R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 525

Grace to You: An Interview with John MacArthur

Here's an excerpt from Grace to You: An Interview with John MacArthur in June's issue of Tabletalk.

TT: How did the Grace to You radio program begin, and how many people does it reach today?

John MacArthur: It began in kind of a roundabout fashion. Sometime in the early 1970s, we began to get letters from Baltimore, thanking us for our radio ministry. But we didn’t have a radio ministry. So, we looked into it and learned that a Maryland radio station, WRBS, was playing sermon tapes in the evening hours, and people were responding to the teaching of God’s Word.

So, we began to discuss what would be needed to sustain a radio ministry. Up to that point, all the nationally syndicated daily Bible-teaching broadcasts featured someone in a studio talking into a microphone. We decided to see what would happen if we just featured sermons from our weekly worship services. We took some one-hour sermons, split them in two, taped short opening and closing segments in the studio, and put them on the air.

We bought time on a local radio station that featured country music, and we were sandwiched between horse races and the evening news. That was not a great time slot for building an audience, so when a nearby Christian station offered us a half hour daily, we seized the opportunity. The response was encouraging immediately, and we have grown from there.

The first official broadcasts of Grace to You in its current half-hour format were in 1978. The broadcast premiered on three stations that year. It’s now heard daily on more than a thousand stations worldwide. A recent conservative estimate informed us that we have more than two million listeners per week. Add the Internet stream and downloads, and the numbers are staggering.

Continue reading Grace to You: An Interview with John MacArthur.

The Preterist Approach to Revelation — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology

An issue that must be addressed before proceeding to an examination of the text of Revelation is our basic hermeneutical approach to the book. Over the course of the church's history there have been four main approaches: the futurist, historicist, preterist, and idealist approaches.i The futurist approach understands everything from Revelation 4:1 forward to be a prophecy of things that are to occur just before the Second Coming of Christ. In other words, all of these prophesied events are still in the future from the perspective of the twenty-first century. According to proponents, this conclusion grows out of a belief that there is no correspondence between these prophesied events and anything that has yet occurred in history.ii

The historicist approach understands Revelation to be a prophecy of church history from the first advent until the Second Coming of Christ. This approach appears to have had its roots in the writings of Joachim of Fiore.iii It was later adopted by most of the Protestant Reformers, but it is held by very few today.iv The preterist approach to Revelation is most clearly contrasted with the futurist approach. According to the preterist approach, most of the prophecies in the book of Revelation were fulfilled not long after John wrote.v In other words, their fulfillment is past from the perspective of the twenty-first century.vi The fourth major approach to the book is the idealist or symbolic approach. According to this view, Revelation does not contain prophecies of specific historical events. Instead, it uses symbols to express timeless principles concerning the conflict between good and evil.

Until recently these various approaches have been considered by most to be mutually exclusive. A number of scholars, however, have begun to propose a fifth approach, which may be termed the eclectic approach. As one proponent of this view explains, "The solution is to allow the preterist, idealist, and futurist methods to interact in such a way that the strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized."vii One of the first to espouse such an approach was George Ladd. He concluded that the correct method of interpreting the book of Revelation was to blend the futurist and preterist methods.viii He has been followed in this basic eclectic approach, although with different emphases, by a number of scholars including Gregory Beale, Grant Osborne, and Vern Poythress.ix

Because the approach one takes to the book of Revelation dramatically affects one's exegetical conclusions, it is necessary that I explain the reasons I take the approach I do. I believe that the book itself demands a basically preterist approach. This does not mean that all of the prophecies in the book have already been fulfilled. Some of the prophecies in Revelation (e.g., 20:7–22:21) have yet to be fulfilled, but many, if not most, of the prophecies in the book have been fulfilled. My approach then may be considered as essentially preterist.x

Before explaining why I believe this approach to be correct, I must explain why I do not believe the other approaches to be fully adequate. Proponents of the futurist view say that their approach is necessary because there is no correspondence between the events prophesied in the book and anything that has happened in history. This conclusion is reached because of an overly literalistic approach to the symbolism of the book and a lack of appreciation for how such language was used in the Old Testament prophetic books. This, however, is not the most serious problem with the futurist approach.

