R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 537

Scripture and Science in Conflict?: An Interview With Stephen C. Meyer

Tabletalk: What is your book Signature in the Cell all about?

Stephen Meyer: It's about what I call "the DNA enigma," the mystery of the origin of the information in living cells and the closely related question of the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first living cell.

TT: Your book used discoveries about DNA to argue for intelligent design. Other scientists use the evidence of DNA to argue for common ancestry and naturalistic evolution. How can non-specialists evaluate these complicated arguments?

SM: First, the arguments are not actually that complicated. Most people can follow them if they acquaint themselves with a bit of basic biology. Second, it's important to keep some basic distinctions in mind.

My book addresses the fundamental question of the origin of the information in DNA and presents intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life.

Those arguing for universal common ancestry and biological evolution are not addressing that question. Instead, they are typically comparing pre-existing genes (sections of the genetic text, that is, information) in different organisms. They assume that the degree of difference in the sequences of similar genes from different organisms indicates how long ago they diverged from a common ancestor. Whether readers judge the evidence that scientists muster in support of universal common ancestry to be compelling or not, they should recognize that scientists making these arguments are addressing a different question than I address in my book. My argument could be right and there could also be evidence for universal common ancestry, though I am personally skeptical of that thesis (see later in interview).

In any case, a good book that evaluates the arguments for and against universal common ancestry is the supplementary textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against neo-Darwinism. It will help readers who want to examine responsibly the evidence on both sides of that question.

Continue reading Scripture and Science in Conflict?: An Interview With Stephen C. Meyer from the March issue of Tabletalk.

Horton, Meyer, Sproul, Sproul Jr., and Tackett on Apologetics, Education, Old Earth, and More

One highlight of our conferences is the opportunity to gather great minds for a time of questions and answers.

At our 2012 National Conference on the subject of "The Christian Mind," R.C. Sproul was joined by Michael Horton, Stephen Meyer, R.C. Sproul Jr., and Del Tackett for our second questions and answers session. Below you'll find the questions they were asked. Using the timestamp you can skip forward to hear a specific answer.

Does teaching a variety of scientific theories hinder students? 0:00-04:32

Can you explain the difference between presuppositional and classical apologetics? 04:47-09:46

How do we explain why classical apologetics is not equated with rationalism? 09:50-11:39

Do you have any suggestions for Christians who attend a secular college or university in regards to ways of avoiding indoctrination? 11:56-25:22

The state of education of children has deteriorated in terms of a biblical worldview. Where do we go from here in the family and in the church? 25:49-32:14

What can the local church do to come alongside of families and equip them, to repair the ruins of education? 32:24-36:43

Does the expression “doctrine divides” come out of anti-intellectualism? 36:45-41:53

How do you approach the question of the age of the universe? 42:09-75:40

Purchase or stream the other sessions from our 2012 National Conference.

Charles Spurgeon on Calvinism — Definite Atonement

In Steven Lawson's latest book, The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon, Lawson argues that Charles Spurgeon's fervent commitment to the doctrines of grace "sharpened" his "gospel focus." So what exactly did Spurgeon believe about the five points of Calvinism? Using excerpts from The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon, we'll answer that question in what will be a five part series on the blog. Our prayer is that these truths will sharpen your gospel focus also.

Today we discover what Charles Spurgeon believed about the doctrine of Definite Atonement.

Charles Spurgeon strongly affirmed the doctrine of definite atonement. This truth teaches that Christ died exclusively for those chosen by the Father and, thus, actually secured the salvation of all those for whom He died. Such a definite redemption stands in contrast to the Arminian view, which claims that Christ did not actually save anyone in particular by His death, but merely made salvation possible for everyone. Spurgeon adamantly rejected this vague position: "A redemption which pays a price, but does not ensure that which is purchased—a redemption which calls Christ a substitute for the sinner, but yet which allows the person to suffer—is altogether unworthy of our apprehensions of Almighty God." Such a nebulous belief, he insisted, grossly dishonors God, especially His justice, and distorts the saving purpose of Christ in His substitutionary death.

With clear thinking, Spurgeon summarized the unbiblical, illogical Arminian position with these words:

The Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person. And they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure beyond doubt the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible; and that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life. Consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no secure particularity and specialty in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who were consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.

