WEBB: Hello, and welcome to an evening of
theology and dialogue here at Saint Andrew's Chapel. My name is Lee Webb, and it's my privilege
to serve as vice president of broadcasting for Ligonier Ministries, as well as the host
of Renewing Your Mind with Dr. R.C. Sproul. We welcome those of you who are in our audience,
live audience here at Saint Andrew's, and we also welcome those of you who are joining
us online at liveligonier.org. If you are joining us online, would you take
a moment to text or email your friends and family members, co-workers, neighbors? We
would like as large an audience as we can possibly have tonight for this really an encouraging
evening of theology and dialogue. They can simply log on to live.ligonier.org. Let me
give you that web address one more time. It's live.ligonier.org. We will be taking questions from you here
in our live audience here at Saint Andrew's Chapel, but we will also be taking questions
from our online audience. And you can submit those questions online on Facebook. Simply
search for "Ligonier Ministries" on your Facebook page or by using on social media the hashtag
#theologynight. And it's a pleasure and privilege to have you with us here this evening. Dr. Sproul, as always, it's great to have
you with us. And it's a great privilege to welcome Dr. Derek Thomas as our special guest
tonight in his first official event here at Ligonier Ministries as one of our new teaching
fellows. Dr. Thomas, it's great to have you with us as well. THOMAS: Thank you. WEBB: We congratulate you and thank you and
appreciate you so much for agreeing to be a Teaching Fellow. We realize that we probably
didn't have enough for you to do in your role as a senior pastor at First Presbyterian Church
in Columbia, South Carolina, teaching every week at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta,
and we wanted to give you something else on your plate. So we're glad that you quickly
accepted becoming a Ligonier Ministries Teaching Fellow. THOMAS: Well, it's my extraordinary privilege
to be a part of Ligonier Ministries, and R.C. has been a part of my life ever since I was
converted. Of course, he's much older than I am. And so he's always been a father figure
to me and to many others. So how could I possibly say no? WEBB: Well, we want to get the evening started,
and we'll conclude this way too. Dr. Sproul and I did this a couple of years ago where
we did a lightning round of questions. Remember that, R.C.? I think we had some fun with that.
So if you're both up for that, we'll start with a lightning around and we'll conclude
the evening with a lightning round. Does that sound fair enough? Let's start with the first
question. And the lightning round means it's lightning fast. So we want to do these answers,
if you can, in thirty seconds or less. Ready? SPROUL: Yes. WEBB: Alright, Christopher asks, "Does God
choose not to lie or does His nature dictate that He cannot lie?" SPROUL: That's an easy one. His nature makes
it impossible for Him to lie. He doesn't have to make a choice about it. That's just who
He is eternally and immutably. WEBB: Alright, Dr. Thomas, "What's the greatest
challenge to biblical Christianity today?" in 30 seconds or less. THOMAS: Oh, my! WEBB: That's five seconds. THOMAS: You know, one is tempted to say that
the challenge to Christianity is the same today as it always has been. And that is idolatry,
the tendency, as Calvin said, that man's heart is an idol factory, a perpetual factory of
idols. And I think that's always been the challenge to Christianity. WEBB: Next question comes from the engineer
apologist on Twitter who asks, "Can Christians truly have assurance of salvation?" Dr. Sproul? SPROUL: I think not only can they have, but
we are called to have it. We are called to make our calling and election sure, and the
follow up reason that the Apostle Peter gives there is that for stability in personal growth
and obedience. A lot of people think that it's not possible to have assurance but, and
there is such a thing as false assurance, but the Bible provides a basis for authentic
assurance, and we need that as an anchor for our souls. WEBB: Let's do one more question for you Dr.
Thomas. Thirteen-year old Dolly asks on Facebook, "Were Adam and Eve saved?" THOMAS: Oh, good question! Yes, I think they
were. They were both fallen of course, but both received the covenant of grace, and I
think that Scripture seems to imply that both of them seem to be the fathers of the faithful,
father and mother of the faithful. Yes, I would say. WEBB: We did a great job at the lightning
round. Don't you think? That's right, thank you. Let's move on to our first question from
our audience here at Saint Andrew's Chapel. Yes sir, what is your question? AUDIENCE: Thank you. Why does the church argue
against head covering using culture, first century culture, as an argument when Paul
argues from Genesis? SPROUL: Because they argue poorly. I think
what happens if you read almost any commentary on 1 Corinthians, you will see that the commentators
look at the life situation in which the epistle was written, and they notice that in Corinth,
which was a kind of somewhat loose city that a sign of a prostitute was to go around with
an uncovered head. And so the commentators say that in all probability the reason why
the Apostle exhorts women to cover their heads during church and all of that is because they
don't want to have that cultural scandal of appearing like prostitutes. My problem with that is this, if the Apostle
gives an injunction and doesn't give a reason for it, I think it's certainly fair game to
speculate to some degree, looking at the contemporary culture, and say, "Well, maybe the reason
why the Apostle gives this injunction is because of this problem in the contemporary culture."
