R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 599

Here are some highlights from the various Ligonier Twitter feeds over the past week.

Ligonier Most heretics...tried to mask their heresy by using orthodox language to convey it. -R.C. Sproul



Ligonier We live in a time of practical atheism. -R.C. Sproul



Reformation Trust ...one of the best ways we can love one another as believers is to pray for each other. - Joel Beeke



Ligonier Academy "There is no worse screen to block out the Spirit than confidence in our own intelligence." -John Calvin



Ligonier The doctrine of justification...says how we as unjust people can be reconciled with a just & holy God. -R.C. Sproul



Tabletalk Magazine The covenant of grace is unconditional for us because Christ fulfills its demand, not because salvation lacks a condition.



Ligonier Academy Christ died to destroy idolatry.

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:
Ligonier Ministries | Ligonier Academy | Reformation Trust | Tabletalk Magazine

I found myself, when a recent graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary persuaded of two truths. First, I understood and believed the Reformed faith. Second, I wasn't much different from my unbelieving neighbors. The problem wasn't that my theology was wrong. The problem was that is was stuck. My head was crammed full of sound Reformed doctrine, but it wasn't getting to my heart, and out my fingers. I suffered from theological constipation.

Because the Reformed faith is true, which is to say Biblical, the problem wasn't, I determined, with my theology. The solution wasn't to believe it less, but to believe it more.  Since then that has been my goal, and could arguably be said to be the focus of my public ministry.  I would never want to change the Reformed faith. I'm not the best at explaining it. (But I know who is.)  My calling is to hold it up and say to the world, "Hey, look at this. Can you believe it? We ought to believe this."

We Reformed, folk, for instance, affirm that man is totally depraved. Our hearts, however, tend to believe that we are rather fine fellows, and therefore other folks must be pretty good as well. Thus hell is too hot of an idea for some of us. Others of us, however, have a more banal response. Our failure to grasp the scope of our sin creates a sense of entitlement. Because I'm basically good, I am due a basically good life.  Something is wrong when calamity strikes my world, whether it be an earthquake in New Zealand, the murder of unborn babies, illness, or even financial tensions. We are strangely surprised by suffering.

When, however, our hearts concede what our minds know, that we are desperately wicked, that none is righteous, no not one, when we truly face the hard truth that in ourselves we would kill God if we could, suddenly we see the world for what it is, a sea of grace. That people die, even that people suffer eternal torment no longer surprises us. That people are spared, that is astonishing.  We are all, in our natural state, not theologically, not figuratively, under a death sentence from God. The fiery cauldron isn't the surprise. Our spider-liness isn't the surprise. The gossamer texture of the web on which we hang isn't the surprise. That God's hand holds on, that is the surprise. Sinners in the Hands is a sermon on grace.

My wife is not my due. She is grace. My children are not my due. They are grace. My parents and my sister are not my due. They are grace. My friends are not my due. They are grace. They all deserve to die, and I not only deserve it as well, but I deserve to lose them all.

If we believed the Reformed faith we would not be sour and morose because it reminds us of what horrible sinners we are. We would instead of all people be the most joyous, because it reminds us of the grace of God. The smell of death surrounds us.  But our lives are hidden in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. And He smells like grace.

Here is a round-up of some of the notable blogs and articles our team read this week.

John Piper offers a prayer for Japan in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake.

Filled Full – Everything We Need - Ron Block, band member of Alison Krauss & Union Station, writes a brief meditation on Col. 2:8–10.

The Lesson of David Swing - Sean Lucas: "One cannot help but wonder whether the theological epistemology of David Swing is back in force among younger evangelicals. After all, for a generation which has denigrated "propositional" truths, how else should we understand the privileging of the love of Jesus over his own statements over the reality of judgment and hell? If we've come to the day when Scripture, doctrines, and creeds are simply the expression of our best sentiments, then we've come to a day in which there is no doctrinal center that can hold evangelicals together and a day in which the Gospel might be lost to large segments of this generation."

Uncommon Words for the Workplace - "I was wrong..." It doesn't matter what comes after the start of that sentence, admitting you're wrong is still one of the hardest things to do in life. Not surprisingly, it also figures to be some of the most uncommon words in the workplace.