If it were Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed! —Charles Spurgeon

Spurgeon strongly denied the idea that Christ died for all men: "If it were Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed!" He added: "Some insist that Christ died for everybody. Why, then, are not all men saved? Because all men will not believe? That is to say that believing is necessary in order to make the blood of Christ efficacious for redemption. We hold that to be a great lie." Elsewhere, he wrote: "Some say that all men are Christ's by purchase. But, beloved, you and I do not believe in a sham redemption which does not redeem. We do not believe in a universal redemption which extends even to those who were in hell before the Savior died, and which includes the fallen angels as well as unrepentant men." Such a defeatist view of Christ's death had no part in Spurgeon's gospel preaching.

To the contrary, Spurgeon held that Christ accomplished the saving mission for which He came into the world. He believed that Jesus came to save a definite number of sinners, namely, those the Father chose and gave to Him before time began. Spurgeon insisted that Jesus was not frustrated at the cross. In other words, Christ did not die in vain for any who die in unbelief. Rather, Spurgeon said, Jesus died triumphantly for all whom the Father had given Him:

We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view; and that object will most assuredly and beyond a doubt be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If anyone asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done?" or, "What will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love is the measure of the design of the cross. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed.

It is clear that Spurgeon understood that the intent of Christ's death defined its extent. He explained: "Christ came into this world with the intention of saving 'a multitude which no man can number;' and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in the blood, before the Father's throne." He added: "What! Did Christ at one tremendous draft of love drink my damnation dry, and shall I be damned after that? God forbid! What! Shall God be unrighteous to forget the Redeemer's work for us and let the Savior's blood be shed in vain?" Jesus did not die in vain, for none for whom Christ died will ever perish in hell.

Jesus did not die in vain, for none for whom Christ died will ever perish in hell. —Steven Lawson

Though some call this doctrine "limited atonement," Spurgeon insisted that both Arminians and Calvinists limit the atonement. Those who teach that Christ's death made salvation possible limit its effect, while those who believe in a definite atonement limit its extent. Put another way, the former see an unlimited extent but a limited effect. The latter see a limited extent but an unlimited effect. Spurgeon explained it this way:

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"— and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

Christ came into the world not to put men into a salvable state, but into a saved state. —Charles Spurgeon

Summing up his reasons for holding to definite atonement, Spurgeon said, "I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be joined with it." Simply put, he held "that Christ came into the world not to put men into a salvable state, but into a saved state." Spurgeon believed that the atonement was accomplished by an utterly triumphant death.

Excerpt adapted from Steven Lawson's The Gospel Focus of Charles Spurgeon. Available now from ReformationTrust.com.

Fallacious History

One of the most pressing but invisible threats to Christian thinking at the present time is that of fallacious history. Like carbon monoxide, it can kill; you just do not notice it is happening until it is too late. Fallacious history comes in numerous forms. The most obvious and influential are those pushed by popular culture. Movies are the primary culprits here. So powerful are the aesthetics of modern cinema that the stories the movies tell can be compelling for no other reason than that they seem so real. Thus, if there is a movie in which Americans crack the Enigma code in the Second World War, then the common assumption is, well, the Americans cracked the Enigma Code. (It was actually the British who did so.)

Books, too, have an influence, especially those that are combined with a glossy movie. Take The Da Vinci Code, for example. Dan Brown tells us therein that the church only agreed to affirm Christ's deity by the narrowest of margins and as a result of powerful political pressure. The truth is more prosaic: while there was certainly a political component to the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century, the case was ultimately won by arguments and by a huge majority.

Continue reading Fallacious History, Carl Trueman's contribution to the March issue of Tabletalk.

Ferguson, Godfrey, Lawson, Mohler and Sproul on Evolution, Politics, Pornography, and More

One highlight of our conferences is the opportunity to gather great minds for a time of questions and answers.

At our 2012 National Conference on the subject of "The Christian Mind," R.C. Sproul was joined by Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, Steven Lawson, and Albert Mohler for our first questions and answers session. Below you'll find the questions they were asked. Using the timestamp you can skip forward to hear a specific answer.

How do we instill a desire in our pastors and church leaders to engage science? 0:00-6:28

How do I grow in the knowledge of God's truth in an environment that is openly hostile to it? 6:29-10:17

How should Christians address evolution? 10:18-15:57

How do we present the truth of the Bible to Catholics, Muslims, and other religions in a loving way without being confrontational? 15:58-18:08

Why should we trust in the authority of the Bible over other sacred writings? 18:09-28:47

Is it a sin for a Christian to vote for a Mormon or a Roman Catholic for President of the United States? 28:48-32:56

I'm concerned that if we shelter our children too much from our society during their eduction, they will not know how to deal with people who disagree with them. Shouldn't we prepare our children so that as young adults they will be courageous? 32:57-36:30

Can we say our rights that are bestowed to us by God are truly self-evident and the concept of inalienable rights have any foundation or stability apart from God or His Word as it is revealed? 36:31-41:18

Do you believe that embracing postmillennialism leads to anti-intellectualism considering that some of the greater minds have held this belief? 41:19-42:24

What can the local church do to address the rampant problem of Christian men who struggle with or addicted to pornography? 41:25-46:50

Purchase or stream the other sessions from our 2012 National Conference.