The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies. The book opens and closes with declarations indicating that the things revealed in the book "must soon take place" (1:1; 22:6). It opens and closes with declarations indicating that "the time is near" (1:3; 22:10). The book of Revelation does not begin in the way the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch begins, with a statement to the effect that the content is not for the present generation, but for a remote generation that is still to come. The book of Revelation has direct relevance to the real historical first century churches to whom it was addressed, and the text of the book itself points to the imminent fulfillment of most of its prophecies.

The historicist approach faces more serious difficulties than the futurist approach. As Poythress observes, "Of the four schools of interpretation, historicism is undoubtedly the weakest, though it was popular centuries ago."xi The most serious problem with the historicist approach is its subjectivity and arbitrariness.xii Historicist interpreters through the ages invariably identify their own age as the final age.xiii They then fit the prophecies of the book with whatever important events have transpired between the first century and their own day. The result is that the basic historicist interpretation of the book changes from one generation to the next.

The idealist approach is held by many in the present day, but it is fundamentally flawed as a method of interpreting the book of Revelation. It's most serious problem is that it brushes over the specificity found within the text. Bauckham explains,

Thus it would be a serious mistake to understand the images of Revelation as timeless symbols. Their character conforms to the contextuality of Revelation as a letter to the seven churches of Asia. Their resonances in the specific social, political, cultural and religious world of their first readers need to be understood if their meaning is to be appropriated today.xiv

Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same.xv

Proponents of the futurist, historicist, and idealist approaches offer several criticisms of the preterist approach to the book. Probably the most serious criticism is that this approach robs the book of any contemporary significance. John Walvoord, for example, writes, "The preterist view, in general, tends to destroy any future significance of the book, which becomes a literary curiosity with little prophetic meaning."xvi Leon Morris echoes this sentiment, claiming that the preterist approach "has the demerit of making it [the book of Revelation] meaningless for all subsequent readers (except for the information it gives about that early generation)."xvii

It is actually rather surprising that this criticism is repeated so often by conservative evangelical scholars. It implies that any biblical prophecies that have already been fulfilled are meaningless for readers in later generations. But are the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus meaningless for later generations? Are the multitudes of Old Testament prophecies concerning the destruction of Israel and Judah and the subsequent exile meaningless for later generations? Obviously not, and neither would the prophecies in Revelation be any less meaningful or significant if it were shown that many or most of them have already been fulfilled. All Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16), even those parts of Scripture containing already fulfilled prophecies.

When misguided criticisms, such as the one above, are set aside and the case for a basically preterist approach is objectively considered on its own merits, it is seen to be quite strong. In the first place, our basic hermeneutical approach to the book should be determined by the nature and content of the book itself. As we have already seen, the book itself indicates when at least most of its prophecies are to be fulfilled. In both the first and last chapters, John tells his first century readers that the things revealed in the book "must soon take place" (1:1; 22:6) and that "the time is near" (1:3; 22:10). These statements are generalizations, so they do not require that every event prophesied in the book must be fulfilled in the first century, but the generalizations do provide us with a "general" idea of how we should understand the book.xviii The bulk of John's prophecy concerns something that was impending in his own day.

Secondly, when the genre of the book is taken into consideration, it provides strong evidence for a basically preterist approach to the book. The book is a prophecy (1:3; 19:10; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). It is an apocalyptic prophecy set within the form of an epistle, but it is a prophecy nonetheless. Why is this important? It is important because it means that our approach to the other prophetic books of the Bible should provide us with some guidance in how we approach this last prophetic book of the Bible. We should approach it and read it in the same basic way. We do not read any of the Old Testament prophetic books as a whole in an idealist manner, and there is precious little in any of them that could be approached in a historicist manner. We recognize that these prophecies were given to specific people in specific historical contexts. Many of the Old Testament prophecies deal with impending judgments upon either Israel or Judah or the nations that oppressed Israel. They also contain glimpses of ultimate future restoration. In short, we take a basically preterist approach to the Old Testament prophetic books, recognizing that they speak largely of impending events, yet also deal at times with the distant future.xix Given that this is the way in which the Old Testament prophetic books are approached, it seems that our presumption should be in favor of the same basic approach to the prophetic book of Revelation.

