Sin and the Sinner
nature, which in fact are the laws of God. There's no dis-
obedience. If you add water to dirt, you get mud— -just as
you're supposed to. We're also told to consider the ant,
who is diligent where we are slothful. We're told that the
ox knows his cradle and his master's crib, and we don't
even know our Creator. Again and again we find these anal-
ogies drawn from Scripture in which we're actually called
to emulate the elements of nature in their obedience
rather than practice the persistent type of disobedience for
which we are known.
Why does suffering afflict innocent nature? In creation,
when Adam and Eve were created as the federal head of
the human race, God gave them dominion over the entire
earth. The first job or task that was assigned to our original
parents was to name the animals. The very act of naming
was a symbolic indicator of man's authority over the ani-
mal kingdom. There's a sense in which nature is described
in Scripture as that which God has made to serve the
needs of humanity.
In the New Testament Jesus talks about the fact that
every time a sparrow lands, God notices it and his eye is on
it. He is concerned about the animals in this world. Yet
Jesus says, "These things are sold for a farthing," indicating
that we are so much more valuable in God's sight because
man alone is given the stamp of the image of God.
Unfortunately, when we sin, those who are under us suf-
fer the consequences of our fallenness. They suffer inno-
cently, and that's why they groan, waiting for our
redemption. Just as they participate in the consequences of
our fall, so nature will participate in the consequences of
our renewal.
167
7
Faith and Philosophy
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts,
and always be ready to give a defense to everyone
who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you,
with meekness and fear.
I PETER 3:15
Faith and Philosophy
©uaestioins in Tlhis Sectioin:
Is there a distinction between Christianity and religion?
What type of philosophical developments in today's society should
we, as Christians, be prepared to deal with?
Are other world religions and other philosophies a threat to
Christianity?
What is existentialism, and how should I respond to it?
Could you comment on some of the heresies in the New Age
movement that a Christian should be aware of?
How should Christians respond to the belief in reincarnation?
What is narcissism, and what impact is it having on our society and
the future of our children?
What would you recommend we do about secular humanism?
How are Christians to view the Masons and other fraternal
orders
7
Doesn't science disprove Christianity?
Can something happen by chance7
How can I reason with a friend about the existence of God?
171
How does one convince a nonbeliever that the Bible is the Word
of God?
How do you explain the discrepancies in the Scriptures, such as those
between the four Gospels?
Faith and Philosophy
Is there a distinction between Christianity and religion?
In the first chapter of Romans, the wrath of God is
revealed against distortions of God that culminate in vari-
ous religious practices called idolatry. God is by no means
always pleased with the operations and functions that we
call religion. I would say that Christianity first and fore-
most is not a religion, even though we use that term to
describe it from a sociological perspective.
The term religion describes human practices — practices
of worship, of cultic involvement, of belief in a god, and of
obeying certain rules that come from the god or gods.
There are various kinds of religions in this world.
There is a religious aspect to Christianity. We do wor-
ship, and we are involved in certain human activities, such
as prayer and Bible studies and devotions. Our religious
practices are similar to the practices of other religions. But
Christianity is much more than a religion; it's life.
The very fact that a person is religious does not necessar-
ily mean that he is pleasing God; the primordial sin of man
is idolatry, and idolatry is the worship of something that, in
fact, is not God. The worship of idols involves the practice
of religion. This is exactly what Romans 1 is speaking
about; God is not pleased by any and all types of religious
activity. Our religious activity may at times be insulting to
God. Christianity itself can degenerate into being merely a
religion; that is, it can have the external formal activities
and sociological practices without the substance that moti-
173
R.C. SPROUL
vates all these things — a profound love and devotion to
God himself and a profound trust in Christ's work.
There have always been philosophical developments
infiltrating our culture, but what type of philosophical
developments should we, as Christians, be prepared to
deal with in our present society?
At any given time in a culture, there are all kinds of philo-
sophical developments or philosophical schools of thought
competing for domination. I once read a scholarly essay
that claimed every culture has to have something that uni-
fies it, some kind of viewpoint that brings it together. And
if you study all of the civilizations of history, you will see
that each one had some dominant philosophical or reli-
gious idea that tied the people together. That unifying con-
cept may be a religious one; it may be a philosophical one;
it may even be a mythology. But there has to be some idea
that ties it all together. Scholars understand that. You have
the endless chicken-and-the-egg debate: Do ideas shape
*
culture and events, or do events produce the idea? I think
we would be very foolish to ignore the obvious impact that
ideas have on the shaping of a culture.
I would say that right now Western civilization is up for
grabs. There is not one dominant philosophy, theology, or
religion that has produced a consensus like we had in the
Middle Ages, with the Judeo-Christian faith dominating
the people's understanding of their world. Now, with
people in great masses turning away from the Judeo-Chris-
tian understanding of man and the world, there have been
all kinds of philosophical schools fighting with each other
174
Faith and Philosophy
to try to fill the void. It's almost like the situation in the
World Boxing Association, where one association has its
heavyweight champion and another association has its
heavyweight champion. There is no one single heavyweight
champion of the world that everybody recognizes. So now
we have a little pragmatism, a little hedonism, a little exis-
tentialism, competing.
I've been arguing that if there is one overarching con-
cept in our culture, it's what I would call secularism. We
hear that word bandied about in the Christian world with
frankly very little understanding of what it means. The
word secularism as an ism means simple this: This time, this
world, is all there is. There is no eternal dimension. There
is the world as we find it. The world in which we live is the
only environment we will ever inhabit — there is no heaven,
or if there is a heaven, we can't possibly know anything
about it. So the emphasis is on the here and now. That, I
think, is the biggest competitor for the allegiance of
people.
I'm a sophomore in college now, and I'm studying
different world religions and philosophies, and I'm
seeing a lot of my buddies embracing these things. Not
only is it frightening to me to see them taking on these
lines of thought, but I'm wondering, are other world
religions and other philosophies a threat to
Christianity?
Let me say something that may totally offend you or violate
your sensibilities. I don't want to do that, but I recognize
that the world in which we live has certain values and views
175
R.C. SPROUL
in which all of us have been trained. The nineteenth cen-
tury was a time of unparalleled study in world religion. As
the world became smaller and more cultures were rubbing
up against each other, we saw that it was necessary for
people of different religions to get along peacefully rather
than spilling blood all over the world through religious
wars and quarrels. The world had had enough of that. So
the attempt in the nineteenth century was to try to study
all the different world religions and to penetrate to the
essence of what they had in common. This whole science
of comparative religion emerged and with it the very
famous mountain analogy — that God is at the top of the
mountain and that there are different kinds of paths that
lead up the mountain. You know, some go a direct route,
others by more circuitous routes. But all of these roads
ultimately get to the same place, so it really doesn't matter
which road you travel. Let me just say that if that's true,
then I don't think Christianity is one of those roads
because Jesus says that it matters profoundly which road
you're on. The New Testament is on a collision course with
those who say it doesn't matter which road you're on.
God was furious with Aaron and the children of Israel
for embracing the golden calf. The principle in the Old
Testament was exclusive loyalty and devotion to the God of
Israel, and there was to be no syncretism, no mixing of the
elements of the faith of Israel with pagan religions, with
those who followed Baal or the Philistine religion or what-
ever. But the world doesn't take the purity of religious faith
very seriously. One of the traditions of Islam is that it is
virtuous for a zealous Muslim to kill an infidel. That's radi-
cally different from the teaching ofJesus. I've had people
176
Faith and Philosophy
come to me and say there's no real great difference be-
tween Islam and Christianity. When people say that, it
indicates to me that they either don't know anything about
Christianity or they don't know anything about Islam. Just
a cursory examination of these religions shows that they
are radically different at important points.
Am I alarmed and concerned about this pluralistic at-
mosphere that's prevailing in our culture? Very much so.
Other philosophies certainly can be a threat to faith when
they prevent people from seeing the truth clearly. But that
happens when we don't believe that the content of religion
is important.
What is existentialism, and how should I respond to it?
Sometimes we underestimate the power of human ideas. We
tend to neglect the ivory-tower scholars who give their lives
to thinking through weighty questions of philosophy, and
we say, "What does that have to do with the practical world I
live in?" I don't know of any philosophy in history, with the
possible exception of Marxism, that has had such a radical
impact, so widely and quickly, on the shaping of human cul-
ture as has the philosophy of existentialism. Existentialism
contains many variations. Its general theme focuses concern
on human existence. That's why its called existentialism.
This philosophy is built primarily upon the question,
What does it mean to exist as a person in this world? Exis-
tentialism, in focusing on the predicament of a human
being, tends to be pessimistic and atheistic, although there
are religious forms of existentialism and more optimistic
forms of existentialism. But the bottom line is this: Existen-
177
R.C. SPROUL
tialism tends to see man in a mood or an atmosphere of
despair.
Two of the great contributors to twentieth-century exis-
tentialism were Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. They
responded to the Holocaust of World War II, and their
ideas were ones of great despair. For example, they came
to the conclusion that man in his existence is a useless pas-
sion and that human life ultimately is meaningless and
insignificant. In this view, with respect to the things of
God, the idea is that in heaven there is nobody home.
A couple of decades ago, the Greenwich Village advo-
cate of existentialism made this quip to a reporter for Time
magazine: "Hey, man, I looked God up in the Yellow Pages,
but he wasn't listed." The idea is that there is no one home
in the universe and we are left here in our existence in an
atmosphere of ultimate despair.
How shall we respond to existentialism? One thing for
which I'm grateful is that existentialism produces tremen-
dously fertile ground for the preaching of Christianity
because Christianity is so optimistic. We believe that human
existence is meaningful and that it is ultimately meaningful
because Christ has defined the significance of our existence.
So, the answer to how we should respond to existentialism is
simply counter it with the hope of the gospel.
Could you comment on some of the heresies in the New
Age movement that a Christian should be aware of?
First of all, let me say that the New Age movement, like any
broad-based movement, has various dimensions to it. I'll
restrict my remarks to one element.
178
Faith and Philosophy
One of the most troublesome views of the world that we
find in the New Age movement is the focus of attention on
man's ability to have virtually a magical power over his own
environment. Not long ago I was at the golf course, and my
golf instructor asked me, "R. C, when you hit your wedge
shot around the green, what are your swing keys? What are
you thinking about when you hit it?" I said, "I don't have
any swing keys; I don't have any mechanics that I think
about in terms of where my hands and wrists are and all
that. All I do is go through the same process. Before I hit
the shot I visualize in my mind's eye the flight pattern that
I want the ball to take, and then I sort of send that message
to my body from my mind, and then try to duplicate the
feeling that I've just experienced in hitting the shot."
Now, that can sound very much like New Age-type think-
ing — almost a mind-over-matter type of thing. Almost any
heresy is one that takes a truth to an extreme, to a point of
distortion. It is true that our mental attitude has a tremen-
dous influence on how we experience life. And it is true
that Jack Nicklaus experiences shots before he hits them
because all he's trying to do is program his body to a good
positive image of recollection from shots that he has hit in
the past.
But that's not the same thing as thinking that if I think
about money I'm going to get rich, or if I focus my atten-
tion on some object, I'm going to be able to move it by the
power of my mind alone. We Christians have to be very
careful to understand that Christianity promises the power
and the presence of God the Holy Spirit, but no magic.
There's a sharp line in Scripture between spiritual reality
and wizardry. And in the Old Testament, all forms of
179
R.C. SPROUL
magic and wizardry were capital abominations to the char-
acter of God. The New Age movement incorporates reli-
gious elements and Eastern mystical elements in a sort of
blend of spiritual truth with a whole lot of magic. I've seen
it invade the evangelical world to the point that I'm very
much alarmed by it.
How should Christians respond to the belief in
reincarnation?
There have been far more formidable advocates of reincar-
nation in the history of the world than Shirley MacLaine
and other recent converts to this belief. For example, the
philosopher Plato, after studying with the Pythagorean
school of philosophers, was persuaded of the truth of what
he called the "transmigration of the soul." There are East-
ern religions that have a tremendous commitment to and
belief in the reincarnation of the soul. This view is not part
of orthodox Christian faith.
The Christian faith teaches that it is "appointed for man
to die once, but after this the judgment" (Heb. 9:27). The
concept of reincarnation generally carries with it some
notion ofjustification by works; that is, you have to earn
your reward to a higher level in your next incarnation
before you can finally break out of that and into a spiritual
world. Usually the idea is that as you work your way up the
ladder, if you're good enough, you'll be free from an incar-
nation with a body. Christianity believes in a resurrection
of the body, so we're not looking for an ultimately pure
soul-like existence without a body.
180
Faith and Philosophy
What is narcissism, and what impact is it having on our
society and the future of our children?
The concept of narcissism has its roots in ancient mythol-
ogy. Narcissus was simply a youth, not a minor deity. He
spurned Echo the nymph's love. His pining for his own
image was the punishment of the gods.
This derivation of his name has now been used to
describe a certain syndrome — a cultic mentality of self-love
present in our nation today. We've had unprecedented
numbers of books on self-improvement to treat a great con-
cern for self-esteem and self-image. Some people are con-
cerned that this internal introspection and preoccupation
with our self-esteem is going to end in distortions of
human personality whereby we become so enamored with
our own images and so much in love with ourselves that we
can't really develop community and relate to other people.
People, seeing such pride, will say about us, "There but for
the grace of God goes God."
If you look at the history of theoretical thought in West-
ern civilization and philosophy, you will see that different
subjects attracted the major concern of society's thinkers.
The early philosophers were concerned about epistemol-
ogy, the science of knowing. Philosophy of history was a
dominant motif in the nineteenth century. But overwhelm-
ingly the central motif of contemporary academic and
speculative investigation is, What is the meaning of man?
There's a reason for that. We are in a crisis because God is
no longer at the center of our thinking. If it's true (as
Christianity says it is) that man is created in the image of
God, that means that I can't really understand who I am or
181
R.C. SPROUL
what I am apart from a prior understanding of the charac-
ter of God. If God is eclipsed in my thinking, then I'm left
with the question Who am I? If people are telling me that I
emerged from the slime and I'm destined for nothingness,
then if I'm thinking at all, I'm going to have a crisis of iden-
tity, and I'm going to read every book that I can on self-
esteem and dignity and all the rest. That's what people are
afraid of, that this preoccupation will end in a narcissistic
complex. I don't think that's our problem. I don't think
people are really falling in love with themselves and their
own images. I think they're feeling the weight of the loss of
God in their lives.
Do you feel that secular humanism is a real threat to
Christianity? How do we deal with it in regard to our
public school system?
I'm not sure how much of a threat it is, but certainly it
competes with Christianity for the minds and hearts of
people. Secular humanism as a worldview is on a collision
course with the value system and beliefs of Christianity.
These two views take radically different positions concern-
ing how God relates to the world and to us.
I'm constantly trying to remind my Christian brothers
that our forefathers, in the writing of the Constitution of
the United States of America, agreed to live side by side in
agreeing to disagree with unbelievers about matters like
this. Christian and non-Christian share the protection of
the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us as
Christians the right to the free expression of our faith. It
also guarantees to the non-Christian protection from those
182
Faith and Philosophy
Christians who would seek to establish Christianity as the
legal religious faith of the United States of America. We
agreed constitutionally not to establish a state religion.
So when we as Christians try to use the courts to insist
that Christian literature be taught in the public school sys-
tem, I think we're violating the First Amendment, just as
we feel some of our rights are being violated on certain
occasions by some of the recent practices in legislation in
this country. Incidentally, for the most part, those who
have sought to have Creation taught in the public school
system do it on the plea that Creation is the authentic sci-
entific explanation for the origin of the universe and not
that it's uniquely Christian. Yet it's certainly perceived as
an attempt to Christianize the school system.
But what about taking "offensive" textbooks out of the
public school system? This question brings into sharp focus
an issue we've been wrestling with in this country for the
last thirty years: What philosophical position does the pub-
lic school system take in its instruction?
The Supreme Court ruled that humanism is a religion,
and it also said that it's wrong to teach religion in the pub-
lic schools. The problem is, anything that is taught in the
public schools could be construed as a religion. Many
people walk around entertaining the myth that somehow
you can have a neutral worldview taught in a public school
system. There's never been such a thing as value-neutral
education. The irony is that the bottom-line question,
given the struggle we're in, is whether or not it's possible
to have a public school system within the bounds of the
Constitution. That's the struggle, but we need to be careful
not to try to use the law to force our faith on nonbelievers.
183
R.C. SPROUL
How are Christians to view the Masons and other
fraternal orders?
My father, my grandfather, my uncle, and my father-in-law
were all Masons. I'm a little distressed by all of the conflict
that seems to be going on now about the Masons and
other fraternal organizations. The controversy calls for
some explanation.
First of all, there are different kinds of fraternal organiza-
tions, some of which are strictly social. There's nothing
wrong with people getting together for social reasons. We
call it fellowship in the church, and we recognize that it's a
very important part of our humanity. Other fraternal orga-
nizations are banded together for the express purpose of
being service organizations to alleviate suffering, helping
the blind and orphans, for example. They engage in
humanitarian activities. How should a Christian respond to
that? I think with as much cooperation as possible. I can't
imagine why a Christian would object to that.
You can run into problems with some of the organiza-
tions because their historical origins have strong religious
overtones, having spelled-out creeds and ceremonies.
What happens when a Christian joins an organization that
has a creed that isn't altogether compatible with his own
Christian beliefs? Then he has obvious conflict. That con-
flict can be very difficult for other people to understand.
For example, in America there is this eclectic, pluralistic
view that says it doesn't matter what you believe just as long
as you're sincere. Some of these groups have creeds that
say there's no difference ultimately between Christianity
and Islam or other religions. That's offensive to a Christian
184
Faith and Philosophy
because there are significant differences between these
religions, the main difference being their view of Christ.
We're devoted to Christ. We're convinced that he's the
only begotten Son of God. So if I confess on Sunday morn-
ing that Christ is the only begotten Son of God and at a fra-
ternal order meeting another time confess something to
the contrary, I have a conflict in my religious profession of
faith. People who are sensitive to that have great struggles.
To be fair to other people, some say that it's just part of
the ritual and the ceremony, that it really doesn't touch on
the essence of what the club is about. I think people are
very sincere when they say that. Christians have to be care-
ful to listen to that and say that the reason these people
are involved in the order is not because they're trying to
make it a substitute religion. These organizations have
creeds, and people are required to recite them, and
whether they want it to be a religious activity or not, it is
still a religious activity that puts pressure on people who
have a different religious persuasion.
Doesn't science disprove Christianity?
There have been obvious conflicts between the scientific
community and the religious community over certain
points. Of course, the most notable dispute historically was
the embarrassing episode of Galileo and the whole theory
of whether the earth or the sun was the center of the solar
system. We know that many bishops refused to even look at
the evidence of a telescope because they had already bap-
tized another scientific tradition that wasn't biblical. This
was a case, incidentally, in which the scientific community
185
R.C. SPROUL
corrected theological interpretation and misinterpretation
of Scripture because Scripture doesn't teach that the earth
is the center of the solar system, and it took the scientific
community to correct us at that point.
To go further than that and to say that sometimes sci-
ence corrects erroneous ideas is one thing, but actually to
disprove Christianity . . . there are very few points of the
Christian faith that are vulnerable to scientific attack. If a
person says, "Well, we can scientifically prove that people
can't come back from the dead," for example, and if sci-
ence could prove that it's impossible for the God of the
universe to raise his Son from the dead, then obviously
Christianity would be discredited and disproved. I don't
see how a scientist could even begin to approach that. All
a scientist can do is to say that, under normal conditions
and standard procedures, people who die stay dead. Of
course, it doesn't take a twentieth-century scientist to un-
derstand that; first-century people were well aware of the
fact that when people died, they stayed dead. So unless the
scientist could somehow disprove the existence of God or
the resurrection of Christ, I don't see how they could in
any way actually falsify the claims of the Christian faith. Just
because they're not falsified doesn't mean that they're veri-
fied obviously. But I don't see how we have anything to fear
at that level.
The usual point of tension, however, has to do with the
origin of the universe and the origin of life. If science
proves that the world was not created, I think that would
destroy the Christian faith. Christianity is committed to the
concept of divine creation — that there is an eternal Cre-
ator before whom we are all responsible and by whom we
186
Faith and Philosophy
were all created and that all that is made has been made
through him and that the universe is not eternal. If the
scientist could prove that the universe were in fact eternal,
that would be the end of the Christian faith. But I don't
think we have the slightest need to worry about that.
Can something happen by chance?
What are the chances of something happening by chance?
My answer to that question is, "Not a chance." Nothing hap-
pens by chance. If we mean by that that chance can cause
things, it is utterly impossible scientifically, rationally, and
theologically for anything to be caused by chance.
Why would I make a statement like that? It seems so radi-
cal and in fact even bombastic to declare that nothing could
possibly take place by chance. The reason I say it is this:
Chance is not a thing. The word chance is merely a word we
use to describe mathematical possibilities. We say that a
coin flips in the air — we don't know whether it's going to
turn up heads or tails, but we say the chances are fifty-fifty
that it'll turn up heads. But chance doesn't have anything
to do with its turning up heads or tails. Chance has no
power to influence anything — it has no power to do any-
thing. Because chance is not a thing. It is nothing. For
something to have power or influence, it must first be
before it can do. But chance is not an entity. It has no
power, and it can do nothing because it is nothing.
The other side of that question is, Do things that take
place in this world ultimately happen accidentally? Well, we
have to understand that for everything that takes place
there is a cause. Some scientists are baffled by experiments
187
R.C. SPROUL
of subatomic particles involving what's called in sophisti-
cated circles the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or the
indeterminacy principle. Certain studies show that we have
no idea why these subatomic particles behave the way they
do. Some have jumped to the conclusion that because we
don't know why these particles behave the way they do, noth-
ing is causing them to behave the way they are behaving.
How much knowledge would we have to have before we
could say that nothing is producing an observable effect?
We would have to exhaust every nook and cranny of the
universe and then do it again to make sure we didn't miss
the culprit the first time.
Assuming that I have a good relationship with a friend
who really doesn't believe in God, how can I reason
with him about the existence of God?
We're living in a day during which reason itself is suspect
among Christians, and somehow it is more admirable sim-
ply to affirm our faith and ask people to take what we tell
them strictly on blind faith. Yet the Bible tells us, "Come
now, let us reason together" (Isa. 1:18), and the Scriptures
enjoin us to be prepared to give a reason for the hope
within us (1 Pet. 3:15).
I remember that in grade school sometimes we could
have open-book tests in math class. The advantage of it was
that we could flip to the back of the book, where they had
the answers to the problems. If we didn't know how to get
the right answer, at least we knew what the right answer
was. There's sort of a "back of the book" way that we can
approach our friends on the existence of God.
188
Faith and Philosophy
The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1 that God has
revealed himself to every human being and that every per-
son knows that there is a God. The judgment of God is not
that people fail to come to a knowledge of God, but rather
that they refuse to acknowledge what they know to be true.
If that's true, then we come into the discussion armed with
the information — means by which the person already
knows that there is a God, although he or she is not yet ac-
knowledging that. Now, what can we do? Can we just say,
"You're a dirty liar. Why don't you tell the truth and tell
us that you really know there is a God?" That's not the
approach I suggest. Sometimes this knowledge of God is so
repressed or stifled that people have only a vague comprehen-
sion about the character or existence of God. And many of
the questions they ask are honest questions.
It's important that we respect people's questions. The
late Francis Schaeffer had a ministry at L'Abri in Switzer-
land, where he specialized in outreach to intellectuals who
were professed atheists. He felt that it was his obligation to
give honest answers to honest questions. When we discuss
questions like the existence of God, we need to be pre-
pared to explain why we are persuaded that God exists.
I don't have time right now to go over the cosmological
argument for the existence of God, but I think it's valid.
Briefly, if something exists now, something has always
existed from all eternity or there would be nothing. Some-
how, somewhere, someone or something must have the
power of being within himself, and that one who has the
power of being within himself we call God. That's how I
would start the discussion: "How has this world come into
189
R.C. SPROUL
being? How has this cup come into being? How has any-
thing come into being?" and then focus attention there.
How does one convince a nonbeliever that the Bible is
the Word of God?
Before I try to answer that question directly, let me make a
distinction that is important at the outset. There's a differ-
ence between objective proof and the persuasion or convic-
tion that follows. John Calvin argued that the Bible carries
both persuasion and conviction in terms of its internal testi-
mony — the marks of truth that could be found just by an
examination of the book itself — as well as external evi-
dences that would corroborate that substantial evidence to
give solid proof for its being the Word of God.
Yet the last thing people would want is a book telling
them they are in desperate need of repentance and of a
changed life and of bowing in humility before Christ. We
don't want that book to be the truth. Calvin claimed that
there is a tremendous bias and prejudice built into the
human heart that only the influence of God the Holy
Spirit can overcome. Calvin distinguished between what he
called the undicia — those objective evidences for the trust-
worthiness of Scripture — and what he called the internal
testimony of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary to cause us
to surrender to the evidence and acknowledge that it is the
Word of God.
But I think this is a critical issue upon which so much of
the Christian faith depends. The Bible makes the claim
that it is the unvarnished Word of God, that it is the truth
of God, that it comes from him. God is its ultimate author
190
Faith and Philosophy
and source, though indeed he used human authors to com-
municate that message.
In speaking with people about this, we have to go
through the laborious process of showing first of all that
the Bible as a collection of historical documents is basically
reliable. The same tests that we would apply to Herodotus
or Suetonius or any other ancient historian would have to
be applied to the biblical records. The Christian should
not be afraid to apply those kinds of historical standards of
credibility to the Scriptures, because they have withstood a
tremendous amount of criticism from that standpoint, and
their credibility remains intact. On the basis of that, we
come to an idea. If the book is basically reliable, it doesn't
have to be inerrent or infallible; it gives us a basically reli-
able portrait ofJesus of Nazareth and what he taught.
We move from there in linear fashion. If we can on the
basis of general reliability come to the conclusion thatJesus
Christ did the things that history claims he did, it would indi-
cate that Jesus is more than an ordinary human being and
that his testimony would be compelling. I would move first
to a study of the person ofJesus and then ask the question,
what did Jesus teach about Scripture? For me, in the final
analysis, our doctrine of Scripture is drawn from the teach-
ing ofJesus and from our understanding of who he is.
How do you explain discrepancies in the Scriptures-
such as those between the four Gospels—in light of
scriptural inerrancy?
Much of the debate on the integrity of the Scriptures
focuses specifically on those problems. When you have par-
191
R.C. SPROUL
allel accounts of something, you expect them to be consis-
tent, particularly if you're maintaining that these accounts
are inspired by God the Holy Spirit. We know that God
may use different authors to record the same or similar
events, and the authors can describe the event from their
perspective, with their respective languages and literary
styles. But still we would expect agreement in the sub-
stance of what is being taught if all accounts are speaking
under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit.
That's why it's interesting to me that very early in church
history there were attempts to write harmonies of the Gos-
pels. There are three synoptic Gospels — Matthew, Mark,
and Luke — which give a biographical sketch of the life and
ministry ofJesus. Many events are parallel among those
three authors, though they don't always agree in each
detail — how many angels were at the tomb on the day of
resurrection, what the sign on the cross said, what day of
the weekJesus and the disciples celebrated the Passover
celebration in the upper room, and so forth.
Those things have received a tremendous amount of
careful attention by biblical scholars, some coming to the
conclusion that there is no way to harmonize them and
that we just have to accept that there are contradictions
among the biblical writers, which would then seem to fal-
sify any claim to divine inspiration. Others have felt that
they indeed can be reconciled. For example, one Gospel
writer tells us that there were two angels at the tomb on
the day of the Resurrection, and another mentions only
one. Now the critical word that's absent from the text is
the word "only. " If one writer says there were two angels at
the tomb and the other one comes along and says there
192
Faith and Philosophy
was only one, there you have a bona fide contradiction be-
tween the two. If one says there were two angels at the
tomb and the other says we came and saw an angel, obvi-
ously if there are two angels, there has to be one angel
there's no contradiction. There is a discrepancy; that is,
they don't say exactly the same thing. The question is, Can
the two accounts be harmonized — are they logically com-
patible with one another?
A good friend of mine in seminary was very troubled by
these issues and quoted one of our professors who said,
"The Bible is filled with contradiction." And I said, "Why
don't you go home and I'll meet you here tomorrow at
one o'clock. You come back with fifty contradictions. If the
Bible's full of them, then that should be an easy task." The
next day at one o'clock I met him and I said, "Do you have
your fifty?" He'd been up all night and he said, "No, but I
found thirty." And we went through each one of them, rig-
orously applying the principles of logic and symbolic logic.
To his satisfaction I demonstrated to him that not one of
his alleged contradictions in fact violated the law of contra-
diction.
Now I have to say in closing that in myjudgment he
could have pulled out some more difficult passages.
There are some extremely difficult passages in the
Scriptures, and I'm not always happy with some of the res-
olutions, but I think that for the most part those difficult
discrepancies have been thoroughly reconciled through
biblical scholarship.
193
The Power and
Purpose of Prayer
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer
and supplication, with thanksgiving,
let your requests be made known to God;
and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding,
will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
PHILIPPIANS 4:6-7
The Power and Purpose of
Prayer
©uaestioitis inn TM§ SectidDira:
We've been taught that prayer changes things. In view of God's sover-
eignty, what is the role of prayer in a Christian's life?
The Bible says, "Ask and ye shall receive that your joy may be made
full." Elsewhere it qualifies that and says you must ask according to
God's will. Would you clarify when 1 can expect to receive what I ask
for?
In Numbers 14 it appears that Moses changed the mind of God. How
can you explain this?
Does God really speak to us, and if so, how does he communicate to us?
Is it proper to say "if this be your will" when we pray?
Should we as Christians be concerned about repeating prayers? In
Matthew 67 Jesus calls vain repetitions the prayers of heathens.
Does it make a difference if I pray five minutes a day or fifty minutes
or five hours, and does it make a difference if one person prays, or
fifty, or five hundred?
Can Christians today be sure that Christ will pray for others if we ask
him to?
Does God hear the prayers of a non-Christian?
Does God not answer the prayers of a Christian who deliberately sins,
even after sincere repentance?
How can we, as Christians, have more power in our prayer lives?
197
The Power and Purpose of Prayer
We've been taught that prayer changes things. In view
of God's sovereignty, what is the role of prayer in a
Christian's life?
First of all, we need to establish that it is the sovereign God
who not only invites us but commands us to pray. Prayer is
a duty, and as we perform that duty, one thing for sure is
going to be changed, and that is us. To live a life of prayer
is to live a life of obedience to God.
Also, we must understand that there is more to prayer
than intercession and supplication. When the disciples said
to Jesus, "Lord, teach us to pray," they saw a connection
between the power ofJesus and the impact of his ministry
and the time he spent in prayer. Obviously, the Son of God
felt that prayer was a very valuable enterprise because he
gave himself to it so deeply and passionately. But I was sur-
prised that he answered the question by saying, "Here's
how you ought to pray," and gave them the Lord's Prayer.
I would have expected Jesus to answer that question a dif-
ferent way: "You want to know how to pray? Read the
Psalms," because there you see inspired prayer. The Spirit
himself, who helps us to pray, inspired the prayers that are
recorded in the Psalms. When I read the Psalms, I read
intercession and I read supplication, but overwhelmingly
what I read is a preoccupation with adoration, with thanks-
giving, and with confession. Take those elements of prayer,
and what happens to a person who learns how to adore
God? That person is changed. What happens to a person
199
R . C. S P R O U L
who learns how to express his gratitude to God? That per-
son will now become more -and more aware of the hand of
Providence in his life and will grow in his sense of grati-
tude toward God. What happens to the person who spends
time confessing his sins? He keeps in front of his mind the
holiness of God and the necessity of keeping short
accounts with God.
But can our requests change God's sovereign plan?
Of course not. When God sovereignly declares that he is
going to do something, all of the prayers in the world
aren't going to change God's mind. But God not only
ordains ends, he also ordains means to those ends, and
part of the process he uses to bring his sovereign will to
pass are the prayers of his people. And so we are to pray.
The Bible says, "Ask and ye shall receive that your joy
may be made full." Elsewhere it qualifies that and says
you must ask according to God's will. I'm not sure
whether that means his moral will or his sovereign -
will. Would you clarify when I can expect to receive
what I ask for?
It's difficult to put together in one whole package everything
that the Bible says about prayer. So much of the instruction
on prayer that we find in the New Testament comes to us by
way of the literary form, the aphorism, which is a short, pithy
statement of a general principle, almost like a proverb that's
generally true but is not an absolute promise.
Jesus said, "If two of you agree on anything and ask, it
shall be done." That has a whole history of qualifications
in the Old Testament tradition about agreeing on matters.
200
The Power and Purpose ofPrayer
But just a bare, prima facie reading of that Scripture would
make you think that all you have to do is find another per-
son to agree with what you said and it would be done. How
many of us would like to see a cure for cancer? or all the
wars in the world ended forever? If we could find two
people to agree on that, according to what Jesus said there,
it would be taken care of instantly. That's obviously not
what he meant. When can we categorically, absolutely be
confident that we're going to get what we ask for?
I think there are times when God does give categorical
statements of promises. For example, we're told that if we
confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I think it's clear in
Scripture that when a person repents of sin and comes in a
genuine spirit of contrition before God and confesses and
acknowledges that sin before him, that person can believe
with absolute certainty that his prayer has been heard and
has been answered.
Elsewhere when Jesus encourages us to pray, he says,
"You have not because you ask not," he makes this analogy:
"What parent, if the son asks him for bread, will give him a
stone, or for a fish and give him a scorpion?" and that kind
of thing. Jesus encourages us to bring our petitions to God,
just as Paul says, "Make your petitions with thanksgiving
and bring those things that are on your mind and on your
heart to God." There are a number of things that God
promises to give every time.
There are other things that are futile to ask for. If we
know the Scriptures clearly, there are certain things we
won't ask for. I remember seeing on television a man inter-
viewed who ran a series of houses of prostitution. He said
201
R.C. SPROUL
that he made an agreement with God when he entered
into this business: He would give a percentage of his
income to God if God would bless his business. God had
blessed his business, and he was returning the favor
through all the money he was giving to the church. Well,
to ask God to bless something that God abhors is to pray
against God's moral will.
