be judged by whether or not you have genuine faith or not. I hope that answers it for you. QUESTIONER: Thank you, excellent. SPROUL: Thank you. QUESTIONER: Hello, Dr. Sproul. My name is Jerry and I just have a quick question
for you. I have friends at my college, they accused
you and Dr. MacArthur as people who understand and teach Trinity as Father, Son and the Holy
Bible. And I just wanted to know how would you respond
to that? Any wisdom for me? How I can respond to that? To my friends? SPROUL: The accusers are speaking of Father,
Son and the Holy Bible or did you mean the Holy Spirit? QUESTIONER: Holy Bible, as the teaching and
understanding of Trinity. SPROUL: That the Bible is part of the Trinity? QUESTIONER: Yeah. Well, I have heard it. Well, they are well aware of your stance and
Dr. MacArthur's stance on the Scripture, like how you affirm it. And also, they also know your stance on the
work of the Holy Spirit, specifically, and understanding of Strange Fire Conference - how
you spoke and like Dr. MacArthur's stance is on that. So, I just want to know how I can respond
to that to my friends. SPROUL: Well, okay. As far as your friends are concerned, I would
say that Dr. MacArthur and I never in the slightest ever elevated Scripture to deity. It's the word of deity, but it's not deity. Now, we believe in the full Trinity of the
Holy Spirit. And we believe the Holy Spirit inspired and
superintended the giving of sacred Scripture. Now, when we have the issue of Neo-Pentecostal
theology, we have differences between classical historic orthodoxy and the movement that started
in the 19th century with Neo-Pentecostalism and their understanding of the work of the
Holy Spirit. And there are lots of points of agreement
among us, but there are also some significant points of disagreement. And so I would ask you to go back and look
at or listen to the messages that we gave at that event. I wasn't there present, live, but I gave a
video lecture on understanding the significance of the Day of Pentecost, and how it was reduplicated
in all of the groups that were of important interest in the early church. It was given to the Jews, it was given to
the God-fearers, it was given to the Gentiles, and you had Pentecost as it were occurring
for the Jews and for the Ephesians and for the God-fearers at Cornelius’ household
and so on. So that you see that what I think that the
Book of Acts was teaching, and what the apostles themselves saw when they had inquiries to
interpret the significance of these historic outpourings of the Holy Spirit. They read the significance, is that all of
God's people were receiving the outpouring and empowering for the gospel of the God,
the Holy Spirit. I think that's the principal difference that
we experience today. QUESTIONER: Thank you. QUESTIONER: Hello, Dr. Sproul. How are you? SPROUL: I'm fine, how are you? QUESTIONER: Great, great. So my question is pretty specific: is separation
in marriage permitted in Scripture? And if it is, what would qualify that? SPROUL: You mean divorce? QUESTIONER: Just separation between the married
couple. SPROUL: Oh, just separation? QUESTIONER: Yes sir, yes sir. SPROUL: Well, you have the biblical sanction
for temporary separation for religious purposes, and whether or not you can draw from that
a basis for the legal concept of legal separation, which many people endorse and accept. But that's a little bit stretching of the
point, I think, from the temporary separation from conjugal expression in the New Testament. And of course, the Bible does give (I believe)
grounds, just grounds for divorce on the basis of pornea or immorality, and on the basis
of the separation of the non-believer. And so, I mean there are those who will take
the view that divorce is never okay according to Scripture. I think they neglect the exceptive clause
that Matthew gives and Jesus' teaching on the question. But also, there are those who want to have
a very easy path to divorce, no fault divorce – and you can divorce for just about any
reason that you want. And so, we have a crisis with the sanctity
of marriage in our culture and in our church today, where very few people are really trying
to understand what God teaches about marriage. You know, in the classical marriage ceremony,
you hear - this is used by many, many different church denominations. It says that God has instituted marriage,
that Jesus has sanctified it. But that marriage is not only instituted by
God, but it's regulated by God's commandment. And so when we look at this question, when
the marriage begins to have tension and trouble, we need to understand that God has rules and
regulations for how and when and under what circumstances it's legitimate for that marriage
to be terminated. QUESTIONER: Do you mind if I ask a follow-up
question? Just specifics? SPROUL: No. QUESTIONER: So, in the churches where they
say emotional or physical abuse, would that merit a separation then? SPROUL: Oh, that's two different things. Emotional abuse - I mean that's so vague,
and amorphous. You don't know what that says. Physical abuse – and many churches understand
physical abuse to be a kind of immorality, a kind of basic adultery because you're violating
the marriage vows and violating the sanctity of the marriage vows. But I would say that theologians are divided
on that question of whether or not physical abuse rises to the level of grounds for a
divorce. I think in certain circumstances it may, but
it is very difficult. QUESTIONER: Thank you. QUESTIONER: Hello, Dr. Sproul. My question though was, given that the Bible
clearly commands us to respect and obey government institutions, how should we view the American
Revolution? SPROUL: Well, those who were Christians at
the time had strong differing views, particularly between the Anglicans and the Presbyterians. The Anglicans were saying that there was no
Christian justification for revolution, and the Presbyterians were arguing that there
