Category Archives: Questions and Answers

Ask R.C. Live (Part 1)

Posted on by
Reply

I have long been an admirer of Dr. R. C. Sproul as an author, a theologian, an expert communicator and as a man.

One of the things I so appreciate is Dr. Sproul’s ability to teach complex theological issues in a way that can be understood by all, and yet to do so without distortion. A testimony to that is the fact that, as far as I know, he is the only major Christian theologian in our day who has a national and international radio program (called Renewing the Mind).

Tuesday, November 30, 2010, marked the first official session of Ask R.C. Live, a special event where Dr. Sproul answers questions from an online audience. Students were able to submit their questions via Facebook and Twitter leading up to and during this 45-minute session. The questions included:

Being reformed and committed to the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty, why is it that the vast majority of Christians in our day seem more influenced by an Arminian theology?

Does God have two wills?

Do we violate the second commandment when we make images of Christ?

What is the biblical way to leave a Church? What doctrinal issues would rise to the level of making it prudent or even necessary to do so?

What are the means by which your writing and communication skills have been shaped?

How can I be sure of my salvation?

What is the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church concerning justification (and where can I find it)?

Should women be ordained or have governing authority in the Church?

Enjoy Dr. Sproul as he answers these questions in this video:

Ask R.C. Live (Nov. 30, 2010) from Ligonier on Vimeo.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: Over the years, R.C. Sproul’s students have asked him countless questions. Now you can read his answers to more than 300 of these questions in Now, That’s a Good Question! Topics include theology, apologetics, the Bible, philosophy, and personal and cultural ethics. While the answers are brief, they all display the depth and breadth of learning, reasonableness, wit, and commitment to God’s Word that characterize R.C.’s approach to teaching and ministry. Shop now and save when you buy “Now, That’s a Good Question” from Ligonier.org today!

What Is True Saving Faith?

Posted on by
2

Pastor John, could you explain to me what true saving faith looks like? I think the New Testament shows us that there is a false kind of faith that can look like the real thing, but is a flawed and deceptive substitute. Am I right?

Thanks for your question. Yes, indeed you are right.

The Apostle Paul’s main theme in the book of Romans is that of the Gospel itself, as he answers the question, “how can an unjust person ever be acceptable to a just and holy God?” In passages such as Chapter 3:20 – 4:8, he teaches that we are justified by faith alone and not by anything that we do (other passages where Paul states this are Titus 3:5; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8,9; Phil 3:9; to name just a few).

Romans 3:28; 4:3-8 – “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Having established the case biblically that we are justified by faith apart from works, we then need to ask the question, “what kind of faith is it that justifies?” In other words, what does true faith look like?

This is precisely the issue that James is addressing in chapter 2 of his epistle. He writes in verse 14, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can such faith save him?”

The obvious answer to James’ question is “no, that is not the kind of faith that saves. True faith will produce works.”

It is never enough just to make the claim to have faith. No one is ever saved by a mere empty profession of faith. What is professed must actually be possessed for justification to exist. James teaches us clearly that if genuine faith is present, it necessarily produces the fruit of works. That’s the nature of true faith. In fact, if works do not follow from “faith,” then it is proof positive that the “faith” is not in fact genuine, but a mere claim to it.

There is no discord between what James writes and what we find in Romans and the rest of Paul’s writings. Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith never saved anyone. True faith is a living faith, and will inevitably show itself with accompanying action or works. Yet even if all these good works do come from genuine faith, these works still have no part in the ground of our justification. Our works add no merit to us, removing all grounds for boasting. “For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no one should boast” (Eph 2:8, 9).

The only work that contributes to our justification is the work of Jesus; not the work of Jesus in us, but the work of Jesus for us. His merit is the only merit that counts for us. Paul tells us that it we are justified by faith apart from works, and James tells us that that kind of faith that actually saves is a faith that will of necessity produce works.

The Reformers of the 16th Century were very clear about all this. They described true saving faith as having three parts to it, which were described by three Latin words: notitia, assensus and fiducia.
Continue reading →

God’s Foreknowledge and Election

Posted on by
2

Pastor John, isn’t Divine election (God’s choice to save sinners) based upon the fact that He knows everything, even the end from the beginning, and therefore knows ahead of time what man will choose? Though it is a choice made in eternity past, God simply chooses (elects) those He sees ahead of time will choose Him. Correct?

Thanks for your question. God certainly does know everything, including all the future actions of man, but the quick answer is “no,” election is not based on God’s foreknowledge of man’s choice.