There are many other prayer requests that fall between
those things we are not to pray for and those we know for
sure to pray for. Bring the request before God in humility,
and then let God be God. He sometimes says yes and he
sometimes says no. You bring your request, and then you
let the Father decide.
In Numbers 14 it appears that Moses changed the mind
of God. How can you explain this?
"To change one's mind," in the New Testament means to
repent. When the Bible speaks of my repenting or your
repenting, it means that we are called to change our mirids
or our dispositions with respect to sin — that we are to turn
away from evil. Repent is loaded with these kinds of connota-
tions, and when we talk about God's repenting, it somehow
suggests that God has to turn away from doing something
wicked. But that's not what is always meant when the Bible
uses this word.
Using a word like repentance with respect to God raises
some problems for us. When the Bible describes God for us,
it uses human terms, because the only language God has by
which to speak to us about himself is our human language.
The theological term for this is anthropomorphic language,
202
The Power and Purpose ofPrayer
which is the use of human forms and structures to describe
God. When the Bible talks about God's feet or the right arm
of the Lord, we immediately see that as just a human way of
speaking about God. But when we use more abstract terms
like repent, then we get all befuddled about it.
There's one sense in which it seems God is changing his
mind, and there's another sense in which the Bible says God
never changes his mind because God is omniscient. He
knows all things from the beginning, and he is immutable.
He is unchanging. There's no shadow of turning within
him. He knows what Moses is going to say to him before
Moses even opens his mouth to plead for these people.
Then after Moses has actually said it, does God suddenly
changes his mind? He doesn't have any more information
than he had a moment before. Nothing has changed as far
as God's knowledge or his appraisal of the situation.
What in Moses' words and actions would possibly have
provoked God to change his mind? I think that what we
have here is the mystery of providence whereby God
ordains not only the ends of things that come to pass but
also the means. God sets forth principles in the Bible
where he gives threats ofjudgment to motivate his people
to repentance. Sometimes he spells out specifically, "But if
you repent, I will not carry out the threat." He doesn't
always add that qualifier, but it's there. I think this is one of
those instances. It was tacitly understood that God threat-
ens judgment upon these people, but if somebody pleads
for them in a priestly way, he will give grace rather than jus-
tice. I think that's at the heart of that mystery.
Is God confused, stumbling through all the different
options Should I do this? Should I not do that? And does he
203
R.C. SPROUL
decide upon one course of action and then think, Well,
maybe that's not such a good idea after all, and change his
mind? Obviously God is omniscient; God is all wise. God is
eternal in his perspective and in his full knowledge of
everything. So we don't change God's mind. But prayer
changes things. It changes us. And there are times in
which God waits for us to ask for things because his plan is
that we work with him in the glorious process of bringing
his will to pass here on earth.
Does God really speak to us, and if so, how does he
communicate to us?
First of all, let me say that yes, there is a sense in which God
speaks to us, but there is also a sense in which he does not
speak to us. When people say to me, "The Lord told me to
do something," I want to ask them, "What does the Lord's
voice sound like? Are you telling me that you heard a voice
from heaven just as audible as the voice that spoke at Jesus'
baptism saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased,' or the voice that spoke to Saul on the road to
Damascus?" There have been times in the Bible when God
has spoken audibly to people. But even in the life ofJesus,
there are only three times recorded in the New Testament
at which God spoke audibly to his only begotten Son.
In the lives of the greatest saints, such incidents are
exceedingly rare. Yet there's no easier way to get people's
acquiescence to what I want to do, to sidestep any possible
criticism, than to preface my ideas by saying, "The Lord
told me to do this." I am saying, in essence, that for some-
one to question what I'm saying is for them to be arguing
204
The Power and Purpose ofPrayer
with God himself. I think that we have an obligation to
each other not to accuse each other but to ask the gentle
question, "How do you know that it was God who was speak-
ing to you?" What's the difference between the inner voice
of God and indigestion? God can speak to us (and he does
speak to us — I want to emphasize that) , but the principal
way God speaks to his people is through his written Word.
And sometimes we want to not have to go through all of
the difficulty of studying the Word; that takes work. People
may just go by hunches and intuitions and feelings and
baptize those feelings and intuitions as if they were a
divine mandate from heaven.
I remember a very difficult time in my own ministry and
life when the school in which I was involved as a faculty
member was moving and I didn't want to go where the
school was moving, and so I spent six months unemployed.
The heaviest question in my life at that time was, God,
what do you want me to do? I was in agony over that, pray-
ing desperately for hours every day. I had five well-inten-
tioned, deeply spiritual close friends come to me and tell
me that God told them that I was supposed to do X, Y, or
Z. I thought that was remarkable because the five things
that the Lord told them to tell me would have had me in
five different cities in five different jobs. The only thing I
liked about it were the five separate salaries, but I didn't
see how I was going to be in five places at the same time.
Obviously, somebody didn't have the mind of Christ.
So I urge Christians to be very, very careful before saying
to people, "God told me this." You may say, "I believe that
maybe God is leading me in this direction." That's a much
more humble way to put it.
205
R.C. SPROUL
Is it proper to say "if this be your will" when we pray?
I don't think there are marly things more proper to pray
than "if it be your will." I know that some people take a
dim view of that kind of statement in prayer, saying that it's
kind of a cop-out, that we ought to pray believing that our
prayers are heard and answered before we even see the
results of them. They think that to say "if it be your will" is
an act of unbelief.
There are times when we ought not to say, "if it be your
will." At times we approach God in prayer with issues for
which he has clearly made a promise — for example, when
God says that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just
to forgive us. So when we confess our sins to God and
repent and ask his forgiveness, it's not necessary to add,
"if it be your will."
The one absolute rule I think everybody ought to take
into their prayer closet is that whenever you talk to God,
you must remember at all times who you are and who he
is. It's certainly not an offense to the Almighty to express
the fact that you are willing to submit yourself to his will.
The best of all possible precedents for saying "if it be
your will" is recorded in the New Testament. In our Lord's
great passion, when he entered into his agony in the
Garden of Gethsemane and wrestled with his Father, he
said, "Let this cup pass from me." Jesus flinched the night
before his death. Remember, he wasn't just facing death,
he was facing the punishment of hell for the sins of all
people. It is absolutely incomprehensible for me to under-
stand the full measure of torment Jesus would be facing
the next day. So he cried out in the garden, "Let this cup
206
The Power and Purpose of
Prayer
pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be
done." That's the same thing as saying, "If it be your will,
do not ask me to do this." All things being equal, the Son
was saying, "I'd sure like to have this cup go somewhere
else. But if that's not what you want, then you give me the
cup, and I will drink it to the bitter dregs." I think that's
the way we should respect God when we come into prayer.
We are encouraged by God to bring our requests with
thanksgiving and with confession, and we're told that we
have not because we ask not. Jesus tells us that God in
some respects is like a human father, and what father
would give you a stone if you asked him for bread? God
wants to answer your prayers; he wants to be of assistance
to you. But at the same time we are to be respectful and
humble when we come into his presence. To say "if it be
your will" simply expresses our respect for God's sover-
eignty.
Should we as Christians be concerned about repeating
prayers? In Matthew 6:7 Jesus calls vain repetitions the
prayers of heathens.
This is part ofJesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount
in which he describes the difference between the kind of
worship and spiritual behavior that pleases God and the
kind made popular by the Pharisees — an exercise in hypoc-
risy and therefore displeasing to God.
Jesus singles out "vain repetitions" (kjv), the reciting of
incantations and prayers over and over again in the belief
that some power is to be found in the cadences or in the
mere saying of the words. Jesus warns against this.
207
R.C. SPROUL
It does not follow, however, that we are never allowed to
repeat a prayer. This question comes up with the practice
of the church, for example, when we frequently pray the
Lord's Prayer. Some have pointed out that when the dis-
ciples requested ofJesus, "Teach us to pray," Jesus said,
"When you pray, pray like this," he didn't say, "Pray this."
He didn't give us an explicit command to repeat that exact
prayer over and over again. But I don't think the church
has done anything wrong by using it in that way, as long as
we're careful not to allow our practice of repeating prayers
to become meaningless.
We think, for example, ofJeremiah's rebuke of the
people of Israel in his famous temple speech that's recorded
in Jeremiah 7:1-4, when he said, "You people come into the
presence of God and you say, 'This is the temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.'"
They recited it three times, andJeremiah said, "You trust in
lying words, words that cannot profit." His rebuke to the
people of Israel at that point was that they had put their
confidence in the mere utterance of these external formu-
las. Just by saying the words mechanically over and over
again they thought they had some kind of spiritual power.
That comes perilously close to magic, and we see it in
other religions in which people think there is a magical
formula or that an incantation (the recitation of the word
om, for example) has some kind of power. Christianity sees
prayer as an act of communication, a matter of personal
address to God by which the words we use carry content,
matters of truth. And we should be acutely conscious of
what we're saying to God when we pray. Otherwise our
prayers do become vain and futile repetitions.
208
The Power and Purpose of Prayer
Does it make a difference if I pray five minutes a day
or fifty minutes or five hours, and further, does it
make a difference if one person prays, or fifty, or five
hundred people pray?
Years ago, when I was in seminary, I was somewhat dis-
tressed when one of the New Testament professors used
the Lord's Prayer as a model. He said, "Here Jesus gives us
a prayer. He says, 'When you pray, pray like this."' He said
that the average time it takes to pray the Lord's Prayer is
eighteen seconds, and that our prayers should not be long,
drawn out, and elaborate, but they should be very short
and to the point. One of the purposes of the giving of the
Lord's Prayer was to tell us that we didn't need to give God
a blow-by-blow account of everything that was on our
mind, that eighteen seconds was long enough to take up
the Deity's time. One of the students immediately put his
hand up and said, "But, Professor, before Jesus selected his
disciples, the Scriptures tell us that he prayed all night."
Then the professor replied somewhat cynically, "Well,
you're notJesus."
I don't think we can set forth a rule about how long we
should be engaged in prayer at any given time. However,
people who have rich prayer lives have a tendency not to
make their prayers perfunctory. The testimony of the ages
has been that those who pray and wrestle with God in
prayer tend to spend more than eighteen seconds (and
more than five minutes) on their knees. Luther used to say
that when he had a busy day, he would get up an hour
early to give himself to prayer, and if he had a really heavy
day, he would get up two hours early to make sure he
209
R.C. SPROUL
started with two hours of prayer. I'm not saying that Luther
is the example every person should use. If we keep in
mind that prayer isn't just an exercise but time spent in
God's presence learning about God and about ourselves,
then it would seem that any serious believer would want to
spend a lot of time in prayer. A lot of time for one person,
at his or her particular place of growth and calling, might
be fifteen minutes; for another, it might be an entire day
or longer.
Is prayer more effective when more people are praying
the same thing? James 5:13-18 reminds us of the efficacy of
one man. He uses Elijah as his example. The one man
turned the water off for three and a half years through his
ardent prayer, and he was a righteous man. There are cer-
tain people I like to have pray for me, people whom I
know to be prayer warriors. One old man that used to pray
for us was a retired missionary in his eighties. He was no
longer physically able to continue the rigorous activities of
the mission field, but he refused to retire. He gave himself
every day to eight hours of prayer. Now that man knew
how to pray. And I wanted him to pray for me! If I could
have found five more like him, I would have added them,
too. I want to have everything going for me that I can. I
don't know whether God counts noses when he listens to
prayers, but there is a value, obviously from the Scriptures,
to corporate prayer, in which believers are praying in one
mind. The disciples would gather together in the upper
room and pray together, making a corporate request to
God. And so I would say that just as there's wisdom in a
multitude of counselors, so there is a greater efficacy when
we marshal our prayers together.
210
The Power and Purpose of
Prayer
In the New Testament, Jesus mentions praying for
people. Can Christians today be sure that Christ will
pray for them if we ask?
I think that we can say with certainty that not only can
Christians be sure that Jesus will pray for people if we ask
him to pray for them but that Jesus will pray for them even
if we don't ask. This is his promise to us. So often this
dimension ofJesus' ministry is overlooked. We get excited
about Christmas, and rightly so; we get excited about the
Crucifixion and the Resurrection. But we overlook the
ascension ofJesus and what that means to us. After his
resurrection he ascended into heaven. Ascend in the New
Testament is a technical term that means a person goes to
a place of authority. Jesus goes to be invested as the King of
kings and Lord of lords. He goes to his coronation, at
which God gives him all authority over heaven and earth.
But this isn't the only role he plays.
As our Messiah, our Savior, he is a Priest-King. At the
same time that he is the King of kings, he functions as the
supreme great High Priest. The principal task of the
High Priest in heaven is to make intercession for his
people. This means that Jesus prays for us and takes our
petitions and concerns before the throne of God. On the
night of his betrayal, when Jesus celebrated the Passover
with his disciples for the last time, he predicted that Judas
would betray him and that Simon Peter would deny him.
In Luke 22, he said, "Simon, Satan has asked to sift you
like wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your
faith may not fail. And when you have turned back,
strengthen your brothers." Here we see an example of
211
R.C. SPROUL
Christ praying for Peter before Peter even asked him to
pray. Peter didn't even realize he needed intercessory
prayer. He denied that he would ever do such a thing.
But Jesus had already prayed for him.
An excellent chapter to read about Christ's prayers for
us is John 17. This is the longest prayer ofJesus recorded
in Scripture. It is called Christ's High Priestly Prayer, and it
is a magnificent prayer of intercession. And I would say to
any Christian that at that very moment in history, Jesus
Christ prayed for you. As he interceded for his disciples, he
pled with the Father not only for their welfare but that the
blessing of the Father would come on all of those who
believed through their efforts — and that includes us.
Does God hear the prayers of a non-Christian?
God hears the prayers of everybody insofar as they reach
his auditory nerves (although he doesn't have auditory
nerves). I mean, God is acutely conscious of everything we
say. In that sense, God hears every prayer. But I presume
that the real question here is, Does God hear and honor
the prayers of unbelievers?
There are certainly indications in Scripture that God
sometimes not only hears the prayers of unbelievers but
responds to them. The Bible makes it very clear that God
is not at all pleased with insincere prayers. God tells us in
his Word that he will not despise a broken and contrite
heart (Ps. 51:17). Conversely, he hates arrogance and he
hates the prayers of the proud, whether they be Christians
or non-Christians. In numerous passages the Bible tells us
that God is pleased by and honors only those prayers that
212
The Power and Purpose ofPrayer
come to him out of a truly penitent heart. When we pray
as reconciled people, then we have the promise that God
will hear us. Has an unbeliever ever really dealt with the
Messiah that God has sent into the world? God commands
all men everywhere to come to the foot of the cross for
their redemption and for their reconciliation. This is not a
condition we can negotiate. As Christians, we're commit-
ted to the Son of God because we believe in him and in
him alone, that he is the only means of redemption God
has provided for the human race. And God wants us to
come through Christ if we are going to pray. Access to the
Father is through the Son.
Does God not answer the prayers of a Christian who
deliberately sins, even after sincere repentance?
When we refer to Christians who deliberately sin, we're
talking about every Christian who ever lived, and we're
talking about something that Christians do every day of
their lives. We can talk about sins that are committed in
ignorance and so on, but I hope we recognize that the vast
majority of the sins we commit are done deliberately. We
sin because we want to, because we choose to sin.
This distinction "deliberately sins" troubles me because so
many people won't own up to the fact that their sin is deliber-
ate. They say, "Oh, I didn't mean to do it." Certainly they
meant to do it. What makes sin such a grievous offense
against God is that we deliberately disobey him countless
times in our lives. If God refused to hear the prayers of Chris-
tians who deliberately sinned against him and then
repented, God would not be listening to too many prayers.
213
R . C. S P R O U L
On the contrary, the Bible tells us that if we sin, deliber-
ately or otherwise, and we -confess that sin, we have the
promise of God: If we truly repent, God will forgive us of
those sins. He will not turn his back upon us or refuse to
hear our payers if we repent.
But what if, as a Christian, I'm involved in constant will-
ful sin with no repentance? That's a contradiction in
terms. We can go for a period of impenitence, but if we go
too long in an impenitent spirit, that's an indication that
Christ isn't in us at all. A true Christian, when confronted
by the Word of God, is going to be brought to a state of
repentance sooner or later.
True Christians can have protracted periods of impenitent
sin; we know that. What happens during that time? We are
warned that God resists the proud and gives grace to the
humble (Prov. 3:34). There is no more blatant display of
pride and arrogance than when a person sins willfully against
God, showing no inclination to repent, but continuing in
defiant, continuous disobedience to him. When we do this,
we place ourselves in a stance whereby God says he will resist
us. Our prayers at that time insult him and are offensive to
him. Any hypocritical prayer is offensive to God, whether it's
delivered by a Christian or a non-Christian. When we sin, we
need to repent and come before God humbly. When we do
that, we can be sure that he will hear us.
How can we, as Christians, have more power in our
prayer lives?
I am taking this question to mean, How can we have more
effective results with the prayers we are bringing before the
214
The Power and Purpose of
Prayer
Father? I think we get some clues from the New Testament.
The first is that "we have not because we ask not" or
because we ask in the wrong way (James 4:2-3) . We are told
that God gives grace to the humble but he resists the
proud. That tells me, as Scripture expands on it in many
places, that when we come before God in prayer, we have
to come in the proper attitude. Prayer is one of the deep-
est moments of worship an individual ever experiences. I
think that in order to experience the proper attitude by
which we come before God, we have to remember who it is
we're talking to. We have to be acutely conscious of who
God is.
Martin Luther once answered a similar question. People
were frustrated because they weren't receiving the answers
to the prayers they wanted. They were looking to God as
sort of a cosmic bellhop who was on call twenty-four hours
a day to meet every desire and whim they should bring
before him. And Luther in counseling his parish said, "Let
God be God." That's the attitude we must have when we
come before him in prayer. Remember who he is, and let
him be God. He is the one who holds the power.
We must also remember who we are. When we're pray-
ing, we want to be able to come before God as our Father
and to call him "Abba" as the Holy Spirit allows us to do.
We are to come boldly before the throne of grace, but
never, ever arrogantly. There is a sense in which modern
Christians sometimes become a bit too familiar with God
in the way we talk to him in prayer — as if he were a buddy.
I, for one, am old-fashioned enough to appreciate the anti-
quated Elizabethan language — the thees and the thous that
were built right into the language. We must always remem-
215
R.C. SPROUL
ber the spirit of awe and reverence by which we are to
come before God. I think if we come in the right attitude,
fervently seeking to be obedient to him, then we can
expect to see things happen.
216
9
The Growing
Spiritual Life
If then you were raised with Christ,
seek those things which are above,
where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
When Christ who is our life appears, then you also
will appear with Him in glory.
COLOSSIANS 3:1-4
The Grozuing Spiritual Life
©twestioins in This Sections:
What concerns you most about today's Christian?
How can I put Jesus first in my life?
How can I prevent my personal Christian growth from becoming
stagnant?
How do I, as a new Christian, get a well-balanced view of what the
Bible says?
What do you do in your daily devotions?
Should Christians fast today, and if so, for what reason and how
often?
We live in an age that is very concerned with looks and physical
beauty. What does the Bible say about a person taking care of his or
her body?
How can I deal with jealousy?
How should I handle my own doubts about God's presence in my life?
How do our emotions affect spiritual growth?
What is the biblical perspective on psychology?
Is man two parts-, body and soul; or three parts-, mind, body, and soul?
What does it mean to be righteous?
219
R.C. SPROUL
When Jesus says, "Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,"
does that mean we can attain perfection, and should we?
Romans says that "those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
Does this mean that if a non-Christian performs a righteous act, it
does not please God?
If the Holy Spirit lives in us, why can't we live perfect lives?
Is it possible for Christians to be pure in the things they say and do?
Jesus calls Christians to be the salt of the earth and the light of the
world. Would you please give us some practical ways we can do this?
How should we be in the world but not of it? What does "not of it"
mean?
How can we demonstrate godliness in our lives?
How can we be bold in our faith and excited about it, enjoying our
status as chosen people, without becoming proud?
If we really love God, why do we ignore his commandments?
How does a Christian strike a balance between goal setting and being
led by the Spirit?
What does the Bible mean when it says we should wait upon the Lord?
How can I make goals for my life that best glorify God?
If someone wanted to read three Christian books this year, which
three would you most recommend?
How can I best prolong a useful Christian life as I grow older?
220
The Growing Spiritual Life
What concerns you most about today's Christian?
As a theologian and an educator, I'm biased, but my great-
est frustration with Christians in general is that there seem
to be so few of them who are deeply concerned about
learning the things of God. Some will say, "My passion is to
do evangelism" or, "My passion is to work in the inner city,
where there are obvious felt needs of human beings in dis-
tress," and I appreciate that.
The recent Gallup Poll of American Christianity was the
most comprehensive study of religion ever done in this
nation, and one of the glaring conclusions was that as we
find an increase in public zeal for religious activity, we're
not seeing a corresponding depth in the understanding of
religious principles or in the concern for biblical truth. I
would say that this concerns me more than anything else.
Now, I don't know if that's what concerns God the most.
If we push the whole of the Christian experience down to
its bottom line, I think that God is most concerned about
how we live. Regardless of how knowledgeable we are, are
we obeying God's commandments? Jesus said, "If you love
me, keep my commandments — follow me, do the things
that I tell you to do."
I am concerned about people's knowledge and under-
standing of God's Word because I'm convinced that
behind every practice is a theory. That theory may be well
thought out and carefully designed, or it may be some-
thing that we just sort of adopt uncritically and respond to
221
R.C. SPROUL
by way of an impression and then fly by the seat of our
pants with it. But the clearest demonstration of what our
deepest theories are is how we live. We practice certain
things because we believe that they are the things to do.
When I become a Christian, my heart is changed imme-
diately. I now have a passion for God that I didn't have
before. But God doesn't drill a hole in my head and fill it
with new information and teach me overnight all the
things that he wants me to know about who he is and what
he wants me to do. Rather, he has given us the Scriptures
in simple doses, and sometimes in more complex doses.
The metaphor that the Bible uses is the distinction be-
tween meat and milk. He calls us first to begin with milk as
a nutrient and then to move on to the heavier matters
to the meat. My big concern is that it seems that we are on
a diet of milk and are terrified to eat anything more sub-
stantial.
How can I put Jesus first in my life?
We have the mandate in Matthew 6:33: "Seek first the king-
dom of God and His righteousness, and all these things
shall be added to you."
Incidentally, the word that Jesus uses in that command-
ment is the Greek word protos, which has a little more force
to it than the word first in our own language. In English
the word firstjust seems to be one number in a sequence
of consecutive numbers. There is this weighty concept of
chiefness of priority that is found in Jesus' command, and
he is telling us to make this a matter of top priority. That's
222
The Growing Spiritual Life
a matter of setting priorities and setting goals. That has to
come first.
Now how do we go about doing this? How does a Chris-
tian grow in grace and in devotion, love, appreciation, and
obedience to the things of God? In theology we speak of
the means of grace: prayer, the reading of the Scriptures,
fellowship with other Christians, worship in the assemblies
of the saints. These are the kinds of things that help us get
our priorities straightened out.
Let me get really practical about it and even psychologi-
cal, if you will. We are people of different desires. We have
conflicts of desires. All of us as Christians would like to be
able to push a button and say, "From now on I'm going to
make God first in my life." That works until something else
occupies our desires, and then we don't want God first in
our lives. If we had God first in our lives consistently, we'd
never sin. But whenever we sin it's because at that moment
we would rather do something other than obey God.
How do we become more consistent in elevating God to
his proper place in our lives? Or more to the point, how do
we become more obedient? I would say one of the things
we need to do is recognize our frailties and our weaknesses
and the fact that we do have an ongoing desire and inclina-
tion to sin, but those desires for sin and for disobedience
are not constant. It's like physical appetites. There's an
analogy there. I know that it's easy for me to go on a diet
right after dinner. The hard time for me to go on a diet is
right before dinner. My physical desires are not constant;
they change according to when I have eaten last, and so
on. I know that about myself, and I know that if I'm going
to develop a greater consistency, maybe I have to have
223
R.C. SPROUL
help. I may enter a program where I'm going to get a sup-
port system that will help me, such as Weight Watchers.
So it is with spiritual development. We know that our
spiritual desires are not always constant. That's why when
we are feeling up and have a desire to be obedient, we feed
the new man and starve the old man by making diligent
use of those means of grace that God has given us.
How can I prevent my personal Christian growth from
becoming stagnant?
There's only one absolute way I know of to keep your Chris-
tian growth from becoming stagnant, and that is to die. The
only time Christian growth stops altogether is at death.
That's because we don't need to grow any further; we're ush-
ered into the state of glorification. If a person is in Christ
and Christ is in that person, it is impossible for the Christian
not to move, to grow. It may seem at times as if our Christian
growth has been totally arrested and is in a stagnant state,
but I think that's merely an outward appearance.
Obviously our Christian growth can move at various
speeds, and we tend to have a kind of ebb and flow. Some-
times we're moving ahead in leaps and bounds and other
times at a snail's pace. When it's moving in such a labori-
ously slow fashion, we may think that it has become
utterly stagnant. Again, if there is no evidence of growth
whatsoever then I would say it's time to examine our
souls and our hearts to see if we're in Christ at all
because where the spirit of Christ indwells a person, he
will not permit total stagnation.
If we want to increase the pace of Christian growth, I think
224
The Growing Spiritual Life
there are some important practical keys we need to plug in.
Christian growth, biblically, is usually described in terms of
discipleship. To be a disciple ofJesus means to be a learner
in the school of Christ. That doesn't mean simply heaping
up intellectual data or head knowledge, so to speak, but com-
ing to an understanding of what it is that pleases God and
what it is that pleases Christ. It means learning how to imit-
ate him in our different ways of walking before him.
The word discipleship is very close to the English word
discipline. To grow requires the achievement of spiritual
discipline. How do you get it? When we are trying to pro-
gress in any area, so many times that involves discipline
whether it's mastery of piano technique, an athletic
endeavor, or learning in a public school or college. We
have to understand that discipline doesn't happen by
magic. The best way I know of becoming disciplined is by
first learning patterns of discipline under somebody else's
tutelage. If you're having trouble growing, get yourself as
fast as you can into a Christian growth group where you
are under the discipline of a pastor or a spiritual leader,
where as part of a team, you are learning the skills of per-
sonal growth together.
How do I, as a new Christian, get a well-balanced view
of what the Bible says?
Anytime new Christians read the Bible for themselves, they
risk a distortion. One of the great articles of faith of the Ref-
ormation was the principle of private interpretation, that is,
every Christian was seen to have the right to read the Bible
for themselves. The Roman Catholic Church resisted that
225
R.C. SPROUL
because they recognized that an unschooled and untrained
person could very easily come to serious misunderstandings
and distortions of Scripture. They warned, for example, that
letting the laymen read the Bible could open a floodgate of
iniquity. Luther responded to that by saying, yes, a floodgate
of iniquity could be opened by unskilled people. That is why
God has put teachers in the church. But he also said the
basic message essential for every Christian to understand
was so clear, so manifest, that a child could understand it. It
is so important and so worthwhile that if it risks the opening
a floodgate of iniquity, Luther said, so be it.
I agree with that, but at the same time, I am also aware
of the vast difficulties that attend the virgin reading of
Scripture, particularly without sound tutelage.
The Bible is a big book, but it's not so big that it can't be
read in its totality. It is important that we understand the
individual parts of Scripture in light of the whole. Luther,
careful as he was to give detailed attention to each passage
and verse, still made it a part of his yearly ministry to read
through the whole Bible. He kept the big picture — the
total scope of Scripture — always in his mind as he was deal-
ing with the individual pieces. It's like walking through a
vast forest. He said that the first time through, all you're
trying to do is get from one end of the forest to the other.
After you grow in your understanding of the forest, you
begin to notice separate groupings of trees, and after a
while individual trees will stand out to you. Then as you
examine the individual trees and maybe climb the trees,
you'll examine the different branches. Bible study, he said,
isn't really fun until you're out there turning over every
individual leaf, enjoying and exploring that leaf for all it
226
The Growing Spiritual Life
can be. That's what Luther loved to do as a scholar of the
Bible, to look at those words and passages that are so lively.
He said that to prevent getting hung up on one tiny little
section of it, "let the wind of the whole blow through your
mind occasionally."
I wrote one book titled Knowing Scripture (InterVarsity
Press, 1977), in which I set forth a practical guideline for
somebody who's reading through Scripture for the first time.
Most people start at Genesis, and that's fun, interesting, and
easy. They get to Exodus and that's full of adventure. As soon
as they get into Leviticus and Numbers, they lose it and quit.
There's a way to read the history of the Old Testament in
which you can skip some of those difficult and strange pas-
sages and do it in a nutshell version. That way you get the
feeling of the whole and can then go back to fill in the gaps.
What do you do in your daily devotions?
To be very candid, I don't have what one would call daily
devotions in terms of an established routine. My pattern
varies from day to day, week to week, and month to month.
There is a period of time in every day that I spend in
prayer. That period is longer and sometimes more intense
on some occasions than others. But I am not the kind of
person who functions well in a highly regimented or struc-
tured environment. Other people have a daily agenda that
is much more routine that they find very helpful.
I would say that if you take the amount of time I spend in
the Scriptures over the course of a week, it would probably
be considered a lot of studying. But I don't distinguish be-
tween devotional reading of Scripture and studying the Scrip-
227
R.C. SPROUL
ture. For me, all studying of the Scripture is a devotional act,
and devotions should be an act of serious study. There's noth-
ing magic about ten minutes of reading in the Scripture.
I know that people suffer a lot of guilt about this
because in certain Christian subcultures it's sort of
expected that everybody has a set period of daily time for
Bible reading and prayer. Now the Scriptures tell us to
meditate on the Word of God day and night so that our
attention to the Scriptures should be devout and serious
and rigorous. In fact, I recommend that people spend a lot
more than ten or fifteen minutes a day studying the
Scriptures. But we have to be careful not to impose upon
the Christian community a set pattern of Bible study or
prayer. We can't set up personal systems of devotion as
tests of spirituality for other people. This has done a lot of
harm to people who don't function well in a highly struc-
tured approach to prayer and study.
On the other hand, some of us are so undisciplined that
we don't give adequate attention to the serious matter of
prayer and the study of Scripture. These are our duties as
Christians, and it's also our pleasure as Christians to spend
time with God. We're to be praying "without ceasing."
Jesus made it a practice to take time away for devoted sea-
sons of prayer. If prayer was something Jesus saw as neces-
sary for himself, how much more necessary must it be for
us? I would not recommend my routine for others. But
remember that my work and calling and vocation is as a
teacher of the Word of God, so I'm required to spend enor-
mous amounts of time in it. Each person has to learn for
him- or herself what works best for integrating prayer and
Bible study into daily life.
228
The Growing Spiritual Life
Should Christians fast today, and if so, for what reason
and how often?
I believe that fasting is one of the most neglected means of
grace that God has given to his church. It has tremendous
biblical background and support. Fasting was a regular
practice in the household of Israel, and that tradition was
carried into the New Testament church. When the disci-
ples failed to achieve success in their attempt to exorcise
some devils on one occasion, Jesus said to them, "This kind
only goes out through prayer and fasting."
So Jesus himself endorsed fasting. He went through a
forty-day fast during his temptation, and he sanctified the
means of grace through fasting. I don't think we should
continue to neglect it. In the Roman Catholic Church, fast-
ing is a regular discipline. Even in my lifetime, there was
still the tradition in the Roman Catholic Church that Cath-
olics did not eat meat on Friday. Some of them continue
that today. So the fast at that level was not a complete
doing away with eating, but it was a doing away with certain
elements of eating. Many Protestants objected to the
Roman Catholic form of fasting because fasting was also
seen as a meritorious work in the Roman Catholic Church
and people thought that because they were engaged in this
practice of fasting, they were earning points in terms of
their quest for entrance into the kingdom of God. Protes-
tants, being zealous for justification by faith alone, had a
tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater and did
away with fasting lest it be misconstrued as a way of work-
ing oneself into the kingdom of God. But fasting is making
a comeback.
229
R . C. SPROUL
How do we carry this out in a practical way? Some
people agree with the concept of fasting, but it makes
them ill. There are people — diabetics, for example — for
whom it would be irresponsible to be in a full and total
fast. They should only be in partial types of fast, and only
with a physician's direction. We are responsible to be good
stewards of our bodies, and our fasting should be done in
an intelligent way. I remember the first time I fasted. I just
decided I wasn't going to eat anything for four days, and it
was a tremendous spiritual experience for me to go four
days without a bite of food, but I was about dead at the end
of those four days. I had all kinds of trouble. I had stomach
problems because it was unhealthy for me to go without
any food in my stomach for four days. And so I think the
individual must work this out in his own conscience before
God and not feel a compulsion to fast in a way that would
damage his own body. There are several good books avail-
able on the discipline of fasting, and any Christian should
be able to incorporate this discipline in some way.
We live in an age in which people are very concerned
with looks and physical beauty. What does the Bible
say about a person taking care of his or her body?
Should Christians be concerned with matters such as
being overweight?
When you ask if Christians should be concerned about
being overweight, you're trampling on my toes! But that
reminds me of a story of a friend of mine. He was an Epis-
copalian priest and a very earthy fellow, and he chain-
smoked cigarettes. One of the ladies in the congregation
230
The Growing Spiritual Life
was very upset about this priest's habit of smoking. This
woman, by the way, was obviously quite overweight. She
came to the priest and said, "Father, don't you know that
by smoking you're staining the temple of the Holy Spirit
with nicotine?" My friend looked at the woman and
replied, "Yes, ma'am, I guess I am staining the temple of
the Holy Spirit, and you're stretching it." I don't know
what the future relationship was between the pastor and
that member of his congregation after that exchange, but
it illustrates that sometimes we pick and choose certain
habits that are not healthy. We set one up as a test of spiri-
tuality if we don't indulge in it. The point the priest was try-
ing to make, not too subtly of course, was that even though
he was involved in a self-destructive habit, this woman was
also doing damage to her body by being so obviously over-
weight.
