R.C. Sproul's Blog, page 600

Juicy Nuggets In the Valley of Death

One of the hardships that comes with walking through the Valley of the Shadow of Death is what you are expected to carry out. We tend to think that in that valley there grows a very special sort of tree, a wisdom, or insight tree. We think that this rarest of trees is perpetually heavy laden with low hanging, choice, juicy morsels of brilliance. You're supposed to bring these precious nuggets out the other side to share with your friends.  Understandably, though they should know better, some who trek this valley think they've found this precious fruit. The quiet whispers of death on the prowl beget therefore footprints-in-the-sand poems and too often, whole therapeutic books of lessons learned.

It is my habit to write one or two pieces a week for the internet. I write columns for two nationally distributed magazines. I publish, six times a year, my own magazine, Every Thought Captive, that itself in turn carries a column or two by me each issue.  All those deadlines do not disappear when my mind is preoccupied as it is now with my wife's battle with leukemia. Which means in turn that her health issues (this is not the first, nor the second time my precious bride has battled cancer, but the third) show up in my prose. If therefore, you are a regular reader, please do not expect me to bring extra-special never-before-written insights. I pray I will write from the heart, but as many of you know, it is the heart of a sinner.

It is true that God is busy sanctifying Denise, and me, and our eight children as He takes us through this. Suffering, however, is rarely given as a narrowly targeted response to a very specific sin. God did not find that I have trouble keeping Book 17, Chapter 12, subsection D paragraph four of His law, then check His Great Physicians Desk Reference to send the right anti-biotic for that weakness. Nor did He send this to help me grow a third arm of holiness. That is, this hardship will not bring forth some weird, never-before seen form of righteousness. The changes He has designed for this are incremental, common, plain. Cancer is manure cast on the ground of the Spirit Tree. His goal through this is that we would love that which is lovely a little bit more. His aim is that we would walk in joy more than we did before. His purpose is that we would exhibit more peace even in the midst of this great battle.  The Great Gardener is cultivating the fruit of the Spirit.

There is, therefore, nothing extraordinary about what we are going through. There is no special revelation we're supposed to come away with. We are instead studying in the school of Christ, which has as its end that we would become more like Him. To that end suffering is indeed a great teacher. Her lessons, however, are rather ordinary. When this is over, I pray I will look a little more like Jesus. I pray the same for my wife. It may be His will, however, that she should sooner come to look exactly like Him. Either way, this much I know. Goodness and mercy will follow us all the days of our lives and we will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Eject Orthodoxy, Lose Your Voice

David Wells:

The stream of historic orthodoxy that once watered the evangelical soul is now damned by a worldliness that many fail to recognize as worldliness because of the cultural innocence with which it presents itself. To be sure, this orthodoxy never was infallible, nor was it without its blemishes and foibles, but I am far from persuaded that the emancipation from its theological core that much of evangelicalism is effecting has resulted in greater biblical fidelity. In fact, the result is just the opposite. We now have less biblical fidelity, less interest in truth, less seriousness, less depth, and less capacity to speak the Word of God to our own generation in a way that offers an alternative to what it already thinks."

From No Place For Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?

HT: Albert Mohler

A Primer on Inerrancy (pt. 3)

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

Continued from Part 2

3. The Believer's Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy

It may not have been obvious that the fallacies of the preceding views lay ultimately in their unconscious elevation of the creature above the Creator who is blessed forever. It seemed to have been quite the opposite. By accepting the authority of the Bible on the basis of its own divine affirmation, or its divine corroboration in the soul, advocates of these positions intended to bow before the majesty of heaven, but, in fact, did not. Since there is no evidence that an avowed Word of God is a genuine Word of God simply because it avows itself to be such, accepting it for no reason is sheer arbitrariness (however reverent the intention). Instead of abiding by the laws of evidence which God has given us, we become laws to ourselves. In other words, the first two unsound bases for sound doctrine, though they appear to be quite objective, are actually only appeals to mere personal feelings. But to this position, in the purity of its expression, we now come.

The view runs something like this: the Bible is inspired because it inspires me. It "finds" me. It rings a bell in my soul. I know that this is God's book because I feel within that this book is God's book. It affects me as no other literature does. It exhibits a power and an energy which speak to me.