Getting to Know Owen - Ryan Kelly looks at three ways in which Owen was particularly important for his time and in the church since.

Doing Away with Hell - Al Mohler: "The pressing question of our concern is this: Whatever happened to hell? What has happened so that we now find even some who claim to be evangelicals promoting and teaching concepts such as universalism, inclusivism, postmortem evangelism, conditional immortality, and annihilationism — when those known as evangelicals in former times were known for opposing those very proposals?"

Mithra? Attis? Really, Rob Bell? - In response to Rob Bell, Dr. James White addresses the uniqueness of Christ in the first century.

At first glance, Mike Anderson appears to be an average guy in his mid twenties who fits the typical description of a guy who embodies everything it means to be young, restless, and Reformed. When I was first introduced to Mike by my friend Chris Larson (executive vice president of Ligonier Ministries), I recall being immediately impressed by Mike's passion for God and love for the church.

[image error]I met Mike at a time when I was still in my search to figure out all it meant to be young, restless, and Reformed. In the providence of God, I could not have met better guy to help me in my quest. Through Mike, the Lord helped me to understand that He is raising up an entire generation of young men and women who love Him as the holy, sovereign, and gracious God that He is. I came to understand that God has given many in this new generation a restless passion for Himself, as well as a passion for His Word, His gospel, His church, and His mission in the world. I came to understand that while many of these young and restless men and women come from all sorts of different theological and ecclesiastical backgrounds, if they even have a theological or ecclesiastical background, they are devouring Scripture and steadily coming to adhere to the precious biblical theology set forth in the church's historic creeds and Reformed confessions of faith.

At the end of our interview I asked Mike the following question: "What is your most consistent prayer for the ministry the Lord has entrusted to you?"

Mike responded by saying, "I often pray for wisdom, discernment, and a heart that beats for Jesus and his mission. I pray that God would be working actively in the hearts of the Resurgence team, and I pray that he would be raising up a whole army of 16 year olds that are going to love him, serve the church, and be the next generation to take over all the Acts 29 churches that are being planted."

If this interview helps us in any way, my prayer is that it would at least lead us to pray for Mike and the hundreds of thousands like him that God is raising up all over the world to serve Him and His kingdom for His glory alone.

Mike has been serving faithfully at the Resurgence for the past few years and is on staff of Mars Hill church in Seattle, Washington.

Tell us a little about yourself, your family, and what your main responsibilities are with Resurgence.

I am a 27 year old guy with an amazing wife named Jen, a new baby in her tummy, and a God Who keeps showing up in my life and completely rearranging it in ways I would never believe.

My life verse seems to be Psalm 127:1 "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain…". God showed up in eighth grade and gave me no hope but to cling to him, again my freshman year of college he renewed my passion for him and I pursued a major in math so that I could get into any country in the world to be a missionary teacher. Before graduating I was offered a job for an advertising agency to help mega-churches and large financial institutions with design, branding, and marketing—I jumped on it because I knew I could help drive wandering churches toward Jesus. Then in early 2008, I got a tweet saying that I would make a good fit for a job at Mars Hill in Seattle to help with web strategy—needless to say God tore down the career house I was building and gave me a place in ministry. One of the things that I was put in charge of was this little blog called the Resurgence, this is what I really wanted to focus on. I had been following the Resurgence since it's founding and new that it could help tens of thousands of leaders—so I changed my email signature from "director of web strategies" to "director of the Resurgence," and as the Resurgence grew I was able to focus more time and attention on the Resurgence and hand off some of my other responsibilities.

I love that I have a sovereign God who keeps tearing down what I build and rebuilding it better. Who knows—by the time this is published everything may be different.

When did you trust Christ and what were the circumstances surrounding your conversion?

I was first convinced that the devil was real before I knew much about Jesus…

As a teenager I watched the movie The Exorcist and later that week experienced spiritual warfare in a way that changed my life forever. The only way I can describe it is that as I lay awake at night the dark got darker, and there was a presence that was imposing on me—I was very aware that demons were there. For weeks I had no idea what to do. I slept on the floor of my parent's room, I moved my bed into my brother's room, but finally I realized that people couldn't help.

I then found an old King James Bible and opened it up to Genesis. There was something about the Bible that brought comfort… it felt safe… it seemed like this God could protect. I could sleep when I read the Bible.