We live in a culture that tends to glorify the svelte body
and downgrade people who don't meet that aesthetic
standard. I don't see where the Bible says to us that we are
supposed to meet the aesthetic standards of a given culture
and therefore that we should all look alike, patterned after
the current sex symbols. The condition of our bodies really
does matter, though, from a biblical perspective. We are
called to take care of our bodies, to be good stewards of
our physical well-being, and I think if you have a question
about whether your weight is appropriate or not, it's proba-
bly something you ought to talk over with your doctor. Our
physicians are becoming more and more concerned about
some of the problems caused by excessive weight. The med-
ical sciences have discovered many links between our emo-
tional, mental, and physical well-being. I would say that
231
R.C. SPROUL
poor health or condition in any area of life — including
spiritual — is going to affect the whole of life, and we need
to give attention to problem areas.
How can I deal with jealousy?
I'm glad you asked that question because it's the kind of
question we almost never hear anyone ask in the Christian
community. It's obviously a matter of great concern to
God. The Bible has much to say about jealousy and similar
feelings we have toward each other.
One of the things I often ask my students in seminary is
this: "Suppose you had the opportunity to write a new con-
stitution for the government of the United States of Amer-
ica and we were going to start all over again. Instead of
having several amendments and a bill of rights, all we were
allowed to have would be ten basic rules by which our
nation would be governed. What would you include in
those ten rules to govern a nation?"
When we ask that question, most people would include
such rules as prohibition against murder, against theft and
those kinds of violations of people and property that we all
recognize are evil. Yet I also wonder how many people
would include in the top ten a rule to honor one's parents,
or a rule to protect the sanctity of the name of God. I won-
der how many would include a rule against coveting the
property of others.
Jealousy is not exactly the same thing as coveting, but it
is very close. Jealousy involves harboring ill feelings toward
another human being because of that person's possessions
or achievements or something that we want for ourselves
232
The Growing Spiritual Life
but don't have. We have feelings of ill will toward these
people because we covet what they possess. I might also
add that jealousy is one of the cardinal sins of which the
Scriptures speak so frequently. I think one of the reasons
jealousy is such a serious matter to God, though it may not
be so serious to us, is that at the root of feelings ofjealousy
toward other people is an unspoken, assumed criticism of
God. We are, in a sense, expressing our dissatisfaction with
the fact that God has been pleased to allow other people to
have things that we do not have or to achieve things that
we haven't achieved. Instead of being grateful for the
things God has provided for us — the gifts, talents, and pos-
sessions — in our jealousy we not only hurt other people,
but we are silently attacking God in his sovereignty and in
his mercy. I think we need to look at it in its fullness if we
are going to have the impetus to overcome it.
How should I handle my own doubts about God's
presence in my life?
This question brings to mind an experience I had early in
my ministry. In fact, I'd only been ordained a few months
and was teaching at a college. One church had a minister
who was much loved by his congregation; he had served
there for twenty-five years but had become critically ill.
The man was at the point of death. I was supplying the
pulpit for several months and helping the congregation
deal with this tragedy in their midst.
On a Saturday night, before the Sunday morning service
in which we were to celebrate Communion, I received an
urgent call that it was possible the minister would not live
233
R.C. SPROUL
to the next day. When I came to the church the next morn-
ing, I was keenly aware of the profound sense of concern
that was in the congregation. I felt an enormous weight to
try to have the most meaningful Communion service I
could possibly lead. I agonized in prayer, saying, "God,
please let me have a special anointing as I come before
these people in their need." I don't think I ever mounted
the pulpit in my entire ministry with a greater desire to
know the presence of God than I did that Sunday morning.
I preached, and I went through the sacrament, and it
was awful. It was terrible! I just felt a total absence of God,
as if I'd been utterly and completely abandoned by him.
My preaching was dead, and it seemed as if I were talking
to myself. When I pronounced the benediction and went
to the back of the church, I really wished there was a hole
in the ground I could jump into so I wouldn't have to face
those people. I felt so miserable for having let them down.
I stood at the back door, and as they started to file out of
the church one by one, I couldn't believe what happened!
These people came out, and it was like they had been hit
between the eyes. They were stunned. They were in shock.
One after another said that they had never been so moved
by the powerful presence of God as that which they'd
experienced in that worship service! One lady said to me,
"The Holy Spirit's presence was so thick today we could
have cut it with a knife." I just couldn't believe it. I felt like
Jacob when he woke up from his dream and said, "Surely
God was in this place and I knew it not." That really had an
impact on me that day. I said, "Wait a minute. God prom-
ised that he would be here." I didn't feel his presence, and
so I thought he wasn't there. I had become a sensuous
234
The Growing Spiritual Life
Christian, allowing my strength of conviction to be deter-
mined by the strength of my feelings.
I realized that I've got to live by the Word of God, not by
what I feel. I think that's how you deal with doubt. You
begin to focus on what God says he's going to do rather
than on your feelings.
How do our emotions affect spiritual growth?
Our society is very emotion oriented; at the same time it is
very suspicious of emotional expression, particularly in the
arena of religion. If you scream and yell and carry on Sun-
day afternoon at the football stadium, you're called a fan.
If you express any emotional interest in the things of God,
you're called a fanatic. It seems that we're allowed to be
emotional about some things, but not others.
God has created us to have the ability to think and to be
involved in the cognitive process of reason, but we are also
creatures who feel. When I was taking pastoral counseling
courses from psychiatrists, they would say, "When you ask a
person a diagnostic question, don't ask, 'What do you
think about so-and-so?' but ask them, 'How do you feel?'"
They were trying to teach us how to get in touch with
people's feelings because people live at the feeling level.
Now part of me thought that there was some insight there,
but part of me recoiled from it because I'm convinced that
we're living in a time in the church when there is so much
emphasis on feelings that we've become very negative with
respect to the whole business of thinking. I think that if we
try to make Christianity purely intellectual, we distort it.
235
R.C. SPROUL
And if we try to make Christianity purely emotional, we dis-
tort it in the other directiori.
What is the relationship supposed to be between feelings
and thought? If someone asked me which of the two is
most important, I would say that the mind is first in terms
of the order of our spiritual development, but the heart is
first in importance. Let me say it another way: If my theol-
ogy is correct and my intellectual understanding of Christi-
anity is correct, but my heart is removed from Christ, I'm
outside the kingdom of God. If my heart is in love with
Christ, but my theology is messed up, I'm in the kingdom
of God. So the heart is more important than the mind, but
the way God has made us is that the better we understand
him with our mind, the more our heart should be
inflamed with emotion in love of God.
What is the biblical perspective on psychology? Does
psychology play a helpful role in Christianity?
We have to understand at the outset that there is no suc*h
thing today as a monolithic single system of psychology.
There are different schools of competing theories of psy-
chology, all of which are trying to understand the intrica-
cies and subtle nuances of the most complex mechanism
found in the universe, which is the human personality.
At best, psychology as an academic discipline and as a sci-
ence is relatively young and inexact. Early in the church's
history, Christian scholars were interested in understanding
the intricate behavioral patterns of people. For example,
Saint Augustine is often credited, even in secular universi-
ties, as being the ancient father of psychology, because he
236
The Growing Spiritual Life
was so concerned with what we would today call introspec-
tion, trying to probe the depths of human motives and
feelings and discover what forms human personality.
Now, is there such a thing as a biblical psychology? There
certainly is a biblical view of man, and there certainly is a
biblical view of human behavior. We can learn much from
the Scriptures about behavior and personality development,
about emotions and their impact on us. There is a wealth of
information in the Bible that can help us as we give counsel
to others. We know, for example, that guilt is one of the
most prevalent issues dealt with by psychologists and psychia-
trists. There has never been a book more adequate to deal
with the problem of guilt than the Bible.
I happen to believe that all truth meets at the top. I
believe that the Bible is infallible. I believe that the Bible
gives us a view of man that comes from the Maker of man;
it comes from the very mind of God. So we get an insight
into human personality from the Scriptures that we will
never find anywhere else.
Yet God has also given us nature as a textbook, and
through the study of human behavior we can learn valid
truths. So I think that a Christian should have one eye on the
Scriptures and another eye on the best of what is being dis-
covered through the scientific study, the experience, and the
observations of professionals in psychology and psychiatry.
Is man two parts: body and soul; or three parts: mind,
body, and soul?
This question may seem harmless on the surface, but it's
been a matter of significant controversy in early church his-
237
R.C. SPROUL
tory and again in the twentieth century. It seems a strange
thing to be fighting about,, but there are reasons for the
debate.
In the first place, the classic view shared by orthodox
Christians of various denominational persuasions has been
that man is what we call dichotomous; that is, he has a phys-
ical dimension, which we call his body, and a nonphysical
aspect, which we call his soul. He is both physical and non-
physical. A danger of this view is that we can fall into dual-
ism, whereby we see body and soul as being intrinsically
incapable of unity. It's the dualistic view that has so often
pictured anything physical as completely evil, rather than
as something created good that has been affected by sin.
The early Greeks had a problem with spirit being united
with matter in any way. To the Greek world, the great scan-
dal of the gospel was not the Resurrection but the Incarna-
tion because they couldn't conceive of a spirit becoming
contaminated by such close union with physical things like
a human body.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 Paul says, "May God keep you
body, soul, and spirit." One theologian jumped on this and
said, "Oh, there are three parts to man — body, soul, and
spirit." And in the early centuries of Christianity this tripar-
tite view developed. The theory was that the body and soul
are basically incompatible and that it is a dualistic arrange-
ment of tension between the physical and the nonphysical.
The only way they could fit together would be to have
some third substance as the cement to put these two con-
tradictory substances together. The body and soul were
then thought to be unified by the spirit.
The church condemned as heresy this tripartite view of
238
The Growing Spiritual Life
man — that he's body, soul, and spirit — because of the way
it had developed from a Greek dualism that the church
wanted to avoid. This view made a comeback in the twenti-
eth century, however, and has become very popular in
certain Christian circles.
Where I see it, for example, is in the influence of Watch-
man Nee's teaching, where Watchman Nee brings along
with his Christian understanding some ideas unique to
Oriental thought. He sort of combines them with classical
Christianity and has been very influential as a popular
teacher among Christians. We've also seen this idea
become very much employed in so-called neo-Pentecostal
theology and in some of the movements found in the wide-
spread influence of Campus Crusade for Christ, for exam-
ple, which has had an enormous impact on American
Christianity.
One of the things that is so attractive about the idea of
man being divided into three parts rather than two is that
it makes it possible to construct a view of two different
degrees of Christians: those Christians who are born of the
Holy Spirit but who do not yet have the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit — the baptism of the Holy Spirit — and those
who are born of the Holy Spirit and also have the indwell-
ing of the Spirit. Those groups that place great emphasis
upon the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent work
of God's grace after conversion will then say that there are
three kinds of people in the world. There are the people
who don't have the Holy Spirit at all; then there are people
who have the Holy Spirit in conversion or in rebirth but
who lack this second blessing, this second indwelling or
239
R.C. SPROUL
infilling of the Holy Spirit; and finally there are those who
have the Spirit in conversion and in indwelling.
If you can talk about three different kinds of people, it's
convenient to then see a model of that in terms of the
three parts of man. Sometimes you will see it broken down
this way, that those who are not Spirit-filled Christians have
the Holy Spirit in their soul but not in their spirit. The dis-
tinction is then between the compartments within us in
which the Spirit dwells, and that accounts for the distinc-
tion between the so-called carnal Christian and the Spirit-
filled Christian.
I think this is a case where theology is dictating our un-
derstanding of Scripture; we have a view of theology, and
we try to construct a view of man to accommodate it. I
just think that it is not a sound way of understanding the
Bible. The Bible does, on one occasion, say body, soul,
and spirit, but it also talks about the mind, the bowels,
and the heart.
The overall message of the Bible is that we have a physi-
cal body and we have a nonphysical existence, sometimes
called the spirit and sometimes the soul, and this nonphysi-
cal part consists of our whole self — personality, emotions,
mind, spirit, will, and so forth. God created us with both
parts; both were affected by the Fall, and both will be
redeemed by the grace and power of God.
What does it mean to be righteous?
To be righteous means to do what God tells us to do. Righ-
teousness means obeying the law of God. Jesus calls his
people to an exceedingly high standard of righteousness.
240
The Grtmring Spiritual Life
He tells us in one of the most terrifying texts in the New
Testament that unless our righteousness exceeds the righ-
teousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, we will in no
way enter the kingdom of God. Some of us get off the
hook easily by saying that we have the righteousness of
Christ — and certainly that exceeds the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees, and that's true. But I don't think
that's what Jesus was talking about there. I think he's talk-
ing about the righteousness that we are to manifest as
regenerate and justified people — that conformity to the
image of God and conformity in imitation of Christ. The
evidence in our lives is the kind of standard of righteous-
ness that Jesus calls us to possess and practice. I think we
have a tendency to trivialize it.
One day I received a letter from a man who was com-
plaining about people who danced and drank and
smoked, and was saying how could these people be Chris-
tians? As if those things had anything ultimately to do with
the kingdom of God. Certainly they touch on ethical mat-
ters, but they're trivial. This was the great failure of the
Pharisees, whose righteousness we are called to exceed.
They majored in minors. They measured righteousness
strictly by externals. Jesus rebuked them for missing the
weightier matters of the law.
Obviously, there are greater and lesser matters we need
to be aware of if we are going to pursue authentic righ-
teousness. For example, Jesus commended the Pharisees in
tithing. They were scrupulous in tithing. They paid their
tithes to the dime, and today only 3 percent of evangelical
Christians tithe. But Jesus even considered that a minor
matter. He said at least they tithe, but they omitted the
241
R.C. SPROUL
weightier matters ofjustice and mercy. I think that what
righteousness involves ultimately is bringing forth the fruit
of the spirit of Christ. A righteous person is a person whom
you can trust, who has integrity, whose word means some-
thing, and who is not dishonest. Those things are spiritual,
yet we tend to judge people by things more evident and
visible.
When Jesus says, "Be ye perfect as your Father in
heaven is perfect/' does that mean we can attain
perfection, and should we?
There are a couple of things we need to understand
about this statement. In the first place, the word that is
translated "perfect" literally means "be complete." So
often, the New Testament and the Old Testament will
describe people as being upright and righteous — not in
the sense that they have achieved total moral perfection,
but rather that they have reached a singular level of matu-
rity in their growth in terms of spiritual integrity. How-
ever, in this statement, it's certainly legitimate to translate
it using the English word perfect. For example, "Be ye com-
plete as your heavenly Father is complete." Now remem-
ber that your heavenly Father is perfectly complete! So if
we are to mirror God in that way, we are to mirror him in
his moral excellence as well as in other ways. In fact, the
basic call to a person in this world is to be a reflection of
the character of God. That's what it means to be created
in the image of God. Long before the Sermon on the
Mount, God required the people of Israel to reflect his
242
The Growing Spiritual Life
character when he said to them, "Be ye holy even as I am
holy." He set them apart to be holy ones. The New Testa-
ment word for that is saints.
Now to the question of whether we can, in fact, achieve
moral perfection in this world. IfJesus says to be perfect,
the assumption would be that he would not require us to
do something that is impossible for us to achieve. There-
fore, there are Christians, many Christians, who believe
that, indeed, it is possible for a person to reach a state of
moral perfection in this life. That view is called perfec-
tionism, and people develop a theology whereby there's a
special work of the Holy Spirit that gives them victory
over all sin or all intentional sin that renders them mor-
ally perfect in this world. The mainstream of Christianity,
however, has resisted the doctrine of perfectionism
chiefly because we see the record of the greatest saints in
biblical history and in church history who to a person
confessed the fact that they, to their dying day, struggled
with ongoing sin in their lives. Not the least of which, of
course, was the apostle Paul, who talked about his ongo-
ing struggle with sin.
Can a person be perfect? Theoretically, the answer to
that is yes. The New Testament tells us that with every
temptation we meet, God gives us a way to escape that
temptation. He always gives us enough grace to overcome
sin. So sin in the Christian life, I would say, is inevitable
because of our weakness and because of the multitude of
opportunities we have to sin. But on a given occasion, it is
never, ever necessary. So in that sense, we could theoreti-
cally be perfect, though none of us is.
243
R.C. SPROUL
Romans says that "those who are in the flesh cannot
please God/' Does this mean that if a non-Christian
performs a righteous act it does not please God?
Paul here is describing everyone who is unregenerate, and
so from a biblical perspective, anyone who is not born of
the Spirit of God would be "in the flesh." You are inferring
that the passage says that those who are in the flesh cannot
please God. Does that mean that a righteous act done by
anyone who is in the flesh would not please God? If no one
in the flesh can please God, then obviously a person in the
flesh would not be able to please God under any circum-
stances. What about if he does a righteous act? That ques-
tion represents what I would call a condition contrary to
fact. That's like asking if an unbeliever would be rejected if
he had faith. If he had faith, he wouldn't be an unbeliever.
It would be an impossible condition for an unbeliever to
be a believer at the same time.
What I'm getting at is this: Can a person who is unregen-
erate, who has never been made alive by the Spirit of God,
actually perform real righteousness? There are two ways to
approach this. On the one hand, the New Testament
describes righteousness and a good deed in a comprehens-
ive way that considers both the external action and the
internal motivation for the action. The Bible makes it clear
that people who are still in the flesh can and do perform
activities that outwardly conform to the requirements of
the law of God. There are people who are not Christians
who do not steal and do not kill and who show mercy.
They indicate all kinds of virtuous behavior, what the
244
The (Wowing Spiritual Life
Reformers called civil righteousness — righteousness that
gives an outward obedience to the law of God.
But the New Testament has a narrower view of what
authentic righteousness demands. For example, the rich
young ruler thought that he had kept the Ten Command-
ments from the time he was a child because he wasn't actu-
ally guilty of murder, theft, adultery, etc. He said to Jesus,
"All these things I have kept from my youth."
At the same time the Bible says, "There is none righteous,
no, not one. There is none who does good that is in the
flesh," because God's demand for righteousness is not
merely external obedience to the law but that the motivation
for an action proceed from a heart that is genuinely desiring
to please God. If I'm not moved by the Spirit of God and am
merely in the flesh, I will never be motivated to do anything
out of a genuine love for God. So I would have to say that a
person in the flesh can never display real righteousness in
the sense of behaving from an ultimately proper motivation.
If the Holy Spirit lives in us, why can't we
live perfect lives?
Let me suggest to you that we can live perfect lives. Now that
may sound like the most outrageous thing you have ever
heard, because one of the few things you'll get both Chris-
tian and non-Christian to agree on is that nobody is perfect!
What the New Testament teaches, as I understand it, is
that once the Holy Spirit comes into my life, once I'm
indwelt by the Holy Spirit, I have living within me the
power to obey God. The Holy Spirit gives me the power to
obey the commandments of God, and the New Testament
245
R.C. SPROUL
says there is no temptation that has ever befallen me that
isn't common to every person, and with the temptation
God always provides a way of escape. I don't think anybody
does, in fact, live a perfect life. But I think that God's grace
makes perfection a possibility.
I would say that I have opportunities to sin literally thou-
sands of times a day. Every time I'm confronted with an
opportunity to sin, there is a battle within my soul. The
indwelling Holy Spirit is inclining me toward righteousness
and obedience. But remember that the Holy Spirit is living
in me, in R. C. Sproul; he's indwelling an imperfect creature,
one who has not been totally cleansed of evil inclinations. So
given the manifold opportunities to sin that I have and know-
ing that there's warfare with every one of those opportunities
between what the Bible calls my flesh and the Spirit, statisti-
cally it's virtually inevitable that I'm going to sin and be far
less than perfect. If we look at them one at a time, we realize
that in each single circumstance the power has actually been
provided by God to resist that temptation. That's why I can
never stand before God and say, "God, you will have to
excuse me; the devil made me do it" or, "The Holy Spirit was
not powerful enough within me to have resisted that sin." So
even though I believe that not even the apostle Paul ever
achieved perfection in his life, it's not because of any lack of
power or ability or inclination of the indwelling Spirit.
Is it possible for Christians to be pure in the things
they say and do?
I don't want to be evasive or clever; I'm very serious when I
ask, How pure is pure? We talk about 99.44 percent pure
246
I
The Growing Spiritual Life
with respect to a certain brand of soap; we talk about vari-
ous degrees of purity of silver, gold, and other precious
metals. When we talk about purity in a moral or spiritual
sense, I would say that it's not possible for a Christian to be
100 percent pure in anything that he does or says for this
reason: When God considers an action that we do or a
word that we speak, he doesn't merely consider the surface
action; he also considers the motives. The motives involve
an examination of the deepest inclination and disposition
of our hearts. From an ideal, absolutely pure spiritual per-
spective, a perfect motive would proceed from a heart that
is 100 percent inclined toward God — a heart that loves
God fully with all of the heart, with all of the mind, and
with all of the soul. I've never done an action in my life
where the moment I did it I was loving God with all of my
heart, with all of my soul, and with all of my mind. Any
action I've ever done, any word I've ever spoken has always
been tainted by some degree of blemish and personal sin-
fulness.
If we use the term pure loosely, it becomes a relative
matter. I suspect there's some degree of selfish interest in
almost everything we do. We can think of people who are
amazingly altruistic on the surface, and I would say, rela-
tively speaking, we do encounter true altruism in the
world. But I don't think we'll ever see a perfect deed, or a
perfect thought, or a perfect word until we ourselves are
perfected inwardly. That's the point: God judges our
actions not only externally but he's also concerned about
the heart. If all he cared about were external actions,
which indeed he does care about, we would see people
who have no particular love for Christ whatsoever outstrip-
247
R.C. SPROUL
ping Christians in their righteous deeds and in their altruis-
tic concerns and compassions. The full picture involves the
inward disposition of the heart, and that's where we all suf-
fer failure.
Jesus calls Christians to be the "salt of the earth" and
the "light of the world." Would you please give us
some practical ways in which we can be salt and light?
Salt is that which gives zest, tang, taste to life. I think Chris-
tians, of all people, should manifest a kind of zest, a kind
of excitement for life — a passion for living; they should be
fun to be around. Even the apostles tell us that our speech
should be seasoned with salt. Now that doesn't mean that
we're supposed to talk like sailors, but it does mean that
there should be some wit, some color and vitality. We are
people who have been blessed with new life and abundant
life, the very life of Christ.
I think that to be salt of the earth is to be people who
are exciting to be with, people who add to life rather than
take away from it. I express that because so often we are
perceived as being dull, stern, prudish, moralistic — all of
those things that we are not intended to be. We are to be
salt to people — to add taste and zest. Not only salt, but
light. The basic meaning of light in the Scriptures is the
enlightenment that God's truth brings. Those of us who
are Christians are called to have a passion for truth. We
should care about the truth, and we should care about
learning the right way to do things.
So often the church is seen as an echo of the culture. We
let progress be in the hands of those outside the church. I
248
The Growing Spiritual Life
think the Bible calls the church to be on the cutting edge of
life; we are supposed to be leading the culture rather than
following it, and I think that's what it means to be a light —
a
light to show people the way to go out of darkness. When we
see, for example, a labor-management arena filled with hos-
tility and strife, we, as Christians, should be showing models
of labor-management relationships in which that hostility
somehow is overcome. That's what it means to be light to
the world — to show the world a more excellent way.
How should we be in the world but not of it? What
does "not of it" mean?
The New Testament tells us that we are not to be con-
formed to this world but that we are to be transformed by
the renewing of our mind (Rom. 12:2).
Let's look at those two words that are crucial to that dis-
cussion in Scripture, the difference between conformity
and transformation. The prefix con- means "with." And so
to conform to this world means literally to be with it.
That's one of the strongest drives and temptations that we
have as Christians. Nobody wants to be out of it; we want to
be "with it." We want to be up-to-date. We want to fit in.
And we're often engulfed by peer pressure that wants us to
imitate and participate in all of the structures and the
styles of this world. The Bible says we are not to be con-
formed to the patterns of this world.
Now, when we hear that as Christians, so often we think
that all we have to do is to become obvious noncon-
formists. So if the world wears buttons and bows, we don't
wear buttons and bows, or if the world wears lipstick, we
249
R.C. SPROUL
don't wear lipstick. We try to show ways in which we are dif-
ferent from the world. But that's not what the Bible is talk-
ing about. It's not just a matter of being different from the
world; we are to go beyond nonconformity to transforma-
tion. That fits with everything the Scripture tells us of
being salt and light to the world. Something that is trans-
formed is something that is changed. The prefix trans-
means "above and beyond." We are to be above and
beyond the standards of this world, not in the sense that
we are to elevate ourselves in lofty status above everybody
else, but that we are called to a more excellent way of life.
That doesn't mean you drop out of the world; this world
is my Father's world, and this is the arena of God's redemp-
tion. The tendency has always been to flee from the world
and hide in the upper room, but God the Holy Spirit won't
tolerate that. He sends his people into the world. Luther
said it this way: "There's a normal pattern for Christian
behavior. The person who's converted out of the world
spends his first days as a Christian in a tendency to com-
pletely withdraw from the world, as Paul went to Arabia,
for example, or we might have a desire to be so far
removed from the stains and the pollution of this world
that we become monastic in our thinking — withdrawing,
stepping out of the world altogether."
But Luther said a Christian doesn't reach maturity until
he reenters the world and embraces the world again, not in
its worldliness and its ungodly patterns but as the theater
and the arena of God's redemption. That's whatJesus did;
he went into the world in order to save the world. This
world is the world that God has committed himself to renew
and redeem, and we are to participate in that with him.
250
The Growing Spiritual Life
How can we demonstrate godliness in our lives?
I'm glad you used that word, "demonstrate." I don't want
to play with it too long here, but I think so often we are so
concerned about how visible our piety is that we begin to
use artificial, external ways to make sure that people see
our piety. That was one of the most serious stumbling
blocks of the Pharisees, the ones who received the most
severe indictment from Jesus, because they were constantly
involved in public displays of their piety. In fact, Jesus said
that they degenerated to such a point that the prayers that
they prayed were not for the benefit of the ears of God,
but for the benefit of the ears of bystanders. So Jesus said,
"When you pray, go in your closet to pray. Don't pray on
the street corners like the Pharisees do to be seen of men."
The Pharisees would fast, and they would go around with
long faces, looking like they were suffering awfully, so that
everybody could say, "Look at those poor Pharisees — they
are emaciated from their rigorous spiritual fasting. "Jesus
said, "When you fast, anoint your head, put a smile on your
face, don't let anybody know that you're involved in that
kind of spiritual life." So there was one sense in which
Jesus was against a public demonstration.
Yet at the same time our Lord told us to let our light
shine before men. While we're not supposed to make an
ostentatious display of our spirituality or of our piety, we
are supposed to make a visible display of our integrity.
People can see how we handle criticism, how we react
when somebody pushes in front of us in a line, how we
react when somebody breaks a promise to us. Do we keep
our promises? Do we pay our bills on time? Those are the
251
R.C. SPROUL
kinds of things that are very visible. Luther said it this way:
"Every Christian is called to be Christ to his neighbor." Not
that we're supposed to be crucified for our neighbor, but
our lives — our trustworthiness, our friendliness, our kind-
ness, our integrity — are to demonstrate to our friends what
Jesus is like. That is an awesome responsibility.
How can we be bold in our faith and be excited about
it, enjoying our status as chosen people, without
becoming proud?
It's significant that Paul in 1 Timothy 3:6 gives a warning
that not many who are young in the faith ought to be
placed in positions of leadership in the church. In fact, the
very concept of eldership has its roots in the Old Testa-
ment and is linked to a certain level of maturity that comes
only through time spent growing spiritually. In our spiri-
tual youth and enthusiasm we have a tendency to get
puffed up and come across to those who are outside the
household of faith as being arrogant and intolerant. A lot
of that is attributed to the normal sense of excitement and
enthusiasm that goes with the new discovery of Christ.
The first year of my Christian life was the most exciting
year of my life, and I wanted desperately for every person I
knew and loved and every person I met — including total
strangers — to come to a knowledge of Christ. There's a
sense in which I wish I still had that kind of enthusiasm
that attended the first year of my discovery of Christ. But
with that enthusiasm came a certain in sensitivity, I'm sure,
where I not only wanted everybody to come to faith but I
wanted them to come right now, and I felt as if I was the
252
The Growing Spiritual Life
one appointed by God to make sure that they came to faith
right now. I would corner people and spend time with
them when it really wasn't appropriate. In fact, there were
times when I was downright discourteous. And I can't
blame legitimate enthusiasm for all of that.
There's nothing wrong with being zealous for Christ.
We're called to be people of zeal. There should be a pas-
sion in our Christian commitment. But again, that zeal
can get very easily mixed up with our own pride, for some-
how we believe that we are God's special emissary to the
world, that the world will not be redeemed except
through our efforts. Certainly both Old and New Testa-
ments give attention to the destructive power of pride in
spiritual life. We're told in some of the more famous state-
ments that "pride goes before destruction and a haughty
spirit before a fall." And we're told that God gives grace
to the humble, but he resists the proud. We have to be on
guard every minute, lest pride destroy the spiritual
growth we're enjoying.
If we really love God, why do we ignore his
commandments?
If we ignore his commandments absolutely and totally and
completely, that would be the clearest proof that we don't
love God. As Jesus himself said, "If you love me, keep my
commandments." The keeping of the commandments is a
manifestation of our love for God, and obedience is some-
thing that flows out of a heart that is inclined toward God
and embraces God in love. But having said this, we also
have to acknowledge that in the life of the greatest saint, of
253
R.C. SPROUL
the one whose heart is palpitating with love for God, there
is still a level of disobedience and of ignoring God's com-
mandments.
Why is this so? Simply because we are not yet fully sancti-
fied. Once we are redeemed in Christ, we are given a new
life principle, the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. We
are beginning to get well, but this whole work of sanctifica-
tion is a process that is gradual, that takes time, and until
we go to glory, until we go to heaven, we do not reach or
attain a full state of spiritual or moral perfection. (This is
what the majority of Christians believe; there are those
who believe that Christians can and do achieve perfection
in this world.)
One of the great distortions of the Christian faith in
our day (every generation and every century has its par-
ticular deviation from classical Christianity) is a seriously
defective view of sanctification. We hear this or similar
statements often: "Not doctrine, but life. What God is
concerned about is not my theology but my behavior.
Certainly God cares about our behavior. But the pattern I
see emerging is the separation of these two elements of
belief and behavior; they are often set against one
another, as if the Christian life had nothing to do with
the Christian understanding of truth. That's a false
dichotomy. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit, who is
also called the Spirit of Truth, is the principal agent in
our sanctification. One of the great reasons we fail to
obey God is that we are ignorant of his commandments;
we lack understanding of what God has revealed. Truth
and practice are inseparably related in our sanctification.
254
The Growing Spiritual Life
How does a Christian strike a balance between goal
setting and being led by the Spirit?
I think that the principal way in which the New Testament
speaks of being led by the Spirit is being led into sanctifica-
tion. When the Bible speaks of the Spirit's leading, it's the
Spirit leading us into holiness. Now I know that in contem-
porary Christian jargon and in our patterns of speech, we
talk about being led by the Spirit as to whether we turn left
or turn right at the stop sign, and whether we live in
Omaha, Nebraska, or Saint Louis, Missouri. We are con-
stantly looking for guidance as if God were still around with
a pillar of cloud or a pillar of fire to direct our every step.
There have been times in redemptive history when God
led his people visibly through signs and wonders and that
type of thing. We know that in the book of Acts there were
times when the Spirit directly communicated his will to the
apostles to lead them from one nation to another. But the
principal way by which the Christian life is to be led is by the
Spirit's Book. The "lamp unto our feet" is the law of God. In
other words, we are to be led by the principles for our behav-
ior that God reveals. Some of those principles involve being
responsible stewards and planners of the future.
On the one hand, Jesus said, "Take no thought for
tomorrow — what you should eat, what you should drink,
what you should put on," and all of that. But at the same
time, Jesus encourages us to put our confidence in God's
care for us on the morrow and to leave our anxieties
behind. Jesus does not thereby teach that we ought not to
set goals. On the contrary, in his parables he says, "What
general before he goes into battle doesn't first get an intel-
255
R.C. SPROUL
ligence report on the size of the enemy and the relative
strength of the enemy before he moves into combat, or
what builder doesn't first count the cost of construction
before he begins his building?" That involves a kind of
goal setting whereby we analyze the situation. We evaluate
the merits and demerits of a given course of action and
plan accordingly. Responsible living involves setting goals,
goals that are consistent with biblical principles. I think
what the Spirit leads us to do primarily is to live and to
move toward the goals that God sets for our lives.
Paul put it this way: "Forgetting those things that are
behind and reaching toward that which is ahead, we press
toward the mark of the high calling which is in Christ
Jesus." That's talking in the language of goals. Pressing
toward the mark is pressing toward the purposes God has
for our lives.
What does the Bible mean when it says we should
wait upon the Lord?
Often we take this admonition in Scripture to mean that
we are to postpone certain activities until we get some defi-
nite guidance or a concrete sign from God. The injunction
to wait upon the Lord is given to the people of God at a
particular point in history — to Israel in the Old Testament
and to the church in the New Testament. In the Old Testa-
ment God promised to go before his people, and they were
not to move their encampment until the signal was given
by God. So that admonition is not to rush headlong into
some enterprise until you know that God is in it.
In the New Testament we see Jesus' admonition to the
256
The (hawing Spiritual Life
church to wait in Jerusalem before they set out to fulfill
the great commission. He tells them to wait until the Holy
Spirit has been poured out upon them. Once the Holy
Spirit has been given to the church, then the church has
its marching orders and it is to move out. So we have histor-
ical situations in which God is clearly in charge, giving
direct and immediate guidance for his people.
Today, as twentieth-century Christians, our basic guid-
ance comes from the teaching of Scripture, and we live by
the principles that are revealed in the Scriptures. I think
it's very important to search the Scriptures to make sure
that what we are doing and what we are endeavoring to
perform fits the patterns and the principles that God sets
forth for us in Scripture. That is what I think it means to
wait on God — not to wait for some special sign of endorse-
ment, not to sit inactive, but to make sure that what we're
doing fits biblical principles.
The firm I work for recently went through a long-
range planning retreat, establishing goals for our firm.
In doing that, I started revisiting the goals I have in my
life and my career, and I'm really struggling and
wondering how I can develop those goals in my life
that meet what God has planned for me. How can I live
my life in a way that best glorifies him?