However, as you've already suggested in your question, Paul gives a reason. And if there's
anything that's transcultural, it's that which is rooted and grounded in creation. And the
reason he gives for this is rooted and grounded in creation. So I think it's a mistake to
just dismiss that as a contemporary custom that's not applicable today. Now I'm in a
minority in that point, remember. I give the minority report there. I don't even know where
you—what do you think about that? WEBB: Thank you for your question. Bethany
on Facebook asks, "What is your favorite hymn and why?" We'll direct that to both of you.
Dr. Thomas, what is your favorite hymn and why? THOMAS: "There is a green hill far away, outside
a city wall, where my dear Lord was crucified, Who died to save us all." I think that would
be one of my favorite hymns. Of course, I now realize I should've said "One of R.C.'s
hymns." So I think I better pass this question back to R.C. WEBB: Dr. Sproul? SPROUL: "Rock of Ages." It's the whole doctrine
of grace succinctly stated in the hymn, and I just love it. WEBB: Larry on Facebook has a question for
you tonight, "How do they determine the approximate dates for various books in the Bible?" SPROUL: There are different methods. The main
method is through external sources, by looking at what the ancient extrabiblical writers
would quote. For example, if a text of Scripture was quoted by Eusebius, and you know when
Eusebius lived, then that helps to date the book. Also, by looking at internal references
and first century—history of the first century and see where the weight of the evidence falls. Now, of course this becomes a matter of huge
controversy with higher criticism. The higher critics have, for the most part, forced most
of the New Testament writers into the second century, although there's been some softening
of that critical aspect in more recent years. But, you want to comment on that? THOMAS: Yes, external sources for sure. And,
you know, in many cases we would have some very specific information about when certain
books were written. There's been a great deal of discussion, of course, about New Testament
books, earlier part of the twentieth century dating them fairly late, but now even liberal
scholarship has moved those dates way back into earlier parts of the first century and
therefore within the period of the Apostles who purportedly wrote these New Testament
books. SPROUL: Sometimes philosophical and critical
theories are in play, for example Old Testament books that show predictive prophecies that
naturalists believe is impossible. They will argue for a theory that these things are vaticinium
ex eventu, that is that this is statements that were had to be written after the history
had been fulfilled because they just don't believe in predictive prophecy. And so, those
theological philosophical considerations play into the dispute as well. WEBB: Okay. Let's take another question from
our live audience here. Yes, sir. AUDIENCE: Hi there, Dr. Sproul and Dr. Thomas.
Was the average common Old Testament Jew able to gain a complete understanding of the Trinity? SPROUL: No, I don't think the average New
Testament Christian is able to gain a complete understanding of the Trinity either, but I
suppose that what you mean is "Can you find the Trinity in the Old Testament?" I think
you have to be careful in how you understand the Old Testament, but I do think that the
Old Testament points us to, in a progressive fashion, into a more full revelation that
comes forth in the New Testament. But I don't think that it's foreign to the Old Testament
but it's, you know, the old statement that the Old is in the New concealed, and the New
is in the Old revealed. Or the other way around! You know how it goes. THOMAS: Yes, I think this is a—I mean, this
is a good question. It forces us to be careful how we negotiate seeing the Trinity in the
Old Testament because there is a stubborn fact here that no Old Testament Jew, and we're
talking about Isaiah or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Amos ever propounded a doctrine of the
Trinity. So when we say, you know, God's name is plural "Elohim," or when we conjecture
from the visitations, the appearances of God in the Old Testament as anticipations of plurality
within the Godhead, none of this seems to be apparent to any Old Testament writer. And if there's one thing that's true of Old
Testament Jews, was their insistence that God is one. And therefore the repetition of
the shema, the Deuteronomy 6:4-5 passage, "Behold, the Lord your God, he is one." So
although I think the Old Testament is conducive to an interpretation of plurality, it wasn't
apparent to the Jew in the Old Testament that it was. AUDIENCE: Thank you. WEBB: Thank you for your question. It has
been more than six months now since the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 opinion
in favor of homosexual marriage. Do you believe that we are headed to a point at which the
state or the federal government will require ecclesiastical bodies, the local church, to
engage in this practice no matter what their beliefs are? Dr. Thomas, both of you are in
pastoral ministry, and I think the question should go to both, I guess. THOMAS: You know, the church is not tied to
the state, so the state can't mandate what the church does, the state cannot mandate
what the church believes. If it came to a point where the state was insisting that individual
churches perform homosexual marriages, we would be much further down the line than where
we are right now. Now, is that possible? Yes, I suppose it's possible. But at the minute,
you know, unless you're a church that's affiliated to the state as, say, the Church of England,
the Anglican Church, the rules of marriage would be dictated in the Anglican Church by
parliament. And therefore there would be a direct way of the state enforcing that upon
the church. You know, my church is a Presbyterian church.