In the following months I read the Bible cover to cover. I became a Christian somewhere between Genesis and Revelation without finding a church. I knew that God was a saving God, I knew that when you trusted him he always saved the day, so when I got to the cross—it wasn't a surprise. It was more a reminder of Passover.

After your wife, who would you consider to be one of your closest friends and why?

Justin Holcomb is one of my best friends. We've only known each other for about two years, but in that time we've been through it all together. He is my boss, but we lead the Resurgence together. It is a complementarian leadership relationship in the truest sense. He is a pastor, a Ph.D., a really godly man, and he is worthy of a ton of respect, yet he puts himself on the line to help me serve to the best of my ability.

Our wives have become great friends, and are constantly texting one another, I love his two little girls—they feel as close as nieces, and Justin is always looking out for me.

Justin helps me love Jesus more because I see how much he loves God, loves his family, and has a huge heart. I've gotten to watch him counsel women who've been victims of sexual abuse, and seen him stand up to wolves in the Church. I am very thankful to have a friend like Justin.

Tell us about the beginnings of Resurgence, the website, and the name itself "Resurgence."

The Resurgence started in 2004 when Mars Hill invited John Piper to come to Seattle and teach. It was very clear that Mars Hill was growing quickly in influence and needed an outlet to help train leaders in the movement that was just beginning in Mars Hill and the Acts 29 network. The name "the Resurgence" was chosen because the leaders at the time were beginning to see that God was doing something unique. It seemed that he was raising up a bunch of 20 and 30 year olds with strong Reformed convictions who were reading the works of dead guys like Calvin and Edwards and Spurgeon. But it wasn't just theology, it was more than that… they wanted to put theology into action with a heavy emphasis on church planting and missional evangelism. It was an optimistic, maybe even a prophetic, name of what they believed would happen.

Since then we've seen over 400 churches planted, and Mars Hill expand from 2,000 to 12,000 people. We see hundreds and hundreds of people baptized at Mars Hill campuses each year.

God has been at work, and we're just thankful to be a part of it. We don't pretend to think that we're the key to the resurgence that's at hand—we're just happy to be a part of it.

What have been some of the greatest challenges of working with Resurgence and serving at Mars Hill?

At any organization that's growing as fast as Mars Hill there is constant change. We're 14 years old as a church, and it often feels like we're growing an inch a month like a Jr. high boy—always growing pains. We're always working our faces off to try to serve the people who God is bringing into the movement.

We're in a phase that I call "managing blessings." It's both a huge privilege to be a part of and can also take every bit of energy and emotion I have. Every day I get asked to answer questions like: should we translate the Resurgence into Russian/Portuguese/Spanish or do we create an internship program to train a few hundred students next year?

These are hard questions because they're choosing between two things that I really want to do.

What have been some of the unexpected blessings?

I've been so privileged to get to travel around the country and see what God is doing all over the place. I get to see churches that preach the Gospel and have seen hundreds come to Christ, I get to go to conferences where I see pastors connect to God and refreshed for ministry, and I get to meet great men of God like yourself. I've been really thankful for your friendship, Burk.

In the times we've spent over the last year I've been challenged by the pastoral questions you ask about my future and I've been so encouraged by the pastoral character that you display with almost every single person you interact with.

What three most crucial lessons have you learned while working with Resurgence and under the leadership of Acts29 and Mars Hill Church?

1.Always be learning

The first trip that I ever went on with Mark Driscoll he asked at the end of every day "What did you learn?" He set the precedent that I need to be learning from every encounter, and I am so thankful for it. I'm always on the look out for how I can learn.

2. Repent early

I've seen some of the best elders in the world at work. It's been amazing to watch from a close distance as they deal with church discipline issues. I've gotten to see men, who understand grace really well, beg people with hardened hearts to repent. I've seen tormented people separate the truth of Christ from the lies they've been hearing, I've seen men repent of being awful husbands, and I've seen men fail to repent and leave the church. The Gospel works. The Gospel brings new life and can renew anything and anyone.

3. Love my wife

Ray Ortlund was recently at Mars Hill and said "Why not love your wife like Christ loves you?"

Best question… ever.