Let me start by quoting two key texts:

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…” – Rom. 8:29

“chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” 1 Pet. 1: 1, 2

These two texts are often used to suggest that because predestination and election are clearly based on God’s foreknowledge (which is a true statement in itself) then man’s choice is the deciding factor. The mistake made here is not to suggest foreknowledge comes before election (it clearly does) but in mistaking the meaning of foreknowledge and how it is used in Scripture.

Assumptions and misunderstandings abound concerning the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. If we are to come to a biblical understanding of the subject, we need to apply diligence as we allow for the Holy Spirit to lead us into His truth.

All Christians believe in election and predestination. These are biblical words. The disagreement concerns the basis or grounds of election. In this regard, there are two main views held by Christians today: Continue reading →

Understanding 1 John 2:2

Posted on by
2

You say that Christ died for His people, His sheep, His friends, for His Church and yet 1 John 2:2, speaking of Jesus, states, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” How do you explain that?

I can certainly see how someone would use this verse to undermine the reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption, yet Scripture, I believe, is not contradictory to itself. There is one Divine Author of Scripture and He does not contradict Himself. So how are we to understand 1 John 2:2?

I have written elsewhere about the principles of correct interpretation of scripture. There is only one correct interpretation of scripture. Though there may be many applications of a verse, it only means what it was intended to mean when it was written.

In my article entitled “Playing Marbles with Diamonds” I refer to a number of principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), three of which would apply here:

1. Consider the Author – who wrote the book? (what was his background, language, culture, vocation, concerns, education, circumstance, what stage of life?)

2. Consider the Audience (why was the book written? who was the audience? what would these words have meant to its original recipients?) Continue reading →

Purgatory (1)

Posted on by
Reply

There is no doubt that Dr. R.C. Sproul is a highly trained theologian. One of the many things I appreciate about him is his ability to simplify issues without distorting them. Very few people are able to accomplish this as well as he does.

If you have ever been to a Ligonier Ministries Conference, you will know that one of the highlights is when Dr. R. C. Sproul (either alone or with an expert panel alongside him) has a Question and Answer session. Usually the questions relate to the theme of the Conference and the answers given are often extremely helpful and insightful.

In a recent CD release called “Ask R.C.” (from Ligonier Ministries), Dr. R. C. Sproul fielded questions and provided answers on a wide range of biblical and theological issues. One of the questions concerned the doctrine of purgatory and I have transcribed the verbal interchange below.

Questioner: Could you explain the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory and whether or not it is a truthful doctrine?

R.C. – Thank you for that. I will try to deal with that as briefly as I can and I want to be accurate with it. The doctrine of purgatory is an integral doctrine to the Roman Catholic understanding of redemption. It has been modified just in the last year or so with respect to infants, but purgatory is defined by Rome as a purging place. It is a place where the vast majority of even professing Christians go upon their death.

As recently as the Roman Catholic Catechism, the Church declares that if a person dies with any spot or blemish or stain on their soul – any impurity – instead of going directly to heaven they must first go to this place of purging which is this intermediate state between earth and heaven. And in purgatory, which is not hell, it is not a place of the punitive wrath of God, but it is a place for the corrective wrath of God (as it were), where the sanctifying process is continued through the crucible of fire (as it were).

Now in purgatory, as I said, the vast majority of people experience this time; they may be there for two weeks or they may be there for two hundred million years – in fact at the heart of the controversy in the 16th century Reformation had to do with the sale of indulgences, and on the external situation there, particularly in Germany when Tetzel was selling the indulgences to the peasants, he distorted seriously the Roman doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church has held for many, many centuries that the grace of justification is infused into a person at baptism, and that that grace of justification remains intact until or unless a person commits a mortal sin. That mortal sin is called mortal because it is so serious that it destroys the justifying grace in the soul. And so a person who commits mortal sin, in other words, has to be re-justified, brought anew into a state of grace. In the 16th century, the Council of Trent declared that the sacrament of penance is the second plank of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls. Continue reading →

God Is Not A Respecter Of Persons

Posted on by
3

Question: If the doctrine of Divine election is true, how do you explain the verse that says that God is not a respecter of persons? Surely, He is favoring one and not another when He chooses one and not another.

If you will allow me, because I believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of election clearly, I would first like to change the wording of your question from using the word “if” to instead use “since.” In other words, the question should be this:

“Since the doctrine of election is true, how do you explain the verse that says that God is not a respecter of persons?”

The verse you are referring to is found in Acts chapter 10. In our English translations we read words such as these:

Acts 10:34-35 KJV Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Acts 10:34-35 NASB Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

Acts 10:34-35 NIV Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. Continue reading →

Understanding 2 Peter 2:1

Posted on by
1

Question: Pastor John, I have very much enjoyed reading your insights in the series “The Divine Intention of the Cross” but while I do not deny what you have written, still have a lingering question. In 2 Peter 2:1 it speaks of false teachers who deny the Master that “bought them.” Is this not a clear verse teaching universal atonement – that Christ died for everyone?