It's independent of the state. So the state has no business telling us who we may marry,
either marriages as we now perform them between a man and a woman, and there are marriages
that we wouldn't perform in our church. I wouldn't marry a believer to an unbeliever,
and the state has no business interfering. Now the state may attempt to do that, but
it has no warrant or basis in law for doing that. Marriage is, first of all, a civil ordinance
and technically that marriage takes place at the level of the state, and the church
adds its blessing to it. But I don't—it's easy to become apocalyptic about this, and
I don't think that we're quite there yet. Maybe R.C. has a different view. SPROUL: I agree with that. It think there
are some serious signs of danger here and about, and there's this increasing militancy
for the lobbyist to try to make the state force same-sex marriage on the church. But
as yet they haven't done it, although I think we need to be alert to attempts that will
come our way. WEBB: Okay. Back to our social media questions.
Brian on Facebook asks, "Why is wisdom personified as female?" THOMAS: Well, only a bachelor would ask that
question. Anyone who knows women in any intimate fashion will know that they are wise and that
you should acknowledge that they are wise. WEBB: I agree. SPROUL: I'm not going to debate that. WEBB: I should have saved that for the lightning
round. "Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?" And let's give some context
to this, because it's come up within the headlines in recent days and weeks. A leading evangelical
college is in the process of firing a tenured professor because she maintains that Christians
and Muslims do worship the same God. SPROUL: Well, one way you could look at it
is to say there is only one God, Yahweh. And so, you could say that every form of pagan
worship is a worship of the one true God, though a distorted, corrupted style of worship
that goes back to the first question of idolatry. But if you mean that the content of the theology
of Islam with respect to the nature and being of God is the same as you find in the Christian
view of the understanding of the being and character of God, I would say that there's
very little resemblance between the two. And so the simple answer would be "No, we don't
worship the same God." WEBB: Do you want to weigh on that Dr. Thomas? THOMAS: I don't think that you can separate
the doctrine of the Trinity from your definition of God. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So God is, and let's take one of those. God is Christ. So the answer is "Does Islam worship
Christ as God?" and answer is "No, it does not." So the answer is "No, we don't worship
the same God." Only if you can somehow argue that there is a generic God that everybody
worships and then there's a Christian God, but that's a slippery slide to pluralism,
but it's not an argument that makes any sense within the uniqueness of Christianity and
the specific claim of Christianity that there is only one God. So, certainly the answer
is "No." WEBB: Do you believe that we as Christians,
particularly in this day and age, need to do a better job of honing our arguments in
that regard especially as it relates to Islam and defending the faith? SPROUL: Especially as it relates to a culture
that is sold out to relativism and pluralism, never mind Islam because we're going to have
to deal with other religious claims. The whole concept of theology now is "Whatever is spiritual
is true" and so on. So we have to, in every age we have to articulate what we believe
and why we believe it and distinguish what we believe from common distortions out there.
This was how the task of apologetics in the first century got started in the first place. WEBB: Let's take another question from our
live audience here. Yes, sir. AUDIENCE: Hi, Dr. Sproul and Dr. Thomas. Dr.
Sproul, I just want to say thanks so much. I wrote a letter to you several years ago
about how you reminded me of my father who was an old Jewish guy and if he had come to
Christ, he'd been a lot like you. And you wrote me back and I just thought that was
really cool. So this is an honor and privilege, I think, that our culture will remember you
in posterity, and I'm grateful for you. SPROUL: Thank you, that's the second time
tonight I've been mentioned in a fatherly way. AUDIENCE: It's possible here though in this
case. God bless you anyways, I thank Jesus for you every day. I just—is there any support
for complementarianism in the creation account itself, prior to the fall? SPROUL: Are you asking me or… AUDIENCE: One of you is great. WEBB: It might be good to go and define complementarianism
before you answer that. THOMAS: You are asking a question about complementarianism.