The principle of setting goals, setting a mark to strive for, is
a healthy thing and has plenty of biblical precedence.
People who go wandering aimlessly without any defined
goals tend to spin their wheels and get blown to and fro
with every wind of doctrine. The very principle of goal set-
257
R.C. SPROUL
ting, I think, is a godly one. But we have to qualify it. Of
course, James tells us that we ought not to say with too
much confidence that next year I'm going to do such and
such, but we should always say, "Deo volente,
" "God willing."
As Paul said, "I planned to come; I had a goal to come and
visit you, but I was providentially hindered. It was not possi-
ble for me to greet you, and God had other plans." Even
the apostle Paul did not always know what God's plan was
for his life, and that ought to tell us something.
We spend so much time trying to probe the secret coun-
sel of God when, for all practical purposes, it is none of
our business. While there are times when we need to know
whether or not a certain thing is in God's approval, we can
overdo this quest for God's counsel.
The number one thing that God wills for my life is my
sanctification. What God calls me to is obedience. That's
my goal. Now, how do I set goals for that? I set them in
light of the principles that are set forth for me in Scrip-
ture, so that when I'm setting goals for my spiritual devel-
opment and for my family's, when I'm setting them for my
vocation, what I have to do is ask myself, Are these goals in
line with the principles of obedience that God has already revealed
in his Word?
What is pleasing to God is not that much of a mystery:
He has given us page after page of instructions as to what
pleases him. And so the ultimate goal of our lives is to be
faithful in serving him. There is much latitude in the many
specific goals we can attain — in career, in family, in hob-
bies — while following the goals for a godly life as set forth
in Scripture.
258
The Growing Spiritual Life
If someone wanted to read three Christian books this
year, which three would you most recommend?
I once did an essay for a Christian magazine dealing with
the whole question of Christian publishing. I expressed in
that the profound concern I have of the neglect in our day
of the great, great works of the Christian classics. It seems
that we're caught up in an economic problem in which
people want very simple literature that they can digest
quickly; they don't seem to be willing to chew on more
difficult material. So, many of the Christian publishers and
Christian bookstores will discourage either publishing or
promoting the great Christian literature of the ages. I
think that is to our shame, and it is also to our great loss.
I would recommend if somebody was very serious about
reading three books this year, that they read things like
Calvin's Institutes, Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will, and
maybe Athanasius's treatment of the incarnation of Christ,
or something like Augustine's City of God or even The Confes-
sions of Saint Augustine.
There are so many teachers in this world, and it seems
that we're not all that fussy about whom we check out as
our teachers. I don't want my body operated on by just any
doctor. I want to know that the doctor knows his medicine
and cares about me. When I look for theological teaching
and instruction, I want to know that whoever is teaching
me knows his stuff and loves God. Those are the two things
I want to find in my teachers. That's awfully hard to know
about people whose writing just comes up in meteoric rise
and then passes from the scene. Maybe I'm just too tradi-
tional, but I like material that has passed the test of time
259
R.C. SPROUL
and giants of the faith like Augustine and Athanasius and
Aquinas and Calvin and Luther and Edwards. Those are
the people whose products I would most endorse.
As I said in the essay, I would be perfectly willing to have
all of my books burned and buried — put in the basement
of the bookstores — if they were replaced by the great
teachers, because all I am is a dwarf standing on the shoul-
ders of giants, and I know that Jim Packer and Jim Boice
and Charles Colson and Chuck Swindoll and other men
whose books have been widely distributed among Chris-
tians would do the same thing, would gladly get rid of their
books if we could persuade people to study the great
masters.
How can I best prolong a useful Christian life
as I grow older?
Behind that question is the pain of all kinds of people who
have reached a certain age at which society tells them they
are no longer able to contribute in a useful way. We have
this rule that a person is to retire at age sixty-five. Now we
do have exceptions — we've had presidents of the United
States older than that. But somehow our society focuses on
the young and seems to patronize at best those who are
senior citizens.
We do know that with age come certain infirmities, and
there are occasions on which people can no longer carry
out the tasks they had been accustomed to performing in
their earlier years. That does not mean that their useful-
ness in the kingdom of God comes to an end. In the Bible
there is an emphasis on giving honor to the aged because
260
The Growing Spiritual Life
honor is due them. I get very sentimental about it. I hardly
ever see a person with gray hair without having a feeling of
respect well up inside me because, if for no other reason,
those people have endured, and they have survived. They
may not even be Christians, but they've made it through
life to a certain level. I saw a man like that the other day
and I thought to myself, / wonder how many times he's been to
the dentist? I wonder how many times he's been under the sur-
geon 's knife? I wonder how many tragedies he's witnessed and expe-
rienced in his family and in his life? Yet he is still being useful in
our society.
When I was teaching at a college, there was a man in
that town who was a retired missionary. He had been on
the mission field for fifty years. That's a long time. For fifty
years he had poured himself out, body and soul. Five of
those years he spent in a prison camp away from his wife,
who was incarcerated in a different prison camp. And
finally, when he was no longer able to serve on the mission
field, he retired, so to speak. What he did until the day he
died was get up every day and put in an eight-hour day of
prayer. His body could hardly function, but he said, "I can
still think, I can still speak, I can still pray." So he devoted
himself to a ministry of prayer — eight hours a day. It was
such that those of us who lived in that town knew no
higher privilege than to have that man pray for us
because he knew how to pray, and he was an authentic
prayer warrior. I ask you the question, Was his ministry use-
ful? Probably the most useful years of his life were his later
years in life, when he became a warrior of prayer.
I think the key to staying useful as we grow older is to
concentrate, not on what we can no longer do, but on
261
R.C. SPROUL
what we still can do. You never know when God has saved
some of his best gifts and abilities for you until your later
years. Some people spend much of their lives learning and
gathering wisdom and during their later years are given
the opportunity to compile and teach life lessons, whether
through actual teaching or discipling, or through writing
and speaking. Some of the people best suited to spend
time listening and loving others are those who are no
longer weighed down with careers and bringing up fami-
lies. In God's wonderful economy, there is always work to
do and love to give. But sometimes that work and love are
not recognized in society's skewed view of things.
262
I©
Understanding Satan
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary
the devil walks about like a roaring lion,
seeking whom he may devour.
Resist him, steadfast in the faith,
knowing that the same sufferings are
experienced by your brotherhood in the world.
i PETER 5:8-9
Understanding Satan
©twestiomis inn Tlhis Sectiom:
In Isaiah 457 God says, "I form light and create darkness. I make
peace and create evil." Why did he create Lucifer?
The Bible says that all power is given by God. How can we explain
then the power that Satan and men such as Hitler have had in the
past?
Has Satan been given dominion over the earth until Jesus returns?
In light of God's sovereignty, what should be the Christian's attitude
or response when he or she is subject to the attacks of Satan?
Can the devil read my mind?
Why do we speak of Satan in such comical terms as a man in a red
suit with a pitchfork when he is actually the enemy of our souls?
265
Understanding Satan
In Isaiah 45:7 God says, "I form light and create dark-
ness. I make peace and create evil/' Why did he create
Lucifer?
Let me comment first on the text. That's one of the most
misunderstood texts in the Bible, part of the problem
being the Elizabethan English that's found in the old King
James Version. The other part of the problem is in transla-
tion from the Hebrew. The Hebrew has about seven distinc-
tive words that can be translated by the English word evil.
There are all different kinds of evil. There's moral evil.
There's what we would call metaphysical evil — finitude, for
example. Whenever the Bible speaks of God bringing evil
upon people, it is evil from their perspective. When the
fires fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the people did not
look upon that as a good thing. That was bad news. But it
was ultimately good because it was an expression of God's
judgment upon their wickedness. It was a punishment
wrought by the hand of God upon evil. That doesn't mean
that God did something wrong or something morally evil
by visiting them with judgment.
This Isaiah text is also written in poetic form. It uses
parallelism, a pattern of poetry common to Old Testament
Judaism. There are even different types of parallelism.
An example occurs in the Lord's Prayer when Jesus says,
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Those two thoughts are parallel and they're basically synon-
267
R . C. SPROUL
ymous; they are saying the same thing only with different
words. We find that often in the Psalms.
In Isaiah 45 we have an example of two statements next
to each other that are antithetical parallelisms. The first
verse is "I create the light and the darkness." Light and
darkness are opposites; they're contrasts, they are an anti-
thesis one to another. That's why it's called antithetical
parallelism.
The next statement has the same kind of antithesis, but
how is the wording? "I make peace, I create evil." It doesn't
ring true because peace and evil in our vocabulary are not
antonyms, are they? Whereas light and dark are opposites,
these are not. What the text is saying is that as God brings
good things to bear in this world, he also brings about
calamities in his judgment. It is not speaking about the
original creation. It's unfortunate that that language per-
sists in that particular translation.
Now, why did he create Lucifer? I don't know, but Luci-
fer was not created evil. We have to remember that Lucifer
was created as an angel — who later rebelled against heaven.
The Bible says that all power is given by God. How can
we explain then the power that Satan and men such as
Hitler have had in the past?
God is saying not only that he is omnipotent, all powerful
in and of himself but also that he is the fountainhead of all
power and all authority in this world. And so the devil him-
self is subordinate and dependent upon God for any
power or authority that he exercises in this world.
The question you're raising is not unlike the question
268
Understanding Satan
the prophet Habakkuk asked when he stood in his watch-
tower and complained against God because he was watch-
ing a foreign nation, known for its unspeakable
wickedness, attacking and slaughtering the Jewish people
God's own people. Habakkuk reminded God that God was
too pure to even behold iniquity. How could God allow
this alien power, this wicked power, to be used in such a
fashion? God basically said, "Wait a minute, I have not
used this enemy nation as an instrument to punish Israel
because Israel is more wicked than this other nation. I'm
just making use of this nation to chastise my own people
who so richly deserve it. But this other nation will get
theirs." That's why we have to be very careful about saying
that God is always on our side. He may raise up China to
punish the United States as an instrument ofjudgment
against us — because all power is in his hands.
When I was studying in Europe back in the sixties, even
though it was twenty years after the end of World War II,
the bookstores in Amsterdam were filled with literature
about the Second World War. The memories were still very
vivid and keen to these people, who suffered so much
more than we in this country suffered at that time. I
remember reading a book that was a result of the release
of earlier classified documents from the archives that was
titled Hitler, the Scourge ofEurope, in which private docu-
ments of Hitler's were photocopied and printed. One was
an early entry from his diary, in which was scribbled in Hit-
ler's own writing: "This evening I have made a covenant
with Satan." He wasn't just kidding. There was a serious
effort by Adolf Hitler to engage the assistance of the
prince of darkness in the programs he set forth. Obviously
269
R.C. SPROUL
that was all happening under the sovereignty of God. God
has his reasons for allowing that to happen for a season,
but obviously he reserves that moment when his powerful
judgment falls on Satan and on people like Hitler, and
God's righteous power is ultimately vindicated.
Has Satan been given dominion over the earth until
Jesus returns? If so, why was he given this authority?
There's only one supreme Lord over all the world, and
that's God. We are told in the Old Testament that this
whole concept of dominion was shared with Adam and
Eve. Man was given dominion over the earth to be vice-
regents for God, that is, vice kings to represent God's reign
on this planet. Of course, we made a terrible mess out of it,
and we were subjected more and more to the power of
Satan. That power of Satan was dealt not just a significant
blow but a fatal blow by Christ in his incarnation.
We're told, first of all, that God the Father gives to Jesus
all authority in heaven and on earth. In his ascension,
*
Christ is seated at the right hand of God, where he is
crowned as the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That
was a tremendous blow to all worldly or satanic powers,
principalities, and spiritual wickedness in high places. So if
you ask me who is in dominion over this world right now, I
think the New Testament is perfectly clear on that. The
one who is in dominion is the Lord. The Lord God omnip-
otent reigns, and the Lord Christ reigns over this world
right now. His kingdom may not be of this world, but it cer-
tainly includes this world, and Jesus has all authority over
heaven and earth.
270
Understanding Satan
Even at this moment, as I'm discussing this question,
Satan's authority and power are limited and subordinate to
the authority that is vested in Christ. Christ right now is the
king of this earth. His kingdom is invisible, and not every-
body acknowledges it. People are giving more allegiance to
the prince of darkness than to the Prince of Peace, but
that is an act of usurpation on the part of Satan. His power
is restricted, limited, and temporal. What has happened
briefly is this: The power and authority of Satan has been
dealt a fatal blow by Christ. The Cross, the Incarnation, the
Resurrection, and the Ascension tremendously weakened
any power or authority that Satan enjoyed, but it didn't
annihilate him. That will come later, when Christ com-
pletes his work of redemption with the consummation of
his kingdom. All things will be brought into captivity to
him, and every knee will bow to him, including the fallen
angels, who will bow in submission to his authority.
In light of God's sovereignty, what should be the
Christian's attitude or response when he or she is
subject to the attacks of Satan?
One of the difficulties for the Christian is to recognize an
assault from Satan when it comes. Remember that Satan is
an angelic being; he's a spirit being and he's invisible. It's
not always easy to discern the presence of the enemy,
although the New Testament warns us that the struggle in
which we're involved is not against flesh and blood but
against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness
in high places, including attacks from satanic sources.
Martin Luther felt the onslaught of Satan to such a de-
271
R.C. SPROUL
gree sometimes in his own life that it was almost tangible.
On one occasion at least,-he picked up an inkwell and
threw it across the room, allegedly at Satan. He couldn't
really see the presence of Satan, but he was sure that he
was experiencing the unbridled assault and oppression of
the prince of darkness, the mortal enemy of all Christians.
So one of the great problems, of course, is to know when
this is happening.
The Bible warns us that Satan disguises himself as an
angel of light; that is, he manifests himself under the aus-
pices of good. Satan does not go about looking like some
caricatured, grotesque person in a red flannel suit with
horns and a pitchfork, but rather he's much more seduc-
tive and clever than that, appearing as the Scriptures tell us
as an angel of light to deceive if possible even the elect of
God. So we need to be aware of the subtleties of the one
who is the prince of darkness and the prince of falsehood.
Satan is described as an accuser, a liar, and a tempter.
We see him lying, distorting truth, we see him involved in
temptation, and we see him accusing the saints.
Now, the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin so that we will
recognize it and repent of it. If we're troubled about some
sin, it could be the Holy Spirit's work, or it could be Satan
accusing us. How do we know the difference? Basically we
know that there's something sweet and positive about the
conviction of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit's goal is to bring
us to our senses. He humbles us, he brings us to a contrite
heart, but he doesn't annihilate us. Satan seeks to drive us
to despair. Our hopelessness and destruction are his goal,
and one of his primary methods toward that goal is accusa-
tion. Scripture tells us in 1 Peter 5:8 that Satan goes about
?72
Understanding Satan
as a roaring lion seeking to devour whom he will. Yet the
other image we get is of him fleeing with his tail between
his legs when the Scriptures tell us that if we resist him, he
will depart from us. Here we need the armor of God, the
Word of God, and the application of that Word through
the power of the Spirit, and we have the promise that
Satan will flee.
Can the devil read my mind?
I am not certain by any means, nor do I have an exhaustive
knowledge of the powers of Satan. I know that Satan has
more power than one would normally find among human
beings. At the same time, I know that Satan is not divine;
he is not God, does not have divine powers or attributes.
He is a creature with the limitations that are found nor-
mally with creatureliness. He is an angel.
The Bible doesn't give us an exhaustive list of the powers
of angels. They are more powerful than people but far less
powerful than God. Obviously God can read your mind.
God is omniscient. He knows your thoughts as you think
them
—
"There is not a word on my tongue, but behold,
O Lord, You know it altogether" (Ps. 139:4). The tendency
is for Christians to think that since God is a supernatural
being and can read our minds, then Satan, also a supernat-
ural being, must be able to read minds, too. But Satan's
powers are not equal to God's.
A similar question would be, Can Satan be at more than
one place at a time? I would be inclined to say no. I doubt
that in my lifetime I will ever have to worry about Satan
reading my mind, because I will probably never meet him.
273
R.C. SPROUL
He can only be in one place at one time. He's a creature,
and creatures by definition are limited spatially and tempo-
rally. So Satan cannot be at more than one place at a time.
He has all his little junior assistants, and he might send
one of them to harass me and to tempt you and accuse
you, but he's going to save his time and energy for people
of greater influence than me.
Satan focused his assaults upon Jesus in the New Testa-
ment. In the Temptation he entered into dialogue with
Jesus. He knew whatJesus was thinking because of what
Jesus said. But other than that, I don't see any reason to
believe that he could read your mind or read mine. Again,
that may not necessarily be a divine power. He may be able
to do it, but I have no reason to believe that he can.
Why do we depict Satan in such comical terms as a
man in a red suit with a pitchfork when he is actually
the enemy of our souls?
Obviously even a cursory reading of Scriptures indicates
that such a view of Satan is foreign to the Bible. The Bible
does not present Satan in comical garb at all but rather
describes him as one who goes about masquerading as an
angel of light. There's nothing foolish or frivolous about
him. Under the disguise of goodness he counterfeits the
good and can seduce people not only by his cleverness but
also by his apparent beauty.
I think the last way we would ever expect Satan to appear
would be in red, woolen, itchy underwear with cloven
hooves and horns, a tail, and a pitchfork. Where did that
description come from, and why do we have that image of
274
Understanding Satan
Satan in such a silly appearance? In the Middle Ages the
people of God were very much concerned about the influ-
ence of Satan in their lives. They were earnest about trying
to preserve their souls from their archenemy, who would
try to destroy them. The church dealt in great detail with
rites and rituals of exorcism and protection from evil spir-
its. They called upon certain angels, like Saint Michael, to
protect the people from the attacks of Satan. They also
came up with the idea that Satan's greatest point of vulner-
ability, the point that caused his fall from heaven in the
first place, was his pride.
The Bible gives different images of Satan. It says that he
goes about as a roaring lion seeking to devour those whom
he will. Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Satan would have you
and sift you like wheat." You get this image of the over-
whelming power of Satan. Yet the other image that the
Scriptures tell us is to "resist him and he will flee from
you." So in my mind's eye I see this roaring lion who gives
this ferocious snarl, but when you resist him, he runs down
the street with his tail between his legs.
The church thought the best way to get rid of the
assaults of Satan was to make fun of him, to insult his
pride. They came up with these ludicrous caricatures in
order to do that. What happened was that the next genera-
tion saw the caricatures and these grotesque cartoons and
said that our fathers really believed that the devil was like
this. Of course they didn't — they knew very well that the
devil wasn't like that — but we have received the tradition
without the explanation.
275
II
Heaven and Hell
The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,
for the glory of God illuminated it. . .
.
And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light,
and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. .
But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles,
or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are
written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
REVELATION 21:23-24, 27
Heaven and Hell
©uaestioins in TM§ Sectioiti:
Were the Old Testament saints confident of a personal afterlife?
Did the Old Testament "believing" Jews go to heaven, or was there a
"waiting room" for them until Jesus' death and resurrection?
Does the Bible tell us what heaven will be like?
If heaven is the ultimate destination for the Christian, then why is it
described so little in the Bible?
Are there gradations in heaven whereby one Christian, as a result of a
lifetime of good works, has a higher rank or better quality of
existence than someone who just squeaks through at his last breath?
Will we recognize each other in heaven?
What happens to animals when they die?
Is a person who has committed suicide ever able to enter heaven?
When a person dies, where does his or her spirit and body go until
the Second Coming?
What happens to children who die before they can accept the gospel?
What about the millions of babies aborted each year in the United
States; where will they spend eternity?
King Saul went to a sorcerer who conjured up the image of Samuel.
Does this mean that people today could also conjure up the image of
departed ones, or was this just a onetime act of God?
279
R.C. SPROUL
How do you explain the out-of-body, tunnellike experiences many
people claim to have had before being revived?
What is the first thing you want to know when you get to heaven?
Are those who have never heard of Christ going to hell?
Would you describe hell as you see it, and conversely heaven?
280
Heaven and Hell
Were the Old Testament saints confident
of a personal afterlife?
Some forms of contemporaryJudaism do not include a
belief in life after death. We know that in Jesus' day there
was a great debate over that point between two parties of
the contemporaryJewish nation, the Pharisees and the
Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in life after death; the
Sadducees did not. You would think that those who were
leaders in the household of Israel would be agreed on a
point like that if it were spelled out with obvious clarity in
the Old Testament.
Of course, one of the debates between those two parties
was what constituted the Old Testament. Was it just the
first five books of Moses, or did it include all of what
today's Christian would consider to be the Old Testa-
ment — the Prophets and the Wisdom Literature? The
concept of life after death in the Old Testament (indicated
often by references to Sheol) is somewhat vague and shad-
owy; death is depicted as a place beyond the grave where
both good and bad people go. The clarity with which the
New Testament proclaims life after death is not found in
the same dimension in the Old Testament. I think it's
there, and if you study the Major Prophets, particularly
Isaiah, you will see that the teaching of life after death is
clearly set forth in the Old Testament. However, I'm look-
ing at the Old Testament with the benefit of the informa-
tion coming to me through the New Testament.
281
R.C. SPROUL
Certainly there were lots of folks who read the same Old
Testament material and didn't see references to afterlife so
clearly. During Job's struggle with earthly trials, he asked,
"If a man dies, will he live again?" We see later that Job says
in a note of triumph and as an expression of confidence
and faith, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and I will see
him standing on that day." Christians have looked back at
that and said, "Well, if Job is that confident of a redeemer
who will set him free in some distant future, then obviously
this is an expression from great antiquity of confidence in
life after death." But Job's word that is translated
"redeemer" actually means "vindicator." Job is simply say-
ing that he is confident he will be vindicated. Now,
whether or not that included in Job's mind an ultimate
vindication in heaven is again subject to some debate.
David's confidence, however, of future reunion with his
child who had died is a clear indication of his confidence
in an afterlife. It was not unknown among the Old Testa-
ment saints that there would be a future life. It simply js
not as clear as it is in the New Testament.
Did the Old Testament "believing" Jews go to heaven,
or was there a "waiting room" for them until Jesus'
death and resurrection?
On the one hand, Old Testament teaching on the afterlife
is somewhat vague. We hear the use of the word Sheol,
which seems to incorporate both the negative and positive
elements of life after death. We certainly find more clear
references to heaven in the New Testament, but many pas-
sages in the Old Testament, including some of David's
282
Heaven and Hell
psalms and parts of the book of Isaiah, call attention to the
reality of heaven.
Did faithful people of that time go to heaven or to a wait-
ing place? The Roman Catholic Church has the doctrine
of limbo we've heard about, mainly with respect to babies.
The broader concept included the "limbo of the fathers"
a place where people in the Old Testament who died in
faith had to go and wait until Christ accomplished his work
of redemption on the cross.
There's a link between that view, which is held in many
circles, and the very cryptic reference in Peter's writings
about what happened to Jesus after he died — that he went
and preached to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. 3:19). Some
people interpret "the spirits in prison" to mean the Old
Testament saints who were being held captive until the
work of Christ's redemption was completed. He released
them to enter into paradise with him. Jesus was the "first-
born from the dead"; he went first to the place of the dead
and led out the captives, bringing these people into their
state of future glory.
I'm inclined to think that Old Testament saints had im-
mediate access to paradise because heaven itself is called
"the bosom of Abraham" in the New Testament. That's not
a likely descriptive term for heaven if it's some place from
which Abraham was absent.
Also, based theologically on our doctrine of redemption,
I think that Paul teaches in Romans 3 and 4 that salvation
occurs exactly the same way in the Old Testament as it
does in the New Testament — through faith. The only differ-
ence is that Old Testament faith was in a future promise
that had not yet been fulfilled. The people believed, and
283
R.C. SPROUL
when they believed, they were justified and counted worthy
to be in the presence of God. In the New Testament we
look backward to a work that is accomplished. We know
that the Old Testament sacrifices had no efficacy in and of
themselves; they represented the future work ofJesus, who
ultimately paid for all sin. Since salvation comes to us on
the basis of the merits of Christ, I see nothing that would
prevent God from opening the gates of heaven prior to the
Cross, even though he does it in light of the Cross.
Does the Bible tell us what heaven will be like?
When I was in seminary, I studied under an extremely
learned professor who I was convinced at the time knew
the answer to every possible theological question. I remem-
ber I was so in awe of him that I asked him one day with
stars in my eyes, "What's heaven like?" I asked him as if he
had been there and could give me a firsthand report! Of
course, he steered me immediately to the last two chapters
of the New Testament, Revelation 21 and 22, in which we
get an extensive visual image of what heaven is like. Some
dismiss it as being pure symbolism, but we must remember
that the symbols in the New Testament point beyond them-
selves to a deeper and better reality than they themselves
describe. It's here that we read of the streets of gold and of
the great treasuries ofjewels that adorn the NewJerusalem
that comes down from heaven.
In the description of the NewJerusalem, we hear that
there's no sun and no moon, no stars, because the light
that radiates from the presence of God and from his
Anointed One is sufficient to illumine the whole place by
284
Heaven and Hell
the refulgence of their glory. We are told that there's no
death, there's no pain, and God wipes away the tears of his
people.
I remember as a child having that tender experience
(not often accessible to adults) in which I would scrape my
knee, or something would go wrong, and I would cry and
come into the house, and my mother would stoop over
and dry the tears from my eyes. I received great consola-
tion from that. But of course, when my mother dried my
tears, there was always the opportunity the next day for me
to cry again. But in heaven when God wipes away the tears
from people's eyes, that's the end of tears — there are no
more tears after that. And so heaven is described as a place
of utter felicity that is filled with the radiant majesty and
glory of God, where God's people have become sanctified,
where justice has been brought to bear, and where his
people have been vindicated. There's no more death, no
more disease, no more sorrow, no more sickness, no more
hatred, and no more evil. And then there is an experience
of healing in that place. And that's just a glimpse, but it's
enough to get us started.
If heaven is the ultimate destination for the Christian,
then why is it described so little in the Bible?
I'm not sure heaven is described as little as we may think.
We sometimes get the feeling that there's not much in
there about heaven, but if we examine the Scripture text,
we'll find a wealth of material that speaks on that subject
particularly in the New Testament teachings ofJesus, as
well as from the book of Revelation. Maybe there's not as
285
R.C. SPROUL
much in there about heaven as we would like to find. Since
it is the ultimate destination of the Christian, you'd think
there would be a bit more spelled out about the nature of
heaven.
As it is depicted in the Scriptures, heaven represents a
radical change from what we experience in this world. In
other words, there is a tremendous amount of discontinu-
ity between the life I live on this earth and what awaits me
in heaven. Anytime you have discontinuity between experi-
ences, the only way you can speak meaningfully about
them is through some sort of analogy. We've never experi-
enced this different life that is called heaven. It's very diffi-
cult to discuss something we've never experienced. That's
why I think the Bible uses analogies. The writers will say
heaven is like this or that because they are trying to find
some meaningful reference point in this present world
that will speak to us about that which "eye has not seen,
nor ear has heard, nor has entered in the heart of man."
It is that which transcends our ability to anticipate.
Sometimes we learn about something by finding out
what it's not. For example, in Revelation the Bible tells us
that in heaven there is no crying, there's no pain, no
death, no sorrow, no darkness. On the one hand, I can't
conceive of what life would be without any of those things;
yet at the same time I have some idea of the difference
between light and darkness, peace and warfare, joy and
sorrow, and so on. I think the main reason we're not given
more information is that we are so limited in our ability to
anticipate that which is so much greater than we can even
imagine in this world.
286
Heaven and Hell
Are there gradations in heaven whereby one Christian,
as a result of a lifetime of good works, has a higher
rank or better quality of existence in heaven than
someone who just squeaks through at his last breath?
This may come as a surprise to many people, but I would
answer that question with an emphatic yes. There are
degrees of reward that are given in heaven. I'm surprised
that this answer surprises so many people. I think there's a
reason Christians are shocked when I say there are various
levels of heaven as well as gradations of severity of punish-
ment in hell.
We owe much of this confusion to the Protestant empha-
sis on the doctrine ofjustification by faith alone. We ham-
mer away at that doctrine, teaching emphatically that a
person does not get to heaven through his good works.
Our good works give us no merit whatsoever, and the only
way we can possibly enter heaven is by faith in Christ,
whose merits are imputed to us. We emphasize this doc-
trine to the extent that people conclude good works are
insignificant and have no bearing at all upon the Chris-
tian's future life.
The way historic Protestantism has spelled it out is that
the only way we get into heaven is through the work of
Christ, but we are promised rewards in heaven according to
our works. Saint Augustine said that it's only by the grace of
God that we ever do anything even approximating a good
work, and none of our works are good enough to demand
that God reward them. The fact that God has decided to
grant rewards on the basis of obedience or disobedience is
what Augustine called God's crowning his own works
287
R.C. SPROUL
within us. If a person has been faithful in many things
through many years, then he will be acknowledged by his
Master, who will say to him, "Well done, thou good and
faithful servant." The one who squeaks in at the last
moment has precious little good works for which he can
expect reward.
I think the gap between tier one and tier ten in heaven
is infinitesimal compared to the gap in getting there or not
getting there at all. Somebody put it this way: Everybody's
cup in heaven is full, but not everybody in heaven has the
same size cup. Again, it may be surprising to people, but
I'd say there are at least twenty-five occasions where the
New Testament clearly teaches that we will be granted
rewards according to our works. Jesus frequently holds out
the reward motif as the carrot in front of the horse
—
"great
will be your reward in heaven" if you do this or that. We
are called to work, to store up treasures for ourselves in
heaven, even as the wicked, as Paul tells us in Romans,
"treasure up wrath against the day of wrath."
Will we recognize each other in heaven?
No specific biblical reference declares explicitly that we
will recognize each other. But the implicit teaching of
Scripture is so overwhelming that I don't think there's
really any doubt that we will be able to recognize each
other in heaven. There is an element of discontinuity be-
tween this life and the life to come: We're going to be
changed in the twinkling of an eye; we'll have a new body,
and the old will pass away. Nevertheless, the Christian view
of life after death is not like the Eastern view of annihila-
288
Heaven and Hell
tion, in which we lose our personal identities in some kind
of a sea of forgetfulness. Even though there is this element
of discontinuity, replacing the old with the new, there's a
strong element of continuity in that the individual person
will continue to live on into eternity.
Part of what it means to be an individual person is to be
involved in personal relationships. In fact, one of the arti-
cles of the Apostles' Creed is that we say we believe in the
communion of the saints. That affirmation does not apply
only to the fellowship that we enjoy with each other now,
but it indicates a communion that all people who are in
Christ have with one another. Even now, in this world, I
mystically enter into communion with Martin Luther and
John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, who are part of the
whole company of saints. There's no reason to expect that
this communion will cease.
When we enter into a better level of communion with
Christ and with those who are in Christ, we would think
that communion would naturally intensify rather than
diminish.
Although you have to be careful about how much you
draw out of a parable, Jesus' parable about the rich man
and Lazarus does give us an inside look at the afterlife. He
talks about a rich man who had everything going for him
in this world and a poor man who was a beggar at the rich
man's gates. The rich man ignored the pleas of the poor
man. Both of them died, and the poor man, Lazarus, was
carried to the bosom of Abraham, whereas the rich man
was in the outer darkness. But even there this one who was
presumably in hell was able to see across the unbridgeable
chasm to the bosom of Abraham and see the state of felic-
289
R.C. SPROUL
ity this beggar was now enjoying. He pleaded with Abra-
ham, crying across the gulf, to have mercy and to let him
have the power to go back to earth or to send a message
back to warn his own brothers lest they fell into the judg-
ment he had fallen into. Of course, Jesus says it's too late at
that point. At least in the parable there is recognition of
the persons involved and also recognition of where people
are and where they aren't.
What happens to animals when they die? I know that
some people get very attached to them.
I can't answer that question for sure, but I don't want you
to think for a minute that it's a frivolous question. People
do get very attached to their pets, particularly if the pet has
been with them for a long time. In our present culture
more and more pet cemeteries are appearing, and we see
people going to great expense and ceremony — gravestones
and all — to dispose of the bodies of their pets.
Within the Christian church there are different schools
of thought on this issue. Some people believe that animals
simply disintegrate; they pass into nothingness and are
annihilated, which is based on the premise that animals
don't have souls that can survive the grave. However,
nowhere does Scripture explicitly state that animals do not
have souls.
The Bible tells us that we have the image of God in a way
that animals do not. Now is the "image of God" what differ-
entiates between a soul and a nonsoul? Those who take a
Greek view of the soul — that it is this substance that contin-
ues indestructibly forever — may want to restrict that to
290
Heaven and Hell
human beings. But again, there's nothing in Scripture I
know of that would preclude the possibility of animals'
continued existence.
The Bible does give us some reason to hope that
departed animals will be restored. We read in the Bible
that redemption is a cosmic matter. The whole creation is
destined to be redeemed through the work of Christ
(Rom. 8:21), and we see the images of what heaven will be
like; beautiful passages of Scripture tell us about the lion
and the lamb and other animals being at peace with one
another. Whenever heaven is described, though it may be
in highly imaginative language, it is a place where animals
seem to be present. Whether these are animals newly cre-
ated for the new heavens and the new earth, or they are
the redeemed souls of our pets that have perished, we
can't know for sure.
All of this is sheer speculation, but I would like to think
that we will see our beloved pets again someday as they par-
ticipate in the benefits of the redemption that Christ has
achieved for the human race.
Is a person who has committed suicide ever able to
enter heaven?
I think it is possible for a person who has committed sui-
cide to go to heaven. I say that for several reasons. Psychia-
trists have studied people who have made serious attempts
to take their own lives but failed in the process. When
interviewed afterwards, the vast majority of these people
(90 percent, according to the psychiatrists) said that they
would not have committed suicide had they waited twenty-
291
R.C. SPROUL
four hours. So often the act of suicide is a surrender to an
overwhelming but momentary attack of acute depression.
We really don't know the last thoughts that go through a
person's mind before he or she dies. Suppose a man
decides to end his life and he jumps off a thirty-story build-
ing, and at the sixteenth story he's thinking, This is a mis-
take; I shouldn't do this. Obviously, there's room in the grace
of God for that man's final repentance from that sin.