The Coming King — The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology

The unifying theme of Isaiah 6–12 is the coming Messianic king. Chapters 6 and 12 frame the entire subsection, with chapter 6 telling of the call and cleansing of Isaiah and chapter 12 recording the song of salvation sung by the saved community. The subsection begins with the death of King Uzziah, the embodiment of the Davidic house. Chapters 7–11 then center on the coming of a holy and divine monarch. The two kingships, the divine and the Davidic, will ultimately merge in a Messianic King from the house of David (cf. 7:14; 9:6–7; 11:1–10).

The call of Isaiah is narrated in Isaiah 6. The chapter serves as an important transition because the previous chapters have raised a serious question. How is sinful and rebellious Israel ever to be the center of worldwide blessing (Isa. 2:2–4)? What will it take for a city that is now described as a "whore" (1:21) to become "the city of righteousness, the faithful city" (1:26)? In Isaiah's personal experience of having his guilt taken away and his sin atoned for (6:7), we find the first hints of the answer. Isaiah's experience must become Israel's experience.i

In the year that King Uzziah died, Isaiah sees a vision that shapes the entire course of his ministry (6:1–7). Isaiah sees the Lord sitting exalted upon a throne, surrounded by seraphim who continuously sing: "Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!" (6:3). The holiness of God is the focal point of Isaiah's vision. The Hebrew language expresses superlatives by means of repetition, but this is the only place in the Old Testament where a threefold repetition is found. As Motyer explains, it is as if to say that "the divine holiness is so far beyond anything the human mind can grasp that a 'super-superlative' has to be invented to express it…"ii The impact of this vision on Isaiah can be seen in the dominance of the theme of holiness in his work. In fact, the adjective "holy" is used in Isaiah more than it is used in the remainder of the Old Testament combined.iii

The commission given to Isaiah is striking. God says to Isaiah, "Go and say to this people: 'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (6:9–10). Through the prophetic ministry of Isaiah, God is going to prevent the repentance of the people in order that judgment might come. They have already rejected the truth repeatedly. Now they have passed the point of no return, and judgment is certain. However, as verse 13 indicates, judgment is not the final word. A stump, or remnant, will remain.

The historical context of chapters 7–12 is the threat to Judah caused by the alliance of Syria and Israel in 735 B.C. This anti-Assyrian coalition invaded Judah, but was unable to overpower it (2 Kgs. 16:5; cf. 2 Chron. 28:5–8). In their second invasion of Judah, Syria and Israel determined to replace Ahaz with a king of their own choosing (7:6; cf. 2 Chron. 28:17). Because Ahaz is tempted to turn to Assyria for assistance (cf. 2 Kgs. 16:7–9), Isaiah comes to him telling him that he need not fear Israel and Syria and that he must trust in God (7:3–9). The issue, as Motyer explains, is clear: "will Ahaz seek salvation by works (politics, alliances) or by simple trust in divine promises?"iv

It is in this context that the Lord offers to give Ahaz a sign of his trustworthiness (7:10–11). Ahaz feigns piety and refuses the proffered sign (vv. 12–13). Apparently, he has already decided to place his trust in Assyria, but the Lord promises a sign anyway in verses 14–17.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. Yahweh will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.

Because of Ahaz's refusal to trust God, the sign is no longer a sign inviting faith. It is a sign confirming God's displeasure.

The "you" to whom the sign is to be given is plural, suggesting that the sign is to be given to the house of David (cf. v. 13).v It should also be observed that the time of the birth of Immanuel is not explicitly stated in this text. What Isaiah's words do indicate is that however soon Immanuel is born, the existing threat posed by Israel and Syria will have passed before the child is even able to be aware of it. According to Matthew 1:18–23, the birth of Jesus to Mary fulfilled this prophecy.vi That this is true, we can be certain. The question remains, however, whether there was any preliminary or initial fulfillment in Isaiah's day.