It is also easy to forget when reading the book of Revelation that it is the capstone of the entire narrative of Scripture. The bulk of the biblical narrative has concerned the story of Israel, leading up to the coming of the promised Messiah. We recall that most of the content of the Old Testament prophetic books concerned the coming exile of Israel and Judah on account of her rejection of God. The prophecies continued right up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. (cf. Jeremiah; Ezekiel). In the first century, Jesus foretold another coming judgment of Israel on account of her rejection of himself, and he connected this coming judgment with his accession to the throne of the kingdom of God. In light of the history of prophecy in Israel, and in light of the redemptive-historical significance Jesus himself places on this first century judgment of Israel, would it be terribly surprising if at the conclusion of the biblical narrative God once again sent a prophet to declare the impending judgment of Israel as well as the ultimate future restoration? When the genre, the statements of the book itself, and the larger biblical context are taken into consideration, a basically preterist approach to the book emerges as the most appropriate approach to take.xx

i For a good summary overview of the history of interpretation, see Arthur W. Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 21–103.
ii John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 101.
iii Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse, 49.
iv The most able contemporary proponent of the historicist interpretation of Revelation is Francis Nigel Lee (cf. Lee, John's Revelation Unveiled [Brisbane: Queensland Presbyterian Theological College, 2000]).
v The most well known contemporary proponent of the preterist interpretation of Revelation is Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Gentry is currently completing a full length commentary on Revelation.
vi Of course, their fulfillment was future from the perspective of John at the time he wrote the book.
vii Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 21.
viii George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 14.
ix See Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Grant Osborne, Revelation; Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation (Phillupsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000). Beale takes an eclectic approach with an emphasis on the idealist approach. Osborne, on the other hand, emphasizes futurism in his eclecticism.
x Since I believe that some prophecies in the book have not yet been fulfilled (i.e. I take a futurist approach to some specific prophecies), and since I believe some of the individual observations made by idealist interpreters are valuable, there may be those who would refer to my view as eclectic with an emphasis on the preterist aspect. The particular label is of little concern to me.
xi Poythress, The Returning King, 36.
xii Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 27.
xiii This includes many of the classic Reformation, post-Reformation, and Puritan commentaries on Revelation. Contemporary Reformed historicists cannot follow those classic Reformed historicists completely because those classic Reformed historicists were wrong about their own age being the final age.
xiv Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 19.
xv The idealist approach to the text of Revelation often appears to be more akin to an application of the text than an interpretation of the author's original intended meaning.
xvi Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 18.
xvii Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation, TNTC 20 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 18–19.
xviii John himself included a prophecy of a "thousand year" period that would be followed by the final judgment (Rev. 20:1–10). At the very least, it seems reasonable to suppose that John did not believe the events that would follow the thousand year period would also be fulfilled in the very near future.
xix Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah WBC (Nashville: Nelson, 1987), xxxii.
xx One of the most well-known recent commentaries on Revelation written from a preterist perspective is David Chilton's The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1987). The reader will observe that I have not cited this commentary in this chapter. It is not that there are not helpful observations here and there in the book. The problem with Chilton's commentary is that he uses a hermeneutical method, sometimes described as "interpretive maximalism." This method of hermeneutics does more to obscure the meaning of Scripture than it does to explain it. One is able to learn a lot about the imagination of a commentator who uses this method, but very little about the intention of the author of the book being interpreted. For a very helpful critique of Chilton's commentary and his use of "interpretive maximalism," see Greg L. Bahnsen, "Another Look at Chilton's Days of Vengeance," Journey 3, no. 2, 1988, pp. 11-14 (also available online).

Adapted from From Age to Age by Keith Mathison. ISBN 978-0-87552-745-1
Used with permission of P&R Publishing Co. P O Box 817, Phillipsburg N.J. 08865 www.prpbooks.com

From Age to Age is available in the Ligonier store.

Twitter Highlights (6/24/12)

Here are highlights from our various Twitter accounts over the past week.