I've seen men who love their wives well. It's an investment that seems to pay back 100,000%. These men have learned the grace that God gives to them and then work hard to be graceful to their wives and lovingly lead and encourage them. I've been privileged to watch, and take notes and try to do the same. Jen is an amazing woman, and I've signed up to do my best to love this lady and start a family—I'm really excited for our baby girl to show up! 

Is there any story about working with Mark Driscoll that you could share with us that might help others get a glimpse at what sort of man he is outside of the public eye?

You would never believe it, but Mark Driscoll is a total introvert. It takes every ounce of effort for him to stand out and shake 1,000 hands and say hello to any one that lines up to talk to him. Pastor Mark is at his best when he is with his family, and especially when he is with his wife, Grace.

Jen and I have had the privilege of having dinner at the Driscoll's home several times, watching Pastor Mark interact with Grace and the kids has been an object lesson in being a pastor to my family. I've gotten to see him pray for his wife, and play with his kids, and make huge personal sacrifices for his church. He is a man who does almost nothing for himself—it's all for his God, his wife, his kids, and his church, in that order.

What have been some of the more helpful books for your life and ministry?

The Bible
Holiness by J.C. Ryle
Desiring God by John Piper
Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
Seth Godin's books have also been really helpful and practical.

Do you read any particular blogs regularly? If so, which have proven to be the most helpful?

I currently have 51 blogs I read daily, which is down from over 600 when I was the one running theResurgence.com.

The funny thing is that nearly all of the blogs that I'm subscribed to are not Christian blogs. They're mainly business, design, and wisdom related. I end up getting all of the best Christian posts through Twitter links.

There are some godly men out there writing amazing posts like Ray Ortlund who consistently puts out pearls, or Justin Taylor who has the scoop on every story—he finds out about Resurgence stuff before I do. I am also really enjoying Jared Wilson's and Tim Brister's blogs—these guys are top-notch.

If you could give counsel to those of your generation who are a part of the resurgence movement what would you tell them?

Read the book Redemption by Mike Wilkerson twice, once by yourself then take three people through it. It goes through Exodus to paint a big picture of God and shows his grace and redemption. I recently taught a new believers class at Mars Hill and was amazed to see a woman who was a brand new believer who read Redemption within weeks of being saved and was able to navigate some of the trickiest theological questions.

The cool thing wasn't that she was smart. The cool thing was that after reading that book she knew the character of God well enough to know how he would react—and had Scripture to back it up. It seems to me that the most life-changing books are the ones that talk about God's character like Desiring God by John Piper, The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul, and Knowing God by J.I. Packer.

I would say that it's most important to know God, and not just know about him.

How do you think the ministry of Resurgence will be used of God to influence the next generation?

I want to see a whole bunch of 16 year olds get a vision for God's sovereignty and a heart for church planting. I hope these guys get instruction from godly men and guidance from the Holy Spirit to prepare themselves to be good husbands, fathers, and pastors.

I've always taught our volunteers to edit any blog post like they're talking straight to this 16 year old. I want to see this guy jump on board and get the training, pastoral guidance, and heart-level affections that will prepare him for ministry.

If there's one thing you could have done differently in your life what would it be?

That's a hard question because God has used even the hard things for good, and he's redeemed the evil things.

But there are lots of sins I've committed in my life that I wish I hadn't—I wish I didn't have a season of real arrogance in high school, I wish I'd never seen that first Playboy in fourth grade, I wish I could take back all of the times that I didn't love girls who I dated as sisters in Christ, and I wish that I hadn't had a rebellious period my senior year when I saw a lot of my friends walk away from the church, and I did nothing.

There are a million more things that I wish I'd done differently, but I wanted to air some dirty laundry so that people see that Christ covers sins. His grace is truly remarkable.

What is your most consistent prayer for yourself, your family, and the ministry the Lord has entrusted to you?

For grace because I keep sinning even though I love Jesus and want to follow him with everything I've got.
For me to be a good a good husband to Jen, and that he would keep giving her a soft heart.
For my new baby that she would love Jesus and that he would be her Lord.
I often pray for wisdom, discernment, and a heart that beats for Jesus and his mission. I pray that God would be working actively in the hearts of the Resurgence team, and I pray that he would be raising up a whole army of 16 year olds that are going to love him, serve the church,and be the next generation to take over all the Acts 29 churches that are being planted.

