R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 526

The Motivation for Love

Here's an excerpt from The Motivation for Love, Conrad Mbewe's contribution to the June issue of Tabletalk.

In his twentieth century classic, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis imagines the demon Screwtape writing to his nephew Wormwood about the need to discover the secret as to why God loves humans. He writes, "The truth is, I slipped by mere carelessness into saying that the Enemy really loves the humans. That, of course, is an impossibility… . All His talk about Love must be a disguise for something else — He must have some real motive for creating them and taking so much trouble about them. The reason one comes to talk as if He really had this impossible Love is our utter failure to find out that real motive. What does He stand to make out of them? That is the insoluble question… . And there lies the great task. We know that He cannot really love: nobody can; it doesn't make sense. If we could only find out what He is really up to!"

We wish the devils well in their quest to find the answer. For we who are God's people, there is no need for such a search. We believe that God really loves us. God is love (1 John 4:16). Therefore, it is His very nature to love. He loved us in the period of our innocence before the fall, and He continues to love us in our fallen state. Hence, Jesus could say, "Love your enemies … that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:44–45).

Continue reading The Motivation for Love.

False Prophets — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology

The main body of Peter's second epistle begins with Peter's replies to several objections to his eschatological doctrine (1:16–21). The first objection apparently raised by the false teachers is that Peter's eschatological teaching concerning the coming of Christ and of judgment is merely a myth (vv. 16–18). Peter assures his readers that the apostles did not follow cleverly devised myths, but were eyewitnesses of Christ's majesty. At the Transfiguration of Jesus, they were even witnesses to a foretaste of the glory to be revealed at the Second Advent (vv. 17–18). Peter also argues that the eschatological doctrine of the apostles is based on the writings of the Old Testament prophets (v. 19), men who spoke the very word of God (vv. 20–21).

Peter introduces the main topic of his letter in 2:1–3a, explaining, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." Just as false prophets arose during the Old Testament era to obscure the eschatological message of the true prophets, so too will false prophets obscure and debate the eschatological teaching of the apostles. That these false prophets would arise had been predicted by the apostles.i In verses 3b–10a, Peter explains that God reserves these false prophets for judgment, but he rescues godly men.

The false prophets, according to Peter, are characterized particularly by their arrogance (2:10b–13a) and by their sensuality (vv. 13b–16). Peter strongly denounces this godless behavior. Richard Bauckham explains the meaning of verses 17–22.

The two metaphors with which this section begins condemn the author's opponents as people who purport to be religious teachers. Like dry wells which disappoint the thirsty, and hazy mists which are blown away without relieving the heat of the atmosphere, these people have in reality nothing to offer those who look to them for spiritual sustenance.ii

The arrogance and godlessness of these false prophets combined with the uselessness of their teaching renders them fit for judgment on the last day.

In chapter 3, Peter tells his readers that they need to remember the predictions of the Old Testament prophets and know "that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation" (vv. 3–4). Peter responds to such statements by noting that the scoffers fail to take into account the judgment that occurred at the time of the flood (vv. 5–6). He assures his readers that the world will be judged again (v. 7). It is being preserved by God until that time.

Peter continues, saying, "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed" (3:8–10).

These verses have been used in the past to support numerological interpretations such as those that view all of world history in terms of a six or seven day period of time with each "day" lasting one thousand years. Such interpretations are based more on reader imagination than authorial intent. In the context, Peter is responding to those who are saying that God is slow to fulfill his promises. His response is threefold. First, Peter asserts that God's perspective on time is not the same as man's perspective (v. 8).iii Second, he explains that what the scoffers count as slowness is really God's patience on display (v. 9). He is providing the opportunity for repentance. Finally, Peter warns his readers that God will not delay his judgment forever (v. 10). Judgment will come. The language Peter uses to describe the coming judgment in verse 10 is the kind of highly figurative language the Old Testament prophets used to describe coming judgments (cf. Isa. 34:4; Joel 2:31).