Grateful law-keeping is the saved sinner’s response to received grace. —Derek Thomas bit.ly/eHYlzL

— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) June 19, 2012

Oh, the hyperbole of Christ's love! (Thomas Watson).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) June 18, 2012

God's grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome our natural resistance to it. —R.C. Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 18, 2012

Central Florida high school students can experience RBC this August and earn college credit for FREE bit.ly/M737RN

— RefBibleCollege (@RefBibleCollege) June 20, 2012

It was not paganism outside the camp that threatened Israel so much as the paganism within the camp: ligm.in/M8BulJ

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 20, 2012

There is no greater snare in the Christian life than to forget the Person Himself and to live simply on truths concerning Him (Lloyd-Jones).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) June 22, 2012

The human dilemma is this: God is holy, and we are not. God is righteous, and we are not. —R.C. Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 22, 2012

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:

Ligonier Ministries | Ligonier Academy | Ligonier Connect
Reformation Bible College | Reformation Trust | Tabletalk Magazine

What is the "Theology of Glory"?

There is an appropriate tension in the relationship between Christians and the world. We serve a Lord who came to bring life abundant (John 10:10), who has overcome the world (John 16:33), who is bringing all things under subjection (Ephesians 1:22), who will see every knee bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord, to the glory of the Father (Philippians 2:10). Jesus is the second Adam succeeding where the first Adam failed, not only in obeying God's law perfectly, not only atoning for our failure to keep the law, but in fulfilling the dominion mandate. The church, which is the second Eve, or bride of the second Adam, is a help suitable to Jesus in fulfilling that calling. We are in union with Him, bone of His bone. We are to be about the business of pressing the crown rights of King Jesus.

Trouble is, we, like the disciples before us, are often zealous more for our own success, our own power, our own glory than we are for the kingdom. They wanted to know who would be first in the kingdom. We are often much the same. The notion of "the theology of glory" is a means to warn us against this temptation. Rooted in Lutheran thinking, we are reminded that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (II Corinthians 2:10), that the first shall be last and the last first (Matthew 20:16). We are more called to die for our enemies than to kill them, to give freely than to take from them, to turn the other cheek, even to live in peace and quietness with all men, as much as is possible. This, Lutherans wisely call "the theology of the cross." We are to live lives of sacrifice.

An unbalanced picture on the glory side is found in the prosperity gospel. This heresy teaches that it is God's will that we all enjoy great health and wealth, that as children of the King we all ought to be living like princes. An unbalanced picture on the cross side is found in the ascetic heresy- don't eat, don't drink, don't touch. Here God's blessings are frowned upon, seen as a sign of worldliness rather than gifts from God's hand. Here poverty is seen as a virtue in itself. Worse still this perspective can degenerate to a denial of the reign of Christ over all things.

Our calling is not to pursue our own comfort, far less our own glory. Rather we are called to make known the glory of our King. We are to make visible the invisible kingdom of God. We do this, however, through rather ordinary means. As we work faithfully, rather than claw our way up the financial ladder, as we change diapers, rather than count our gold, as He is exalted and we are laid low, we are not eschewing glory for the cross, but are instead embracing the glory of the cross. We live by dying. We win by losing. We conquer by retreating. We boast in our weakness.

Jesus reigns. But we His subjects are not many wise, not many powerful, not many noble. Therefore let the one who boasts boast in the Lord. The more we manifest Christ and Him crucified, the more we manifest His sovereign reign.

The Age of the Universe and Genesis 1 — A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

In this series, we have been discussing Dr. R.C. Sproul's answer to a question about the age of the universe during the Q&A at Ligonier's 2012 National Conference. We have discussed a number of foundational theological issues that reflect Dr. Sproul's distinctively Reformed approach to this issue, an approach based on the thinking of Reformed theologians from John Calvin to B. B. Warfield. In this final post, we turn to Dr. Sproul's answer to the specific question that elicited his lengthy response:

When people ask me how old the earth is I tell them "I don't know," because I don't. And I'll tell you why I don't. In the first place, the Bible does not give us a date of creation. Now it gives us hints and inclinations that would indicate in many cases a young earth. And at the same time you get all this expanding universe and all this astronomical dating, and triangulation and all that stuff coming from outside the church that makes me wonder.