Even though the Scriptures are very clear that we are
not to take our own lives, I know of nothing in Scripture
that identifies suicide as the unforgivable sin. Now, if a per-
son is ending his or her life in the full possession of their
faculties, this act may represent a final and absolute act of
unbelief, a surrender to despair and hopelessness rather
than a confidence in the living God. However, I don't
think we can assume that this is the mental state of every-
one who actually commits suicide.
Some people who attempt suicide are not in a sober
state of thinking and not culpable for their behavior at the
last moment. Since the Bible is relatively silent about that,
I don't like to jump to conclusions. I would prefer to rest
our hope for such cases in the grace and the kindness of
God.
When a person dies, where does his or her spirit and
body go until the Second Coming?
Throughout its history, the church has struggled with the
concept of what is called the "intermediate state" — our
position between the time we die and the time Christ con-
summates his kingdom and fulfills the promises that we
292
Heaven and Hell
confess in the Apostles' Creed. We believe in the resurrec-
tion of the body. We believe there will be a time when God
reunites our soul and our body, and that we will have a glo-
rified body even as Christ came out of the tomb as the
"firstborn from the dead." In the meantime, what happens?
The most common view has been that, at death, the soul
immediately goes to be with God and there is a continuity
of personal existence. There is no interruption of life at
the end of this life, but we continue to be alive in our per-
sonal souls upon death.
There are those who have been influenced by a cultic
view called psychopannychia, more famously known as soul
sleep. The idea is that at death the soul goes into a state
of suspended animation. It remains in slumber, in an
unconscious state, until it is awakened at the time of the
great resurrection. The soul is still alive, but it is uncon-
scious, so that there is no consciousness of the passing of
time. I think this conclusion is drawn improperly from the
euphemistic way in which the New Testament speaks about
people in death being asleep. The common Jewish expres-
sion that they are "asleep" means they are enjoying the
reposed, peaceful tranquility of those who have passed
beyond the struggles of this world and into the presence
of God.
But the overall teaching of Scripture, even in the Old
Testament, where the bosom of Abraham was seen as the
place of the afterlife, there is this persistent notion of conti-
nuity. Paul put it this way: To live in this world is good; the
greatest thing that can ever happen is to be participating
in the final resurrection. But the intermediate state is even
better. Paul said that he was caught between two things.
293
R.C. SPROUL
On the one hand, his desire was to depart and be with
Christ, which is far better, and on the other hand, he had a
desire to remain alive and continue his ministry on this
earth. But the apostle's judgment that the passing beyond
the veil of death to that intermediate state is far better
than this one gives us a clue, along with a host of other
passages. Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "I say to you,
today you shall be with me in paradise." The image of
Dives and Lazarus in the New Testament (Luke 16:19-31)
indicates to me that there is a continuity of life and of con-
sciousness in that intermediate state.
What happens to children who die before they can
accept the gospel?
In my own theological tradition, we believe that those chil-
dren who die in infancy are numbered among the
redeemed. That is to say, we hope and have a certain level
of confidence that God will be particularly gracious toward
those who have never had the opportunity to be exposed
to the gospel, such as infants or children who are too dis-
abled to hear and understand.
The New Testament does not teach us this explicitly. It
does tell us a lot about the character of God — about his
mercy and his grace — and gives us every reason to have
that kind of confidence in his dealings with children.
Some will make a distinction between infants in general
and those who are children of believers, the reason being
that when God made a covenant with Abraham, he made it
not only with Abraham, but with Abraham's descendants.
In fact, as soon as God entered into that relationship with
294
Heaven and Hell
Abraham, he brought Isaac into it — when Isaac was still an
infant and didn't have an understanding of what was going
on. This is the reason, incidentally, that a large number
of Christian bodies practice the baptism of infants; they
believe that children of believers are to be incorporated
into full membership in the church. We see this relation-
ship within the family in biblical history.
We also see David's situation in the Old Testament when
his infant child dies. Yet David is given the confidence that
he will see that child again in heaven. That story of David
and his dying child gives a tremendous consolation to par-
ents who have lost infants to death.
Now the point that we have to make is that infants who
die are given a special dispensation of the grace of God; it
is not by their innocence but by God's grace that they are
received into heaven. There are great controversies that
hover over the doctrine of original sin. Lutherans disagree
with Roman Catholics, who disagree in turn with Presbyte-
rians, etc., on the scope and extent of what we call original
sin. Original sin does not refer to the first sin that was com-
mitted, but rather to the result of that — the entrance of sin
into the world so that all of us as human beings are born in
a fallen state. We come into this world with a sin nature,
and so the baby that dies, dies as a sinful child. And when
that child is received into heaven, he is received by grace.
What about the millions of babies aborted each year in
the United States; where will they spend eternity?
You are asking a question that the Christian church has
been seriously divided over throughout its history for
295
R.C. SPROl'L
several reasons. There's little information in Scripture that
speaks about it directly. The Roman Catholic Church has
its traditional doctrine of limbo, and limbo is of two varie-
ties. There is the limbo for Old Testament people who
died before the coming of Christ, and then there's limbo
for infants. Here, limbo is defined as sort of a lesser corri-
dor of hell. It's not heaven, but the historic definition is
that it's where the fires ofjudgment do not reach. The
unbaptized babies are assigned to that place, where they
lose the blessings of heaven but don't actually participate
in the punishments of hell.
Protestant churches differ on what happens to babies that
die. Some distinguish between those who are baptized and
those who are not. In my denomination, we hold as an arti-
cle of faith that the children of believers are given a special
dispensation of grace and are taken to heaven, not because
they are innocent, but because they are recipients of grace.
Are unborn children the same as babies? Again, the con-
troversy there is whether or not these unborn fetuses are,
in fact, considered by God to be human lives. Some take
the position that an aborted baby is a real human person,
and it would seem consistent to say that whatever you think
happens to babies who die in infancy would then, there-
fore, apply to unborn children. My personal belief is that
unborn babies who die through abortion are treated as
human beings by God and that the same grace he dis-
penses to babies who die in infancy would apply to unborn
children. That doesn't depend on whether the abortion is
intentional or unintentional. The term abortion is also a
term we use to describe a miscarriage. My wife has had
four miscarriages, and we fully hope and expect to see
296
Heaven and Hell
those unborn children in heaven with us. We assume that
we have six children and not only two, and we're looking
forward to a reunion with the children that we've never
been able to know personally.
King Saul went to a sorcerer who conjured up the
image of Samuel. Does this mean that people today
could also conjure up the image of departed ones, or
was this just a onetime act of God?
I don't think it was an act of God. Just recently, inciden-
tally, I wrote a chapter in a book on that whole question of
the witch of Endor because it's such a provocative and diffi-
cult piece of Scripture to deal with. This narrative tells us
that after the death of Samuel, Saul disguised himself and
sought out a medium. Such mediums were outlawed in
Israel, and the practice of this kind of activity was a capital
offense. Not only was it a capital offense under the Mosaic
law, but Saul himself had enforced this and insisted that all
necromancers leave the land. That's why Saul disguised
himself. He went to this witch, or medium, and asked her
to conjure up Samuel. The text says that Samuel appeared
and complained about being disturbed. The woman then
realized that it was the king who had induced her to do
this, and she was terrified.
When I look at that, I have to ask this question: What
really happened there? Is the Bible speaking in phenome-
nological language, describing what appeared, or does the
Bible intend to say that the medium was in fact able to
bring Samuel back from the dead? Was it the clever trick of
a magician? Was it a natural ability, one that some people
297
R.C. SPROUL
may have today? Is it possible today to contact the dead,
or is it a counterfeit activity of Satan himself? I'm not al-
together sure which of these, if any, explain the situation.
Let me say what we know for sure. If we can contact the
dead today and conjure them up as you say, we're certainly
not allowed to. There's no question about that. This is a
radical offense to God. We're simply not permitted to be
involved in seances, in spiritualism, or in the use of medi-
ums. That is anathema to God, and in fact, people who do
that are included in the final chapter of the New Testa-
ment as those who are excluded from the kingdom of
God. The warnings are severe and weighty about being
involved in these kinds of activities.
But — is it possible? I don't think so. I don't think we can
call forth the spirits of the dead. I believe all mediums
resort to trickery to perform these feats. In the late nine-
teenth century, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle got enamored
with the possibility, and the great Harry Houdini offered a
large sum of money to any medium who could make any
phenomenon occur that he couldn't duplicate with his
own art of illusion. No one ever collected the money from
Houdini. The best "ghost busters" are magicians them-
selves. It takes a thief to know a thief. I'm persuaded that
the people who are practicing this are hoaxers.
How do you explain the out-of-body tunnellike
experiences many people claim to have had before
being revived?
I'm not sure I can explain the so-called Kubler-Ross phenom-
enon. There's been a significant amount of research on this.
298
Heaven and Hell
I've heard reports saying that as many as 50 percent of those
who have suffered clinical death and have been resuscitated
through CPR or forms of medication report some kind of a
strange experience that may be called an out-of-body experi-
ence. They report the sensation of looking down from the
ceiling as their soul is leaving the body and seeing their own
body lying in the bed and the doctor pronouncing them
dead or a nurse not finding a pulse. Then they talk about
going through this tunnel and seeing this marvelous light.
The vast majority of those who have been researched have a
very positive recollection, although there are some who
don't see lovely lights at the end of the tunnel but very
ghastly and horrendous things that gave them pause about
what might be beyond the veil.
I don't know how to answer these questions. There are
various possible answers. One could be that a person who
is near death can have a short circuit in the electrical ner-
vous system of their brain and can get their time sequences
all messed up. They could be recalling a dream that was
very vivid and intense that makes them feel as if they really
lived it. All of us have some dreams that are qualitatively
different from others, that become so intense that you feel
as if it had actually happened. It could be the result of med-
ication or the lack of oxygen to the brain.
To deal sufficiently with those possible explanations
would require a competent physician who can talk about
whether it's possible for such short circuits to take place
and whether it could be explained in natural terms. I
haven't ruled out the experience.
The other possible explanation is that people do, in fact,
have a glimpse of something that's about to take place in
299
R.C. SPROUL
transition from death to wherever we go after death. We as
Christians do believe that we have a continuity of personal
existence and that the cessation of physical life is not the
end of actual life. Whether we're good or bad, whether
we're redeemed or unredeemed, we're going to continue
in a living state though not biologically alive. It shouldn't
shock the Christian when people undergoing clinical
death and being revived come back with certain recollec-
tions. I've tried to keep an open mind, and I hope that this
interesting phenomenon will get the benefit of further re-
search, analysis, and evaluation. Too many of these experi-
ences have been reported for us to simply dismiss them as
imaginary or hoaxes.
What is the first thing you want to know
when you get to heaven?
Of course, the first thing I want to know is, What do I have
to do to see Jesus? I want to see the Lord. In the past I've
asked friends and family members, "Suppose that after you
got the chance to see Jesus in heaven he said, 'OK, you can
see any three people who are here and spend time one-on-
one with those people' — who would you want to see?" The
first person I would want to see would be my father. This is
one of the great consolations of the Christian faith — we
have the promise of reunion with those whom we love who
have gone ahead of us. After seeing my father, I'd love to
meet the psalmist David. I'd love to meetJeremiah. And
the list goes on.
One of the first questions I am going to ask is, "Who
wrote the book of Hebrews?" I'm dying to find that out!
300
Heaven and Hell
Another question: "Where did evil come from?" because I
haven't been able to figure that one out. And, of course, I
would have to know, "Are there any golf courses up here?"
I'd like to study art for the first ten thousand years,
music for the next ten thousand years, and literature for
the next ten thousand years and just continue to soak in
everything that God has made and everything he has
ordained. I'd love to sit there and learn theology with the
full assurance that I am never being deceived or that I'm
not making any errors and that I'm no longer looking
through a glass darkly, but now I am in the presence of
Truth itself, in all of its purity. But I suspect that those
things that I think about doing will have to wait for the
sheer joy of being in the presence of God and enjoying the
beatific vision — of seeing Christ face-to-face. I don't know
if that would ever wear off. I'd be satisfied to just do that, I
think, for eternity.
Are those who have never heard of Christ going to hell?
That's one of the most emotionally laden questions that a
Christian can ever be asked. Nothing is more terrifying or
more awful to contemplate than that any human being
would go to hell. On the surface, when we ask a question
like that, what's lurking there is, "How could God ever
possibly send some person to hell who never even had the
opportunity to hear of the Savior? It just doesn't seem
right."
I would say the most important section of Scripture to
study with respect to that question is the first chapter of
Paul's letter to the Romans. The point of the book of
301
R.C. SPROUL
Romans is to declare the Good News — the marvelous story
of redemption that God has provided for humanity in
Christ, the riches and the glory of God's grace, the extent
to which God has gone to redeem us. But when Paul intro-
duces the gospel, he begins in the first chapter by declar-
ing that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven and this
manifestation of God's anger is directed against a human
race that has become ungodly and unrighteous. So the rea-
son for God's anger is anger against evil. God's not angry
with innocent people; he's angry with guilty people. The
specific point for which they are charged with evil is in the
rejection of God's self-disclosure.
Paul labors the point that from the very first day of cre-
ation and through the creation, God has plainly mani-
fested his eternal power and being and character to every
human being on this planet. In other words, every human
being knows that there is a God and that he is accountable
to God. Yet every human being disobeys God. Why does
Paul start his exposition of the gospel at that point? What
he's trying to do, and what he develops in the book of
Romans, is this: Christ is sent into a world that is already
on the way to hell. Christ is sent into the world that is lost,
that is guilty of rejecting the Father whom they do know.
Now, let's go back to your original question, "Does God
send people to hell who have never heard ofJesus?" God
never punishes people for rejecting Jesus if they've never
heard ofJesus. When I say that, people breathe a sigh of
relief and say, "Then we'd better not tell anybody about
Jesus because somebody might reject him. Then they're
really in deep trouble." But again, there are other reasons
to go to hell. To reject God the Father is a very serious
302
Heaven and Hell
thing. And no one will be able to say on the last day, "I
didn't know that you existed," because God has revealed
himself plainly. Now the Bible makes it clear that people
desperately need Christ. God may grant his mercy unilater-
ally at some point, but I don't have any reason to have
much hope in that. I think we have to pay serious attention
to the passionate command of Christ to go to the whole
world, to every living creature, and tell them ofJesus.
Would you describe hell as you see it, and
conversely heaven?
I was once asked that question by a student who put it to
me this way, "Do you believe that hell is a literal lake of
fire, where people are burning and in torment? Do you
think there's weeping and gnashing of teeth, darkness, and
a place where the worm never dies?" He asked if I believed
hell was literally like that, and I said no, I didn't. He
breathed a heavy sigh of relief. Then I said that I thought
a person who is in hell would do everything in his power to
be in a lake of fire rather than to be where he is. I really
have no graphic picture of hell in my mind, but I can't
think of any concept more terrifying to the human con-
sciousness than that concept. I know that it's a very unpop-
ular concept and that even Christians shrink in horror at
the very idea of a place called hell.
I've always wondered about two phenomena that we find
in the New Testament. One, that Jesus speaks more of hell
than he does of heaven. Two, almost everything that we
know about hell in the New Testament comes from the lips
ofJesus. I'm just guessing that in the economy of God,
303
R.C. SPROUL
people wouldn't bear it from any other teacher. They're
not going to listen if R. C.-Sproul warns them of the dread-
ful consequences of hell or if some other person does.
People don't believe in it even when Jesus teaches it. It's
like we're proving the parable of the rich man and Laza-
rus. Dives wanted to go back and warn his brothers of the
wrath that was to come. Jesus said they wouldn't believe
even if somebody came back from the dead. People just
don't want to pay any attention to it.
I ask myself this question: Why did Jesus, when he was
teaching about the nature of hell, use the most ghastly sym-
bols and images he could think of to describe that place?
Whenever we talk about symbols or images, we use a sym-
bol to represent a reality. The reality always exceeds in its
substance what the symbol contains. If the images of the
New Testament view of hell are but images and symbols,
then that would mean to me that the reality is much, much
worse than the literal symbols we are given.
Conversely, I would say that the good news is the marvel-
ous images we have of heaven: streets of gold, crystal lakes,
a city with buildings of precious stones. The literal fulfill-
ment would be dazzling and wonderful, but I would think
that it's going to be incomparably greater. Again, in this
case, the reality will far exceed the images that the Bible
uses to communicate to us, who are limited to an earthly
perspective.
304
12
Sharing the Faith
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
MATTHEW 28:19-20
Sharing the Faith
(Qhaestioiris in TM§ Sections:
What is faith?
Is the Christian faith really rational?
Is evangelism a necessary activity for a Christian?
What makes Christianity—and not Buddhism or Hinduism or
others—the right religion?
How can you present the gospel to a friend or family member who
might be an atheist?
How can I tell others about Jesus in a manner that is nonthreatening
yet convincing?
My father is not a Christian, and whenever I talk to him, he doesn't
listen, no matter what I talk to him about. What should I do about it?
If a non-Christian asks a question regarding morals, should we
immediately and specifically refer to the Bible, or should we just give
them our advice based on scriptural principles?
Is it possible for a person to be in a state of regeneration before they
come to faith?
How should I respond to street preachers?
307
Sharing the Faith
What is faith?
I think the whole concept of faith is one of the most mis-
understood ideas that we have, misunderstood not only by
the world but by the church itself. The very basis for our
redemption, the way in which we are justified by God, is
through faith. The Bible is constantly talking to us about
faith, and if we misunderstand that, we're in deep trouble.
The great issue of the Protestant Reformation in the
sixteenth century was, How is a person justified? Luther's
controversial position was that we are justified by faith
alone. When he said that, many of the godly leaders in the
Roman Catholic Church were very upset. They said, "Does
that mean that a person can just believe in Jesus and then
live any way they want to live?" In other words, the Roman
Catholic Church reacted fiercely because they were afraid
that Luther's view would be understood as an easy-believ-
ism in which a person only had to believe and never had to
be concerned about bringing forth the fruits of righteous-
ness. It was crucial that those who were involved in the
Protestant Reformation carefully define what they meant
by saving faith. So they went back and did their studies in
the New Testament, specifically on the Greek word pistein,
which means "to believe," and they were able to isolate
three distinctive aspects of biblical faith.
The first is the Latin term notitia: "believing in the data"
or the information. It's an intellectual awareness. You can't
have faith in nothing; there has to be content to the faith.
309
R.C. SPROUL
You have to believe something or trust someone. When we say
that a person is saved by faith, some people say, "It doesn't
matter what you believe, just as long as you are sincere."
That's not what the Bible teaches. It matters profoundly
what you believe. What if I believed that the devil was God?
That wouldn't save me. I must believe the right information.
The second aspect of faith is what they call assensus, or
intellectual assent. I must be persuaded of the truthfulness
of the content. According to James, even if I am aware of
the work ofJesus — convinced intellectually thatJesus is the
Son of God, that he died on the cross for my sins, and that
he rose from the dead — I would at that point qualify to be a
demon. The demons recognize Jesus, and the devil himself
knows the truth of Christ, but he doesn't have saving faith.
The crucial, most vital element of saving faith in the
biblical sense, is that of personal trust. The final term is
fiducia, referring to a fiduciary commitment by which I put
my life in the lap ofJesus. I trust him and him alone for my
salvation. That is the crucial element, and it includes the
intellectual and the mental. But it goes beyond it to the
heart and to the will so that the whole person is caught up
in this experience we call faith.
Is the Christian faith really rational?
By all means! It is intensely rational. Now, I've had the
question asked of me, "Is it true that you are a Christian
rationalist?" I said, "By no means! That's a contradiction in
terms. A rationalist is somebody who embraces a philoso-
phy that sets itself over and against Christianity." And so,
310
Sharing the Faith
while a true Christian is not a rationalist, the Christian
faith is certainly rational.
Is Christianity coherent? Is it intelligible? Does it makes
sense? Does it fit together in a consistent pattern of truth,
or is it the opposite of rational — is it irrational? Does it
indulge in superstition and embrace Christians who
believe that Christianity is manifestly irrational? I think
that's a great tragedy. The God of Christianity addresses
people's minds. He speaks to us. We have a Book that is
written for our understanding.
When I say that Christianity is rational, I do not mean
that the truth of Christianity in all of its majesty can be
deduced from a few logical principles by a speculative phi-
losopher. There is much information about the nature of
God that we can find only because God himself chooses to
reveal it to us. He reveals these things through his proph-
ets, through history, through the Bible, and through his
only begotten Son, Jesus.
But what he reveals is intelligible; we can understand it
with our intellect. He doesn't ask us to throw away our
minds in order to become Christians. There are people
who think that to become a Christian, one must leave
one's brain somewhere in the parking lot. The only leap
that the New Testament calls us to make is not into the
darkness but out of the darkness into the light, into that
which we can indeed understand. That is not to say that
everything the Christian faith speaks of is manifestly clear
with respect to rational categories. I can't understand, for
example, how a person can have a divine nature and a
human nature at the same time, which is what we believe
311
R.C. SPROUL
about Jesus. That's a mystery — but mysterious is not the
same as irrational.
Mystery doesn't apply only to religion. I don't under-
stand the ultimate force of gravity. These things are mysteri-
ous to us, but they're not irrational. It's one thing to say,
"I don't understand from my finite mind how these things
work out," and it's another thing to say, "They're blatantly
contradictory and irrational, but I'm going to believe them
anyway." That's not what Christianity does. Christianity says
that there are mysteries, but those mysteries cannot be
articulated in terms of the irrational; if that were so, then
we have moved away from Christian truth.
Is evangelism a necessary activity for a Christian?
Some people argue that it is every Christian's duty to do
the work of an evangelist. I'm not sure. The distinctive
work of an evangelist is to proclaim the gospel. Preaching
and proclamation comprise one of the offices in the New
Testament and one of the gifts of the Spirit, and so on.'
This gift is not given to everybody, and so I would say that,
in the technical sense, it is not every Christian's responsibil-
ity to be an evangelist.
The New Testament does make it clear that every Chris-
tian is to be a ivitness. Some of the confusion enters at this
point because in Christian jargon "witness" is often used as
a synonym for "evangelist." The New Testament makes a
clear distinction between the two words, a distinction be-
tween the general and the particular. "Witness" is the
broad statement. To bear witness to something is to make
something visible that is not readily visible, or not mani-
312
Sharing the Faith
fest, but invisible. The New Testament word for "witness" is
martyria, which is the word from which we get the English
word martyr. Those who died for the faith bore witness, or
made manifest, their commitment to Christ. That was one
way of doing it, but it wasn't the work of evangelism.
Evangelism is one specific form of witnessing. Every Chris-
tian is called to witness; every Christian is called to confess
Jesus with their speech as well as their actions. God doesn't
ordain us to be secret service Christians. But not everyone is
called, in myjudgment, to be an evangelist; that's a special
task. I think every Christian has a responsibility to partici-
pate in the evangelistic enterprise. While not everybody is
called to be a missionary, we are all called to do our part in
the mission of the church. The church is given the responsi-
bility of the great commission, and every member in the
body of Christ is called to do his or her part in seeing to it
that the task is done. Evangelism involves much more than
evangelists. It requires people to print Bibles, for instance,
and people to distribute them, people to fund certain mis-
sion trips or projects, people to minister in various ways to
the missionaries and the evangelists.
So while we're all called to witness and we're all responsi-
ble to some degree for seeing that the tasks of evangelism
and mission are accomplished, we're not all meant to be
missionaries or evangelists.
What makes Christianity—and not Buddhism or
Hinduism or others—the right religion?
That's a question every person born and reared in the
United States of America needs to ask and needs to ask
313
R . C. SPROUL
honestly. We can't help but wonder, Am I a Christian because
I happen to be born and raised in a Christian environment, in a
country where Christianity is the dominant religion and where
I've had very little exposure to Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism
and other world religions ? Many people join Christian organi-
zations or Christian churches for no other reason than that
is what their parents did. That's not a good way to test the
truth of the claims of any religion.
I think the only way you can satisfy yourself or your chil-
dren on something like this is to do an evaluation, a seri-
ous study of the basic tenets of world religions. In the
nineteenth century the study of comparative religion
became a very important academic discipline because the
world had become smaller and more cosmopolitan. Now
we live in a world in which there is much more mixing and
mingling of people from radically different backgrounds.
In the nineteenth century attempts were made to reach
peace among the world religions by seeking a common
denominator — that basic essence that was found in all
religions. Many people concluded that there was really no
difference, that everybody believes in the same God and
we're all going the same road, but there are just different
paths to the same place. I think that's a simplistic way of
looking at it.
The difficulty is that if you look at the world religions
and put their basic teachings side by side, you will see them
flatly contradicting each other in terms of what their high-
est ideals are. And a thinking person will quickly see that
they cannot possibly all be true in what they claim. They
can all be wrong, but they can't possibly all be right.
The New Testament makes exclusive claims about Jesus,
314
Sharing the Faith
and that is all the more provocative for people who don't
want to look closely at the issues that divide the world reli-
gions. We obviously can't set forth a case for the distinctive
truth claims of Christianity in a brief format like this, but I
would say the one thing Christianity has that the other reli-
gions do not have — the most obvious thing — is Christ, God
incarnate, and his work of atonement.
How can you present the gospel to a friend or family
member who might be an atheist?
I don't think there's ever been a Christian who didn't
carry throughout his life a heavy burden for the souls of
the people most dear to him, and that's usually members
of the immediate family as well as your best friends. We all
struggle with this. How do we share our faith and commu-
nicate that which is so precious and important to us and
which we are convinced is so important to them? What is
the most effective way to do it? If I knew the answer to that
question, I'd bottle it and sell it because there is such a
need for it.
During my spiritual infancy I was filled with zeal for the
things of Christ, and I desperately wanted to see my family
come to Christ. I did everything the wrong way. I came on
too strong and practically beat them to death quoting
Scripture at them and leaving tracts on their nightstands
and that sort of thing, which they took as an expression of
my personal disapproval of them. That's not what I was try-
ing to communicate, and that's not how I felt toward them,
but that's how they took it.
When I became a Christian, I was so excited I went home
315
R.C. SPROUL
and talked to my mother, and filled with enthusiasm, I said,
"Mom, guess what happened to me? I became a Christian."
And she was completely befuddled. She said, "What do you
mean you became a Christian? You've always been a Chris-
tian." And instead of sharing in myjoy in my newfound
faith, she got very, very defensive because what she heard
me saying to her was, "Mother, you did not raise me with the
proper value system. You're not a Christian. You're not wor-
thy of being my mother." That's what she was hearing. And
so I think we have to be especially sensitive to the feelings of
those who are close to us because they have so much
invested in the relationship we have with them.
If there's ever a place where I must earn the right to be
heard, it's with my friends. It's the place we think we least
need to earn the right to be heard because we already have
the friendship established. We assume that because we are
friends they will take what we say seriously and thoughtfully.
But when I come to them with something new that contains
veiled criticism of where they are standing with respect to
God and Christ, they will take that as personal rejection, or
at the very least disapproval. So before I can explain Christ
to them or defend the faith to them, I must prove to them
that I am their friend (or that I am my father's son or my
mother's son or my sister's brother) so that they don't per-
ceive that I'm making a radical break from our relationship.
How can I tell others about Jesus in a manner that is
nonthreatening but yet convincing?
A few years ago, I was involved in training the laity of a
local church in the activity we call personal evangelism,
116
Sharing the Faith
and I did that over a period of sixteen weeks. Of that
sixteen weeks, about three weeks required training in the
content of the message we call the gospel. That was the
easy part. The rest of the training was devoted to helping
people learn how to communicate their faith in a way that
was nonthreatening and noninsulting to people.
People are extremely sensitive about how they're
approached on matters of religion. Many of us who are so
excited about our faith in Christ want to share it with every-
one we love, and our intentions are good. We care about
our friends, and we want them to participate in the joy and
discovery of this wonderful thing called salvation. But
when we do that, so often we come across to these people
as saying, in attitude if not in words, "I'm good and you're
not." People are turned off by that, and rightly so.
Somebody said once that evangelism, true evangelism, is
only this — one beggar telling another beggar how to find
bread. There's nothing that should make me boastful about
my faith. I recognize that my faith is a result of the grace of
God. And so we must understand that when we're talking to
people, we're called to be gracious and kind. The fruit of
the Spirit that the New Testament calls us to exhibit includes
gentleness, meekness, patience, and love. That's the spirit in
which we are called to communicate to people.
Even though we are gracious, kind, patient, friendly, and
sensitive to people's dignity, we cannot remove altogether
what the New Testament calls the offense of the gospel
because the gospel does call people to repentance, and
people are threatened by that. But it is important that we
not add unnecessarily to the offense that is built into the
message of sin and redemption. Sometimes people reject
317
R.C. SPROUL
us and what we say because they're rejecting Christ — and
we suffer unjustly. But many more times people get angry
not because they're offended by Christ but because they're
offended by our insensitivity toward them as people.
My father is not a Christian, and whenever I talk to
him, he doesn't listen, no matter what I talk to him
about. It's gotten to the point that I don't even try to
make conversation with him. What I should do about it?
One of the deepest personal struggles any Christian faces
is trying to communicate the intensity of their own faith to
their best friends and family who don't share that same per-
spective.
When I first became a Christian, what I wanted more
than anything else in the world was for my family to enjoy
the benefits of what I had discovered. I'm sure that many
times I made myself obnoxious to my family by my zeal in
trying to communicate my concern for them because I
took seriously the warnings of the New Testament about
what happens to those who reject the message of Christ. I
was very fortunate that, even though in the early years I
saw little response to my pleadings and my excitement and
my desire to communicate to my family, over the years I
was able to see just about everybody in my family come to
Christ. I'd like to say that it was a direct result of my ster-
ling witness, but it wasn't. God used other people to reach
my family. What that taught me was how important it is to
be patient with the timing of God for those you love.
I think of the story of Saint Augustine, whose mother,
Monica, was a devout Christian. As he was growing up, her
318
Sharing the Faith
son was wild and unbridled in his licentious lifestyle, and
Monica was a dear saint. For years, every single night she
prayed for her son and saw no visible response whatsoever.
On one occasion she went to see her pastor, who was the
great Bishop Ambrose of Milan, Italy. She poured out her
heart to the bishop, and he raised this question to her,
"Monica, can a child of so many tears possibly be lost?"
What Ambrose was saying was that certainly God is not
going to say no to the petitions of a mother so earnest and
importunate in her prayer life on behalf of her son. I think
that it was a very comforting counsel Ambrose gave to Mon-
ica, but it's not necessarily sound theology.
It is possible that somebody we love very dearly will
never come to faith, but there tends to be a correlation be-
tween our patience and our faithfulness to God and God's
willingness to honor and bless that. I would say to you that
what you need to do is pray and be as loving a daughter as
you possibly can. God has not called you to be your father's
evangelist; he has called you to be your father's daughter.
The more Christian a daughter you are, the more God will
be inclined to use that in a positive way.
If a non-Christian asks a question regarding morals,
should we immediately and specifically refer to the
Bible, or should we just give them our advice based on
scriptural principles?
There are two questions here, really: What is the right
response? and What is the best strategic response in terms
of having productive dialogue with people who don't share
our belief in the Scriptures?
319
R.C. SPROUL
We are living in a culture that in many ways has had just
enough exposure to Christianity to be immunized against
it. It's like an inoculation whereby a small dose of the dis-
ease keeps you from getting the real thing. Christianity is
not some fresh voice speaking to moral issues in the
United States of America. Nothing is more offensive to
non-Christians than to listen to Christians talk to them
with Christian platitudes and Christian jargon.
The Scriptures instruct us to let our speech be "seasoned
with salt" (Col. 4:6) . Part of our problem is that we are sim-
ply inarticulate. We can't express our Christian precepts
and our Christian faith without using the same hackneyed
language and cliches over and over again. That becomes
an irritant to people, and rightfully so, when every time
they hear us speak, we're saying "praise the Lord" or "God
loves you." They get tired of hearing that. We ought to be
able to communicate the ideals of the Christian faith in a
fresh way so that people will have an opportunity to hear
what we're saying.
When discussing moral issues, certainly for the Chris-
tian, there's no higher guide than the Word of God. Since
I believe the Bible is the Word of God, it's binding to Chris-
tians and non-Christians. There's nothing wrong ethically
with calling people's attention to what the Bible says.
People don't have to believe it's the Word of God in order
to be held accountable to it. If almighty God commands
something, he commands it to everybody.
But the Bible is not the only place in which God reveals
his law. The Bible tells us that in addition to the written
Word, God reveals many of his principles, laws, and moral
precepts in nature. We should have some kind of common
320
Sharing the Faith
ground on which to discuss Christian morality or ethical
issues with the unbeliever without always jumping to the
text of Scripture. If they don't accept that as an authority,
then at least we can say that we also see evidence for the
Tightness of this particular behavior from nature itself, or
what we would call common grace, in the common sense
of the laws of the nations. You don't have to read the Bible
to know that murder is wrong. You don't have to read the
Bible to know that it's wrong to steal. There are certain
moral issues that God makes very clear without recourse to
Scripture.
Is it possible for a person be in a state of regeneration
before they come to faith?
Not only is it possible for a person to be in a state of regen-
eration before they come to faith, but it's absolutely neces-
sary because the supreme prerequisite for trusting in
Christ is to be made alive through the Holy Spirit. Regener-
ation means rebirth. The other word that the New Testa-
ment uses is quickening, being made alive. The Bible
teaches us that our natural fallen state is one of spiritual
death. Faith is a manifestation of spiritual life. Before I can
ever exercise faith, I have to first be made spiritually alive.
That's why I would declare with all of my might that regen-
eration — that is, rebirth — precedes faith. It's necessary in
order for faith even to be present.
I don't think I'm saying anything different from what
our Lord said to Nicodemus when they had that lengthy
discussion about what it means to be reborn. Jesus said
that unless a person is born again, he can't even see the
321
R . C. S P R O U L
kingdom of God. Jesus also said, "Unless a man is born of
the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God." When Paul amplifies that theme in Ephesians 2, he
says, "And you hath he quickened or made alive while you
were dead in your sins and trespasses." I may err by think-
ing that while in a state of spiritual death, I can reach out
by my own faith and make myself spiritually alive. That's
exactly what we cannot do. That's exactly what only God
can do for us. That is whyJesus said to Nicodemus that
before a person can even see the kingdom of God, let
alone enter the kingdom of God, he or she has to be born
of the Spirit.