Peter concludes this section saying, "Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" (3:11–13). The judgment that is coming is to provide grounds for holy living now. But Peter also explains that the judgment will also be accompanied by renewal. There will be new heavens and new earth, a recreation as it were (cf. Gen. 1:1).

i Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 243.
ii Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 280.
iii As Michael Green (The Second Epistle of Peter, TNTC 18 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 146) and Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, 309) demonstrate, this interpretation has parallels in the Jewish literature of the first century.

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 (6/17/12)

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

I rest solely in His righteousness and in His atonement because I know there is nothing I can do to make up for my own iniquity. —RC Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 12, 2012

So far as our hearts are empty of God, so far must they be unhappy (George Whitefield).

— Ligonier Academy (@LigonierAcademy) June 13, 2012

Sin goes in a disguise and thence is welcome; like Judas it kisses and kills; like Joab it salutes and slays (Swinnock).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) June 14, 2012

Jesus Christ is able to set us free because He has dealt with the sin that enslaves us. —Sinclair Ferguson bit.ly/dVmQbH

— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) June 14, 2012

Where the body of Christ gathers together, Christ, our sacred, holy Savior, is there. Do you consider this each week? ligm.in/MNsMxT

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 15, 2012

If it is hard to accept a rebuke, even a private one, it is harder still to administer one in loving humility (DA Carson).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) June 15, 2012

What kind of concept of God do we have that would say that God is paralyzed, frozen, within limits maintained by human choices? —R.C. Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) June 16, 2012

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:

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

What's the Difference Between Teaching and Preaching?

Like prose and poetry, these two terms are better understood as opposite ends of a spectrum, rather than raw opposites. When we write prose we are given to sundry poetic devices, word-plays, metaphors, etc. and when we write poetry we are communicating information. In like manner it is rather difficult if not impossible to teach without preaching to some degree, or to preach without some level of teaching.

One way to illustrate the distinction however is to note the difference between the indicative and the imperative. The former tells us what is, the latter tells us what we're supposed to do. Teaching, obviously, tends toward the indicative while preaching tends toward the imperative. But what if we made the distinction absolute? Would not any teaching utterly bereft of any imperative cause us to yawn, to reply, "So what?" In like manner, were we to drain preaching of all indicative, and be left with only imperative, would we not have sermons that merely shout, "Do something!"? Would it not end up sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Which means, in the end, that these are each matters of degree. I am blessed to be able to teach at Reformation Bible College. Because my desire for my students is that they would grow in grace and wisdom it is not my design to merely download information from my brain to theirs. My classes therefore tend to follow a real, though unplanned pattern. It usually happens that I spend roughly two thirds of my class time giving and explaining information. Then, in the final third of class I tend to commence to preaching. I begin to exhort my students to live in light of what they have learned, to change their perspectives, and their lives. I begin to implore them to change their hearts.

I am blessed also, though not as often as I would like to be, to preach. Here I certainly have an obligation, as best as I am able, to explain the text. I seek to place the text in its historical context. I try to clear up any grammatical ambiguities, or translation issues. But, persuaded that the Bible is not some odd and mysterious book that isn't eminently understandable, believing that our problems are more moral than intellectual, that we are more foolish than stupid, I exhort the congregation to believe, to trust, to rejoice, to give thanks, to love, to forgive. Every Sunday when I am blessed to preach I walk into the pulpit not only hoping to be true to the text, but hoping to encourage growth in godliness. I want the flock to go away persuaded that in Christ they are beloved of the Father, and that Jesus changes everything.

We who are Reformed tend to be stronger teachers than preachers. The non-Reformed tend to be stronger preachers than teachers. We agree with the Bible, but remain unmoved by it. They are quick to be moved, but not always by the Bible. The Bible is not just filled with truth. It is filled with truth that ought to change us. It isn't enough that we are taught the Bible. We need the Bible preached.