Thanks for your question. 2 Peter 2:1 reads:

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.

In this passage, Peter is giving a warning to the church in just the same way that Paul and Jude do elsewhere. The message is that false teachers will arise seeking to steer God’s people into error – such error in fact, that they are called destructive or “damnable heresies.” (KJV)

Some false teachings are worse than others. It is never good to miss the mark on any theological point, but there are some errors that are so bad, they cross the line between orthodoxy and heresy to the point that if they are believed, they damn the soul. These are big issues rather than small ones: things such as the deity of Christ (Jesus said, “unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins” John 8:24); the Gospel itself (Gal. 1:8,9); or the denial that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4).

So Peter is writing to alert God’s people concerning the false prophets who will inevitably come in amongst the flock. Old Testament history often records the fact that God’s people have endured far more grief from the enemy within rather than the enemy without. God, in His wisdom, has allowed many false prophets and teachers to have a voice, while always protecting His elect people from their deception.

Jesus in fact made similar warnings. In Matthew 24: 24 we read, “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.” Thankfully, the “if possible” statement alerts us to the fact it is not possible for God’s elect people to be deceived by these false christs and false prophets. The elect will not fall for the grandiose worldwide deception, but not because of their great natural wisdom and insight, but because God preserved them as His elect people. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him and a stranger they will not follow (John 10). Continue reading →

Understanding John 3:16

Posted on by
8

How can you reconcile belief in Divine election with John 3:16?

Actually, if we carefully take a look at the text and not just assume its meaning, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

When hearing the biblical teaching on the subject of Divine election, some seek immediate refuge in a traditional and may I say, unbiblical understanding of this verse. They say this: “God can’t elect certain ones to salvation because John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that gave His Son so that WHOEVER believes in Christ would have eternal life. Therefore, God has done His part in offering the gift of salvation in His Son and just leaves it up to us to receive the gift through faith. Amen. Case closed!” (emphasis theirs)

Or so it might seem… Though this is a very common tradition, and one I held to myself for many a year, it needs to be pointed out that in spite of the emphasis made by many people here on the word “whoever”, the text does not actually discuss who does or who does not have the ability to believe. Someone might just as well be quoting John 3:16 to suggest that all churches need to have red carpets in their sanctuaries! Why? Because that also is not a topic addressed in the text. The verse is often quoted, but actually it has no relevance to the subject. Continue reading →

Context, Context, Context!

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor John, in your article about rules of interpretation you mention context as being vital in terms of obtaining the correct interpretation of a text or passage. Can you expand on that a little more? What I do is look up a word’s meaning in a dictionary. Isn’t that enough?

Thanks for your excellent question. Actually my short answer is “no, that is not enough.” First of all, we need to make sure we move beyond using an English dictionary to either use a Hebrew dictionary for the Old Testament words or a Greek dictionary for New Testament ones. That might be an obvious thing to say, but it should not be assumed that all people realize this. The words in our Bibles are translations from the original Hebrew and Greek and to be sure of a word’s meaning, we need to go to the source language for an accurate definition.

But even this is not enough. I am all in favor of looking up the meaning of words. Indeed, this should be our starting point. However, what happens when we go through this process is that we find that each word has what we call a “semantic range.” That is simply a technical term to say that each word has a range of uses and meanings. A word can be used in many different ways.

This is true in English as well as the Biblical languages. For instance, lets take the word “fox.” If you go to an English dictionary and look up the word “fox” you will find a number of meanings (not just one). It can mean a four legged animal with a bushy tail; a type of car (made in the 1980’s) or it can be a slang term used for a very pretty woman. So, when you are reading a book and you come across the word “fox”, what is it referring to? Does it mean an animal with four legs, a car, or a fine looking lady?

The answer is found by checking the context in which you find the word. Importantly, you can actually be sure of the answer. It is not mere guess work.

Let me illustrate this by giving you an example. Imagine then that you are reading a magazine article about the British Royal family and come across the following sentence:

“The male members of the Royal family often spend their summer days fox hunting in the English countryside.” Continue reading →

Ask R.C. Live (now available to view)

Posted on by
Reply

On November 30, 2010, Ligonier Ministries held the first session of “Ask R.C. Live.”

Dr. Sproul answered a wide range of questions, including “Why is Arminianism so popular in the Church at large in our day?”, “What is the biblical way to leave a church?”, “What are your thoughts on the second commandment?”, and “When did deep-fried frog legs become your favorite food?”

Ask R.C. Live (Nov. 30, 2010) from Ligonier on Vimeo.