That is the view that male and female have different roles to play, but complement each
other. AUDIENCE: Distinctive purpose THOMAS: Right, and I think that within the
creation account there is a very clear account of male headship, Adam's creation first and
Eve being created out of Adam. Paul makes a great deal of that in his own theology in
Corinthians that we were listening to just a little earlier. So right in the creation
account, you have the principle that male and female are equal in terms of their being,
in terms of ontology. Both bear the image of God, but one is submissive to the other.
And in the manner of Adam and Eve's creation you see it, and in the manner of the way in
which Adam is held responsible for what essentially was Eve's sin is also part of that complementarian
argument. AUDIENCE: Okay. Thank you. WEBB: To those of you who are joining us online,
if you've just joined us, you're watching an evening of theology and dialogue on—sponsored
by Ligonier Ministries. Dr. R.C. Sproul and Dr. Derek Thomas are our guests, and maybe
you've been listening to some of this already and you have a question. If you would like
to submit a question, it's not too late to do so. We can't guarantee we'll get to all
of those questions, but you can go to Facebook and simply search for Ligonier Ministries
or on social media on Twitter you can use the hashtag #theologynight. Edward has joined us, and he submits a question
on Twitter, "Did Jesus, during His earthly ministry, have the ability to sin?" SPROUL: There's a great dispute about that
in how we understand the ability to sin. If you go back to Augustine's distinction about
pre-fall Adam, post-fall Adam, how we are in glory, and then carrying it over to the
question of Christ, the distinctions were made that originally Adam had the posse peccare
and the posse non peccare, the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. After the
fall, he had the non posse non peccare, the inability to not sin. This is confusing because
we use double negatives with that. And then when we're in heaven, we're in the non posse
peccare, where we're not able to sin. And so the question is this with respect to
Christ, Christ who was born without original sin, and then that question is that He's the
second Adam. So did He have the posse peccare, the ability to sin? Now, there are lots of
people who take the position that He did not have the ability to sin because of the unique
relationship between the human nature and the divine nature. I think at the very least,
theoretically, we have to say that Jesus had the posse peccare, the ability to sin, because
that was essential to His true humanity. Now again, in many cases, I'm a minority report
on that, but I think there's a tendency in evangelicalism to have that authentic human
nature swallowed up by the divine, and it gets us into a docetic or monophysite understanding
of Jesus. I think one of the great things about the Savior is His ability to live a
life of perfect active obedience, which He does for us. You might cut it in half and
say half of our salvation is rendered by the work of Christ's perfect obedience in our
behalf. And so, if you start off by saying that that
ability to sin was simply a phantom ability, not authentic, that He, that it was impossible
for Him to sin ultimately, then I think that really diminishes the significance of the
accomplishment of our Lord. WEBB: Kenneth joins us on Facebook, and he
asks the question, "Does Scripture provide hope for a child that turns away from Christ
as a young college student?" THOMAS: This is another important question
and the answer is yes, of course Scripture provides hope for anyone who turns away from
Christ. There is always the possibility of repentance, even deathbed repentance, so the
dying thief becomes pastorally an important example that even on one's deathbed one can
turn and embrace Christ. One doesn't want to use that as a ploy not to believe in Jesus
at an early age but, and as a Presbyterian, I would add that I also would draw comfort
from a view of the covenant that our children are in covenant, and therefore even though
they may drift and wander and rebel and become prodigals and go through that season of life,
we can still pray God's covenant and the fulfillment of God's covenant that indicates that our
children are in covenant and that God desires the salvation of our covenant children. So
I would add that too. There are just so many parents who are in
great soul distress over their children, and so those two things I would say are great
comforts. Never give up hope and never give up praying for your prodigal sons and daughters. SPROUL: Let me add to that too that a true
Christian is certainly capable of what we would call a serious and radical fall, but
not of a full and final fall, that those who are true believers and who turn away will
at someday, before they die, be brought to repentance and redeemed. We have full confidence
in the perseverance of the saints in that regard. The other side of that is that we have a very
dangerous situation in the church where there's a tendency for people to believe that all
you have to do to be saved or to be justified is to make a profession of faith. But a profession
of faith never justified anybody. So we know that there are people who profess faith who
don't possess it, who never had it. And it's very possible for those people who've made
a profession of faith that was not an authentic profession of faith to fall away fully and
finally. But the basic question Derek has already answered
that you don't give up hope if you have a college crisis sort of thing where we see