When Science and Scripture Conflict — 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. In our last post, we looked at Calvin's distinction between knowledge of earthly things and heavenly things in order to understand why Dr. Sproul and other Reformed theologians say that the church can learn from unbelieving scientists . In this post, we need to look at what Christians should do when science and Scripture seem to conflict.

In his concluding remarks, Dr. Sproul made the following important statements:

However, if something can be shown to be definitively taught in the Bible without questioning, and somebody gives me a theory from natural revelation—that they think is based off of natural revelation—that contradicts the Word of God, I'm going to stand with the Word of God a hundred times out of a hundred. But again I have to repeat, I could have been a mistaken interpreter of the Word of God.

The Reformed doctrine of Scripture includes a belief in its inspiration, inerrancy, and absolute authority, and Dr. Sproul's words here are a crucial reminder of these truths. If a scientific theory or hypothesis contradicts an actual teaching of Scripture, that scientific theory or hypothesis is necessarily wrong. Scripture teaches, for example, that God is the creator of heaven and earth and all that is within them. Any scientific theory that ascribes the existence of all things to purely materialistic forces is therefore wrong. The key issue, however, as Dr. Sproul reminds us here, is remembering the difference between the infallible Word of God and our fallible interpretations of that Word. Before we can determine whether or not a true contradiction exists between the Word of God and any scientific theory or hypothesis, we have to be sure that we have interpreted the Word of God correctly. Once we have established the actual teaching of Scripture, we have a certain touchstone.

Dr. Sproul continued:

But again, I don't have to face that problem because I believe that both spheres are God's spheres of revelation and that truth has to be compatible. So if they seem to be in conflict, and if they are in conflict, if a theory of science—natural science—is in conflict with a theological theory and contradicts it, here's what I know for sure—somebody's wrong.

In a previous post, we discussed Dr. Sproul's assertion that all truth is God's truth. One of the most important results of understanding this fact is the knowledge that ultimately there cannot be any real contradiction between what Scripture actually teaches and what is actually true about the way God created the universe and all that is in it. It is encouraging to know that when Scripture is properly interpreted and God's creation is properly interpreted, there will be no contradiction. This means that Christians have absolutely nothing to fear ultimately from scientific research. If scientists discover something about God's creation that is actually true, it will not and cannot ultimately contradict the Scriptures when they are properly interpreted. If there is a contradiction with properly interpreted Scripture, then we know that the "discovery" in question is a scientific misinterpretation of God's creation.

In other words, if all truth has its source in God and if all truth is unified, then one thing we know to be a fact is that if there is a contradiction between an interpretation of Scripture and an interpretation of what God has created, then one or both of those interpretations is incorrect. They cannot both be correct. As Dr. Sproul said, "Somebody's wrong."

And I don't leap to the conclusion that it has to be the scientist. It may be the theologian. But nor do I leap to the conclusion that it has to be the theologian. It could well be the scientist, because we've got fallible human beings interpreting infallible natural revelation, and fallible human beings interpreting infallible special revelation.

Dr. Sproul makes a very important point here because many people involved in discussions about Scripture and science hastily jump to one of two conclusions. Many scientists jump to the conclusion that if somebody is wrong, it has to be the student of God's special revelation – the theologian or biblical scholar. This is unwarranted because, like all human beings, scientists are also fallible. History is replete with scientific theories and practices that have now been discarded (e.g. the aether, phlogiston, bodily humours). Nobody I know wishes, for example, to be treated by doctors holding to the "assured results" of eighteenth-century medical science. Science is, by definition, a self-correcting enterprise, which means that science is, by definition, fallible. If it were not fallible, there would be no need for correction.