This view is not intended by those who favor it to be an appeal to subjectivity. It is, of course, an appeal to the subject's experience. However, it is claimed that the subject experiences something not himself. He senses the presence of a spirit not his own. The argument is not subjective, then, in the sense that the subject himself "existentially" produces the experience. It is not a creation of the human soul, but something that happens to the soul, which is thought to prove that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

This experience, then, is offered as the basis for believing that the Bible is the Word of God. In itself, and in it alone, is the argument for inerrancy. No matter how sincere the Christianity of those who reason thus, no matter how truly the Bible of which they speak may indeed be the Word of God, still their argument amounts to this: "My heart is moved when I read the Bible more and/or differently than when I read any other literature. Therefore, this Bible, which is the occasion or cause of this wonderful feeling, must be God's Word." These good men do not phrase their argument that way, or they, too, would immediately recognize its futility as an argument. They imply this, but do not usually express it. Some of them will not even recognize it when someone else expresses it. They may even sincerely resent such a spelling out as saying something which they never intended. And, of course, they may not have meant it. People often imply what they do not intend. "Happy inconsistencies" abound everywhere. Whatever their inner intentions may be we leave to God, the only Searcher of Hearts. We concern ourselves only with their reasoning. Experience is set forth as a case for inspiration, and the only way that it could appear to be such is by supposing that such an inference is valid.

But is it valid to suppose that because I have a certain experience when I read the Bible that the Bible is thereby shown to be the Word of God? Surely not. First, the experience could be a mere coincidence One may have happened to have felt well for some reason when he began to read the Bible. By association he may have attributed this to what he was reading. Thus the Bible reading may have been a mere concomitant, rather than cause, of his experience. Christians do, in fact, testify that often, when they read the Bible, nothing "happens."

Even if something always happened when one read the Bible, that would not prove that the Bible was the cause of what happened. We all have heard of the rooster who thought that his crowing caused the sun to rise each morning until he found it rising one morning when he had a sore throat. But suppose that rooster had never had a sore throat; he would have gone to his death still thinking that his crowing was the cause of the sun's rising. We must have more than succession for a causal argument. There must be necessary succession. But this can never be shown by mere experience. Second, even if the Bible were the cause of these experiences, that would not prove that the Bible was the Word of God. It would prove that it had a unique power, but not a divine power. A unique power is not necessarily a divine power. The devil has power that is unique and, so far as men apart from special revelation know, it could account for such a phenomenon as that we are considering. Of course, that is not the case here. Of course the advocates of this view are correct in saying that this power comes from God. They are right, but they have no basis for being right. Their conclusion may be correct (as we think), but, their premises are incorrect (as we have shown).

No one is likely ever to admit that the Bible is the Word of God apart from the experience here described. Nothing so powerfully affects men's convictions about inspiration as this experience. Nevertheless, precious and valuable as it is, the believer's testimony is not the basis of an argument for Inerrancy. On the contrary, inerrancy must be the basis of validating Christian experience.

4. The Church's Testimony as the Basis for Bible Inerrancy

The very futility of the preceding views has led some to the church's testimony as the basis of inerrancy. Sensing that they cannot prove even to themselves, not to mention others, the inerrancy of Scripture from something within themselves or within the Bible, they succumb to the temptation of appealing to Mother Church. Yet, there is more here than that. It is not simply that many are thought to be able to do what a few cannot accomplish, but that God does in the many what He has not chosen to do in the few. That is, God has promised guidance to the body of the faithful and will lead them into all truth and not permit them to be misled fatally.

Now, where does the Church get the idea that it is the "pillar and ground of the truth"; that it is to "bind and loose" on earth? From the Bible! So it is the Bible which is the basis of the Church's authority, not the Church which is the basis of the Bible's authority. The Bible is the pillar on which the Church rests, not the Church the pillar on which the Bible rests. Incidentally, the expression in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth does not point to a pillar on which truth rests, but to a pillar on which truth was posted for public announcement in antiquity. In other words, it refers to the Church as witness to the truth, and not the basis of it.