[image error]
One of the most contentious theological issues dividing believers from other believers is the doctrine of baptism. Is baptism by immersion only, or may a person be baptized by pouring or sprinkling as well? Are believers only to be baptized, or should believers and their children be baptized? Is baptism merely a symbol, or does it effectually cause any spiritual benefits?

What are some helpful books for those seeking to understand the issues involved? This list is not exhaustive, but it does contain some texts that may be helpful for those interested in studying these issues in more detail.

The Sacraments in General

[image error]G. C. Berkouwer. The Sacraments. Professor Berkouwer was Dr. Sproul's instructor during his doctoral studies in the Netherlands.  This book is one of the few contemporary Reformed works devoted entirely to the doctrine of the sacraments.  Berkouwer deals with the number of sacraments, the relationship between word and sacrament, and the efficacy of the sacraments before turning to discuss various issues related specifically to baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Historical Works

[image error]Everett Ferguson. Baptism in the Early Church. One would be hard-pressed to find a more thorough historical study of baptism in the first five centuries of the church.  Ferguson's 900+ page book is divided into seven parts: 1) Antecedents to Christian Baptism; 2) Baptism in the New Testament; 3) The Second Century; 4) The Third Century to Nicaea; 5) The Fourth Century; 6) The Fifth Century; and 7) Baptisteries. 

[image error]John W. Riggs. Baptism in the Reformed Tradition. Riggs' book is a helpful introduction to the baptismal theology and practice of first and second century Reformed theologians such as Bucer, Bullinger, and Calvin.

Multi-View Books

[image error]David F. Wright, ed. Baptism: Three Views. Of the several multi-view books on the subject of baptism, this one edited by the late David Wright is the best. The contributions by Sinclair Ferguson, Anthony Lane, and Bruce Ware are all outstanding, and the interaction is most helpful.

Baptism (Reformed)

[image error]J. V. Fesko. Word, Water & Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism. Fesko's book is the most up-to-date work on baptism in general from a Reformed perspective. He divides his book into three parts. He first looks at the history of the doctrine of baptism in Part One. Part Two is devoted to a biblical-theological examination of the subject. Finally, Part Three addresses the systematic theological questions surrounding baptism. There are a number of books that deal with the material covered in Parts One and Three. The high point of this book is the material found in Part Two. It is very helpful.

[image error]John Murray. Christian Baptism. John Murray's little book on baptism remains a helpful starting point for those who want to grasp the Reformed doctrine on the subject. He covers the import, mode, efficacy, and recipients of baptism in concise chapters.

Baptism (Baptist)

[image error]Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright, eds. Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Those looking for a general introduction to the Baptist perspective on this sacrament would be well-advised to read this multi-authored work. It contains chapters dealing with baptism in the various parts of the New Testament as well as defenses of distinctive Baptist perspectives on issues such as the mode and the recipients of baptism.

Infant Baptism (Reformed)

Samuel Miller. Infant Baptism: Scriptural and Reasonable. Samuel Miller was one of the first professors at Princeton Seminary in the nineteenth century. His book on infant baptism is not lengthy, but it remains one of the most powerful defenses of the Reformed view in print.

[image error]Daniel R. Hyde. Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children. As far as contemporary defenses of the Reformed doctrine and practice of infant baptism are concerned, Daniel Hyde's little book is the best. His book is particularly helpful for those coming out of a Baptist background into a Reformed church.

Infant Baptism (Baptist)

[image error]Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. Of all the books defending believer's baptism and critiquing infant baptism, Paul Jewett's remains, without question, the best by far.

In our next installment, we will look at some of the best books on the Lord's Supper.

Articles in this Recommended Reading series: Systematic Theologies, Doctrine of Scripture, Doctrine of God, Doctrine of the Works of God, Doctrine of Man and Sin, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Doctrine of the Work of Christ, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Doctrine of Salvation, Doctrine of the Church, Doctrine of Christian Worship.

[image error]

Get $5 Friday resources on hell, heaven, worldviews, evangelism & the love of God. Sale starts at 8 a.m. Friday and ends 8 a.m. Saturday EST.

View today's $5 Friday sale.