this happen again and again. Wait till they grow up a little bit. WEBB: Yes sir, what is your question? AUDIENCE: Thank you, Lee. Thank you, Dr. Sproul
and Dr. Thomas. This question is for both of you. Thank you for the opportunity to ask
it. My question is about the eschatological view of the Reformers, specifically Calvin,
but also Luther and even if we could talk about the Divines, perhaps Puritanism. What,
if they didn't state explicitly what their position was on the millennium and eschatology,
what would be their presumed view from their writings that we gather? THOMAS: Some part of this question is anachronistic
in that some of the definitions for eschatology, postmillennial, premillennial, amillennial
are categories of thought that belong possibly after the sixteenth century. So we are forcing,
and let me stay with Calvin because the Luther scholar is beside me here. So let me just
address Calvin for a second, and I think that you know Calvin did show some reluctance in,
for example, writing on a commentary on the book of Revelation. But dominant in Calvin's
thought is the view that Christ is king and Christ's triumphs. I think dominant in Calvin's
thought is the concept within Matthew 16, "I will build my church, and the gates of
hell will not prevail against it." So when Calvin talks in the Institutes about
what God has in store for the church, it's always one of triumph, that all the elect
will be saved. True, Calvin doesn't have a view of Romans 11:26, "And all Israel shall
be saved" that allows for some concept of a great ingathering before Jesus returns,
so that doesn't seem to happen in Calvin. So he would be, I think he would be more in
line with what we might call a very optimistic amillennial position. I think that's where
Calvin would come down, but it is an anachronistic question as far as Calvin is concerned. SPROUL: I think so too, and there are so many
different views on eschatology, as you know, and the Reformed camp today is divided among
at least three. There's postmillennialism of a sort, there's amillennialism, of a sort,
and there's a particular kind of premillennialism that has been around, but not the radical
chiliasm that was in the early church, or what you would call today "dispensationalism."
But there is room for various views of eschatology within the—even among the Westminster Divines
so that there's not a monolithic view, either with Luther or with Calvin and even later
theologians, like Edwards and so on. WEBB: Have either of you changed your eschatological
views in your pastoral ministry, over the period of your pastoral ministry? THOMAS: I was influenced by Iain Murray's
The Puritan Hope back in the early 70s, which was a kind of expression of sorts of postmillennialism.
I've since become a diehard amillennial devotee. WEBB: Dr. Sproul? SPROUL: I only change my eschatology about
every other week. That's all. WEBB: Alright, here's another online question.
If you had a moment with one of today's prosperity preachers what would you say? SPROUL: The basic question I would ask them
is… WEBB: I think we had a problem with this mike
there. You said you would ask him if… SPROUL: I would ask them straight up if they
were Christians. WEBB: Okay, Christian. Okay. THOMAS: I think a good question to ask them
is, you know, is Jesus a good paradigm for the prosperity gospel? Because there is no
way that you can make Jesus out to be prosperous. There's nothing about His life or demeanor
or His ministry that was prosperous. So, the founder of Christianity is Himself not an
exponent of the prosperity gospel. WEBB: Angela writes on Twitter, "What doctrine
in the Bible do you find most difficult to accept and why?" Dr. Sproul? SPROUL: Probably the hardest doctrine of the
Bible to accept is hell for the obvious reason that it is so difficult for any human being
to think about the idea of everlasting punishment on anybody. There's just a human gut struggle
with that. Now, I don't have a hard time accepting it, or difficult time accepting it because
I believe that the Bible teaches it and our Lord taught it, and so I believe it. So it's
not that difficult as far as whether the data is there to support it, but what is difficult
is the emotional feeling that is attached to it. THOMAS: I think for me, again, I believe in
male headship. I believe in complementarianism, but in our society it is increasingly difficult
to preach that doctrine when you have in your typical church, you have women who are CEOs
of multimillion dollar companies, and they are to be subject to their husbands. That's
a very difficult doctrine. I believe it with all my heart, and my wife believes it. So
there's no—this is not a confession, this isn't any tension about this and me or my
relationship with my wife, but I do find the assertion of that a very difficult issue in
2016. But I believe it because it's as clear as daylight in Scripture. WEBB: There's no question that we live in
a day and age of deep despair, not just in our land but around the world politically,
economically, culturally. It has been said that it becomes the darkest just before dawn,
just before the light. Are both of you hopeful for another awakening in our day and age? SPROUL: I'm a Calvinist. How can I not be
hopeful, you know? And I see all kinds of encouraging signs of revitalization of the
church in our own day. At the same time, on the other side of the of the spectrum we see
dreadful decay in the life of the church and so many things being eclipsed that are vital
to the truth of Christianity. But again, you have to have a scope beyond the United States.