But some will say that the Church came into existence before the Bible, and then called everyone's attention to the Bible as the Word of God. This is true in an irrelevant sense and false in a relevant sense. When we say that it is true in an irrelevant sense that the Church existed before the Bible, we mean that granting the Church existed before the written and canonical form of the Bible is no proof of inerrancy. If, for example, the Church is thought of as beginning when the first sinners trusted in the mercy of God, and if sinful Adam and Eve were the first sinners to trust in the mercy of God, then the Church existed centuries before the Bible was probably written, and certainly many centuries before it was gathered into a canon of books recognized as the Bible. If the church is thought of as coming into existence at Pentecost,, then the Bible (the Old Testament) preceded it by centuries. Still, the New Testament Church would have preceded the New Testament Bible because there were New Testament Christians before a word of the New Testament was written.

All of this is obviously true, and just as obviously irrelevant to the matter in hand. First, granted that the Church, in a sense, existed before the Bible in its written form, what does this prove? According to the advocates of the view in question it is supposed to prove that the Church's testimony is the argument for inerrancy. But does the Church's testimony, which preceded the Bible, prove the inerrancy of the Bible? How does the fact that the Church may have preceded the Bible in existence prove that the Bible is inspired and inerrant? How does the fact that the previously existing Church testifies to the subsequently existing Bible prove the Bible to be what the Church says that it is? It is no doubt true that if the Church had not testified, and did not continue to testify, to the Bible as the Word of God, the world might soon forget about the Bible and thus never come to realize its inspiration. The Church is indispensable to the Bible's being considered for what it is. But this fact is in no sense a proof that the Bible is what the Church says it is. The Bible is, we believe, exactly what the Church says that it is, but it is not what the Church says it is because the Church says it is. Rather, in the true order of events, the Church testifies because the Bible is what it is rather than that the Bible is what it is because the Church so testifies.

Perhaps it will become clearer if we outline the order of events:

God speaks (revelation).
Men respond in faith (church). 
Revelation is recorded (inerrant Bible). 
The Church recognizes, receives, and testifies to the inerrant Bible.

The question is: what is the basis of the Church's testimony? Surely it is not the Church's testimony

Some will still say, "Granted that the Church's testimony is not the basis of inerrancy, but inerrancy is the basis of the Church's testimony. Still, is not the Church's testimony the basis of inerrancy for us? That is, granted that the church had good and sufficient reasons for recognizing the Bible for what it is, nevertheless we do not have access to these reasons, or, even if we did, we do not have the infallible divine guidance necessary for correctly perceiving them. So, we must rest on the Church's testimony as the basis for our belief in inerrancy, though the Church herself must have another basis."

We reply that, even if this were so, it grants our main point:, namely that the Church's testimony cannot be the basis for inerrancy. But this point would still be important because it would terminate our search for the basis for inerrancy. Our search would have ended in a realization that we should not search anymore, that the answer has been found by another (the Church), and can be found by none other.

If this is so, so be it. But is it so? It is not so, nor could it possibly be so! Why not? For the simple reason that if it is proposed that the Church's testimony must become our argument for inerrancy, we must ask "why?". If the answer is: "Because the Bible says so," it is obvious that we are right back where we began. It is the inerrant Bible itself which alone can tell us that the Church alone can tell us that the Bible is inerrant! So for us to accept the position that we can only know that the Bible is inerrant by the testimony of the church, we must first know that the Bible is inerrant. For example, Rome claims papal authority from Matthew 16:18; but to do so she must first prove the authority of Matthew 16:18. If that church is to establish her authority, she must first establish the inerrancy of the Bible. That is, even according to her own argument, she cannot establish the Bible's authority, but the Bible must establish hers (which, incidentally, it does not do).

This then is another wrong basis for a right answer. We must continue our search. We have not yet found the right basis for accepting the Bible's inerrancy.

To be continued...

Excerpted from Primitive Theology by John H. Gerstner.

What Counts When Choosing a College?

[image error]
Given the wide spectrum of options, considering an undergraduate education can be daunting.  Here are two points to consider when trying to decide on a college: (1) curriculum, and (2) relationships.