was moral justification and biblical justification for the revolution based on the issue of the
authority of lesser magistrates. And here was the issue there - that parliament
had illegally imposed a tyrannical activity and tax on the colonists in the 18th century. And the Magna Carta gave the authority to
the people to protest against unlawful tyrannical acts. And so the lesser magistrates in the colonies,
those who were giving governmental authority in the colonies, it was viewed by Presbyterians
at the time, that those lesser magistrates of the local magistrates in the colonies had
the authority to protest the tyrannical actions of parliament. Now, if you ask me who was right, ultimately,
I'm going to have to wait to heaven to find out the answer to that question. But I think that's a very difficult question
and not an easy one to grasp. But I wish that we lived in a time today where
the only tax we had was on tea. QUESTIONER: Thank you. SPROUL: You’re welcomed. QUESTIONER: Hi Dr. Sproul. My name is David Kim, I attend a church here. My question is, how should we understand the
idea of generational curses down in Exodus 20:5-6, especially in light of other passages
such as Ezekiel 18, where it says, “A son won't suffer punishment for the father's iniquity,
and a father won't suffer punishment for the son's iniquity.” SPROUL: Right. Well, I think, there are a lot of people who
would see that as a contradiction in Scripture because we’re warned in Exodus for example,
that violations of the covenant will have consequences to the second or third generations
or fourth generations and so on. What now we find Ezekiel is saying is that
the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. And Ezekiel makes it very clear that God does
not hold the descendants morally responsible for the sins of the father. So how do we square those? I would say this, that as far as God's judgment
is concerned, the second or third generation is not going to be held guilty for the sin
of the original sinner. However, what I think the point of the Pentateuch
is, is that the sin of the fathers has consequences long after the father dies, to the second,
third, and fourth generations. If I live a reprobate life and godless life,
the chances are that the repercussions of my sin will impact dramatically my children
and grandchildren, so that sin has a long lasting impact. And I think that's the point of the generational
consequence issue. QUESTIONER: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. QUESTIONER: Good afternoon, Dr. Sproul. SPROUL: How about somebody asked me an easy
question? QUESTIONER: This probably is not easy - maybe
it is. Do you have any concerns about the current
spiritual formation movement? In particular, how one of their practices
is to teach you how to hear God's voice speak to you while you are in prayer? SPROUL: Yeah, I would have grave concerns
about that. I mean, these kinds of movements come and
go, but they're basically really not new. This is basically an attempt to have God's
revelation given to us beyond the scope of Scripture. There's enough information that God has revealed
to us in sacred Scripture by which we are to live our lives. The will of God is this, that we are to be
holy, and that we are to be sanctified. And that is by following where we know God
has revealed Himself. You start looking for private revelations
elsewhere, you're opening the door to the very kind of idolatry that John MacArthur
was speaking about earlier. QUESTIONER: Yes, thank you so much, Dr. Sproul. God bless you. SPROUL: Thank you. QUESTIONER: Good morning, Dr. Sproul or should
I say good afternoon to you in Florida? Yes. SPROUL: Thank you. QUESTIONER: My name is Trevor Sheets. It's an honor to be able to speak with you. I apologize in advance for the somewhat difficult
question. It is this, by being unable to perfectly obey
the greatest and second greatest commandment, are we constantly living in an active state
of sin? SPROUL: Yes (laughs). QUESTIONER: God bless you. SPROUL: Do you want me to elaborate on that? Anytime I disobey a law of God, I'm sinning
against God. And even though we are forgiven and we are
justified and we've been covered by the righteousness of Christ - the old saying of Luther was simul
justus et peccator (at the same time just and sinner). I have not been glorified, I have not been
perfectly sanctified, and so I still have vestigial remnants of sin in my life. And when I sin against those commandments,
I am violating the law of God and I’m guilty. That's just the broader answer to the simple,
okay? That was easy. QUESTIONER: Wonderful. Thank you, glad I could provide an easy question. SPROUL: Thank you. QUESTIONER: Hi, my name is Reese, and my question
is why did God create sin and Satan in the first place knowing we would sin? SPROUL: All right, the Bible doesn't tell
us exactly why God created … we say that God did not create evil. Although I know the passage and I say it’s
translated in the old translation, “But I created evil, and I bring prosperity,”
and that's a use of a parallelism. That is, “I bring prosperity, I bring catastrophe.” That's what that means - not that God creates
moral evil. But God certainly did more than simply know
that our parents were going to fall into sin. Now, if you all can bear this, I'll quote
Augustine. Augustine says that God ordains freely and
immutably whatsoever comes to pass. And then the parentheses that Augustine would
say, “In a certain sense.” Now, God, if there is sin in this world, and
there's a devil in this world, you know absolutely that God ordained that there be a devil, and
that God ordained that human beings would sin. That's not the same thing as saying that God
sinned. You might say, “Well God, that was a bad
thing that you did for creating the devil or a bad thing that you did to having creatures