There's a lot of confusion among Christians about this
terminology "born again." When a person comes to Christ
and goes through a dramatic conversion and experiences a
new life in Christ, they will say, "I am now born again," and
they will think of what it means to be born again as the
whole experience of new life they now enjoy. However, in
the technical sense in the New Testament, regeneration
describes not the whole process by which we are enjoying a
new life in Christ but simply the first step. Just as birth is
the beginning of human life and the necessary beginning,
so spiritual birth is simply the first step after which come
faith, repentance, and all the rest.
How should I respond to street preachers?
I remember in Philadelphia a few years ago I saw a photo-
graph in the paper of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, one of the
most eminent theologians of the twentieth century,
engaged in preaching in the streets of Philadelphia. I was
322
Sharing the Faith
overwhelmed with a sense of being humbled by that — that
this man, with his dignity, his academic credentials, his
impeccable reputation as a scholar, was willing to put up
with the hostility, the mockery, and all the rest that goes
with publicly preaching in that manner.
I think of the apostles, of Paul, who went to the market-
place and disputed daily, spoke with people standing
around the square there at Mars Hill. I think of the bizarre
things that God called some of the prophets to do — walk-
ing barefoot and naked in the public square as a witness
(not that he calls us to do that!) and to do object lessons
through symbolic forms of behavior that would be socially
totally offensive to their contemporaries.
So on the one hand, I have a respect for people who
have the boldness and the courage to preach in that man-
ner. But I've seen other kinds of street preaching — the
kind where somebody gets a megaphone and stands on the
corner and preaches to people who are captive at a red
light. People don't want to listen, and they're sort of bom-
barded by this kind of activity. Sometimes we can be impo-
lite in the way we preach to people, and I think we have to
be very careful.
Part of my struggle, though, is my own pride. I'm a
Christian and I'm a preacher. And I live in a culture where
preaching is acceptable in certain places and in certain
ways and unacceptable socially in other places and other
ways. And who decides what is acceptable and what isn't?
It's not always the right parties who are making the deci-
sions, and I don't like to suffer the fallout of embarrass-
ment from somebody else's behavior that is socially
unacceptable. I'm not sure that my negative reactions to
323
R.C. SPROUL
some of these things are not rooted in my own pride and
fear that I might be tarred. with the same brush. I hope
that's not the basic reason for my negative feelings for
some of that.
I'm not particularly pleased with bumper stickers. I
recognize that there are different ways to communicate at
different times. At one time the gospel was communicated
through pamphlets. Everything was communicated that
way. And then through books and music. Forms of commu-
nication change, and people put their messages on their
T-shirts and on their bumpers. So why shouldn't Chris-
tians? My concern is that we do not cheapen the proclama-
tion of Christ through being too cute or too clever with
these forms.
324
ij
Church Life
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners,
but fellow citizens with the saints and members
of the household of God, having been built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone,
in whom the whole building, being fitted together,
grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
in whom you also are being built together for a
dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
EPHESIANS 2:19-22
Church Lift
©twestioins in Tlhis Section:
Who was the first Christian?
What are the basics to church growth?
What are the essential differences in church structure?
What do we need to know about a church before we attend, and what
do we need to know before we become a member?
How are we to respond to poor decisions that are made in the
governing body of our churches? How can we as laypersons best
make our voices heard?
What should I do if my pastor is more liberal than I am, and when is it
time to leave the church?
Some churches and Christian colleges have prescribed standards of
behavior for all members and students. Is this biblical?
What is the significance of baptism?
Would you encourage an adult who has just come to Christ to be
baptized if he or she had already been baptized as a child?
What causes the most pressure or strain on my pastor?
Should ministers run for political office?
Should a woman hold an office in a church?
327
R.C. SPROUL
In i Corinthians n, Paul deals with head coverings for women in the
church. How does this apply-to the Christian church today?
How can church members influence seminary education?
How are we to keep the Sabbath in today's society?
Why do so many people find worship boring?
What does it mean to worship God in truth and in spirit?
Why is it necessary to praise the Lord, and what is the scriptural basis?
Dr. James Packer is critical of Christians using the crucifix and
pictures of Jesus as symbols of Christianity, saying that it breaks
God's second commandment. How do you feel about this?
What do we actually receive from Jesus Christ when we partake of
Communion?
Should we confess our sins to one another as it says in the book of
James?
In Galatians 6, what is the difference between the admonition to
"bear one another's burdens" and the statement that "each one shall
bear his own load?"
Is the celebration of Christmas a pagan ritual?
Can you tell us why X is used when it replaces Christ in Christmas?
What is the most pressing need of the evangelical church today if she
is to make an impact on society?
What is the most crucial issue confronting today's church?
328
Church Life
Who was the first Christian?
It depends on how we define a Christian. In The Church
from Abel, written back in the sixties, Roman Catholic
theologian Yves Congar went back to the Old Testament
passages where there was discrepancy between the offering
that Abel brought before God and that of his brother,
Cain. You remember Cain's offering was not acceptable to
God and Cain rose up in jealousy and murdered his
brother, Abel. Abel was the first martyr of the faith in that
regard. Congar went on to suggest that the church actually
was born with Abel's act of devotion and worship. We
could push it back further than that. The first hint of a
gospel is found in the promise that God gives to Adam and
Eve in the Garden. After the curse is imposed upon them,
there is the promise that someone will come, born of the
seed of the woman, who would crush the head of the ser-
pent while having his own heel damaged in the process.
We assume, I think, that Adam and Eve both put their con-
fidence and their trust in that promise of God for their
future redemption. So we could say that the first Christians
were Adam and Eve.
If we want to be more specific in terms of a personal
knowledge ofJesus, then my candidate would be the
mother ofJesus. The angel announced to Mary that she
had been overpowered by the most high God and had con-
ceived one who was to be born and who was to be called
Jesus, who would save people from their sins — he was to be
329
R.C. SPROUL
a savior. When that announcement was made to the Virgin
Mary, she sang under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the
Magnificat: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit
doth rejoice in God my Savior." I think that Mary, at that
moment, was putting her confidence and trust in the child
that was about to begin growing in her own womb. So I
would say that in New Testament categories Mary was the
first Christian.
The term Christian was not even used until the book of
Acts; there we read that believers in Jesus were first called
Christians at Antioch. So somebody might dispute it at that
point. Obviously who is entitled to the designation of the
first is not a matter of theological dogma, but more a mat-
ter of how you look at it.
What are the basics to church growth?
The most important key is the work of the Holy Spirit. We
see in the book of Acts that it's the Lord who added to the
churches daily. But that doesn't mean that every time we
see churches bulging with memberships it's the work of
the Holy Spirit. Humanly speaking, I think there are a
couple of absolutely crucial keys.
In the United States there was a study conducted of
people who had dropped out of the church. Those
people were asked, "Why did you stop going to church?"
The number one reason was, "Church is boring." The
second biggest reason was that, in their judgment, the
church is irrelevant.
I have mused on those responses many times. When I
330
Church Life
look at the Scriptures, I see that throughout redemptive
history when people encounter God, they have different
kinds of reactions. Some of them cry, some of them
laugh, some of them sing, some of them shout, some of
them run, some of them are scared, and some of them
are angry. But I have never read in Scripture of a person
meeting God and being bored. It would seem to me that
if, in our churches, people were having a vital encounter
with the living God, nobody would say that church is bor-
ing. And I don't think they would consider the experi-
ence irrelevant.
Now let's look at it from another perspective. If we
asked people who do attend church why they go to
church, I can tell you what the number one answer would
be. People would say that they go to church to worship
God. They know that this is the primary reason they are
supposed to go to church. But the real reason they go to
church is for the fellowship they receive there; they go to
be with other people. I think that a wise pastor under-
stands that. And so I think that two of the most important
factors in the church experience are (1) the worship
itself becomes an event whereby people are brought into
the presence of the living God and (2) the church recog-
nizes that people need fellowship and they need to be
relating to other people in the context of the church.
Churches that put a strong emphasis on vital worship and
that are meeting the fellowship needs of people are the
churches that have the best chances of growth. I also
think that one of the vital ingredients of growing
churches is strong, biblical, expository preaching.
331
R . C. SPROUL
What are the essential differences in church structure?
Usually, when we refer to church structure, we're talking
about the way in which the church organizes itself in terms
of authority. There are basically three different structures
among Christian churches: the episcopalian form of gov-
ernment, the presbyterian, and the congregational. Most
churches fall into one of these three categories or struc-
tures.
By "episcopal" I'm not referring specifically to what we
call the Episcopal Church. I'm using the term in the
generic sense. The word episcopalian comes from the New
Testament Greek word episcopos, which is the word for
bishop, or overseer, in the New Testament. In this frame-
work the authority or pastoral leadership is vested in one
person who rules over an area, in some traditions called a
diocese. The Anglican, Episcopal, and Methodist denomi-
nations use this type of structure. You also find it in the
Roman Catholic Church and the various other catholic
churches like the Greek Orthodox Church.
The presbyterian system is more of a representative form
of government, in which the authority is not rooted in one
man who oversees other pastors, but in a presbytery, which
is sort of like a congress. This body of elders has authority
over the local churches.
In the congregational system, local congregations are not
connected to one another by bishops or presbyteries except
by free or voluntary association. The authority or the struc-
ture of the church is rooted within the local congregation.
All of these forms have some kind of governing author-
ity that gives magisterial leadership to the people within
;32
Church Life
their fellowship of believers. These are the principal differ-
ences among Christian bodies. Other differences in struc-
ture reflect differences in theology. For instance, is the
focal point of the service the sacraments or the preaching?
These are not so much structural questions as doctrinal
questions that in turn affect the structure.
What do we need to know about a church before we
attend, and what do we need to know before we
become a member?
Before we attend a church, we should know that it is a legit-
imate church. Now, obviously, if the sign on the front of
the church reads "Church of Satan," we know it isn't a legit-
imate body of Christian believers. But what about churches
that are not legitimate for less obvious reasons? Some reli-
gious bodies claim to be Christian that, in myjudgment
and in the judgment of many Christians, are not Christian
churches or are apostate bodies. Even attending their ser-
vices may be a sin. We can't expect a church to be perfect.
But does it hold to the essentials of the faith? Does it prac-
tice a basic, sound belief in the deity of Christ and aspects
of Christ that we find outlined in the New Testament?
Now, we may be worshiping every day with people who
profess to be Christians but aren't; this we can't avoid
because God hasn't given us the ability to look at another
person's heart and say exactly where he or she is spiritually.
But we can inquire into the basic beliefs of a church body,
and we want to unite ourselves in worship only with a
group of people who are attempting to do what is proper
in the sight of God.
333
R.C. SPROUL
Obviously that bare minimum applies before you attend
the church. Before you join a church I would think you'd
look more closely. You would ask questions such as, Is this
a church where the gospel is being preached, where there
is fidelity to the Scriptures? Is this a fellowship to which I
am prepared to commit myself, my time, my money, my
devotion, where I'm going to be instructed in spiritual
growth, along with my family? I think those are the kinds
of questions you need to look at very carefully before you
make the commitment to join. In our country we often
join churches in the same spirit that we join any other
organization, forgetting that when we join the church, we
take a sacred vow before God to do certain things — to be
present in worship, to make diligent use of the means of
grace, to be an active participant in that church. Before
you take a vow to do something like that, you need to know
what it is you're joining and then, having made that vow,
be prepared to keep it.
How are we to respond to poor decisions—such as
liberal stances on abortion—that are made by the
governing body of our churches? How can we as
laypersons best make our voices heard?
This question can only be answered according to the struc-
ture of any given denomination. Some denominations oper-
ate on a purely congregational, local-church basis. If each
congregation is autonomous and able to make its own deci-
sions, in some cases set its own policy, then it's much easier
for laypeople to get their viewpoints heard. But once we find
ourselves in a connectional situation, where we have church
334
Church Life
representatives or central church councils setting policy and
making decisions for the denomination as a whole (as in the
case of Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Catho-
lics), those representing bodies don't always represent what
you believe as an individual.
You're asking me for a strategy on how to overturn that.
I really don't know except that wherever you have a voice,
let it be heard. In most denominations, a person has one
vote in a the local congregation, and that's where you have
the opportunity to express your views and to note your dis-
sent. Sometimes, just as in a governmental structure in the
secular world, you have leaders — representatives — to
whom you can write and let your views be known. Some
groups within the church may take a different position. In
most denominations there are minority report groups in
which you can let your voice be heard.
Even in situations where you feel your voice has very
little impact, I don't think it is appropriate to do nothing.
Neither do I think that it's appropriate to simply quit the
church over every disagreement that you have with its gov-
erning body. Every church is constantly searching itself,
examining its positions on various issues. And I think we
are called to be patient with our parent denominations
and our parent church bodies on some of these matters.
Some pronouncements from the general assembly level
break my heart, and I'm very saddened by them. I hasten
to tell people that they don't necessarily represent me at
that point. But there are different levels of pronounce-
ments. For example, when the Roman Catholic Church
issues a papal decree, that's quite different from a study
document being presented by a group of Roman Catholic
335
R.C. SPROUL
priests; a study does not carry the same weight as a papal
encyclical. A general assembly pronouncement of the Pres-
byterian Church is a significant thing, but it doesn't have
the same weight as a credal statement in the same denomi-
nation. So I think we have to weigh those kinds of factors
in as we struggle together for the solutions.
What should I do if my pastor is more liberal than I
am, and when is it time to leave the church?
The terms liberal and conservative are not meaningless
terms, but they are very broad labels. I don't know where
you are, and when you talk about a minister who is more
liberal than you, you may be a flaming conservative. You
may be the lunatic fringe on the right wing, and what you
consider a liberal may be pure orthodoxy!
Let's say that a conservative is a person who resists
change, who's married to the status quo. As Christians, we
can't allow ourselves to approach life in this way. We have
never arrived at a perfect state in the life of the church or
in our understanding of the things of God; it's not a good
idea to conserve everything from the past. I have to always
be open to Reformation and new growth and experience
in matters of faith and life.
From one historical perspective, liberalxs a marvelous
term. It describes someone who has experienced freedom
and is not bound simply to the traditions of men, one who
is open to new horizons, new vistas, new ventures in the
kingdom of God. In another sense, liberalis not a friendly
term to Christianity. For example, there was a movement
in the nineteenth-century church that adopted the term lib-
336
Church Life
eralas a technical definition for a whole system of theology
that categorically erased the supernatural from the Chris-
tian faith, denying not only the Virgin Birth but the Incar-
nation itself — the miracles ofJesus, the atonement of
Christ, the resurrection ofJesus, the ascension ofJesus,
and the return ofJesus. I don't see that school of thought
as part of an intramural debate among Christians trying to
sort out our beliefs. There's a lot of room for disagreement
within the body of Christ. But the systematic denial of the
supernatural that we found in nineteenth-century liberal-
ism was, I would say, sub-Christian or non-Christian or actu-
ally antithetical to Christianity. Here we had people within
the church denying what I would view as essentials of the
Christian faith.
If your minister is a liberal in the sense that he's actu-
ally denying basic tenets of the Christian faith, then you
have a serious problem on your hands. Depending upon
your denomination, there are certain avenues by which
you can file your grievances; most churches do have eccle-
siastical courts to deal with heretics, and this kind of liber-
alism is heresy. Heretic is not a word we use every day in
this enlightened generation, but true heretics do exist.
As to whether or not you leave the church, I would say
that your basic attitude should be one of enormous for-
bearance and perseverance because the church is bigger
than an individual minister or even a specific local body
of believers. If you find that an entire denomination has
taken a heretical position, denying the essentials of the
Christian faith, then I think you must leave.
337
R.C. SPROUL
Some churches and Christian colleges have prescribed
standards of behavior for. all members and students. Is
this biblical?
I'll try to answer this question from what I have encoun-
tered in the Christian college scene.
First of all, I think it's perfectly appropriate for a private
university or college to have standards that are imposed
upon its people. I think it's particularly important that if
an institution calls itself a Christian institution, it be
extremely careful not to impose standards or rules that go
beyond what the Bible actually says. What happens is that
people then look at these situations and say, "Oh, this is
what a Christian does or does not do." If we are so strict
and so rigid that we impose rules and regulations where
God leaves people free, we are provoking God's displea-
sure because we are actually distorting the law of God.
I mention this because I have seen many Christian col-
leges which, in myjudgment, have rules and regulations
that go far beyond what Scripture requires of people. In
fact, they enforce a kind of legalism that is a distortion of
the Word of God and communicates to the students and to
the world a picture of the Christian faith that is simply not
accurate. The motivation behind these regulations is gener-
ally good; the people who set them up understand that
young people are particularly prone to sow their wild oats
and to experiment with types of behavior that are question-
able from a Christian point of view. College is often the
first situation in which young people are away from home
and left to make important decisions on their own. They
have to learn to deal with freedom they've not experi-
338
Church Life
enced before. So Christians become zealous to protect
them from the world and from falling into dangerous sins,
and they do this by tightening restrictions and adding
rules. The negative effect of this is overcorrection or over-
protection, which often incites students to rebel. Another
negative effect is that those students who don't rebel end
up further isolated from the world in which we live — the
true arena of redemption.
I remember one particular Christian college that was
part of a national study of guilt complexes among stu-
dents. This particular Christian school ranked in the 99th
percentile. In other words, there were serious problems of
guilt-ridden, paralyzed students on that campus. A Chris-
tian college is one place where we should feel the release
and freedom from guilt because we've tasted of the forgive-
ness that is ours in Christ. So I would say that there is a
place and purpose for certain standards in private institu-
tions, but the misapplication of this protection can be
extremely dangerous.
What is the significance of baptism?
Just as an aside, the word significance has as its root the
word sign. A sign is something that points to something
beyond itself. We all recognize that whatever baptism signi-
fies, Jesus obviously thought it was very important because
he gives a command to baptize all nations in the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whatever else it is,
baptism is the sign of the new covenant that God makes
with his people. We do have the clear mandate in the New
Testament that Christians are to be baptized.
339
R.C. SPROUL
I personally do not believe that baptism is essential for
salvation. If I believed that, I would think that the thief on
the cross who was promised paradise with Jesus would have
been disqualified because he obviously didn't have an
opportunity to get baptized. But I do believe that baptism
is essential for obedience because Christ commands it. It's
just the same thing as when people say, "Do you have to go
to church to go to heaven?" I would say, "Obviously not."
But do you have to go to church to obey Christ? Yes, you
do. And if you are not inclined to obey Christ and have no
inclination to follow his mandates, that may be a sign that
you are not headed for heaven. So church involvement
becomes a very serious matter of obedience.
I would say the same about the sacrament of baptism.
It's a sign of the new covenant. It's a sign of our participa-
tion in Jesus, of being partakers in his death and resurrec-
tion, which are at the heart of the gospel. It's also a sign
of our cleansing from sin and guilt by the work ofJesus
and the washing of regeneration. What we do outwardly
with water, the Spirit does inwardly with his grace. So it's
a sign of our cleansing. It's also a sign of our sanctifica-
tion. It's a sign of our baptism of the Holy Spirit. It's a
sign of our being set apart from the world and given the
holy task to fulfill the commission that Christ gives to his
church.
So there are several things that baptism signifies. I think
one of our tendencies is to reduce those to one — making it
merely a cleansing rite or merely a sign of empowering by
the Holy Spirit — when in fact it is a sacrament that is rich
and complex with meaning and significance.
340
Church Life
Would you encourage an adult who has just come to
Christ to be baptized if he or she had already been
baptized as a child?
Obviously there are a lot of people who would encourage
a new convert to the Christian faith to be baptized as an
adult, even if they had already been baptized as infants.
The main reason is that a large number of Christians
believe that it's improper to baptize infants in the first
place. They don't acknowledge the validity of it, so in their
minds this adult baptism is the one and only true baptism
they have received.
I happen to believe that infant baptism is proper and
should be practiced by the church. As you know, the
church is divided almost in half on that question, but I hap-
pen to be on the half that believes in infant baptism.
The reason I wouldn't encourage a person to be bap-
tized a second time is this: We regard baptism as a sign of
God's promise to bring the full measure of redemption to
those who put their trust in Christ, and it's a sign of about
seven or eight specific things upon which the New Testa-
ment elaborates. It's a sign of God's promise, and the integ-
rity and the validity of that sign does not rest on the
minister or the priest who administers the sacrament, or
on the integrity of the parents who bring the child for bap-
tism, or on the faith or lack of it in the infant. The integ-
rity of the promise ultimately belongs to the integrity of
the one who makes the promise, and that's God.
Here's the scenario: A person is an infant, and he
receives the sign of the covenant promise of God with all
of the integrity of God backing it up. It doesn't mean a
341
R.C. SPROUL
thing to the baby at the time, or perhaps not even to the
priest or the parents. Maybe it's a charade for all of them.
Then twenty-five years later the person comes to faith and
receives all of the benefits that the promise signified. Now
he comes to me, and he wants me to baptize him again.
Usually they say, "It didn't mean anything to me before. I
wasn't even aware of it. Now that I'm a Christian, I want to
experience this sacrament of baptism." I certainly am sym-
pathetic to that and understand a person's desire to have
the experience of going under the water and having the
sign and the outward seal of all these wonderful things that
they've just experienced. But the reason I wouldn't encour-
age them is that if indeed this is the sign of God's promise
that certain things would happen and if you put your trust
in Christ, why would you now come before God and say,
"Would you run that promise by me again?" To do so in a
sense casts a shadow on the integrity of that original prom-
ise that God has just fulfilled in full magnificence. Logi-
cally, I would say the repetition of the act would be a thinly
veiled insult of God's integrity, though I fully recognize
that not one person in a million who undergoes a second
baptism intends it to be an insult.
What causes the most pressure or strain on my pastor?
In the seminary I have a responsibility to teach not only
undergraduate students but students in the doctoral pro-
gram, which is open only to those who have been on the
field as pastors for at least five years. When they return to
the seminary for more education, we have many opportuni-
ties to discuss with a large number of pastors what they
342
Church Life
find to be the heaviest pressures. Although it varies from
person to person, two stresses pop up frequently.
The biggest problem pastors deal with is trying to keep
people happy. As the head of a group of people, the pastor
has to deal constantly with criticism from those who are
unhappy with him, some of whom are taking shots at him.
When you're a leader and a spokesman for a group, criti-
cism goes with the territory. It's similar to being the presi-
dent of a company. When the president has a meeting with
his staff, as soon as he leaves the room, he knows a second
meeting will take place. The staff is going to talk among
themselves and evaluate, analyze, moan, complain, or
rejoice in terms of what he, the president, has done.
The spiritual leader of the church is the pastor. The pas-
tor speaks every Sunday morning, and every Sunday after-
noon there's roast pastor for dinner in the homes of those
who heard the sermon. The people are agreeing or dis-
agreeing, happy or unhappy. He gets the letters on Mon-
day, he gets the cold shoulder, he gets the complaints. The
biggest stress I find among pastors is dealing with personal
criticism.
I think the second greatest point of stress in the life of
the pastor is finances. I know that people have been saying,
probably as long as there have been churches, "Well, the
preacher's always asking for money" or, "They're always
passing the plate." But no organization can function with-
out finances. We understand that some people drive the
finance subject into the ground. But our educators, musi-
cians, and pastors are the most underpaid professionals in
our country. In every other profession, salary is set to some
degree by the market for those skills. But in the Bible God
343
R . C. SPROUL
establishes the value of the ministry and requires that the
people tithe to make sure the minister is paid. That's not
the way it works in our country. A few ministers in
megachurches do pretty well financially, but most struggle
on a regular basis to make ends meet because they are not
valued by their church members in the same way God
values them, as stated in the Scriptures. And it's not only
that it hurts them financially, but it insults their dignity.
Because of the way they're paid, ministers feel that they're
not appreciated.
Should ministers run for political office?
In American political history we've seen many instances of
clergymen seeking and winning political office. All the way
back to the Continental Congress we find that kind of rep-
resentation.
But should ministers run for political office? In the
United States we have a precious principle: separation of
church and state. That means that there are two spheres of
activity, one that is the responsibility of the state officials
and the other that is the function of the institutional
church. It is not the duty of the church to be the state, and
we don't elect clergymen so that they can function as cler-
gymen in their political offices.
But can a minister decide to leave his ecclesiastical voca-
tion and enter the political realm? Ultimately, this is a mat-
ter between that person and God. For example, I am
ordained into the ministry. I am a clergyman, and that is
because I have tried to give evidence to the church that I
have a call or a vocation to ministry in the life of the
344
Church Life
church. That vocation is from God; God has called me to
be a minister. If God calls me to be a minister and I
decide — out of my own ambition — to run for a seat in the
House or Senate, or even for presidential office, and in so
doing forsake the vocation that God has given me, then
I'm in deep trouble with God because I am disobeying my
calling.
Remember when testifying before King Agrippa (Acts
26) Paul speaks of the call he received from Christ to
become an apostle? He said, "King Agrippa, I was not dis-
obedient to that heavenly calling." Is it possible that God
can call a person to the ministry for a certain period of his
or her life and then give him or her a new vocation in the
political arena? I don't know of any reason this couldn't
happen. In the history of the church there have been sit-
uations in which the church may even have suggested to
some of its clergy that they take a vacation, if you will, from
their ecclesiastical duties and serve God in a different
capacity — in politics or in business or other forms of
employment. I do think it's possible for a vocation to
change.
Should a woman hold an office in a church?
Some people view the controversy over women's leader-
ship in church as simply a collision between two view-
points — one that espouses women's liberation of one form
or another, and the other, die-hard male chauvinism. But
that's a simplistic approach to the very controversial issue
of women's ordination.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, the apostle Paul sets forth the qualifi-
345
R.C. SPROUL
cations for church leadership, and he makes the state-
ment, "I will not allow a woman to have authority over a
man or to teach." Now notice, he doesn't say, "I will not
allow a woman to be a pastor," nor does he say, "I will not
allow a woman to be ordained to ministry." He says, "I will
not allow a woman to have authority over men or to
teach." Therein lies the problem. The verb Paul uses in
this passage that is translated "authority" occurs only once
in the entire New Testament in this particular context.
Because this word is only used once in the New Testament
and rarely shows up in other Greek literature of that
period that survives today, we're not exactly sure what that
word means. Even so, we struggle to be obedient to the
guidelines and the restrictions for church government that
are set forth in the New Testament.
I would say that Paul prohibits a woman from having
some kind of authority. As I study the patterns of that in
the New Testament, I think that what Paul is saying is that
women can be involved in all kinds of functions of ministry
in the church but that the role ofjuridical authority or of
governing authority is not to be held by women. I would
add that the overwhelming majority of New Testament
scholars through the years have agreed with the position I
have just stated. I know that in certain denominations, ordi-
nation means that a person has been given governing
authority in the church. If the apostle prohibits that and if
he prohibits it for all generations, then obviously the prac-
tice today or yesterday or tomorrow would be inconsistent
with the apostolic authority and would therefore be incon-
sistent with the authority of Christ.
346
Church Life
In i Corinthians n, Paul deals with head coverings for
women in the church. How does this apply to the
Christian church today?
During my high school years, when I went to church on
Sunday morning, I never saw a woman in that church (this
was a mainline Presbyterian church) whose head wasn't
covered with a hat or veil. That is one of those customs
that has simply disappeared for the most part from Chris-
tian culture. If you go to my Presbyterian church this Sun-
day, you'll see two women wearing hats. One is a woman
from Holland who is dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and
the other one is my wife because we are persuaded that
that biblical mandate is still in effect.
We know that in the New Testament certain rules are
dictated by custom and others are dictated by principle.
For example, when Jesus sent out the seventy disciples on a
mission of evangelism, he told them to take no shoes with
them. That does not mean that all preaching and all evan-
gelism for all times and all places has to be done in bare
feet. Billy Graham is not sinning by wearing shoes when he
preaches the gospel. But there are many questions like that
that are not so obvious. In that whole context of the elev-
enth chapter of 1 Corinthians, women are called to cover
their heads with a veil as a sign of their willingness to sub-
mit to the leadership or headship of their husbands. There
are three elements here: the submission of the wife to the
husband as the head of the home, the covering of the
head, and the covering of the head by a veil. How much is
principle and how much is custom?
Many Christians believe that we should no longer tell
347
R . C. S P R O U L
women to submit to the headship of their husbands. There-
fore, women don't have to, cover their heads. Others say
that the headship principle still stands in the home, but
the covering of the head was a cultural custom that does
not carry over into our day, and therefore the veil would
be insignificant as well.
The third view of this passage is that it is describing a
principle, and that women must cover their heads and use
veils to do so.
I am convinced that when Paul says the women are to
cover their heads, he is basing that action on how God cre-
ated male and female. It would seem to me, using a princi-
ple of interpretation of what we call hermeneutics, that if
there's ever an indication of a perpetual ordinance in the
church, it is that which is based on an appeal to Creation.
I'm persuaded that the principle of covering the head is
still in effect because it was built into creation. And even
though it's not culturally accepted anymore in our society,
I still believe it's principle. I don't think it matters one bit
whether it's a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the
symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to
God.
How can church members influence seminary
education?
I think one of the greatest crises in our country is at the
level of theological education. In the last several decades
we have seen the departure of many Christian institu-
tions — including Christian universities, colleges, and even
seminaries — from orthodox Christianity. Some of our fin-
348
Church Life
est secular institutions began as Christian seminaries
Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, for example. Over the years,
as these institutions have come under the influence of secu-
lar scholarship, they have changed their commitments,
and in some cases they have changed them drastically.
I honestly think there is very little church members can do
to influence seminary education. This may sound pessimis-
tic, but the academic life is a world unto itself. And different
theological institutions and seminaries have their own rules
and regulations for how policy is established. In some situa-
tions the policies and the viewpoints of the seminary are
controlled absolutely by the faculty; in other cases they are
controlled by the board of directors; in still others by the
administration. And about all we can do as private individuals
or members of the local church is to insist that the people we
call to be our pastors be men of godliness, men who have
mastered the Scriptures and who are theologically literate.
Personally, I am totally committed to the concept of an
educated clergy. One of the great benefits of the Protes-
tant Reformation was to make the Bible available for pri-
vate consumption by the individual. We now print the
Bible in the vernacular in the English language; it's not
restricted to publications in Latin and Greek and Hebrew.
But at the same time, as we read the Scriptures for our-
selves, the Scriptures tell us that we need teachers. The
Scriptures are often difficult and complex, and there is
great benefit in having highly educated ministers and pas-
tors. And their thinking — the very nature of their minis-
try — will be shaped by the institution that educated them.
And so about the only way in which we have a voice in
the matter as church members is in the selection of our
349
R.C. SPROUL
pastors. Not every student from every seminary totally rep-
resents the party line of the seminary, but we should know
what those seminary lines are, and when we look at a
potential pastor's credentials, we should consider carefully
where he was educated.
How are we to keep the Sabbath in today's society?
Within the Christian church there are three leading
options for answering your question.
Some Christians believe that the Sabbath was an Old
Testament ordinance and has no application to the New
Testament church. No less a giant than Saint Augustine
took the position that the Sabbath was not carried over
into the New Testament community and therefore has
been fulfilled and was done away with through the work of
Christ. There are Christians who feel that there is no partic-
ular significance to Sabbath keeping today, although they
make up a very small minority.
For the most part, Christian people, while they may dis-
agree as to what day is the Sabbath — the sixth or the seventh
day and all that — and how we observe it, still maintain that
the Sabbath is to be observed somehow in the Christian
community. God ordained the Sabbath, not at Mt. Sinai with
Moses and the people of Israel, but at Creation. The later
books of the Law certainly filled out the concept of the Sab-
bath in terms of its specifics and how it was to be observed
in Israel, but the Sabbath existed long before the Ten Com-
mandments and other laws were given. This would indicate
that as long as Creation is in effect, Sabbath is in effect. In
the covenant God made with Israel he says, "This is my Sab-
350
Church Life
bath unto all generations." The fact that it's a Creation ordi-
nance is strong evidence that there is still a Sabbath observa-
tion requirement for Christians — in fact, not only for
Christians, because the Sabbath was part of God's design for
humanity from the beginning. That's one of the reasons
states have had blue laws. Sabbath keeping was not even
seen as a violation of the separation of church and state;
everybody was required to have a Sabbath whether they
were Christian, Jew, Muslim, or whatever.
In the New Testament the church comes together on the
Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week, for corporate
worship. We have a clear mandate in the New Testament
not to forsake the assembling of the saints (Heb. 10:25). In
other words, the New Testament's simple language says
that Christians are supposed to be in corporate worship on
the Lord's Day. That means we're supposed to go to
church. That is usually seen as one of the ways in which the
Sabbath is to be observed. All Christians I know of who
believe that the Sabbath is still in effect agree that on the
Sabbath we should be worshiping, and also that on one day
in seven there should be rest from unnecessary commerce
and labor. There are still provisions for commerce that
must go on — hospital work, pharmacies, and such. But
commerce just for the sake of merchandising ought to
cease on the Sabbath.
This group of Christians who believe the Sabbath should
be observed actually splits into two groups. One holds what
we call the Continental view: Recreation is permitted on
the Sabbath. The other holds the Puritan view: Recreation
is forbidden on the Sabbath. I take the position that recre-
ation is a legitimate form of rest on the Sabbath.
351
R.C. SPROUL
Why do so many people find worship boring?
Someone questioned Sam'Schumaker, an Episcopalian
priest in Pittsburgh, about young people who are turned
on to Jesus through the work of paraministry organizations
like Youth for Christ, Young Life, or Campus Crusade.
They get filled with zeal for Christ and then drop out of
their home churches. The interviewer was blasting these
organizations because they were driving the kids away from
church. Sam said, "I'm not so sure whether these organiza-
tions are driving the kids away from the churches, or if the
churches are so lifeless in some instances that the kids are
bored to death." Sam used the expression "You can't put a
live chick under a dead hen." It is a sad commentary that
so many times we find worship boring.
In the Scriptures I see people of all varieties of personal-
ity and background responding to God. And they respond
in many different ways: tears, fear, flight, mourning, weep-
ing, laughing, dancing, singing. All these different passions
and emotions are provoked by the presence of God. But
there is one thing I never find in the Bible when a person
comes into the presence of the living God: He is never
bored. If our worship services are boring, then I'm afraid
that somehow we are failing to communicate the awesome,
majestic presence of God. I think we need to take a serious
look at the style of worship that characterizes so many of
our practices these days.