As to curriculum, undergraduate education ranges from the very broad liberal arts degrees, where one often takes a smattering of courses (many of which are unrelated to the student's character or professional development and are rarely synthesized into a whole, consistent worldview), to the very narrow technical degree, where one receives a specific skill (quite apart from any intellectual and moral development).  Classically, education was more about becoming a mature and virtuous person, able to contribute to society, than simply about gaining a skill.  The goal of a liberal arts education, to be sure, and as can be seen from the etymology of the term itself, was to bring one into "liberty" (through "books," libri), to a place of maturity and discernment so that any engagement in the civic arena was studied and wise (versus the masses who are characterized in classical literature as fickle and reactionary, slaves to passions and appetites).  Needless to say, the typical liberal arts degree today possesses little of its original literary and philosophical nature, and often includes rather irrelevant courses.  What's more, neither of these approaches account for what is defined in Scripture as true wisdom—namely, the fear of the LORD, coming to a genuine knowledge of Jesus Christ.  As an alternative to both the overly general degree and the excessively limited one, consider a focused curriculum.  The College of Ligonier Academy, being neither a typical Bible college nor a Christian liberal arts college, offers young minds a focused curriculum: biblical studies, theological studies, church history, apologetics, and the great works of literature, philosophy, and music—in short, everything one needs to be a theologically grounded, scripturally discerning, and culturally engaging ______________________ (you fill in the blank: father/ engineer/ homeschooling mom/ banker/ missionary/ writer/ pastor).

Thinking about the context of one's education, specifically in regard to relationships, is also important, and, again, there are typically two extremes.  Often, in the broad-ranged schools where student interests are so diversified, truly good relationships are difficult to establish (and nearly impossible to maintain over the course of one's life) because there's not enough consistent time and activity together.  At the other end, technical schools bring students together over a particularly limited common interest, often breeding more competition than friendship.  However, our hope at Ligonier Academy's Bible college is that the focused curriculum will draw a diversified student body united by one goal: to glorify God and exalt Christ vocationally.  Some will come to begin training for the mission field or pastorate; others still will go on to be doctors or school teachers—but all will have come in order to deepen their knowledge of Christ through the rigorous study of Scripture and theology.  Such bonds made among student peers will likely stand the test of time.

Considering the applications from prospective students thus far, we are indeed getting excited about the like-minded group of young men and women coming together.  And there may still be room for you: the late application deadline is April 1st. Visit StudyAtLigonier.org to learn more.

Will Sin Go Unpunished?

R.C. Sproul:

All things being equal, God does desire that no one should perish. But all things are not equal. Sin is real. Sin violates God's holiness and righteousness. God also is not willing that sin should go unpunished. He desires as well that His holiness should be vindicated.... When the preceptive will is violated, things are no longer equal.

From Can I Know God's Will? pp. 22-23.

HT: Steve Cornell

Top Five Commentaries: Update

[image error]
In June 2008 I began composing a series of blog posts recommending my "Top 5" commentaries on every book of the Bible. I finished that series in June 2009. Since that time, a number of new commentaries have been published, some of which I would highly recommend. Here are some of the highlights.

Matthew

[image error]

Daniel M. Doriani. Matthew, 2 vols. (Reformed Expository Commentary). This excellent two-volume commentary is one of the better contributions to this new series. Doriani's commentary is highly insightful and filled with practical wisdom.

[image error]Knox Chamblin. Matthew, 2 vols. (A Mentor Commentary). This massive work (almost 1600 pages) is the fruit of a lifetime of teaching the Gospel of Matthew. The commentary is in-depth without losing sight of the big picture. It is scholarly without being unreadable. Very highly recommended.

John

[image error]J. Ramsey Michaels. John (NICNT). Since 1971, Leon Morris's commentary on John has been a staple in the NICNT series. In 2010, this volume was replaced by J. Ramsey Michaels work in an ongoing attempt to keep the NICNT series up to date. My hope is that Eerdmans will do with Morris what they did with Murray when Moo replaced his commentary on Romans, namely, print it as a stand alone commentary. Both Morris and Michaels should be consulted on the fourth Gospel.