that would sin against you.” Now, we’re never allowed to call good evil
or evil good. Now, here's the difficult thing I want you
to understand; that evil is evil, it is not good. But it is good that there is evil. It is good that there is a devil or there
wouldn't be a devil, or there wouldn't be sin because God has ordained both the existence
of Satan and the existence of sin, and everything that God ordains ultimately, is good. You can chew on that for a little while (laughs). QUESTIONER: Good afternoon Dr. Sproul. My name is Steven, and I’ve been part of
Grace Community Church for a good part of a decade. And my question is this, in your professional
opinion, success and failure, what would that look like in the eyes of Jesus? SPROUL: Obedience or disobedience - that's
what it looks like because we're measured in the final analysis on whether we are obedient
or the degree to which we're obedient. And when He says, “Well done, thou good
and faithful servant,” He's not saying, “You've been perfect and you've been sinless”
and all that (we know better). But He also says, looking at us, that just
in the parable of the talents, there were some that hid their talents in the ground,
some that made a 5-fold response, 10-fold and so on. And we are called to be productive, obedient
Christians building up treasure in heaven. And I think that we are not given rewards
because we merit them, but Augustine says, it's God crowning His own gifts. God gives me the grace to anything of obedience
that I do, and then He goes ahead and adds a reward to it. Which I don't deserve, I don't have any claim
on. But nevertheless, He does hold that out, that
at the last judgment, there will be various degrees of blessing and punishment. QUESTIONER: Thank you, Dr. Sproul. SPROUL: You're welcome. QUESTIONER: Hi, Dr. Sproul, pleasure. SPROUL: Hi. QUESTIONER: My father's a long time Christian,
he's been a very strong Christian. He's fallen under the influence in the last
few years of Christian universalism. And so, I've been in a discussion with him,
ongoing discussion. But in regards to say 1 Corinthians 15:22,
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” - Do you have any thoughts as to why the first
Adam, the condemnation is universal, whereas the second Adam the justification is so limited? And doesn’t it look in a sense as if Satan
numbers-wise has been pretty successful in his rebellion? SPROUL: You know, one of the questions that
theologians have faced over the ages is the question, are there many that are going to
be saved or are there few that can be saved? Now, one thing I can tell you that I'm absolutely
sure of, that not everybody's going to be saved. And even though you have parallelisms established
with respect to the first Adam and the new Adam, you can't draw from that universalism. I don't think at all because the scriptures
everywhere else makes it very clear that not everybody will be saved. And so I would hope that your father would
run for his life from that kind of teaching. At the same time, the question of whether
it's going to be few or whether it's many, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know how much faith God requires on
Judgment Day. Some people make it by the skin of their teeth. Some have a much fuller, greater expression
of saving faith, others - less. But we still know that the requirement for
salvation is trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that those who are enemies of Christ are
going to perish, and then we hear about the judgment. I know there's been a whole movement among
evangelicals of annihilationism, and saying that it's one thing to say universal salvation. The other one is to say, “Well, not everybody's
going to be saved, but nobody's going to be damned eternally.” I think that's a mistake too. I think the scriptures make it clear that
the judgment is a judgment that is everlasting, and that's why we should be in fear and trembling
about the preaching of the gospel. QUESTIONER: Thanks, sir. WEBB: R.C, we have time for one more question. SPROUL: Oh, baby, it's going to be an easy
one. QUESTIONER: Hi R.C Sproul, my name's Chris
from Mandeville. I wanted to know what is your view on the
alter calling in church? Should it be a public profession of faith
or should it be a private matter between man and God? SPROUL: Well, I don't think it's all necessarily
an “either/or” question there. I generally don’t practice alter calls in
my preaching. I don't think that there's anything inherently
wrong with giving alter calls. However, I think that altar calls are exceedingly
dangerous for reasons that I've already mentioned. And that is that we are filled, our churches
are filled with people who have made professions of faith, who do not profess faith. Because they think, “Well, all I have to
do is go forward in an evangelistic call, raise my hand, sign a prayer card.” Those are all forms of professing faith. And I also don't think that we can ever need
to manipulate God's work of salvation in the hearts of sinners. We pray, we preach as accurately as we can,
and pray that the Holy Spirit will take that word that is proclaimed, and God has promised
that it won't return unto Him void. And it is the power of God unto salvation
which is the gospel. And so I don't feel like I need to manipulate
that and add to it. And so my concern is to be as accurate and
as powerful as I can be in proclaiming the Word of God, and calling people to respond. But I don't call them to respond by marching
down an aisle because again, I see it everywhere that people think that they are saved simply
because they made a profession. We all who are saved should make professions
(don't misunderstand me), but just making the profession doesn't mean you have the possession. And so that's where I would say as a question
here, not of ultimate, right or wrong, an ethical question as so much a prudential question
- what is the wisest way to proclaim the gospel.