Worldwide, there's all kinds of resurgence of powerful Christianity that I see, and I'm
encouraged by it. THOMAS: I have just read a brand new biography
of Luther, and we'll probably see many more as we come up to the five-hundredth anniversary
of 1517 and the nailing of The Ninety-five Theses, but this one by Hendrix from Yale,
I think, just reminded—and again there are aspects of the biography I didn't agree with,
but it reminded me again Europe was dark at the beginning of the 1500s and through one
man, through the preaching of the gospel, through the rediscovery of the gospel, Europe
was turned upside down, I mean utterly upside down within a generation. And why can't that
happen again? It would just take one generation to turn North America or Europe upside down,
and I believe in a God who can do that. WEBB: Yes sir, what is your question? AUDIENCE: Thanks for taking my question. In
Acts 2:38, it says that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Some people believe that
it really means "because of the forgiveness of sins." What do you believe about this and
why? SPROUL: I think that baptism is a sign and
its significance signifies the forgiveness of sins. I don't think that it automatically
carries forgiveness of sins with it, but it's a central sign of what our salvation is, is
that we're being washed with water, and the significance of that sign is cleansing, and
it is the cleansing from sin. Again, there's all kinds of disputes about the efficacy of
the sacrament, whether it happens ex opera operato, simply by the washing of the works
or the exercise of the sacrament, or whether or not it needs to be accompanied by faith
for its efficacy. I would take the latter position. THOMAS: Yes, I think it's important to emphasize
that the sacraments are signs and seals to the forgiveness of sins. They are signs and
seals to faith, to forgiveness, but they're not in and of themselves signs and seals that
we are forgiven. They're signs and seals of the gospel. So baptism points us to the gospel.
Baptism points us to Christ, and in Him there is forgiveness of sins. WEBB: Thank you for your question. AUDIENCE: Thank you. WEBB: Jonathan joins us on Twitter and he
asks, "What makes a church good, and how do you find one?" SPROUL: Well, I think you know at the sixteenth
century with the rupture of the unity of the ecclesiastical situation, there was a huge
debate on what is a valid church. And because there was such a proliferation of different
denominations and so on, and the essential ingredients is that where the gospel is truly
preached, the sacraments are rightly administered, and that there is true discipline and government
within the church. And so I think those are the—that's where you begin. You want to make sure that the gospel is truly
being preached. A church that is not preaching the gospel is not a good church. It's an apostate
thing, and if the sacraments are being mutilated, that's also a very serious sign of apostasy.
And if there's no discipline, I mean we're in a time where there's rampant antinomianism
inside the church. And it's not just as a matter of neglect, but there are those who
are positively proclaiming the legitimacy of antinomianism and—one church recently
I heard, "We don't do judgment here." Well if a church says, "We don't do judgment here"
it says to me, "We're not a church here." Because you need all of those elements, and
you say—if you want to find a good church those are the elements. And you ask me, "Where do you find that church?"
We hear that question all the time because there are so few examples of true, authentically
godly churches. And I'd just say, "Whatever it takes, find it," because they're there,
and they can be found, and there are lots of good churches out there." THOMAS: I'm tempted to say that First Presbyterian
Church in Columbia is a very good church because it serves really good coffee. I don't mean
watered-down church coffee. I mean the real stuff, and so that that…Acts 2:42 I think,
"They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and
prayer—and the prayers." And I think that's Luke telling you something about what are
some of the marks of the church. "One, holy, catholic, apostolic" would become marks of
the church, the right preaching of the Word, the right administration of the sacraments,
church discipline would become Reformation attempts to say what makes a good church,
9Marks today, Mark Dever's organization and so on. I mean, that's another attempt to say,
"Here are nine things to look for in a good church," but that's a, you know, that's a
really good question. And we find people asking that all the time, "What makes for a good,
what are you looking for when you're looking for a new church?" WEBB: Is there ever a good reason to leave
a church? SPROUL: Yes, but one of the things that really
scares me is that people are making decisions on not a good basis. Well, my biggest concern
here is for the youth group. We want to have a lively, vital youth group in our church.
It doesn't matter what the what they're preaching on Sunday morning or what they're doing. What
really matters is are we reaching the kids? Come on, what really matters is are we reaching
the parents and that they are communicating the faith to their kids? And so I think it's
extremely important what happens Sunday morning for corporate worship where we're instructed
by the Scriptures and we gather together in fellowship and prayer and those sort of things,
and we don't want to let these lesser programs usurp the central purpose of the church. WEBB: Yes sir, your question. AUDIENCE: Thank you. Does the incarnation
mean that God has changed in space and time from that point on? If not, why and how do
we respond to the question? SPROUL: The first part is very easy. He certainly
does not change in His being. He is immutable, and what happens is that he takes upon a human
nature. He doesn't stop being God and becoming a human being. And that's the old kenotic
heresy that was popular in the nineteenth century where God gave up certain attributes
in order to become incarnate. And you hear that among evangelicals all the time. "Well
God, in order to understand what sin is or suffering is, He had to become a man and change
His nature to be able to be empathetic," and all of that, and so He gives up this deity. Or you hear this, "God chooses to limit Himself."