I've stuck my neck out on this point many times by say-
ing that when I look at biblical worship — for example, the
worship that God designs in the Old Testament — at the
heart of it is the proclamation of the Word of God. Not
352
Church Life
only is the mind involved by hearing instruction, but the
whole person — all five senses — is integrated into Israel's
worship in the Old Testament. They had the altar of
incense that stimulated worship with sweet aroma. The
auditory nerves were stimulated by music. The visual sight
of the magnificence of the tabernacle (and later, the
temple) was designed, not to give an ostentatious display
of wealth or to be a monument to human grandeur, but to
show the beauty of God's holiness. Now, in Protestant wor-
ship, for the most part, we sit and listen to a sermon, which
is important, but the whole person is not actively involved
in worship. We must be willing to bring worship back into
the biblical framework of engaging the whole person if
we're going to overcome this tendency to bore people.
What does it mean to worship God in
truth and in spirit?
Jesus doesn't explain in John 4:23 what he means by wor-
shiping the Father in spirit and truth, and we can only spec-
ulate about it. On the one hand, we can think about the
fact that the kind of worship God wants from us is worship
that comes from deep within us, from our own spirit. We
think of the Magnificat of Mary at the time of the annunci-
ation of the coming birth of the Messiah when she sings,
"My soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit doth rejoice
in God my Savior." Her expression there was one of adora-
tion and reverence that came from deep within her soul. It
was spiritual worship in the sense that it wasn't simply on
the surface. She was not merely going through the motions
353
R.C. SPROUL
mechanically and externally, but it came from the very
depths of her being.
So maybe what Jesus was speaking about there in terms
of spiritual worship is a worship that comes from the
depths of our own human spirit as it addresses God.
The other possible meaning of "spirit" in this passage,
particularly in the way it's linked with "truth," is the very
nature of God rather than our inward spirits. In the course
ofJesus' conversation with the woman, he emphasizes that
God is a spirit. He links that declaration with the mandate
that he is to be worshiped in spirit. I think whatJesus
meant in that case was that God wants to be worshiped as
he is, that he is to be honored in the fullness of his charac-
ter. We are not to strip God of his attributes when we come
before him in worship and in honor and in praise; we are
not to turn him into an idol — our image of what we think
he should be. It's not by accident that the first two com-
mandments of the Ten Commandments circumscribe and
protect the sanctity of the character of God and lay down
an absolute prohibition against the worship of idols.
Remember that idolatry is one of the most primordial and
foundational distortions of authentic religion. We see, for
example, in Paul's lengthy exposition of the first chapters
of Romans his expression of God's anger that is directed
against those who would reduce him to an idol. To make
God a man or a cow or a totem pole or even an abstract
idea is not accurate, for it changes his eternal glory into a
lie, and God will not have that. He desires people to wor-
ship him as he is in the fullness of his spiritual character
and in truth. God wants true worship and spiritual worship.
354
Church Life
Why is it necessary to praise the Lord, and what
is the scriptural basis?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by necessary. It is our
ethical obligation as creatures of the living God to offer to
God praise and adoration for who he is. I would say that
justice more than anything else demands our worship and
praise of God. If we go back to the definition of the word
that functioned throughout the classical world and was
articulated by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, justice is giv-
ing to someone what is their due.
When we look at the Scriptures, we see indirectly the
judgment of God upon the human race. In Romans 1, Paul
tried to show that the whole world is brought before the
tribunal of God and is judged guilty before him. Christ
comes into a world of fallen people who are exposed to the
judgment of God for the basic reason that God has
revealed himself to every human being in this world, but
while we know there is a God, we refuse to honor God as
God. That's the number one cause of the judgment of God
upon us. By our fallen nature we refuse to give the honor
that is due God our Creator.
Why is honor due God? God is intrinsically honorable.
He is worthy of our praise and worthy of our adoration. If
God is praiseworthy, then it is our obligation to praise him.
Now that's a deduction from the character of God and
from the character of creatures who owe to their Creator
credit and thanks for every benefit they enjoy in this world.
It would go without saying that we owe him praise and
thanksgiving.
In addition to these kinds of indirect references, there is
355
R.C. SPROUL
the direct command of Scripture to bring the offering of
praise before God. I think of Psalm 150, which says, "Let
everything that has breath praise the Lord." Repeatedly,
both the Old and New Testaments say that God is a spirit
and that we are to worship him in spirit and in truth. To
worship God truly is to offer adoration and praise. Paul
speaks about offering ourselves as a living sacrifice, which
is our reasonable service. It's the just thing to do, it's the
reasonable thing to do, and it is the religious thing to do.
Dr. James Packer, in his book Knowing God , criticizes
the use of the crucifix and pictures ofJesus as symbols
of Christianity, saying that it breaks God's second
commandment. How do you feel about this?
I will preface my answer by saying that Jim Packer is a very
close friend of mine and we've done a lot of work together
in theological conferences. I know him to be one of the fin-
est Christian scholars in the world today. He's an Anglican
theologian and has his personal roots deep in the Protes-
tant Reformation.
You may be aware that in the sixteenth century, one of
the burning issues of conflict between the Roman Catholic
Church and the Protestant reaction to it was precisely over
the use of images and pictures in the church. There was
the great iconoclast controversy, and even in Luther's
Germany the people went so far as to break into Roman
Catholic churches and destroy some of the art pieces there
because they felt they were in violation of the second com-
mandment. There is a long Protestant tradition of concern
about that because the second commandment says, "You
356
Church Life
shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of
anything ..." (Exod. 20:4). That's not a complete prohibi-
tion against art, as even the most ardent Reformers under-
stood. There's a tremendous use of the various art forms in
the Bible — the tabernacle and the temple of Israel being
primary examples. What was prohibited were human
likenesses of God.
There was clear agreement among Reformers that there
should be no imagery that tried to depict the nature of
God. The painting in the Sistine Chapel, for example,
depicting the hand and finger of God creating Adam,
would have been objectionable to the Reformers. Histori-
cally, the Roman Catholic Church has taken a very strong
stand, saying that while people may serve the image, they
are not to worship idols or crosses or any other such
things. They have defined idolatry; the word comes from
idola latria, which literally means "the worship of idols."
They make a distinction between serving the image and
worshiping it; men such as Packer say that it is a distinction
without a difference. Serving idols is worshiping idols, and
the Reformers weren't satisfied with the Roman Catholic
answer.
Now you raise the question of a depiction of Christ and
the use of the cross. There are Protestants who won't have
any symbols in the church, including a cross, with or with-
out a Christ figure on it. Packer is questioning pictures of
Jesus and crosses. I have a problem with them from a prac-
tical standpoint. I can't say for sure that to depict the
human nature ofJesus is a violation of the second com-
mandment. But I'm not sure this is wise because it could
communicate an image to people that is inaccurate. The
357
R.C. SPROUL
Solomon's head of Christ, as beautiful as it is, has commu-
nicated to generations of people an effeminate Jesus who
is somehow less than strong. I would rather communicate
nothing artistically about howJesus looked than put wrong
images in people's minds.
What do we actually receive from Jesus Christ when
we partake of Communion?
The various Christian bodies and denominations differ on
that profoundly. We all agree on at least one issue, and that
is that we receive spiritual nourishment from Christ. As
Calvin said, we feed on the risen body of Christ. We are
strengthened inwardly by the grace that is offered to us by
his presence in this particular capacity. Anytime we go to
fellowship with other Christians or into the house of God,
Christ is present. Yet there is something special about the
mode of Christ's presence at the Lord's Table.
We enjoy other people's company as acquaintances and
friends, but we enjoy a different dimension of fellowship
when we share a meal at someone's home. There's some-
thing deeply rooted in the human personality by which we
experience a certain intimacy when sharing a meal. That's
no less true in the spiritual dimension when we are invited
to sit down at this feast.
It's also a time for the renewal of the grace of forgive-
ness. We come to the Lord's Table in a spirit of careful
preparation and repentance in order to experience a
renewed sense of the healing and forgiveness that comes
to us, flowing out of the Cross and out of Christ's interces-
sion for us in heaven. There's another kind of renewal
358
Church Life
that's almost always overlooked; I'm convinced that every
time we come to the Lord's Supper we are renewing our
submission to the Holy Spirit. It was in the upper room
that Jesus practiced a Jewish custom called dynastic succes-
sion. He did it in covenantal terms, by which he turned us
over to the leadership of the Holy Spirit — the same Spirit
he said he would pour out on the day of Pentecost. In a
sense, when the church gathers together in Sacred Com-
munion, it not only honors its King and looks forward to
the future banquet feast with him, but it also submits itself
afresh to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
I would say that, far and above all of these things, the
most profound benefit we enjoy in the celebration of the
Lord's Supper is the immediate presence of Christ. Again,
not everybody agrees as to the mode of his presence. I per-
sonally don't believe that he's physically present, but I
think that he's substantively, actually present in all of his
power and majesty to assist us, to feed us, to heal us, and to
nurture us. We really commune with Christ at the Table.
Should we confess our sins to one another,
as it says in the book ofJames?
If James says it, then of course we should confess our sins
to one another. However, one of the great divisions among
Christians has to do with the act of confessing our sins to
other human beings. For example, the Roman Catholic
Church has the sacrament of penance, in which the faith-
ful within the Roman Catholic Church are required at cer-
tain intervals to go into the confessional and confess their
359
R.C. SPROUL
sins audibly before a priest and go through absolution and
works of satisfaction.
Most Protestant bodies, but not all, have discontinued
the practice of this kind of confession. The idea behind
this is that we don't need a mediary; we can confess our
sins directly to God. Well, I certainly agree that we can tell
our sins directly to God, and we are called to confess our
sins to him even as the saints in Scripture did, as examples
to us. But the Scriptures do tell us not only to confess our
sins directly to Christ, who is our Supreme High Priest and
Mediator, but to confess our sins one to another.
Let me say at this point that the great controversy over
the Catholic sacrament of penance had nothing to do with
confessing sins to a person; during the time of the Refor-
mation, the debate had to do with the works of satisfaction
(and therefore the doctrine ofjustification), which I won't
go into here.
Speaking as a Protestant, I think that something very pre-
cious has been lost in the Protestant world in our ceasing
of the confessional practice. I have yet to meet a Christian
who doesn't yearn to hear somebody with authority say,
"Your sins are forgiven." And I think that authority, as the
Roman Catholic Church believes, was indeed given to the
church. That's why even in Protestant churches we have
ministers standing up and giving the assurance of pardon.
People need the assurance that the sins they have con-
fessed have in fact been forgiven. I think of Isaiah in the
temple when the seraphim came with the message of God:
"Behold, your sin is taken away and your sins are forgiven."
How liberating that was. I've talked to psychiatrists who say
that the biggest burden in terms of mental illness of
360
Church Life
people in the United States is the burden of unresolved
guilt. A psychiatrist said to me, "Most people who come to
see me need a priest more than they need a psychiatrist."
I believe that confessing our sins can be an extremely
healthy practice for us. At the same time it also can
become a neurotic preoccupation if we run to each other
with every detail and get carried away with it.
In Galatians 6, what is the difference between the
admonition to "bear one another's burdens" and the
statement that "each one shall bear his own load"?
Certainly on the surface this seems like contradictory
advice. If you were looking for contradictions from the pen
of the apostle, you might expect them to take place in dif-
ferent letters ten years apart, but you don't expect to find
them in the same book or chapter, as we find here.
I think Paul is speaking about two different things. On
the one hand, the call to bear one another's burdens is
very central to the apostle's concept of what the church is
all about. That spirit is to be present among the people of
God, and the accent is on compassion. To have compas-
sion is to enter into another person's feelings, which is a
frequent motif in Paul's teaching — to laugh with those who
laugh, to weep with those who weep. No individual in the
body of Christ is to bear his pain or suffering alone. Each
person in the body of Christ is part of a community that we
celebrate and confess in the Apostles' Creed. This involves
a communion of saints, the uniting together with other
people so that we join in shouldering one another's bur-
dens. If you are burdened, I am called upon to help.
361
R.C. SPROUL
In biblical terms, except for the experiment in the Jeru-
salem church where people tried for a short time to live by
common property, the historical tradition throughout
Scripture places great importance upon the individual's
responsibility to do everything in his power to support him-
self and his family and not be an unnecessary burden on
the rest of the community. As Paul said, at times sounding
a little harsh, "If a man doesn't work, neither shall he eat."
Then we have the strong statement in the New Testa-
ment that if a person fails to provide for his own house-
hold, he is worse than an infidel; that is, he is worse than
an unbeliever. This strong work ethic has its roots deep in
the Old Testament, and it is not to be confused with the
kind of "bootstrap" mentality that sees every person as self-
sufficient. From the very beginning of creation there's a
division of labor evident in the order God has imposed
upon the world, but in that division every person has a sig-
nificant role to play and responsibilities to carry out. When
I as an individual am working to do what God has called
me to do and I run into problems, I can look to you to
help me, but that doesn't mean you do my work for me. I
still have my responsibility.
Is the celebration of Christmas a pagan ritual?
That question comes up every year at Christmastime. In
the first place, there's no direct biblical commandment to
celebrate the birth ofJesus on December 25. There's noth-
ing in the Bible that would even indicate that Jesus was
born on December 25. In fact, there's much in the New
Testament narratives that would indicate that it didn't
362
Church Life
occur during that time of year. It just so happens that on
the twenty-fifth of December in the Roman Empire there
was a pagan holiday that was linked to mystery religions;
the pagans celebrated their festival on December 25. The
Christians didn't want to participate in that, and so they
said, "While everybody else is celebrating this pagan thing,
we're going to have our own celebration. We're going to
celebrate the thing that's most important in our lives, the
incarnation of God, the birth ofJesus Christ. So this is
going to be a time ofjoyous festivities, of celebration and
worship of our God and King."
I can't think of anything more pleasing to Christ than
the church celebrating his birthday every year. Keep in
mind that the whole principle of annual festival and cele-
bration is deeply rooted in ancientJewish tradition. In the
Old Testament, for example, there were times when God
emphatically commanded the people to remember certain
events with annual celebrations. While the New Testament
doesn't require that we celebrate Christmas every year, I
certainly see nothing wrong with the church's entering
into this joyous time of celebrating the Incarnation, which
is the dividing point of all human history. Originally, it was
intended to honor, not Mithras or any of the other mystery
religion cults, but the birth of our King.
Incidentally, Easter can be traced to Ishtar in the ancient
world. But the Christian church coming together to cele-
brate the resurrection ofJesus is hardly something I think
would provoke the wrath of God. I wish we had more
annual festivals. The Roman Catholic Church, for exam-
ple, celebrates with great joy the Feast of the Ascension
every year. Some Protestant bodies do, but most do not. I
363
R.C. SPROUL
wish we would celebrate that great event in the life of
Christ when he was raised* up into heaven to be crowned
King of kings and Lord of lords. We celebrate his birth; we
celebrate his death. I wish we would also celebrate his coro-
nation.
Can you tell us why X is used when it replaces
Christ in Christmas?
The simple answer to your question is that the Xin Christmas
is used like the R in R. C. My given name at birth was Rob-
ert Charles, although before I was even taken home from
the hospital my parents called me by my initials, R. C, and
nobody seems to be too scandalized by that.
Xcan mean so many things. For example, when we want
to denote an unknown quantity, we use the symbol X. It
can refer to an obscene level of films, something that is
X-rated. People seem to express chagrin about seeing
Christ's name dropped and replaced by this symbol for an
unknown quantity X. Every year you see the signs and the
bumper stickers saying, "Put Christ back into Christmas" as
a response to this substitution of the letter Xfor the name
of Christ.
First of all, you have to understand that it is not the
letter Xthat is put into Christmas. We see the English
letter X there, but actually what it involves is the first letter
of the Greek name for Christ. Christos is the New Testa-
ment Greek for Christ. The first letter of the Greek word
Christos is transliterated into our alphabet as an X. That X
has come through church history to be a shorthand sym-
bol for the name of Christ.
364
Church
Life
We don't see people protesting the use of the Greek let-
ter theta, which is an Owith a line across the middle. We
use that as a shorthand abbreviation for God because it is
the first letter of the word Theos, the Greek word for God.
The idea of Xas an abbreviation for the name of Christ
came into use in our culture with no intent to show any dis-
respect for Jesus. The church has used the symbol of the
fish historically because it is an acronym. Fish in Greek
(icthus) involves the use of the first letters for the Greek
phrase 'Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." So the early
Christians would take the first letter of those words and
put those letters together to spell the Greek word for fish.
That's how the symbol of the fish became the universal sym-
bol of Christendom. There's a long and sacred history of
the use of Xto symbolize the full name of Christ, and from
its origin, it has meant no disrespect.
What is the most pressing need of the evangelical
church today if she is to make an impact on society?
From my perspective as an educator in the Christian world,
I have a rather limited view of the problems that emerge in
the church and the needs that are most pressing. We have
a sinful tendency to pick our own area of specialty and
make that the most important one and say that's where we
really need to have the energy focused or where the
changes happen. Like everybody else, that's where I am.
I happen to believe that the most urgent need right now
among evangelical Christians, if they're ever going to make
an impact in this world, is at the level of adult education.
For Christians to grow to maturity, they have to think like
365
R.C. SPROUL
Christians. To behave in the fullness of maturity as effec-
tive, principled disciples df Christ, they need to gain an in-
depth understanding of the Word of God. The Bible, I
think, echoes that sentiment again and again in the numer-
ous passages that exhort us to be mature in our under-
standing. At times the author of Hebrews heavily rebukes
the Christian community by saying that they had spent too
much time as babes in Christ; they were too content with
milk and were not moving on to solid meat. If we're going
to make an impact in our culture, we have to be spiritually
mature.
Let me put it this way: Children don't make a lot of
impact in the changing of a nation. They don't create the
values and the structures of the nation in which we live. I
think that has a carryover spiritually. We have to grow to
adulthood as Christians before we're ever going to have
any kind of significant impact on the culture.
According to the most comprehensive study/poll about
religion ever conducted in the United States, we should
be in the greatest revival this country has ever experi-
enced. About 65 million people in the United States
claim to be born-again Christians. And yet that same
study shows little or no measurable impact by that group
on the shaping of the social institutions and the struc-
tures of our nation. How is it possible that a block of
people that strong does not make its influence felt more
significantly in the shaping of our nation? My conclusion
is that we haven't yet understood the biblical values our-
selves and haven't come to that depth of understanding
that provides maturity for leadership.
366
Church Life
What is the most crucial issue confronting
the church today?
I'm convinced that the most crucial issue for today's
church is its own belief in the deity of Christ. This may
seem like an obvious truth; after all, Christ's deity is foun-
dational to the Christian faith. But in the history of the
church, the issue of the deity of Christ has been on the
center stage of conflict within the church for four centu-
ries: the fourth century, the fifth century, the nineteenth
century, and now the twentieth century.
It was very fashionable one hundred years ago, with the
rise of so-called modern historical critical scholarship, to
raise questions about the church's faith in its Lord, its faith
in the deity of Christ himself. There was a whole school of
theologians who had many good things to say about Jesus.
They appreciated his ethical teaching, and they applauded
his agenda for social concern. But they believed that the
New Testament portrait ofJesus, which emphasized his
deity and his work of cosmic redemption through giving
an atonement and being raised from the dead and per-
forming miracles, was a manifestation of prescientific,
rather naive first-century people who were very much influ-
enced by unsophisticated varieties of mythology.
In the nineteenth century there was a major crisis not
only in the secular world but in the church itself that one
twentieth-century theologian has called (accurately, I
believe) "a crisis of unbelief." And that crisis is by no
means over. In many cases the issue is underground
because there is still common courtesy. People expect
someone who is a church member or particularly a clergy-
367
R.C. SPROUL
man to at least give lip service to the deity of Christ. It is
still a dangerous thing for* a minister to come out boldly
and publicly deny the deity of Christ. That happened a few
years ago in one mainline denomination, and overnight it
was in Time magazine. The secular world was astonished to
hear religious people denying the very heart of their own
religion. But if you get outside the public eye and get into
the inner machinations of the academic environment of
the Christian church, into the Christian colleges and
seminaries, then you hear issues of Christ's deity openly
debated and in many cases denied by professors. So I think
that what is at stake — the greatest issue at stake — for the
Christian church today is Christ. Do we affirm his lordship
and his deity?
368
14
Marriage and Family
And Adam said:
"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh.
..."
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
GENESIS 2:23-24
Marriage and Family
(8iaesti©in§ in This Section:
What should make Christian marriages distinctive?
For those who are engaged to be married, what are the most
important things to be discovering about each other?
As a minister, would you marry a believer and a nonbeliever?
Why is it important for us to take wedding vows in a formal
ceremony?
Does God frown upon interracial marriages?
What should we conclude about the polygamy practiced by Old
Testament heroes?
What is the biblical idea of a godly Christian marriage?
Ephesians 4.3 says, "Make it your aim to be at one in the Spirit and
you will be at peace with one another." How does this translate into
daily practical experience in the marriage relationship?
I need to know how to deal with my non-Christian husband. Do I go
to church and leave him home?
How does a woman find dignity as a housewife and mother in today's
career-minded society?
What Scriptures can a Christian wife and mother use as guidelines for
her responsibilities and duties?
371
R.C. SPROUL
What does the Bible say about a mother with small children who is
working outside the home?
May a Christian married couple practice birth control?
If a couple cannot conceive a child and chooses to adopt, does that
indicate that the couple doesn't have enough faith that God would
give them a child of their own?
As Christians, how are we to deal with the sinful lifestyles of
members of our family or guests that come into our home?
My teenagers are beginning to resist going to church. Should they be
forced, and if so, to what age?
How can we help our children cope with peer pressure?
Are there biblical grounds for divorce, and if so, what are they?
Under what conditions can a divorced Christian remarry?
If God's will is to keep a marriage together and all is done by one of
the two people in it, can the obedience and faith of that one
overcome the circumstances and actually save that failing marriage?
Why isn't physical abuse legitimate grounds for divorce?
Hypothetically, how would you counsel your daughter if her
children—your grandchildren—had been sexually abused by their
father, and the father was unwilling to receive counseling?
372
Marriage and Family
We see many problems in marriage today. What should
make Christian marriages distinctive?
When we talk about the difference that being a Christian
makes in life, notjust in marriage, we point to the reality
that as Christians we are indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, who
is working within us to give us assistance to be obedient to
the commandments of God. We also realize that simply
because we are Christian, we are by no means exempt from
sin. Christians sin. We all sin and we all continue to sin. So
the fact that we are Christians is no guarantee that our mar-
riage relationships will be what they ought to be.
I've mentioned on many occasions that I'm always dis-
tressed when I hear of pastors who are so zealous to reach
people with Christianity that they make promises I don't
think God ever dreamed of making to people. They will say
things like, "Come to Jesus and all your problems will be
solved." In my experience as a Christian and one who was
suddenly and dramatically converted from a pagan life-
style, I think that my life didn't get complicated until I
became a Christian because now I'm engaged in conflict
such as I never knew before. There is conflict between the
desires that come out of my heart that are not righteous
and what God's Word is saying I should be doing.
If there's any great advantage of being a Christian, it's
the advantage of having at our disposal the wisdom of God.
For any human relationship to survive disputes, disagree-
ments, struggles, and the adjustments that all human rela-
373
R.C. SPROUL
tionships go through requires more than simple moral
character. It requires great wisdom. The wisdom to handle
conflict in human relationships is available to us from the
Word of God. We're told, for example, something as
simple as this: A soft answer turns away wrath. We're
instructed by those principles of wisdom how to avoid the
kind of spirit that destroys relationships. Think for a min-
ute about the gamut of emotions we go through in our
friendships and our marriages. I've always said there's no
human being in the world who can make me more angry
than my wife can. There's no one in the world whose criti-
cism can hurt me more than my wife's because her opin-
ion of me means more to me than anybody else's. I have to
know how to handle my emotions in that very volatile and
vulnerable relationship. The Scriptures teach me that
there is a difference between hurt and grief and bitterness.
I'm allowed to be hurt. I'm allowed to grieve. But I'm not
allowed to be bitter. I'm allowed to be angry, but I'm not
allowed to let the sun go down on my wrath. The applica-
tion of those principles that God gives to us goes a long
way in helping us and many other people through these
rough spots in human relationships.
For those who are engaged to be married, what are the
most important things to be discovering about each
other?
Some statistics tell us that 70 percent of the people who get
married this year will end up divorced. That's a scary
thing. Obviously we're making lots of mistakes in the selec-
tion of marriage partners. Studies indicate that there are
374
Marriage and Family
common problems arising in marriages — problems that
could have been avoided if some understanding had taken
place before the marriage was undertaken.
Specifically, certain items were listed as being the most
cited reasons for the marriages' dissolution. The first one
is sexual problems; the second one is dealing with
finances; and then you get into questions of in-laws; prob-
lems of physical abuse, substance abuse, alcoholism, drug
addiction, and that sort of thing. So I think it's important
to know whether or not you're about to marry someone
who has serious problems of addiction — that's important
to find out.
I also think it's important to get to know his or her fam-
ily because when you marry another person, you are taking
on a family, not just an individual. It's important to
develop relationships with the spouse-to-be 's family and
also to have some understanding of the value system he or
she grew up with. One of the reasons people fight about
money is that regardless of how wealthy the two people are
who come into a union — they could be poverty stricken or
they could be enormously wealthy — every couple has a
finite amount of money. No two people on this planet have
exactly the same value systems when they come together
for marriage. Now let's say we have one hundred dollars to
spend, and you prefer to spend it on a washing machine
and I prefer to spend it on golf clubs. We have a potential
conflict right now. Whatever amount of money we have,
we're going to have disputes about how it should be spent.
I think it's important to set up what those values are before
we enter into marriage. With sexual problems ranking so
high, some frank premarital counseling in that area should
375
R.C. SPROUL
be high priority. The more communication is established
before marriage, the better the patterns of communication
will be after marriage.
As a minister, would you marry a believer and a
nonbeliever; that is, an "unevenly yoked" couple?
The basis for your question obviously is the biblical text
that says we ought not to be yoked unequally with unbeliev-
ers. The assumption, of course, is that this text has direct
reference to marriage. The Bible doesn't explicitly say
that. The Bible doesn't say that a believer is not permitted
to marry an unbeliever. That metaphor of unequal yoking
of oxen in pulling an ox cart is the only reference we have.
Now, I will say that in the tradition of the church the vast
majority of New Testament scholars have understood that
passage to mean precisely that — that it is a biblical prohibi-
tion against the marrying of a Christian to a non-Christian.
This follows in the Old Testament tradition, where the chil-
dren of Israel were called to seek wives from their own
nation — people having the same religious persuasion. The
assumption is that a person's religious commitment, if it is a
genuine one, is of great importance, and if a person is united
in the closest intimate relationship a human being can have
with another human being and they do not share that pro-
found passion and commitment, it can be disastrous for mar-
riage. So the practical wisdom of the church has been, for
the most part, to take a dim view of marrying believers and
unbelievers because it provokes so much difficulty.
We also know that today the whole estate of marriage is
under siege; we've already passed the 50 percent rate of
376
Marriage and Family
divorce. People have enough problems in seeking a
healthy and successful marriage without adding this
extremely difficult point of tension to it.
But you ask me would I, as a minister, perform such a
marriage. As a general rule, I do not. I don't do it because
I'm convinced that God does not allow me to do it. For
example, in the traditional wedding ceremony, in the ser-
vice we use to solemnize weddings, the standard words go
something like this: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here
today in the presence of God and of these witnesses to
unite this man and this woman in the holy bonds of mar-
riage ..." and so on. One of the phrases of the marriage
ceremony reminds us that God not only instituted mar-
riage and ordained and sanctified marriage, but God regu-
lates marriage by his commandments. And so I am not free
to perform the marriage rite for just anybody. In fact, my
own church forbids me from marrying a believer to an
unbeliever except on one occasion, and that is if there's
already been a physical union and a child is to be born. In
those circumstances I would perform a ceremony.
Why is it important for us to take wedding vows in a
formal ceremony?
You'd be surprised how many times people ask me that
question. The attitude frequently expressed today, particu-
larly among young people, is, "What difference does a
piece of paper make? Why do I need to go to the church
or a justice of the peace to make my marriage vows signifi-
cant?" In fact, many people choose to forget about it and
say they're just going to live together. "I make a promise to
377
R.C. SPROUL
her; she makes a promise to me. That's it. If we decide to
break up, then we don't have to go through all the legal
entanglement of the courts and family and church. What's
the significance of this formal ceremony? It seems to be an
act of hypocrisy anyway." There are a couple of things I
need to say about that.
In the first place, a covenant in the biblical sense is some-
thing that is done with witnesses. That's because the very
nature of a covenant is that it is an agreement between two
or more people. That agreement involves a tremendous
amount of trust among those people. It's one thing for me
to say to my wife that I will love her and cherish her and
honor her and be faithful to her privately in the backseat
of a car or on a moonlight walk along the lake. It's another
thing if I make that promise to her publicly.
Notice how the Christian ceremony starts in most tradi-
tions: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here together in
the presence of God and of these witnesses to unite this
man and this woman in the holy bonds of matrimony."
When we go through the ceremony, there are words to this
effect: "We recognize and acknowledge that marriage is
not a human institution that somebody invented as a soci-
etal convention because they thought it was a good idea,
but as Christians we believe and we confess that God
ordained marriage and that God instituted marriage."
We recognize that marriage as a ceremony was sanctified
by Christ's presence and benediction at the wedding feast
at Cana, for example. But then we go on to say in the ser-
vice that we acknowledge that God regulates marriage. He
didn't just invent it and give it to us to handle however we
want, but rather God himself remains the ultimate author-
378
Marriage and Family
ity over marriage. In the establishment of solemn cove-
nants, I believe solemn assemblies is part of that regulative
principle of marriage that comes to us from God and from
sacred Scripture.
We recognize, however, that it doesn't have to be done
in a church. We recognize that marriage is instituted for all
people, whether they're Christians or non-Christians, and
that's why we recognize marriages performed by some civil
authority or an ecclesiastical authority publicly. Without
the witnesses there is no legal covenant, no legal commit-
ment, no formal binding responsibility for me to keep my
promises. This way we do it formally and publicly. We make
that promise, not in the backseat of a car, but before every
authority structure that means anything to us: our friends,
our family, our church, and the state. If I don't take my
promise seriously, or if my friends don't, or if the church
doesn't, or even if the state doesn't, God certainly will. At
least in our culture, even today with the loose laws of
divorce, the state still takes those vows seriously.
Does God frown upon interracial marriages?
Some people insist that the Bible meant for the races to
remain pure, therefore prohibiting any kind of interracial
marriage. Usually two biblical texts are drawn upon to sup-
port that view. One is the fact that Noah had three sons,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. As you recall, Shem received a
patriarchal blessing, and an enlargement of that was given
to Japheth. Ham, because he looked upon his father's
nakedness, was cursed. "Cursed be Canaan" was the male-
diction that Noah pronounced on Ham and his descen-
379
R . C. S P R O U L
dants. Some have neatly contrived from the three sons of
Noah, three survivors of the flood, that this is the historic
basis for the three basic generic types of human beings:
the Caucasian, the Negroid, and the Mongoloid. They
claim that this is the biblical justification for there being a
curse put on the black race, and white people should have
no intermarriage with them. This was cited, for example,
in the early documents of Mormonism, which was a great
embarrassment to them when it was made public a few
years ago.
Others go back to Creation, where we read that God cre-
ated everything "after its kind." People say that this is the
divine order of things in creation, that God made things
according to their kind, and his intent was that they should
stay according to their kind.
In the case of both these arguments, I would say that
that is the flimsiest evidence I can think of to support what
is ultimately a racist view of the matter. I don't see any-
thing, even in Scripture, that would prohibit interracial
marriage other than the problems people might face in
terms of cultural prejudices. Any couple that chooses to
get married in a culture that has a high degree of racism is
asking for all kinds of tension directed against their mar-
riage. If they are willing to do that, it doesn't mean that
they are sinning by going ahead and entering into a mar-
riage covenant.
I think one of the strongest texts that does relate to this
is in the Old Testament, where we read that Moses (who
was the mediator of the old covenant) took to himself a
wife who was a Cushite. A Cushite was an Ethiopian. All of
the evidence that we can construct on Old Testament
380
Marriage and Family
history indicates that Moses' wife was black. We also read
that his sister, Miriam, became very distressed by the fact
that her brother married a Cushite. It was a racist reaction.
Miriam got angry and rebuked Moses. Because of Miriam's
response, God judged Miriam and gave her leprosy. So if
anything, it would seem to me that God frowns upon those
who are racists.
What should we conclude about the polygamy
practiced by Old Testament heroes?
We need to look at several things with respect to the bibli-
cal record. The Bible records that these great saints of the
Old Testament on many occasions not only had more than
one wife but in some cases (including those of David and
Solomon) had hundreds of wives or concubines, which
would seem to be in flagrant disobedience to the biblical
principles of marriage. Polygamy was in fact flagrant dis-
regard of the design for marriage that God set forth in
Creation. I think it's clear not only in the Old Testament
record itself but in how the New Testament appeals to the
Old Testament, saying that marriage was to be monoga-
mous — one wife, one husband. That's the way it was
intended for all generations.
If you look carefully at the opening chapters of Genesis,
you will see that after Cain kills Abel, Adam and Eve have
another son, whose name is Seth. In looking at the geneal-
ogy of these two sons of Adam and Eve, we see that the
descendants of Seth are characterized by godliness and
righteousness. It was out of that line that Methuselah and
381
R.C. SPROUL
ultimately Noah came, as well as Enoch, who was taken
directly into heaven because he walked with God.
If you look at the line of Cain, it reads like a rogues' gal-
lery, just one rascal after another. One of the chief rascals,
whose biographical sketch is included in the early chapters
of Genesis, is a fellow by the name of Lamech, who is distin-
guished for two things. One is the ghastly sword song that
he writes and sings in Genesis, which is a celebration of vio-
lence. Also he is noted for being the first polygamist. The
Bible doesn't say, "He was the first polygamist and this is a
bad thing." It just mentions that he was the first polyga-
mist, but it does so in the context of describing the radical
expansion of human corruption and of fallenness. The
Old Testament implies that polygamy was in defiance of
the law of God.