And then at the end of his response, he explained again:

Now having said that, that's a long way to say I don't know how old the earth is...

I suspect that some conference attendees were disappointed when they heard this answer. Some probably expected Dr. Sproul to proclaim dogmatically one way or the other. A large number, however, applauded. I believe they recognized the wise humility evidenced in this answer. Dr. Sproul recognizes the kind of harm Christians can do and have done to the church by hastily jumping to wrong conclusions about general revelation and science. When Christians declared to the world that geocentrism was something that is clearly and definitely taught in Scripture, all they did was convince those who had carefully studied the evidence that Scripture must therefore be in error. They created a false dilemma. This problem is not new. Augustine, the greatest theologian in the first millennium of church history, also encountered this problem and addressed it in words that have been quoted often:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.i

Augustine's comments emphasize the importance of Christians exercising caution and humility – particularly regarding subjects about which we have little or no firsthand knowledge or expertise. As he explains, if we misinterpret Scripture on such subjects and then proclaim to others who know something about those subjects that our misinterpretation is the sure Word of God, we bring disgrace on Christ and His church and place unnecessary stumbling blocks before unbelievers to whom we are presenting the good news. It is far wiser to say, with Dr. Sproul, "I don't know," than it is to assert falsehoods to be the teaching of Holy Scripture.

It is also wiser to say, "I don't know," than it is to make ultimatums that may be based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and/or God's created works. I have encountered Christians who have said that they would renounce Christianity if they were convinced that the earth moves around the sun because it would mean that the Bible is not true. I have also encountered Christians who have argued that any believer who is convinced that the universe has been proven to be billions of years old should abandon Christianity because it would mean that the Bible is not true. No. As Dr. Sproul implied, something like this would merely mean that a particular interpretation of Scripture was mistaken. It says absolutely nothing about the truth of God's Word itself. If the universe turns out to be 6,000 years old, that fact will not ultimately conflict with what Scripture actually teaches. If the universe turns out to be billions of years old, that fact will not ultimately conflict with what Scripture actually teaches.ii We do not need to renounce Christianity in either case. Only if Christ is not risen from the dead is our faith in vain (1 Cor. 15:14).

What about the age of the universe then? If students of general revelation (i.e. scientists) contribute to our understanding of special revelation as Dr. Sproul has explained, then those of us who do not have the training to expertly evaluate the evidence ourselves are dependent to one degree or another on those who are trained in order to help us understand the evidence for and against the different claims. A problem arises, however, when different Christians look to different specialists and those different specialists themselves present us with conflicting conclusions. We end up with Christians who have an equal commitment to the authority of Scripture coming to different conclusions about the evidence. This then affects our reading of special revelation.

The different conclusions to which Christians have come regarding the evidence for the age of the universe has led to an ongoing debate in the church about the interpretation of the nature and length of the days of Genesis 1. Just as those who were convinced that the evidence supported heliocentrism were forced to take a second look at Joshua 10 and other passages, so too were those convinced that the evidence supported an older universe forced to take another look at Genesis 1. This has led to much discussion and debate – some of it quite rancorous.

This debate has played out in several Reformed denominations. In 2000, for example, the PCA issued a lengthy report on the subject. This was followed by a similar report from the OPC in 2004. Both reports concluded that several views of the nature and length of the days of creation are within the bounds of biblical and confessional orthodoxy. Both reports were commended to the various presbyteries and churches within the respective denominations for their study and consideration. Both of these reports are well worth reading for their overview of the issues and arguments involved.

The debate over the age of the universe and the days of Genesis has also played out as numerous books have been written in the last century and a half by Reformed theologians presenting evidence for one view or another.iii The Calendar Day view was held by Reformed theologians such as Robert L. Dabney and Louis Berkhof.iv It has recently been defended by Douglas F. Kelly, James B. Jordan, Joseph Pipa, and David Hall.v The Day Age view was held by Reformed theologians such as Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and E. J. Young.vi More recently, this view has been defended by Francis Schaeffer and James Montgomery Boice.vii The Framework view has been defended by Reformed theologians such as Meredith Kline, Mark Futato, and Henri Blocher.viii A version of the Analogical Day view was held by William G. T. Shedd.ix More recently, this view has been defended by Reformed theologians such as C. John Collins and W. Robert Godfrey.x In short, Reformed Christians are still sorting through the issues.