What? Does God choose to limit His knowledge, His power, His omnipresence? No. God is eternally,
perfectly, immutably God. This is one of the things we see of theology all the time that
almost every denomination has the same fundamental confession of the being and character of God.
But I think the uniqueness of the Reformed faith is that when we get to page two of our
systematic theology, we don't forget what we confessed on page one. And so that our
doctrine of God informs every other doctrine in that respect. The second part of your question
was how do we…? WEBB: If not, why and how do we respond to
the question? SPROUL: By a clear statement of the nature
and character of God. WEBB: Do you want to add anything to that,
Dr. Thomas? THOMAS: Yes, I mean the incarnation was not
by subtraction. It was by addition, that God is immutable. God cannot change, and the incarnation
cannot involve a change in the being of God. He added to Himself something that He didn't
have before, that is human nature, but that human nature is not a divinized human nature,
nor is the divine nature humanized divine nature. They are two separate natures. So
there's no change whatsoever in the divine nature. WEBB: On Facebook, Stephen asks, "Did the
death of Jesus accomplish anything for the non-elect?" SPROUL: It increased their guilt. WEBB: Dr. Thomas, do you want to add anything
to that? THOMAS: That's true. That's very true. I suspect
the questioner is asking a question relative to limited atonement is my suspicion. And
are there common grace benefits that accrue from the cross? And the answer to that I think
is "Yes" that the fact that the rain falls on, as it did here this morning, on the just
and the unjust, that the sun comes out, as it did here this afternoon, on the just and
the unjust, that people are provided with food and have an appreciation of joy and aesthetics
and pleasure even though they're not Christians. All of this is a benefit of God's work in
His Son in the atonement. So I would say yes that the benefits of common grace are also
part of the effects of what Christ did on the cross. Now again, that's not something
that everyone in the Reformed faith has been on the same page about. WEBB: Okay on Twitter, Scott asks, "What would
you say to a Christian who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture?" SPROUL: Well, I think they're lots of people
who are Christians who don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I think they should.
I think they've been misinformed, and I think that they may retain the essence of the Christian
faith. They don't—they don't have the bene esse, the well being of the Christian church,
that there is a serious shortfall in their lives by failing to come to grips with the
absolute authority of the Word of God in their lives. And so when you negotiate inerrancy,
you set yourself at sea and you are subject to the winds of every doctrine being blown
to and fro and so on. So I think it's a very important doctrine
and even though it's one that is ridiculed and attacked and despised in our day and age,
I think we have to be very careful to study this matter and to maintain a high view of
biblical authority. I don't want a view of the Bible that's any higher than Jesus' view,
and I don't want to have any view of the Bible that's any lower than Jesus' view. WEBB: Dr. Thomas, Chris on Twitter asks, "What
is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?" THOMAS: Ooh! Interestingly enough, today in
a course that I was teaching here for Ligonier, we talked a little bit about this and the
change of view that has taken place since, say, the Puritan period of the seventeenth
century when the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was a definite sin, a definite moment,
an existential moment in a person's life when they said "No" to the gospel or "No" to the
work of the Holy Spirit. And it was interesting I was pointing out that Martyn Lloyd-Jones,
I think in Preaching and Preachers says that this was what had troubled his congregation
the most in the course of his ministry. And I have to say that probably most interpreters
today view the sin against the Holy Spirit as unbelief, that the only sin that cannot
be forgiven is unbelief. And that if you are brought before the judgment seat of God and
do not believe there is no forgiveness, and that is the sin against the Holy Spirit. I
think it's—I'm more with the Puritans. I think that to sin against the Holy Spirit
and therefore the unforgivable sin is something that can be committed in the course of one's
life rather than pushing it to the very end on the day of judgment basically. WEBB: I've heard it said that if you are concerned
that you've committed this that you need not worry, that you haven't committed. Is that… SPROUL: Not necessarily. You could still have
done it and still be concerned about it, but it's a good sign. WEBB: Okay. SPROUL: But I think in the first instance
when you're talking about blasphemy, it has to do with something you say or write, and
the context in which the warning was given was the context in which the Pharisees were
accusing Jesus of doing His miracles by the power of the devil. And it was like He said,
"Be careful. You're this close." And notice that at the time of the crucifixion at the
book of Acts, Jesus says, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." And
in early parts of Acts, "Had they known, they wouldn't have crucified the Lord of glory"
and so on. I think that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
happens when once the Holy Spirit reveals to a person that Jesus is the Christ and then
they accuse Him of being a devil, then I think you're toast. You're cooked. Now I don't know
whether anybody ever does that but again, I don't think we ought to get away from what
the very root meaning of blasphemy is. It's a verbal thing. WEBB: Let's one more question from our live
audience here. Yes sir? AUDIENCE: Good evening Lee, Dr. Thomas, Dr.