1 Corinthians

[image error]Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar New Testament Commentary). For those who have the commentaries by Thiselton and Fee and who know the format of the Pillar series, the commentary by Ciampa and Rosner is closer in content and style to Fee. Based on what I have read in this work so far, it will now be one of the volumes I look to first when examining commentaries on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. 

Ephesians

[image error]Frank Thielman. Ephesians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). After the publication of O'Brien's outstanding commentary on Ephesians in the Pillar series, one would have thought that other commentators might have waited before offering their own works on the book, but thankfully Thielman did not. Both commentaries are outstanding, and both are must-reads for students of this epistle.

1 & 2 Thessalonians

[image error]Robert J. Cara. 1 & 2 Thessalonians (EP Study Commentary). Because the epistles to the Thessalonians contain what I believe to be one of the most difficult texts in the New Testament (2 Thess. 2:1-12), I always look forward to new commentaries on these books that might provide some insight. The constraints of the EP series does not allow for exhaustive comment on every detail of the text, but Cara uses the space allowed judiciously and provides helpful insight on numerous passages.

Hebrews

[image error]Peter T. O'Brien. The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Peter T. O'Brien is known for writing what many consider to be the best contemporary commentaries on Paul's prison epistles. In this volume he turns his considerable exegetical skills to the book of Hebrews. This commentary is now one of the first any reader of Hebrews should turn to when examining commentaries on the book.

The St. Andrews Expositional Commentary Series

Finally, Reformation Trust and Crossway have begun working in tandem on Dr. Sproul's St. Andrews Expositional Commentary series. This series is based on sermons preached by Dr. Sproul at St Andrews in Sanford, Florida. So far, three volumes have been published, the commentaries on Romans, the Gospel of John, and Acts. In March, 2011, the volume on 1 & 2 Peter will be published.

Twitter Highlights (3/6/11)

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

Ligonier At the heart of our worship must be a commitment to truth. -R.C. Sproul



Tabletalk Magazine We do not lose our need for the gospel at conversion.



Ligonier Fresh off the press from Ligonier & @Ref_Trust: "Pillars of Grace" by Steven J. Lawson http://bit.ly/dWz896



Ligonier The very second Isaiah understood who God was, for the first time in his life he understood who Isaiah was... - "woe is me" -R.C. Sproul



Tabletalk Magazine "Other physicians can only cure them that are sick, but Christ cures them that are dead" (Thomas Brooks).



Ligonier Pic of Dr. Sproul finishing his new teaching series, "Moses and the Burning Bush" http://yfrog.com/gzknwhmj



Reformation Trust Depraved man is always glad for God's gifts, so long as he doesn't have to deal with God Himself. - Richard Phillips



Reformation Trust There is no such thing as a closet Christian; we're to bear witness to the world of our commitment to Christ & not hide it. -RC Sproul

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

Is God Happy When We're Happy?

Is it true, as some say, that "God is happy when we are happy?"

Of course. God, however, is also happy when we are sad. He's happy when we are frightened, when we are disappointed, when we are hungry and when our foot falls asleep. God is always happy, ultimately speaking. The God we serve is the ever blessed God. While it would be a mistake to equate happiness and blessedness, such is so because blessedness is more than happiness, not less. God is God and as such is not dependent upon any or all of us for His joy. He has no "needs" that we can meet. He is altogether satisfied by Himself and in Himself.

God is happy, for instance, to manifest His just wrath against the sins of men. Perhaps never more so than on those who would seek to justify their sin by suggesting that it serves God's happiness. That is, those who use this little nugget of "wisdom" to justify their sins may likely find themselves judged of God. The man who breaks his marriage vows, leaving his wife and children because he thinks God will be happy only if he is happy is deluded and headed for destruction.  Were we a touch more honest we might translate this ditty this way, "God wants me to do whatever I want to do." That is sheer nonsense. What God wants, no, what He commands, is that we would obey all that He commands. 

And that is what makes us happy, which is how we can again affirm our aphorism. That is, God is happy when we are happy because we are only happy when we obey all that He commands. Indeed His law commands that we be happy, or at least joyful. Rejoice, Paul says. And in case you weren't listening "Again I say, 'Rejoice.'" Our calling is to joy. Sadly too many Christians, especially we who are Reformed, think that crankiness is next to godliness. We of all people ought to be the most joyous.