During a period of time when Reformed believers are attempting to work through and evaluate all the evidence, a measure of grace, humility, and patience would seem to be advisable. The Ligonier teaching fellows are an outstanding example of this attitude. More than one view of the age of the universe and the days of Genesis 1 is held among them without strife and enmity and without charges of compromise on the one hand or obscurantism on the other. This is due to the fact that these men understand the implications of what Dr. Sproul said in the response we have been examining for the last several weeks. Would that more Christians would take Dr. Sproul's wise words to heart.

iAugustine, De Genesi ad litteram: 1.19.39 translated by J.H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
ii And if the universe turns out to be both because of aspects of God's creation having to do with relativity and time, that will not ultimately conflict with what Scripture turns out to actually teach either.
iii Three of the views of the days of Genesis were defended in David G. Hagopian, ed. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001).
iv Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 254–6; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 154–5.
v Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change, Genesis 1.1-2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms (Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 1997); James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999); and Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, eds., Did God Create in Six Days? (Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press and Kuyper Institute, 1999).
vi Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982) 1:570–71; B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings, edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Baker: 2000), 145; J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965), 115; E. J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 169–70.
vii Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove: IVP, 1972) and James Montgomery Boice, Genesis, Volume 1: Creation and Fall (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982, 1998).
viii Meredith Kline, "Because It Had Not Rained," ,Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1958) 146-57; Mark Futato, "Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 With Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3," Westminster Theological Journal 60 (1998) 1–21; Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, The Opening Chapters of Genesis, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1984.
ix William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 374.
x C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006) and W. Robert Godfrey, God's Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003).

See also:

Introduction
All Truth is God's Truth
General and Special Revelation
Interpreting General and Special Revelation
Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus
Earthly Things and Heavenly Things
When Science and Scripture Conflict
The Age of the Universe and Genesis 1

$5 Friday: Holiness, Reformed Theology, & God's Grace

It's time for another $5 Friday sale and this week's resources cover such topics as salvation, holiness, Reformed theology, finding God's will, God's grace, and more. There's even a poster of John Calvin included.

Sale runs through 12:01 a.m. — 11:59 p.m. Friday EST.

View today's $5 Friday sale items.

The Church and Idolatry

Here's an excerpt from The Church and Idolatry, Jared Wilson's contribution to the June issue of Tabletalk.

Now set your mind and heart to seek the LORD your God" (1 Chron. 22:19). All sin is idolatry because every sin is an exercise in trust of something or someone other than the one true God to satisfy, fulfill, or bless. It is not difficult to see how violations of commandments two through ten are automatic violations of commandment one. This truth reveals that the hottest "worship war" going is the one taking place daily in the sanctuary of our own hearts. But we must wage this war because none of us is a bystander to idol worship.

In Isaiah 44:12–17, we find a powerful and revelatory description of just how easy it is to slip into idolatry. We see in the passage that ironsmiths are simply working their tools over the coals, fashioning them with their hammers. Carpenters measure out cuts and notches. Artists capture the physical form in sketches and sculpture. Men chop down trees to build houses, then they plant more trees to replace them. They build fire, bake bread. Ah, look at what we've created.

Continue reading The Church and Idolatry.

Stream the 2012 West Coast Conference for Free

On June 8–9, more than 3,000 saints gathered in Seattle to stand firm for the central doctrines of the Christian faith. Drs. Steven Lawson, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul boldly proclaimed the authority of the Bible, the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus, the exclusivity of Christ, justification by faith alone, the mortification of sin, and the existence of God.

All of the messages from this conference—including a very special time of questions and answers with Drs. Lawson, MacArthur, and Sproul—are available for you to stream for free. Thank you to everyone who attended.

By making these messages free to watch, our prayer is that the thunder of God's Word would continue to echo through the body of Christ for His glory and our good.