The similarities between 8:1–4 and 7:14–16 suggest that a child was born in Isaiah's time as a preliminary fulfillment of the prophecy. In 7:14, Isaiah says, "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son." In 8:3, Isaiah says that he went to the prophetess and "she conceived and bore a son."vii In 7:16, Isaiah says, "For before the boy knows how…" In 8:4, he uses the identical phrase.viii Finally, in both texts, Isaiah declares that something is going to happen to Israel and Syria before the child reaches a certain age (cf. "the two kings you dread" in 7:16; "Damascus" and "Samaria" in 8:4). The similarities between these two texts do not appear to be coincidental. This would seem to indicate that in some sense the child born to the prophetess served as a kind of preliminary fulfillment of the prophecy.

After declaring that the nation in whom Judah trusted for deliverance would turn against Judah (8:5–10), and after calling upon Judah to trust in God (8:11–22), Isaiah again points forward to the coming Messiah (9:1–7). Verses 2–3 describe the unbounded joy of the people. This joy is due to their deliverance from oppression (v. 4), and their deliverance from oppression is due to the end of all war (v. 5). But how will God end war? He will accomplish this through the birth of a child (vv. 6–7).

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will do this.

This prophecy looks forward to the ultimate fulfillment of the Immanuel sign with the coming of Jesus (cf. Matt. 1:18–23). As Motyer explains, "The perfection of this King is seen in his qualifications for ruling (Wonderful Counselor), his person and power (Mighty God), his relationship to his subjects (Everlasting Father) and the security his rule creates (Prince of Peace)."ix The reign of this Messianic king will have no end. He will be the final king who will once and for all replace unfaithful kings like Ahaz.x God's creational purpose to establish his kingdom on earth will be accomplished through this Messianic King.

i John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 174–5.
ii J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1999), 71.
iii It is used 33 times in Isaiah and 26 times in the remainder of the Old Testament.
iv J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 82.
v The Hebrew is lakem, a preposition with a second masculine plural pronominal suffix.
vi Much debate has centered on the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah, translated "virgin" in the ESV. Some have argued that 'almah simply means "a young woman of marriageable age" and should be translated "young woman" because had Isaiah meant "virgin," he would have used the more specific term betulah. We do not know why Isaiah chose one term instead of the other, but as Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah: 1–39, 210) demonstrates, the translation is appropriate. "It would be axiomatic in Hebrew society that such a woman be a virgin." Other scholars have also ably demonstrated the propriety of the translation "virgin" (cf. Motyer, Isaiah: Introduction and Commentary, 78–9).
viiv Forms of harah, yalad, and ben, occur in both verses.
viii The phrase is ki beterem yeda' hanna'ar. What the child will know how to do is different in the two texts, but in both cases, the ability is one that is normally learned at a young age.
ix Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary, 89.
x Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville: Westminster, 2001), 81.

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 (3/24/12)

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

The raw material for a devil is an angel (Spurgeon).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) March 19, 2012

By its last edition [Calvin's] Institutes was more than 5 times the length of its original form, having grown from 85,000 to 450,000 words.

— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) March 20, 2012

Before we can begin to see the cross as something done for us, we have to see it as something done by us (John Stott).

— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) March 22, 2012

The holiness of God is traumatic to unholy people. —R.C. Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) March 22, 2012

The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him (Chesterton).

— Ligonier Academy (@LigonierAcademy) March 22, 2012

God is never obligated to be merciful to a rebellious creature. He doesn't owe us mercy. —R.C. Sproul

— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) March 23, 2012

The true believer holds holiness before God in Christ, and yet he must also cultivate it in the strength of Christ. —Joel Beeke

— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) March 23, 2012

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:

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

Glimpses of the Holy

"Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" (Luke 5:1-9)

Peter’s reaction to this miraculous catch of fish is very interesting. He was a businessman, an entrepreneur. He might have said: “Jesus, fifty percent of my business is Yours. You do not have to go out on the boat with us every night. You do not have to labor on the docks and repair the nets. All You need to do is to come down here once a month and do the trick You just did, filling my nets.” But that’s not what Peter did. When he saw the nets filled to overflowing, he turned to Jesus and said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Essentially, he reacted in the same way as when he and the other disciples witnessed Jesus calming the sea–he became exceedingly afraid. He had seen something he could not explain in human terms. He knew he was in the presence of deity. He might very well have asked the same question the disciples asked: “Who can this be?”