Sproul. Thank you for your service to the kingdom. In a question earlier, you said that
the biggest enemy of the church, Dr. Thomas, was idolatry. Can good theology and sound
doctrine become an idol and if so, what advice would you give to seminary students or people
in Bible college to avoid this idolatry? THOMAS: Yes, it's possible to make an idol
of anything, including your perceived knowledge of doctrine. And I think the issue here is
the way in which doctrine impacts the whole of our being, head and heart. There are Christians
who are all head. They're cerebral. They know stuff and like to argue stuff and often like
to win battles, apologetic battles, epistemological battles, but there's no heart. There's no
life of prayer. There's no repentance. There's no confession of sin. There's no pleading
with God. And I think, as B. B. Warfield wrote at the
inception of Princeton Seminary, in The Devotional Life of a Seminary Student, a wonderful little
pamphlet, required essential reading for anybody in seminary, that the maintenance, one, of
good and regular church practice while you're in seminary, that being in seminary doesn't
mean to say you don't have to go to church. To be a regular member and participant in
church and the community of the church and sitting under the Word of God. But also a maintenance of devotional practices
and habits, daily prayer, daily confession of sin, being accountable to others to ensure
that what we learn, you know, Paul warns about knowledge that you can be puffed up with knowledge.
It's one of the warnings that Paul gives to the Corinthians. And seminary students are
very easily puffed up with knowledge, and we need to prick that balloon of pride by
coming before the Lord in penitence and devotion on a regular, habitual basis. SPROUL: I would to add to that that if you
have a theology that's idolatrous and puffs up and all the rest, you need to do more work
in theology because you have a very superficial understanding of the things of God. And some
people will say, "Well, I don't want to study theology because it's just going to be an
idol, and then it'll puff me up and all of that." You know again, we want to go, we want
to have true knowledge, but we also want to have true faith and everything that you just
said there in that comment. But there's a vacuum somewhere in a theology that produces
idolatry. WEBB: As we get to towards the end of our
time together, I wanted to ask you both a related question. Dr. Sproul, several years
ago you produced a teaching series for Ligonier Ministries called Surprised By Suffering,
and there's no question that the truths that you taught and conveyed in that series have
been a great comfort and encouragement to those who are going through difficult phases
in life, either physically or emotionally. And I was curious to know, many of you know
that Dr. Sproul has dealt with some significant health issues over the last year, and I would
like to know, R.C., and I think our audience would like to know how have those truths been
a comfort to you as you've dealt with these issues? SPROUL: Well, certainly, there've been lots
of people, or are lots of people, who've suffered a whole lot more than I have in the last year,
but I have had some serious health issues in the last year, and I have been reminded
frequently of my own work there on that book Surprised By Suffering and go back to my own
advice that I gave to others and give it to myself. And on a practical level, one of my
favorite experiences is daily to pray the Lord's Prayer, excuse me, that, but the 23rd
Psalm as well because I just have to remember who I am, who God is, that He is my Shepherd,
and therefore there's no reason for me to want anything, you know? He takes me where
He wants me to be, beside the still waters, in the green pastures, and He restores my
soul. And even if I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I don't have to be
afraid of anything because, why? He's with me. And so I just keep looking at the elements
of that every day and say, "I have to deal with limitations. I have to deal with anxieties."
We were talking about this yesterday with another friend of ours that I don't have any
fear of death whatsoever, but I have lots of fears of how I'm going to get there. It's
the process that's scary, and I don't particularly enjoy pain, and so I'm always looking for
ways to get away from that. But there is unbelievable peace and comfort in the Word of God and predominantly
knowing who He is and believing in His sovereignty. Right now, whatever else I'm called to do,
whatever those limitations are of my health, that's part of my present calling. I believe
that God has called me to be where I am at this very moment, and I think it's true for
every believer at that point. WEBB: Well unfortunately, we've reached the
end of our time together, but I can't think of a better way to end our time together than
on those encouraging and comforting thoughts. Thank you, Dr. Sproul for sharing that with
us. SPROUL: You're more than welcome. WEBB: Dr. Thomas, it's been a great privilege
to have you with us. THOMAS: Thank you. WEBB: Would you join me in thanking them both
for their wisdom and insight tonight? Thank you.