Many Christians, however, often jump to the opposite premature conclusion that if somebody is wrong, it has to be the student of God's creation – the scientist. This is what happened with those who hastily dismissed the heliocentric view of the solar system because of the belief that it contradicted the Word of God. Jumping to the conclusion that if somebody is wrong, it has to be the scientist is unwarranted because neither synods, nor councils, nor theologians, nor internet bloggers are infallible interpreters of Scripture. Christians can make and have made mistakes in their interpretation of Scripture. As Dr. Sproul rightly noted, "we've got fallible human beings interpreting infallible natural revelation, and fallible human beings interpreting infallible special revelation." So as Dr. Sproul reminds us, we don't automatically jump to one conclusion or the other. Both scientists and theologians are fallible.

Dr. Sproul's response is important because a consistent and continuing failure to keep all of these things in mind has led to one problem after another in the church. On the one hand, we find numerous Christians making premature concessions to scientific speculations that are in their infancy and which may be rejected in the light of more research. There are Christian physicists, for example, who are already asserting that we must accept the concept of a multiverse. To the best of my knowledge, however, the multiverse concept remains a hypothesis. In fact, there appear to be numerous multiverse hypotheses debated at this time among those who accept the general idea. There is also debate over whether such hypotheses are even testable. So why should Christians accept this concept as if it were an established fact? A cursory survey of eighteenth and nineteenth century Christian journals and apologetics textbooks should make any Christian a bit wary of making premature concessions to scientific theories and hypotheses. These works are full of references made by Christian ministers and theologians to "facts" of eighteenth and nineteenth century science – "facts" that have since been rejected. We need to learn from their mistakes.

On the other hand, we find some Christians rejecting conclusions drawn from observations of God's creation that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed in every way imaginable for centuries. This rejection happens, as we have noted, because of a perceived contradiction between the scientific concept in question and the Word of God. All true Christians rightly uphold the absolute authority of God's Word. However, if there is a failure to consider the possibility mentioned by Dr. Sproul above (the possibility that the contradiction may be due to our misinterpretation of God's Word rather than to a misinterpretation of God's creation), then Christians can end up placing their own word in the place of God's Word and rejecting something that is actually true about God's creation. We have to remember that not only synods and councils, but theologians and we ourselves can and have erred. We are not infallible in our interpretation of Scripture.

What then should Christians do when they encounter a scientific theory that appears to conflict with Scripture? From Dr. Sproul's response, we can glean several points. First, we can relax and not be afraid that the scientific theory in question is going to disprove Christianity. God is the source of all truth, and ultimately there will be no real conflict between what God reveals in Scripture and what is true about His created works. Second, we remember that God is the ultimate authority and that if there turns out to be a real conflict between the scientific theory in question and the actual teaching of Scripture, the scientific theory is wrong. Third, we recognize that our goal is to discover the truth in order that we might not bear false testimony regarding God or His created works. In order to do so, we must recognize that the conflict may be due to a misinterpretation of creation or to a misinterpretation of Scripture, or to a misinterpretation of both. This means we need to do a thorough and careful examination of both the scientific theory and the biblical exegesis to discover the source of the conflict. We must make sure we are dealing with the actual teaching of Scripture as opposed to a mistaken interpretation of Scripture. And we must examine the evidence for the scientific theory in question to discover whether we are dealing with something that is true about God's creation or something that is merely speculation. All of this hard work takes time, and it means that we do not jump to hasty conclusions.

These concepts are not as controversial when we are referring to issues such as geocentrism. They become much more difficult when we attempt to apply them to scientific issues of our own day. In our final post, we will look more closely at Dr. Sproul's answer to the controversial question about the age of the universe.

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

$5 Friday: John Calvin, Romans, Theology

It's Friday and that means it's time for another $5 Friday sale. This week's sale includes resources that cover such topics as John Calvin, Romans, the work of Christ, suffering, worldviews, theology, masculinity, and more. 

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

View today's $5 Friday sale items.

The Pastor's Example of Evangelism

Here's an excerpt from The Pastor's Example of Evangelism, Steven Lawson's contribution to the June issue of Tabletalk.