Watch the 2012 West Coast Conference

For the Authority of Scripture by John MacArthur
For the Resurrection of Christ by Steven Lawson
For the Doctrine of the Trinity by R.C. Sproul
Against the Claims of Atheism by Steven Lawson
Questions and Answers
Against Our Own Sin by Steven Lawson
For the Exclusive Claims of Christ by John MacArthur
For Justification By Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul

The 2012 West Coast Conference is also available for pre-order on DVD and CD.

8 Simple Instructions for Sharing Christ

These practical instructions are just that: instructions. This is not a formula. It is a way of preparing your heart and organizing your life for gospel impact in the life of others.

1. Prepare to Share

Pray, read the Word, study, and get instruction with the intention of sharing it with another. We often read, study, and pray with ourselves in view. That's appropriate of course, but if it stops there, we fall short of the mission of Christ. When you read, pray, and study with others in view you'll begin to see how the truth connects with those around you. You can become prayerful for them and relate to them in a way that accords with truth and love.

2. Get Involved

Go to where the people are. Find a way to put yourself in the middle of the action. Volunteer, serve, practice hospitality, introduce yourself to the barista. There's innumerable ways of making this step, so be intentional in the steps you decide to take. You can't get involved in everything. But with those things that you are involved with, make it count.

3. Be Attentive

Look for and walk through the open doors God gives. Many times we don't see the open doors, because we're not paying attention. Many times we don't walk through the open doors we see, because we're afraid. When you are afraid to share Christ, you have yourself in view and not Christ. When your fear keeps you from sharing Christ with someone, you are more in love with yourself than the one who needs Christ. Repent, push through the awkwardness, and trust God.

4. Get Close

Evangelism and discipleship are most effective when it's a personal relationship. Disciple making is a way of living, not a solitary practice. Share your life with someone else and show Christ to be the centerpiece. Break down your self-protecting barriers, and go deeper than you're comfortable. Strive to be a person that is easy to get close to. Live the love of Christ before them–toward them.

5. Share Christ

You are to share Christ in words and deeds, and often deeds before words. Consider the best way to love the person that is before you, so that Christ may be known to and experienced by the person you are with. A question you might ask: how might the person before me need to hear and experience the love of Christ? A lot more should be said here, but this is a start.

6. Wait on the Lord

Be patient and persistent. We often approach sharing Christ with another with particular expectations. We think, often subconsciously, "If I do this, this should happen, and it should happen within this time frame." When it doesn't happen that way (and it usually doesn't), we can get discouraged and give up. Remember, you're the messenger and nothing more. Fruit will come in God's time and God's way. Keep the course. God is always at work, even and sometimes especially when you can't see it.

7. Celebrate

When God works, celebrate it. If it's a small open door with a neighbor or a good friend that comes to know Christ, celebrate the work of God in others. Make known what Christ is doing, and give him the glory for the way He is showing up in the life of others.

8. Repeat

Don't stop. Go back and prepare some more, get a little more involved, heighten attentiveness, get closer still, share Christ more, keep waiting on God, and celebrate.

Who are you going to share Christ with this week?

Nate Shurden is pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church in Franklin, TN. This post was originally published on his blog.

Get Who is the Holy Spirit? for a Gift of Any Amount

Every day on our Renewing Your Mind broadcast we provide an opportunity for listeners to receive a biblically enriching resource for a gift of any amount and at the same time support the ongoing work of Ligonier Ministries. Occasionally, we highlight one of these offers on the blog.

This week you can get Sinclair Ferguson's new teaching series Who is the Holy Spirit? on DVD for a donation of any amount.

Who is the Holy Spirit? DVD

Although the Holy Spirit is sometimes the forgotten Person of the Trinity, His presence and work is found throughout redemptive history. In this twelve-message series, Dr. Sinclair Ferguson traces the work of the third person of the Trinity through Scripture - from creation to the work of Christ to His dwelling in our hearts today. Along the way, he sheds light on the vital role the Holy Spirit serves. Dr. Ferguson's goal is to help us know the Holy Spirit as a person, in addition to knowing of His power and work within us.

Get the complete teaching series of Who is the Holy Spirit on DVD for a donation of any amount.