First, we know the depths from which we have been rescued. We have, by the power of the gospel, by the work of the Spirit, been saved from the uttermost, to the uttermost. That is cause for rejoicing. No matter what hardships we may be going through, they cannot be compared to the eternal weight of glory. Second, we know that even the hardships we endure are sent by the same sovereign God that redeemed us. And we know why they were sent, that we might be made more like Jesus.  The unbeliever cannot be truly happy for he knows he is under the wrath of God. The believer who hasn't yet come to understand the sovereignty of God is robbed of the confidence of His salvation, and can't see the tender hand of His loving Father in his suffering.

The whole story ends, as all stories ought, "And they all lived happily ever after." This is what our Lord is bringing to pass. We will dance with the Lord of the Dance on into eternity. His face will shine upon us, and we will laugh for the joy of it.

Tabletalk Magazine is Coming to Logos Bible Software

In a blog post today over at Logos, they mention their new pre-pub pricing sale on adding Tabletalk magazine to your digital reference collection. Head over to their site to learn more about Ligonier's efforts to partner with them to bring more than 20 years of this unique resource to Logos users. 

With the Logos Bible Software edition of Tabletalk magazine, all Scripture passages are tagged and appear on mouse-over. What's more, Scripture references are linked to the wealth of language resources in your digital library. This makes all 265 issues more powerful and easier to access than ever before for scholarly work or personal Bible study. With the advanced search features of Logos Bible Software, you can perform powerful searches by topic or Scripture reference—finding, for example, every mention of "grace," or "covenant."

Adding a digital index to Tabletalk has been one of our subscriber's most requested features. This is a first step to bring all of the relevant articles and Bible study to even more people. Click here to learn more.

 

Sending My Thoughts Your Way

[image error]
I seek to be a professional persuader. Though I am much less pushy in my more private life, my profession is to profess my confession. Sometimes I am given a classroom of students.  Sometimes I am given a sanctuary of sheep. I seek to persuade readers of books, or magazines, and of the internet. My desire, of course, is to help. My prayer is that my confession matches one for one with the fullness of the Word of God. His wisdom, not my own folly is what we all need. And so here I am sending my thoughts your way.

My wife is sick. She has acute myelomonocytic leukemia. By God's grace she has beaten cancer twice before, and we remain hopeful she can do it again. We are deeply and profoundly blessed to have so many saints praying for us, storming the mercy seat on her behalf. We find ourselves more centered, more peaceful, more grateful and content than we were before the diagnosis. We see the hand of God at work.

We are likewise grateful for the well wishes of those outside the kingdom. It is a blessing to be loved. What is heartbreaking is that these friends are so alone. Just days ago one lost friend told me, "I'm sending my prayers to your beautiful wife." I thanked him but let him know, "It would help her more if you could send those prayers to the Lord of heaven and earth. He can do something about this." I wasn't trying to embarrass my friend. I wanted him to know where the power is. In an "under the sun" world, sadly, all we can do is "send good thoughts your way." How anemic. How terribly lonely.

Those outside the kingdom are wont to accuse those inside of needing a crutch. The God that we believe in is just something we need to cope with life. They are of course, wrong. God is not a crutch. He is instead life. Without a crutch the crippled stand still. But I'm not crippled, I'm dead. He doesn't help me walk; He makes me live. 

God does not become real because we need Him. Instead, we need Him because He is real.

God does not become real because we need Him. Instead, we need Him because He is real.  We were made for Him. He hears our prayers. He answers our prayers. He is at work in space and time, in giving cancer for His glory, and we pray again in healing cancer for His glory.  Our prayer is that as we go through this, our thoughts, as manifested in our lives, will show forth that reality to a lost and dying world. And we ask that you would pray the same. How glorious it would be if through this trial a nurse, a tech, an unbelieving family member, a doctor, even a worried patient in the room next door, might be brought to eternal life. Please pray with us that our lives would profess our confession, that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and that He lives and reigns now and forever.