In his final letter, Paul charges Timothy, his son in the faith, to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5). By these words, the aged Apostle establishes the timeless standard for pastoral ministry, not only for young Timothy but for all pastors in every generation and in every place.

With Apostolic authority, this imperative command comes with binding force. All pastors must do the work of an evangelist. They must earnestly proclaim the gospel message, urging people to trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. So, where should this pastoral evangelism begin?

First, every pastor must preach the gospel to himself. Before any pastor can call others to repent, he must believe in Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy, saying, "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you" (1 Tim. 4:16). That is, every preacher must examine his own soul first. The success of one's evangelism is, first and foremost, dependent upon his right standing in grace.

Continue reading The Pastor's Example of Evangelism.

Mustard Seeds and The Greatness of God

God can use the smallest words that we speak...and bring a kingdom out of it. —R.C. Sproul

In the 1980s, I was involved with the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, which sought to call the church and the church's scholars back to a firm defense of the inspiration and infallibility of Holy Writ. There was a New Testament professor at one of the largest seminaries in America who had abandoned the doctrine and was teaching his students that no one could believe in the inerrancy of sacred Scripture because there is a clear mistake in Mark 4:30-32. He would tell his students, "Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, but botanists have discovered seeds that are more minute than the mustard seed." This man had rejected the inerrancy of Scripture based on that issue.

Hyperbole

When I heard about this professor's teaching, I thought, "Is there no room for hyperbole in the teachings of Jesus?" Consider this statement by Luke: "Early in the morning all the people came to Him in the temple to hear Him" (Luke 21:38). Must we understand this to mean that every man, woman, and child in Jerusalem, including invalids, came to the temple that day? No. What we see here is hyperbole, a literary device that is used for emphasis. Furthermore, in Hebrew idiom, it was common for the Jews to refer to the mustard seed as the smallest seed because it was superlatively small. There is small, smaller, and smallest, and the mustard seed was in the category of the superlatively small. For this reason, accusing Jesus of falsehood in this passage is astonishing to me.

The Greatness of God

Those who make such arguments completely miss the point of the parable in Mark 4:30-32. A mustard seed is tiny, but if it is put into the earth, from it erupts a bush that grows into a tree so big that birds may build their nests in its branches. The kingdom of God is similar. God can use the smallest words that we speak, the smallest service that we give, and bring a kingdom out of it. This points not to the greatness of the mustard seed but the greatness of God, who works everyday to bring about His plan for the ages.

God is at work even now, building His kingdom, not with entertainment, not with flash, not with all of the pizzazz that we try to conjure up, but by obedience to His Word, which is attended by His Spirit, so that the kingdom grows and grows until the day when the Lord of the harvest comes for His fruit.

Excerpt adapted from R.C. Sproul's Mark, the fifth volume in the St. Andrew's Expositional Commentary series. Available in the Ligonier store.

R.C. Sproul on God's "Being" and Apologetics [VIDEO]

In this excerpt from his teaching series, "Moses and the Burning Bush," Dr. R.C. Sproul explains God's "being" and how an understanding of this truth can be used powerfully in apologetics.

Heralding the Good News

Here's an excerpt from Heralding the Good News, R.C. Sproul Jr.'s contribution to the June issue of Tabletalk.

It is false to say that what we don't know can't hurt us, especially when it comes to the Bible. If ever there were anything we need to know, it is the very Word of God. That said, what is in all likelihood worse than what we don't know about the Bible is what we do know that just isn't so. Consider the Great Commission.

This, of course, is something we ought to be infinitely familiar with. These are not just the words of Jesus, as if that weren't enough, but the "last" words of Jesus, His parting command just before He ascends to His heavenly throne. Not only that, but, as we might expect, what He commands is of eternal consequence. Jesus doesn't tell the disciples to wash behind their ears or to remember to send thank-you cards after Christmas. No, Jesus tells His disciples to bring in the lost, to go to the four corners of the world that all the elect might be redeemed, forgiven, adopted.

Continue reading Heralding the Good News.