In this excerpt from John Gerstner's Primitive Theology, Dr. Gerstner looks at the issue of inerrancy and seeks briefly and non-technically to present a case for Bible Inerrancy that a serious-minded layman can follow and evaluate. Though by no means an exhaustive treatment, it is one that is sound and faithful to the Scriptures. This is the fourth part of the series. Dr. Gerstner has looked at four unsound bases for sound doctrine and now he will turn to a discussion of a sound basis for sound doctrine.

Continued from Part 3

5. The Testimony of Divinely Commissioned Messengers as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy

(A) The Argument from Commissioned Messengers to Inspired Bible.

Let us outline the steps of this argument before proceeding to explain it:

There is a God.
Men were made in his image, rational creatures. 
As such, they are designed to make their choices on the basis of evidence.
The evidence for the Inspiration of the Bible is as follows:

Men have appeared in history with powers which only God could have given them (miracles).
Miracles are God's seal to mark men unmistakably as His messengers. 
God's message is indubitably true. 
God's message includes the Inspiration of the Bible. 
Therefore, the inspiration of the Bible is indubitably true.

1. There is a God. This must be assumed here. This is a small, popular Primer on Bible Inerrancy. Time, space, and the nature of the undertaking make certain assumptions inevitable. What is here an assumption (the existence of God) has been proven elsewhere in many, many volumes. If the reader of the Primer does not believe in God's existence its argument may interest him, but it cannot possibly convince him. We must believe there is a God before we can consistently believe that there is a special revelation of God in the Bible or anywhere else.

But here we will detour a little, for there are many today who say that we can only know the existence of God from special revelation (such as the Bible). Exactly opposite to what we said in the preceding paragraph, they contend that God is utterly unknown until He supernaturally discloses Himself. We say that God cannot supernaturally reveal Himself until He has naturally made His existence known. They say, "No, His existence cannot be naturally known until He supernaturally reveals Himself."

Let us examine their view. According to it:

First, there is a book, the Bible, claiming the existence and revelation of God.

Second, we are to believe in this God.

Third, apart from this revelation we could not know that there is such a God.

The paucity of this approach is plain to see. First, we would have no possible tests to ascertain whether the deity revealed in the Bible is what He says He is. We do not know, on this view, that there is such a being, nor whether this Biblical being is such. If this is God we can only accept it on His own word. We would not trust a dollar to a human being whose honesty we know only because he claims it. Here we trust our lives to a being whose "Godness" and whose very existence we know only from Himself. Custom inspectors look at a visitor to see whether he resembles the picture in the passport before they admit him to their nation. But here comes a God without passport, a God who wants to rule our lives merely because He says He has a right to do so. If this were not bad enough, we have, second, the further objection that there are many claimants to this role of God. Many books present their candidates. If we worshiped any one of them without credentials we would be out of our mind; if we worshiped all of them we would be multiple-schizophrenic.

No, there must be evidence of the existence of God from the creation, of which we ourselves are the most exalted part, if we are to recognize a further revelation of this glorious being, if and when it comes. So here we assume what most people do quite rightly assume, that God exists. This we can safely assume here only because it is proven elsewhere. Otherwise, the assumption would be gratuitous.

1. Men were made in God's image as rational creatures. This point also we must largely assume because of the limitation of this little book. But this is a very safe assumption, is it not? If we were not rational beings, you would not be reading this (or any other) book in your search for knowledge, nor would we be writing books. Aristotle was quite right that man is a rational animal. If we were not rational beings, no one could prove (for this involves reasoning) that we were not rational beings. We could not even think that we were not. So our rationality must be assumed, for even to deny it is to assume it.

2. As rational beings, men are designed to make their choices on the basis of evidence.

Being rational beings they are not the mere product of natural forces. They choose according to reason (or what appears reason). That is virtually the definition of a rational being. If he were merely the product of external forces, how could his own reason and will be operative; and, if not, how could he be a rational being?

Being rational beings they are not the mere product of supernatural forces. That is, not only does nature not force rational beings, but even supernature, that is God Himself, does not force them. We would go so far as to say that God cannot force men. By definition, they have been made (by God Himself) rational beings. If they were forced, even by God, they would cease to be the kind of beings He had made them, that is, rational beings. So if God forced men they would cease to be men. Or, to put it another way, so long as men remain men they are not forced even by God (in fact,, least of all by God, who made them rational in the first place).