We meet all kinds of people, and as we meet them, we unconsciously sort them. We do this every time we walk down a street, instantly pigeonholing every person we see. Is that person smiling? He seems safe. Is there a look of fury in that person’s eyes? We give him a little extra space because we know what unbridled anger can be like in human beings. We separate everyone into categories: safe, dangerous, nice, cantankerous, whatever. But we do not have a category for someone who can speak to the waves and cause them to obey Him. Such a One is in a class by Himself. This One is so alien, so other, that there is no compartment for Him.

In a word, what the disciples experienced on the Sea of Galilee that night was the holiness of Christ. They liked His power when they were in trouble, so they were quick to wake Him when the boat seemed endangered. But when He showed them His power, they said: “This is not common power. This is holy power. This man is different from every other person on the face of the earth.” And finding themselves in the presence of the Holy One of Israel, they were consumed by fear.

Freud never understood that the thing all people in the world fear most—the thing Freud himself feared most—is the holiness of God. That’s why people run from God and from Jesus Christ. As soon as God manifests His transcendent majesty, men are reduced to terror.

If Christ in His majesty were to knock on your door this morning, you would not say to Him, “Hi, buddy, come on in.” Rather, you would fall on your face. When the resurrected Christ in His glory and the manifestation of His holiness appears, all creatures will fall at His feet because He is other. He is holy. That means that not only do people tremble at His voice, but seas that have no ears listen to His command, and winds that have no knowledge know enough to stop blowing when He says, “Be still.” That is our Lord.

*****

Excerpted from Mark (Reformation Trust, 2011)

Diagnosing Diagnostics

When you have a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. In like manner, when you have a wrench everything looks like a bolt. Any given tool empowers us and tempts us. It makes easier the task for which the tool was designed, while tempting us to think that every problem will be solved by it, every question answered by it.

The computer is quite adept at, well, computing. The advent of the internet, while broadening radically how we use our computers, hasn’t changed its capacity for computing. Indeed some of the niftiest tricks our computers/web surfboards can do is compute our own surfing style, and the surfing habits of others. I suspect that blogs would never have taken off were it not for sundry attached diagnostic tools. Facebook, likewise, is powered more by the like button, and the size of our friends list than what it actually communicates. What fun is sharing our thoughts with the world unless we can know how many hits, how many “likes” we have had, or where we rank in the polls down at WordPress? Are we prompted to get busy and save the world from errant teacher X through our Discernment Ministry blog when we see people are checking in from Montana, Monterey and Mozambique? Soon enough our message is being driven by the numbers, just like the message of that slick, worldly preacher we’re faithfully seeking to take down.

One need not, however, have the Grinch-sized heart of the attack blogger to fall into this fallacy. We are all tempted to measure our success by tangible numbers, both individually and corporately. Just today I read a headline that noted that Bible apps, in all their iterations, are now being downloaded more frequently than Angry Birds. I’m sure that’s a good thing. I’m just not sure how good a thing that is. It may well be that the best thing about it is that people are finally getting tired of Angry Birds. That the Bible has topped it, however, means about as much as the certain truth more homes have Bibles in them than Cabbage Patch dolls. It does tell us something about our spiritual state. But I’m not sure it’s good news.

First, the giddy celebration that "we" beat Angry Birds betrays a profoundly unhealthy and a-historical understanding of the church. We’re not in a race with any software, any technology, or any fad. To even acknowledge such a "competition" is to lose. We celebrate the faith once delivered. Jesus isn’t the newest kid on the block, here to topple Justin Bieber from his throne. He is the Ancient of Days.

Second, the progress of the kingdom, the progress of the sanctification of the church, of the nation, of my family or myself, cannot be measured electronically. Bible downloads isn’t a measure. Bible reading isn’t even a measure. The fruit of the Spirit, that’s the measure. Becoming more like Jesus, that’s the measure. Dying to self, that’s the measure. So far the geniuses down at Google have not come up with a string of algorithms to measure any of those. 

Our desire is not that the Bible should topple Angry Birds. Our goal is not that our favorite rock star preacher would trend on Twitter. Our hope is the sure and certain truth that our Lord is bringing all things under subjection, is conquering all His enemies, including all the folly that remains within His own. We don’t need diagnostics to know how the story ends- Jesus wins. 

Did God Die On The Cross?

The famous hymn of the church "And Can it Be?" contains a line that asks a very poignant question : "How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross?

This kind of expression is popular in hymnody and in grassroots conversation. So although I have this scruple about the hymn and it bothers me that the expression is there, I think I understand it, and there's a way to give an indulgence for it.

We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.

God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.

Some say, "It was the second person of the Trinity Who died." That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one's being.

We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It's the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn't capable of experiencing death.