Being rational beings they cannot be forced by sin. Granted that man is not what he ought to be. Granted that there is something perverse within him. Granted that he does not always (if ever) think what is true and do what is right. Still, this evil bent of his nature does not actually force him to will against his will. The absurdity of the notion is seen in the last statement: "Still this evil bent of his nature does not actually force him to will against his will." How could he meaningfully be said to will against his will? If he wills against his will, that would be his will, namely, to will against his "will." So his willing against his "will" would not truly be against his will; or, if it were against his will, it could not be his will.

Therefore, man is a rational being. It is his very nature to choose according to the judgments of his mind. Nothing could possibly take that character away from man without taking his humanity away from him.

Consequently, if God is graciously disposed to reveal Himself to His creature, man, God must necessarily reveal Himself according to the rational nature of His human creature. The necessity is self-imposed and, therefore, consistent with the sovereignty of God.

God cannot go over or under the "head" of man. He cannot treat him as a God or an animal, but as the creature which He, God, made: a rational being.

To be continued...

Excerpted from Primitive Theology by John H. Gerstner.

In his contribution to this month's issue of Tabletalk, R.C. Sproul wonders how the psalmist can have such great love for God's law. "'Oh how I love your law!' (Ps. 119:97). What a strange statement of affection. Why would anyone direct his love toward the law of God? The law limits our choices, restricts our freedom, torments our consciences, and pushes us down with a mighty weight that cannot be overcome, and yet the psalmist declares his affection for the law in passionate terms. He calls the law sweeter than honey to his mouth (Ps. 119:3)."

"What is it about the law of God that can provoke such affection?" Dr. Sproul offers several answers to that question: the law is a reflection of a great lawgiver, the law speaks the truth about us and about God, the law is a guide, it is a restraint, and best of all, is that it tells us how we may please God.

Read about this and more in The Goodness of the Law.

Can a person be evangelical and not believe in hell?

The difficult truth of the matter is that language, while actually having the ability to communicate, is not static. Words have real meanings, but those meanings are grounded both in history and in usage. Sometimes those two come apart, and a word is caught in the tension. "Evangelical" is just one of those words.

Historically speaking evangelical was a redundant term for Protestant. In both cases the term referred to those who affirmed the binding authority of the Bible alone and that one could have peace with God only by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone. Contra Rome then the term affirmed sola scriptura and sola fide.

Three hundred years after the Reformation, however, the term took a small turn, a tiny nuance was added by the beginnings of theological liberalism. Institutionally theological liberalism was found within Protestant churches. Its defining qualities, however, were a denial of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible and a denial of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Evangelical suddenly became not a synonym for Protestant, but a sub-category. It was how we distinguished actual Christians from liberal "Christians." Thus Machen's later great work, Christianity and Liberalism affirmed that the two were utterly distinct.

One hundred years ago there was yet another shift. The evangelical wing of the Protestant church offered competing strategies for dealing with the liberal wing. One side was slightly less sophisticated, slightly less academic, and, given its accompanying pessimistic eschatology, more retreatist. They, distinguishing themselves from evangelicals, called themselves fundamentalists. On the fundamentals both fundamentalists and evangelicals agreed.  Evangelicals, sadly, were slightly more accommodating of theological liberalism, slightly less ardent in denouncing it.

Over the last thirty years that spirit of accommodation has mushroomed inside the evangelical church. Indeed if evangelical has any meaning at all in current usage, it is far more about a mood, a posture, than it is about an affirmation of cardinal doctrines.  Evangelicals, on the whole, do not scoff at the Bible like theological liberals. They are willing to affirm, at least in principle, biblical miracles. They are even willing, in a nuanced way that ultimately neuters that authority, to affirm the authority of the Bible, at least parts of it. That nuance typically softens the edges of the Bible by interpreting it in light of our post-modern wisdom. Suddenly the "clear" passages by which we must interpret the less clear are those passages that best reflect current common wisdom. "God is love," which the Bible clearly teaches, suddenly means that its condemnation of homosexual behavior, or women ruling over men in the church, are suddenly open to re-interpretation.

More important, however, is the notion that "God is love" undoes the necessity of trusting in the finished work of Christ for salvation. Now, either due to a generous inclusiveness that welcomes Romanists, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, ad nauseum, or a denial of the reality of hell, we no longer must embrace the work of Christ to be with Him forever. This, historically, is nothing like evangelicalism. It is a denial of the most basic element of the word's historical and etymological root- the evangel. 

If current trends continue, evangelical will no longer be a synonym for Protestant, because there is no error so grievous that it must be protested. It will instead become a synonym for liberal. To be acceptable, respectable, we now must give up our narrow evangel.  Are we willing to confess this hard truth--we are all fundamentalists now?

[image error]
The constancy and loyalty of God's lovingkindness is displayed in its ability to persevere through all sorts of obstacles and trials. The ultimate expression of this loyal love is seen in Paul's teaching in Romans 8:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written:

"For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (vv. 31-39)

In this passage the apostle sets forth the principle that gripped the reformers of the sixteenth century: Deus pro nobis, which means simply "God for us." The source of Christian comfort is not that we are for God or that we are on His side. Rather it is that God is for us and is on our side. To know that God is for us is to know that no one and nothing can ever prevail against us. Paul's question is clearly rhetorical: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" The answer is obvious: nobody. Of course this does not mean that the Christian will have no enemies. On the contrary, we will be surrounded by enemies. Multitudes will set themselves against us. But these multitudinous enemies have no chance to destroy us when God has bound Himself to us. We are like Elisha at Dothan, surrounded by invisible angels that fight for us as the heavenly host.

The source of Christian comfort is ... that God is for us and is on our side.

What our enemies can never do, specifically, is separate us from the love of Christ. A "separation" means a kind of division. We see it often as a trial step in marriages on the way to divorce. Separation precedes the divorce and is often the harbinger of it. But in the marriage of Christ and His bride, there is neither divorce nor separation. The "love of Christ" of which Paul speaks is not our love for Him but His love for us.

Paul points to the risen and ascended Lord, Who sits at the right hand of God and functions as our intercessor, our great High Priest. It is from His love and His care that we cannot be separated. Paul lists specific things that threaten our security in this love. He speaks of tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it calls attention to several things that might cause us to faint or doubt Christ's love for us. When we suffer persecution or the consequences of a famine, we may be inclined to fear that Christ has abandoned us. But Paul sees these perilous things as those sufferings that accompany our discipleship to Christ. He quotes Psalm 44: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (v. 22).

Even if we are subject to martyrdom, such suffering cannot cast asunder the love Christ has for us. In all these circumstances there is victory because of the love of Christ.

Paul declares that in all these things we are "more than conquerors." The phrase "more than conquerors" translates a single word in Greek, which may be transliterated as hypernikon. The root of the word refers to the concept of conquest (such as is hinted by our Nike missiles or athletic shoes). The prefix "hyper" intensifies the root. Paul's point is that because of the love of Christ, we are not only conquerors in the face of all adversity but we reach the supreme level of conquest, the zenith of victory in Him.

The Latin equivalent of the Greek hypernikon is the term supervincimus. This indicates that in Christ we are not merely conquerors but superconquerors.

It is important to note that this apex of victory is achieved through Him. It is not achieved without Him or apart from Him. And the "Him" of Whom Paul speaks here is defined and identified as "Him who loved us."

Paul then provides another list of things he is persuaded lack the power to separate us from the love of Christ. In this list are included death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present, things to come, height, depth, and any other created thing.

Once again the list Paul provides is not exhaustive but illustrative. He uses hyperbole to communicate a truth. Not even the angels have the power to wrest us from the love of God in Christ. There is no clear and present danger nor future threat that has the power to divide us from Him. The forces of nature, the forces of government, the forces of hell—all lack the ability to sever us from Christ. In the face of the love of God in Christ, these creaturely powers are exposed as impotent.

It is important to see that this inseparable love of which Paul speaks in Romans 8 is specifically directed to God's elect. It is the elect who enjoy the guarantee of this inseparable love. This discussion of the inseparable love of God in Christ takes place within the context of election. When Paul declares that God is for us, the "us" is defined as the elect. Paul asks rhetorically, "Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies" (v. 33).

The "love of Christ" of which Paul speaks is not our love for Him but His love for us.

Excerpted from Loved by God.