Obviously, God did not call down these Old Testament
heroes for their polygamy or punish them for it. He dealt
with their extreme fallenness through forbearance. This
forbearance ended with the appearance of Christ and the
new covenant.
I've been married for a little over four years now and
recently I've come to understand my Christian faith a
little more. And I want to know, What is the biblical
idea of a godly Christian marriage?
Some scriptural principles apply to every marriage. One of
the elements of the marriage service that we find in the tra-
ditional ceremony of marriage that crosses denominations
is that when we come together for marriage we say, "Dearly
beloved, we are assembled together here in the presence
382
Marriage and Family
of God and of these witnesses," etc. We recognize the fact
that marriage is something that was instituted by God,
ordained of God, and given sacred approval of Christ by
his presence at the wedding feast at Cana. But we have a
line in the traditional marriage that is often overlooked,
and that is this statement: "That marriage is regulated by
God's commandments." It's not simply that God ordained
and instituted marriage and gave it to us as a gift and said,
"Here is the gift, now you go and use it however you want
to." Rather, what God ordains and institutes, he also exer-
cises his sovereignty over within the framework of mar-
riage. Obviously, a marriage that is to last has to be based
upon a kind of mutual trust and fidelity. That's why when
we take the vows, vows meaning that I commit myself body
and soul to my wife as long as we both shall live, she has a
reason and a right to trust that I am going to keep my
word. God holds us responsible for that kind of commit-
ment so that at the heart of every union between two
people is this principle of trust. That's why the Bible takes
such a dim view of adultery, for example, because it is the
supreme act of infidelity that breaks the trust and breaks
the faith upon which the marriage is built.
Of course, there are guidelines in terms of how the fam-
ily is supposed to be run, even though it is very unpopular
in our day and age. I don't think we can escape the fact
that the New Testament gives the responsibility for head-
ship or leadership in the home to the husband. That
responsibility is not a license for tyranny. It is not a license
for domination or for destroying the dignity of the woman,
but rather it's a burden. It's a task where the buck stops
with the husband in terms of giving leadership and direc-
383
R.C. SPROUL
tion in the home. But it's still in relationship of mutual
love and respect of a vital -partnership in the home.
These are just a few of the guidelines. Of course, the
Bible has much more to say about the patterns upon which
a healthy marriage is to be established.
The Phillips translation of Ephesians 4:3 says, "Make
it your aim to be at one in the Spirit, and you will be
bound together in peace/' How does this translate into
daily practical experience in the marriage relationship?
The false prophets of Israel cried, "Peace, peace" when there
was no peace! It's a lot easier to declare a peace than to
achieve a peace. It's also one thing to be at peace when
you're all by yourself and another to be at peace when you're
in a relationship with another person. Of course, there are a
lot of people who don't have peace even when they're alone.
As soon as we get into the marriage relationship, which
is the closest possible union any two people can have,
many things can disturb the peace of that relationship. Any
kind of conflict can come along and upset the peaceful-
ness that should be at the heart of a marriage. I am abso-
lutely convinced that it takes work on the part of both
people for peace to reign in marriage. It's not natural for
two human beings to spend a long time in close proximity
with each other without some conflicts emerging. No two
people in this world have exactly the same agenda, value
system, tastes, likes, and dislikes. There are inevitable
points of conflict, and it is conflict that upsets peace. I
think that when we strive for oneness in spirit, we have to
work to establish peace.
384
Marriage and Family
We have to learn the fruit of the Spirit that promotes
peace; to have a spirit within ourselves of gentleness, kind-
ness, love, and, particularly, patience. Those things do not
come automatically. They don't come by nature, because
by nature we tend to be impatient. We have to work at it.
And just as diplomats have an earnest desire to stop con-
flicts from emerging on an international level in terms of
warfare, so we have to become diplomats in our home, that
is, diplomats who have a concern for the feelings of our
partners.
I think my wife, for example, is the most sensitive
woman in the United States of America. She has to be
because I'm one of the most insensitive people in the
world. I get off on a cloud and get like the wacky, absent-
minded professor. That can drive anybody crazy. But my
wife works at maintaining peace and practicing diplo-
macy, and that's been an example to me. Instead of let-
ting an annoyance be fanned into a major conflict and a
fight, we begin to come to understanding. One of the
great principles is this: Anytime you see anger, look for
the pain behind it. It's a lot easier to deal with pain than
with anger. Anger breeds conflict. Dealing with pain
brings peace.
I need to know how to deal with my non-Christian
husband. Do I go to church and leave him at home?
How do I explain him to the children?
I think the mistake that so many women make when they
are in this situation is that they feel somehow God has
called them to be the husband's conscience, and they end
385
R.C. SPROUL
up nagging their husbands. The most significant thing a
woman can do if her husband is not a Christian is to be the
most godly wife she can possibly be to that man.
I knew a teenage boy who came into my study and an-
nounced that he had assumed for himself the role of the
spiritual leader of the house because his father was not a
Christian. Since his father had neglected the responsibility
of being the priest of the home, this young man said that
he believed the mantle had fallen upon him. I said, "No,
God does not call you to supplant your father's role. If
your father doesn't do what God calls him to do, that is not
a license for you to take his place. God called you to be a
son, not the father."
And so I see wives who say, "OK, my husband is not
doing his duty, so I'm going to be wife and husband. I'm
going to be the priest of the family." I don't think that's
what God wants you to do. What he wants you to do is be a
godly wife to your husband.
It gets particularly sticky when the husband says, "I don't
want you wasting time going to church." Now you have to
struggle with a divided loyalty. You're trying to serve two
masters, as it were. God does call you to submit to the head-
ship of your husband. Some Christians are teaching that
the wife is supposed to obey her husband no matter what
that husband says. Let me stress that that is a ghastly distor-
tion of the teaching of Scripture. No woman is ever to obey
her husband if her husband commands her to do some-
thing that God clearly prohibits.
If your husband (non-Christian or otherwise) forbids
you to do something God commands, you must disobey
him. For example, does God command his people to be in
386
Marriage and Family
his church? The Scripture says that we ought not to forsake
the assembling together of the saints. I would say that that
means you are supposed to be in church on Sunday morn-
ings, and if your husband does not allow you, you will have
to disobey him in order to obey God. But that doesn't
mean God calls you to be in church seven days a week.
What you do, I think, is bend over backwards to make sure
that you are not defying your husband at points where God
has left you free to support him.
How does a woman find dignity as a housewife and
mother in today's career-minded society?
The quest for dignity is not limited to women nor to
women in careers or in the home, but it's a universal quest.
I've been involved in many, many seminars that focus on
the quest of human dignity, and I have found that every
person I have ever talked to wants to be treated with dig-
nity and wants to be sure they have dignity. At the same
time, I have discovered that giving a clear definition to the
concept of dignity is a very difficult task, yet everybody
knows when they have lost dignity.
The woman whose vocation is being a homemaker and a
mother, and that is her career rather than working in the
business community, is feeling sort of a reverse pressure
that other women felt a few years ago when they went into
the business world and were discriminated against for
somehow abandoning their place in the home. Women
today are feeling an imposed guilt for not having a career;
somehow being a homemaker is considered a less-than-
dignified vocation.
387
R.C. SPROUL
Obviously God clearly affirms the dignity of that role
for a woman. The children will rise up and call her
blessed. But when God's Word affirms the dignity or
value of something, that is not always enough for us to
keep our own security about it. It should be enough — if
God says it, that should settle it. But it doesn't settle it
with us. We're feeble, fragile in our feelings, and we can
be made insecure by the culture that looks down upon
this particular role.
I would say that the single most important individual in
maintaining the dignity of a woman in the home is the
husband in the home. If the husband demeans or ignores
or puts down or treats as insignificant the labor of his wife,
he becomes the principal destroyer of this woman's dig-
nity. And so the first thing that has to be done to restore
the dignity of the woman in the home is having the hus-
band and children create an environment of appreciation
and verbalize that appreciation.
Somebody once made the statement that the negative
input of one criticism requires nine compliments to be
overcome in our personalities. That's certainly true. One
criticism of a wife in the home can devastate her self-
esteem in that role, particularly when the rest of the cul-
ture is trying to tell her that homemaking and mothering
are no longer significant enterprises.
What Scriptures can a Christian wife and mother use as
guidelines for her responsibilities and duties?
First of all, you are a human being, and you're a person
who's been claimed by Christ. You are in the kingdom, so the
388
Marriage and Family
Scriptures you use to learn of your responsibilities and duties
before God start at Genesis 1 : 1 and end with the last verse in
the book of Revelation. All of the Word of God is to instruct
you in terms of your duties and responsibilities. It's abso-
lutely vital that Christians learn to live by principles and that
those principles come to us from the Scriptures. The basic
principles of life apply to us whatever our situation is,
whether it's wife or husband, mother or father, or single.
The book of Ephesians sets forth some specific responsi-
bilities for a wife in her marital relationship and also in her
parental responsibilities.
One of the most famous and controversial verses is the
command that God gives through the apostle Paul for
wives to be subject to their husbands. That has created
quite a lot of debate and also a lot of misunderstanding.
Sometimes qualifiers for general principles are given to us
in other Scriptures. For example, the Bible tells us that
we're all responsible to obey the civil magistrates, but there
are occasions when a Christian not only may disobey but
must disobey the civil magistrates, as the apostles did when
the Sanhedrin forbade them to preach the gospel. The
apostle asked whether we should obey man or God. Any-
time a husband commands a wife to do something that
God forbids or does not allow her to do something that
God commands, not only may that wife refuse to be in sub-
mission to her husband but she must disobey him. She first
of all has her own responsiblitiy to live her life before God.
That text in Ephesians should never be used as a license
for men to tyrannize their wives. We know that some men
have taken that text and used it to beat women down and
S89
R.C. SPROUL
try to bring them into a slavish obedience to themselves,
something the text never intended.
Also, Proverbs 31 gives you a great view of the entrepre-
neurial woman.
What does the Bible say about a mother with small
children who is working outside of the home?
The Bible describes the godly woman in the classical state-
ment in the book of Proverbs (chapter 31). If we look at
that as a job description of a godly wife, I think it would be
threatening to just about every woman in the world
because that woman is the entrepreneur's entrepreneur.
Not only is she being a wife and a mother but she is at the
gate early in the morning. She is performing services, and
she's involved in a business enterprise.
I think that a mother's first responsibility is to the young
children in the home, particularly the infants. If the
mother can take care of the children and also be involved
in a career, that's something that the woman has to work
out between herself, her family, and God because the Bible
does not give a prohibition or an explicit commandment
regarding this. There is a lot of emotion about it in the
Christian world, and there are those who argue that every
woman has a right to be a mother and a career person at
the same time.
We are supposed not only to study these matters in
terms of what God reveals to us in Scripture but to pay
attention to what used to be called natural law. I happen to
believe that God reveals himself not only in the Bible but
also in the scientific laboratory, that all truth is God's
390
Marriage and Family
truth, and that all truth meets at the top. I say that for this
reason: One of the things that gives me an uneasy feeling
about young mothers working very soon after they have
children is the studies indicating that a child's dependence
on the mother is extremely powerful from the time of
birth until the child is five years old. In other words, the
studies indicate that the single most important contribut-
ing factor to the development of a personality of a human
being from birth to age five is the mother's relationship to
the child. From age six to age ten it is the father's relation-
ship to that child, and then from age eleven to age eigh-
teen it is the child's peer relationships.
If that research is valid and accurate, then it gives me
pause. I don't want to just say, "Hey, do your thing and do
whatever you want to do," because caring for a child is an
extremely important enterprise. I don't think that the
Bible says that only the mother has the responsibility to
take care of the child. The father also has this responsibil-
ity; we just tacitly assume it's OK for the father to be at
work eight hours a day. Does that mean that the mother
has to stay home? We need to pay attention to all the infor-
mation. The Bible doesn't give us a simple formula for
working out family life.
May a Christian married couple practice birth control?
I presume you mean by that artificial methods of birth con-
trol. That's one of those issues in Christian ethics where
there is a seriously divided house in the history of the
church. The Roman Catholic Church, as you are aware,
has taken a very dim view of artificial birth control. Papal
391
R.C. SPROUL
encyclicals as recently as the last decade have reinforced
the Roman Catholic prohibition of artificial means of birth
control on certain theological grounds.
Protestantism has allowed for various types of birth con-
trol, some allowing almost any kind of artificial birth con-
trol, others drawing a line between those that are
contraceptive and those that are in fact abortive. Certain
varieties of IUDs have been discovered to be not so much
contraceptive as abortive inasmuch as they destroy the fer-
tilized egg. That has created an ethical crisis among Protes-
tants who are profoundly opposed to abortion of any type.
The basic issue between Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism has focused on what is the legitimate use of
sexual intercourse within marriage. Historically Rome has
taken the position that the goal of sexual intercourse and
the justification for the sexual act is procreation. So any-
thing that artificially prevents the possibility of procreation
changes the intended purpose of the sexual relationship,
making it therefore an unnatural type of act.
Protestants on the other hand have tended to include in
the legitimate use of sex between married people the
simple pleasure of the enjoyment of the sexual relation-
ship — the intimacy it brings and the fact that we are physi-
cally composed in such a way that sexual intercourse is by
natural design pleasurable.
Theoretically, God could have invented sex in a way that
it wasn't pleasurable but merely a biological function nec-
essary for reproduction. So some are saying that we have
the right to carry out the mandate of creation, to have
dominion over the earth, and if we can plan our families
through this, then it's all right. But even among certain
392
Marriage and Family
conservative Protestants there are those who raise a ques-
tion at this level: Is artificial birth control against nature?
Does it violate natural law by bringing into the sexual rela-
tionship a hindrance to the full expression of it? It's for
that reason that many Protestants say that this is wrong.
If a couple cannot conceive a child and chooses to
adopt, does that indicate that the couple doesn't have
enough faith that God would give them a child of their
own?
I would say emphatically not; that would not be any neces-
sary indication that the people didn't have enough faith. It
probably is an indication that the people didn't have
enough biological equipment to bear a child. It's like the
man born blind that we find in the Gospel ofJohn; was
this man born blind because he didn't have enough faith?
Obviously not, although he did receive his sight later on.
People might point to that and say once he got the faith,
then he got his eyes, and if people would just have enough
faith, then they'll get the baby.
We find occasions in Scripture where people who are
described as people of faith do not get the fullness of their
desires completed. We know that Paul prayed for the relief
from his thorn in the flesh. Whether it was physical or what-
ever it was, it still was something that bothered him, and he
prayed. If any man ever prayed in faith, it was the apostle
Paul. He prayed three times for God to remove this occa-
sion for suffering from him, and as you know, God said no.
His answer to Paul was, "My grace is sufficient for you." It
393
R.C. SPROUL
wasn't a matter of a lack of faith that caused God not to
alleviate this suffering for Paul.
Also in the New Testament we see that Peter is arrested
and put into prison, and the disciples go into the upper
room and pray as hard as they can for him. Even as they
were praying, an angel opened the prison doors and Peter
came to the prayer meeting. They at least had enough
faith to make that request, and Peter was released.
The apostle James was also arrested, but his execution
was carried to completion. The Bible doesn't say that the
other apostles prayed for Peter and didn't pray for James.
And I can't imagine that they didn't pray just as earnestly
for James as they did for Peter. For whatever reasons, God
was not pleased to say yes to that particular prayer.
We see that Paul left one of his comrades sick. Obviously
he had prayed for him and did not get the answer he had
hoped for any more than Jesus got his request in the Gar-
den of Gethsemane.
You may say that these are not the same as having
babies, but it's the same principle. In both Old and New
Testaments we have cases of barren women being given
that special gift of grace and becoming pregnant (Hannah
and Elizabeth, for instance). Sarah, in her barrenness, was
given a special supernatural deliverance from it, but not all
of the faithful of God's people who were barren were able
at one point in this world to have children. It's one of
those things that you can't set up a law for. There is ample
evidence throughout the history of believers everywhere
that lack of certain blessings is not always — or even most of
the time — the result of a lack of faith.
394
Marriage and Family
As Christians, how are we to deal with the sinful
lifestyles of members of our family or guests that come
into our home?
We are called to be gracious people. God has not called us
to be the policemen of the world. I have run into this prob-
lem many times in Christian families where one member
of the family is a Christian and the other members aren't
Christians. Sometimes Christians become so intolerant and
judgmental that they give a bad impression to the rest of
the family by their negative, critical behavior. When they
do that, they feel completelyjustified because that to which
they are reacting is indeed a sinful lifestyle. We're often
blind to our own intolerance at that point, forgetting who
we are and where we have come from and the fact that the
only way we can exist in the family of God is by grace. I
think that Christians need to remember who they are.
We need to let people know that, whether we approve or
disapprove of their lifestyle, we are for them as people.
When my daughter went from junior high to senior high,
she came home one night and I asked her, "Well, how do
you like high school?" She said, "I don't like it at all." And I
asked, "What's the matter? You loved junior high." And she
replied, "When I was in junior high, I felt like our teachers
were for us. They disciplined us, they gave us homework,
they rebuked us and all of that, but somehow they commu-
nicated to us that they were behind us and they really
cared about us. I get the feeling in this school that the
teachers aren't for us." That's the critical thing in terms of
these relationships because you can do more for people by
395
R.C. SPROUL
loving them than you ever will be able to do by judging
them.
Keep in mind that the principal power by which people
are brought under conviction of sin is the Holy Spirit. You
are not the Holy Spirit, and neither am I. Now that doesn't
mean that we are therefore trying so hard to get along
with them that we endorse and embrace everything they
do. We don't have to be judgmental to communicate that
we live a different way. In fact, we have to go overboard to
communicate our love.
My teenagers are beginning to resist going to church.
Should they be forced, and if so r to what age?
Being a parent is one of the most difficult and thrilling
experiences that any human being ever has the privilege of
going through. Exercising discipline over our children
many times requires the wisdom of Solomon. I know this
sounds like terrible theology, but sometimes I think raising
children is 10 percent skill and 90 percent luck. It's very
difficult to discern how much pressure we can apply before
we are provoking our children and making matters worse.
I've dealt with young people whose parents are so pushy
and demanding that their very harshness is the thing driv-
ing them away from the church.
The general answer to your question is that when you
have children, you have a responsibility under God to raise
them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In my
church we baptize infants, and when we do, as a congrega-
tion we make a promise before God to raise these children
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Even if you
396
Marriage and Family
don't practice infant baptism, that responsibility is still
there. The Bible tells us that we ought never to neglect the
assembling together of the saints, which is corporate wor-
ship on Sunday morning. I take that to mean that it is my
obligation as a Christian, as a member of the covenant
community, to be in worship on Sunday morning with my
household. So it is my responsibility to see to it that my
children are in church. It is also my responsibility to be
sensitive and gentle and not tyrannical, so I have to some-
how find that fine line of being firm but loving, gentle,
and kind in that firmness. Again, I am accountable to God
for their being there for the nurture and instruction of the
things of God on Sunday morning. So my answer to the
first part of your question is yes.
I don't like the word "force" because to some people that
means baseball bats and child abuse. That's not what I'm talk-
ing about. I am talking about parental leadership whereby
the authority resides in the parents and you see to it that the
authority is carried out. You asked to what age: I would say as
long as the children are under your roof and under your
authority as part of your family unit. I would encourage you
to make it a special point of concern to do everything in
your power to get your kids to church and to make it an
attractive time for them rather than a bad experience.
How can we help our children cope with
peer pressure?
You're not asking me theology anymore — now you're ask-
ing me to do magic! I'm not sure I'm equipped to deal
with that. I breathed a sigh of relief when our youngest
397
R.C. SPROUL
child turned twenty-one, having survived those teenage
years.
The research coming out of the scientific community
has indicated some very sobering things to us. You can't
absolutize these things, but as a general pattern, the single
most important relationship that shapes a child's identity,
from birth to age five, is that child's relationship to its
mother. That doesn't mean that the other relationships are
unimportant, but the mother is of supreme importance at
that point. Then from age six to about twelve, the single
most important relationship that child has is with the
father.
But from age thirteen onward a child's most significant
relationships are with his or her peers. So there is a very
real sense in which our ability to continue to shape the
child's attitudes and value system is severely limited once
they enter those teenage years.
As a Christian and a theologian, I do not believe in luck.
But 90 percent of raising children is luck! You do every-
thing you can, and then you stand back and hope for the
best — you trust them to God. You try to instill principles in
your children. And one of the most important things par-
ents can do with a teenager is to keep the lines of commu-
nication open. Sometimes that can be very difficult. When
they hit thirteen, each of our kids started to live in a cave
their room. They'd come home from school, disappear
into the cave, and I'd hear music coming out of there. I'd
wonder whether there was any human being alive up
there, and it was very difficult to get them to come out of
the cave and enter into family life. Those were hard times,
and we had to persevere through them. Vesta and I used to
398
Marriage and Family
comfort each other by saying, "This is just a phase. If we
can survive it, they'll survive it." But keep the lines of com-
munication open, and particularly when they are teen-
agers, make sure those lines of communication run both
ways.
Kids will talk, but they need the opportunity. They need
to be sure they can come to their parents. Make sure your
kids know that you support more than criticize them and
that they can count on you when times are difficult or
confusing.
Are there any biblical grounds for divorce, and
if so f what are they?
A lot of the debate over divorce has to do with the way we
interpret and handle Jesus' teaching on the subject. In
Matthew's Gospel, for example, the Pharisees come to
Jesus for a decision and they are trying to trick him into
speaking against the law of Moses. They ask, "Is it lawful to
put away one's wife in the case of infidelity?"
At that time we know from our own historical research
that there was an ongoing debate in Israel between two
major rabbinical schools, the school of Shammai, which
was a very conservative school, and the school of Hillel,
which took a more liberal approach to interpreting the
Old Testament law. The liberal view allowed divorce on
many grounds, giving a very broad interpretation to the
meaning of "unclean thing" in the Old Testament legisla-
tion. The more conservative school took a very narrow
view of the matter and said that only on the grounds of
adultery could divorce be legitimized in Israel.
399
R . C. SPROUL
To me it seems clear that Jesus does allow divorce in the
case of adultery. On the one hand, he said that if a man
divorces his wife for any other reason than sexual immoral-
ity, then of course he is guilty of sin. So Jesus, at that point,
says that there ought not to be divorce for grounds other
than sexual impurity or immorality.
Then he goes on to say that because of the hardness of
our hearts, the law was given to Moses that did make a pro-
vision for divorce in the Old Testament. He then quotes
the law from Deuteronomy in which the so-called unclean
thing is cited as the legitimate grounds for divorce in the
Old Testament. But Jesus hastens to add this statement:
"But from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8). His ref-
erence back to Creation reminds us of the sanctity of mar-
riage. It's certainly true that the provision for divorce is
given to us because of the hardness of hearts, because of
sin. Because adultery is a sin, when somebody violates mar-
riage through adultery and breaks that trust, then the
sacred vow, and the innocent party in the divorce, is so vio-
lated that the provision is given to them in that context of
fallenness to be engaged lawfully in divorce.
It's obvious that Jesus is rebuking the liberal view of
divorce that was prevalent in his own day. I think that Jesus
does remind us that the original intention of marriage did
not include divorce. He acknowledges that there is a
ground, and he is not criticizing God for making this allow-
ance in the Old Testament. People are fallen, and God
does condescend to the fact that people commit sins
against marriage that are serious enough to be grounds for
dissolving the marriage. That sin is sexual infidelity.
I think one other ground for divorce given by the apos-
400
Marriage and Family
tie Paul in the Corinthian correspondence is the case of
the willful and irreparable separation of the unbeliever
(1 Cor. 7:15). Those are the only two grounds I find in
Scripture.
There seems to be a difference of opinion as to
whether a divorced Christian can ever remarry. When,
and under what conditions, is this permissible?
It is difficult to sort out Jesus' teaching on this, partly
because, when he addressed the problem, it was in the con-
text of settling a dispute between different rabbinical
schools of the day. The religious scholars came to Jesus
and asked about the lawfulness of divorcing — a man divorc-
ing his wife for this cause or that cause. Jesus, in respond-
ing to that, reminded the Pharisees that Moses did give a
provision for divorce in the Old Testament, but that at the
same time the original design for marriage did not include
the concept of divorce. He acknowledged Moses' provi-
sion, but he's not rebuking Moses for doing that, for Moses
was simply an agent of God at that point. So God, in the
old covenant, did clearly give provision for divorce.
However, because Jesus speaks to that and reminds them
that the original purpose was no divorce, some have con-
cluded that whatJesus was doing was removing the Old
Testament provision for divorce and saying that there's no
justification for divorce whatsoever.
Now how you view divorce will have tremendous bearing
on how you view the question of remarriage. If you take
the position that divorce is never legitimate, then you
would have to say that the remarriage of a divorced person
401
R.C. SPROUL
is never legitimate either. So before you can talk about the
legitimacy of remarriage, you first have to settle whether or
not there are any legitimate grounds for divorce.
I take the position that there are in fact legitimate
grounds for divorce: Sexual infidelity is one, and the other
one is separation of the unbeliever. Paul says that if an
unbelieving spouse wants out and departs, the believer is
then free. Now he doesn't define what free is. Does that
mean free just to let him go and then live a life of celibacy
and singleness? Some people take that view. I think that
Paul means free from the marriage contract, from the
oaths and obligations; that person is now considered single
and, I would say, free to remarry.
So I take the position that an innocent party in divorce
is free to remarry. Now, when we say innocent or guilty, we
recognize that everybody contributes to the breakdown of
a marriage. By "guilty party" I mean the one who commit-
ted the sin serious enough to dissolve the marriage. But I
would also say that even the guilty party can get remarried
if there is authentic repentance.
In i John 5:14-15 it talks about asking things according
to God's will and our desires will be answered. If God's
will is to keep a marriage together and all is done by
one of the two, can the obedience and faith of that
one overcome the circumstances and actually save that
failing marriage?
The easy answer to your question is, of course the actions
of one can be the springboard for the saving of the mar-
riage. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that it abso-
402
Marriage and Family
lutely will in every instance and in that way. Many times in
marriage counseling one spouse is present while the other
person isn't willing to be a participant. It certainly makes it
a lot easier to effect reconciliation and a healthy marriage
if both parties are willing to work at it, but the fact that one
person changes does change the nature of the relation-
ship. It's almost impossible that the total relationship won't
change. It might get worse, but it will certainly change.
When one person changes, the other partner who is living
in such close proximity is also bound to move somewhat in
response to the change of the first party.
Now let's relate this to the issue of the promise of
1 John, that if we pray according to the will of God and act
according to the will of God, can we be sure that our
desires will be met and that God will bless that marriage? I
think we have to be very careful to understand that passage
in light of everything the New Testament teaches about
prayer and the nature of the will of God, both of which are
highly complex. The Bible tells us that if any two people
agree on any one thing, that it will be done for them. Is
that meant in an absolute sense? Then all we would have to
do is have two of us agree that we'd like to see a cure for
cancer and the end of all war in the world and the return
ofJesus tonight. If we agreed on that, God would have to
do it to be true to his word. That's obviously not what he
meant. That's a reference to the Old Testament concept of
witnesses agreeing, witnesses who are informed by the
Word of God and witnesses who are in touch with the
revealed Word of God. It also refers to what God has spo-
ken and what he has had recorded in sacred Scripture.
When we pray according to Scripture, we're not going to
403
R.C. SPROUL
pray that God is going to bring things to pass until certain
other things take place first. We're simply telling him our
desires rather than praying according to his explicitly
revealed will.
Also, to pray according to the will of God means to pray
according to the precepts of God, according to the law of
God. Here's where you say God wills the fruition of a good
marriage. What we mean by that is that God has com-
manded that our marriages be healthy and wholesome and
righteous. Certainly I think we can take comfort from the
verse that if we do everything in our power to obey what
God has ordered in terms of our responsibilities in mar-
riage, while praying for the salvation of marriage, we have
every reason to be optimistic that that desire will be hon-
ored by God.
Why isn't physical abuse legitimate grounds
for divorce?
I don't know why God has not included wife abuse or hus-
band abuse as grounds for divorce. I only know that he
hasn't. I also have to say very candidly that if I were God,
I would make that a grounds for divorce because abuse
within marriage is a dreadful reality. If anything is a viola-
tion of human dignity and of the sacred vows of marriage,
it is physical abuse of another person. I've wondered
myself many times why God doesn't include that under his
list of legitimate grounds for divorce.
I do know that we have options short of divorce in these
situations. Obviously, if we're talking about a Christian fam-
ily (and this is something that does take place in Christian
404
Marriage and Family
homes) , this is a situation in which the discipline of the
church needs to be applied fully in order to protect the
person who is being abused; the restraint of ecclesiastical
authority is to be used in that situation. If that fails or if
people don't even have that available to them because
they're outside the church, there are other avenues of safety
and protection. Many people use the legal system. I've coun-
seled women in the past to call the police. If worse comes to
worse, throw the abuser in jail because assault and battery
just can't be tolerated in the home or on the streets, in the
school or in the church. We do have provisions in our civil
law to protect people from that kind of assault.
There are grounds in a Christian community for at least
temporary separation if the abusing partner refuses to
mend their ways. Maybe there is no provision for divorce
in these cases because God sees that this problem, as seri-
ous and severe as it is, can be overcome. In many cases, we
have seen marriages redeemed after people have repented
and overcome destructive patterns of behavior. But it's an
extremely serious problem in our culture and one that is
only beginning to come to light, just as child abuse has
come to light in the past few years.
Hypothetically, how would you counsel your daughter
regarding the divorce issue if her children—your
grandchildren—had been sexually abused by their
father, and the father was unwilling to receive
counseling?
I hope that question remains always and forever a hypothet-
ical one, but it is certainly a reality for some people. If what
405
R.C. SPROUL
you just described happened to my daughter, or to any-
body else's daughter, and.they came to me for pastoral
counsel, and the husband refused to submit to counseling,
to church discipline, and all of the other avenues that you
try to explore, then in all probability my counsel would be
for the wife to seek a divorce. I think she would have bibli-
cal grounds. The sexual abuse of the children would be a
sexual violation of the marriage. I think it is a form of adul-
tery. If it were done in an impenitent way, I would think
that the woman would not only have the right but would
have good reason to instigate proceedings for her own pro-
tection as well as for the protection of the children. It
would probably be wise for her to exercise her biblical
option of divorce.
No two situations like this are exactly the same, and so I
hesitate to give general advice about how to deal with it.
Divorce is certainly not the first solution, but I do think
that there are times when ministers ought to counsel in
that direction (given the assumption that there are such
things as legitimate grounds for divorce).
I've seen women who have been victims of repeated infi-
delities by their husbands or who have known that a sexu-
ally abusive situation existed in their home. But some
women feel that the Word of God really doesn't give them
the option of divorce. And just because we have the right
to do something, it's not always wise to exercise that right.
The Bible doesn't say you have to get divorced in such a
situation, but I think it does say that you may. The sexual
abuse of children is a heinous crime against the entire
family, and it requires strong measures.
406
*5
Career Issues
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of activities,
but it is the same God who works all in all.
I CORINTHIANS 12:4-6
Career Issues
(Qtwestioms in This Sections:
I became a lawyer nine years ago, before I was a Christian. I'm won-
dering now how I can know whether or not I should stay in a profes-
sion that was chosen years ago on the basis of personal strengths and
desires, and how 1 can trust God for the radical change that might be
involved in a midlife career change.
I've been wrestling with a career decision. What thinking processes
should Christians use in decision making?
What is the biblical concept, if any, of retirement?
Is God's highest calling full-time Christian ministry, certain spiritual
activities such as prayer or witnessing, and Bible study? Are they
higher priorities than the everyday activities of a person in business?
What does it mean to be called into the ministry?
How should Christian values impact business ethics in the office?
What do you think of committed Christians being in partnership with
nonbelievers, particularly nonbelievers who are hostile to the Lord?
Do labor unions pose ethical problems for Christians?
How can an employer show employees Christlike dignity?
409
Career Issues
I became a lawyer nine years ago, before I was a Chris-
tian. I'm wondering now how I can know whether or
not I should stay in a profession that was chosen years
ago on the basis of personal strengths and desires, and
how I can trust God for the radical change that might
be involved in a midlife career change.
The first person the Bible speaks of as being filled with the
Holy Spirit was a man by the name of Bezalel who along with
Oholiab was chosen of God to be an artisan and craftsman to
fashion the utensils and the furniture for the building of the
tabernacle. This is important for us to realize because so
often we think that the only vocations or tasks that receive
the benediction of God or the anointing of the Spirit are
those that are associated with full-time Christian ministry.
The very term vocation comes from the Latin vocare,
which means "to call." We believe that God calls people to
various vocations, and he does that calling not only in a
sacred environment but also in a secular one. The fact that
you chose a particular career or vocation before you
became a Christian does not indicate that you are necessar-
ily out of the vocation that God would have you in now
that you are a Christian. Frequently I see that when people
are converted, the first question they have is, Does that
mean I'm supposed to stop the enterprise I'm in now?
Well, if you're in some illegitimate enterprise — if you're a
thief, for instance — then of course you have to stop being a
thief. But we need to remember that most likely Bezalel or
411
R.C. SPROUL
Oholiab were already gifted and given talents by God for
their professions before they were filled with the Spirit. It
would seem that, in his wisdom, God would call people
into careers and ministries for which they have been gifted
all along; sometimes we have discovered the best use of
our natural gifts before we become Christians, and some-
times that comes after conversion.
There certainly are occasions on which God does lead a
person into a new career — and sometimes that change is
radical. Who's a better example of that than Moses? Moses
was an old man before God called him to a position of
leadership. He'd spent virtually his whole life as a shep-
herd in the wilderness before he became a statesman and a
leader of a nation. I think of a couple of other men who
are famous in our time. Winston Churchill and Douglas
MacArthur, two of the most prominent individuals in the
twentieth century, did not embark upon the things that
made them famous until after they reached what we would
call retirement age. I support the people who ask them-
selves at age thirty-five or forty, or even fifty, if it's time for
a new career, a new vocation. There's nothing in the Bible
that says you have to stay in one field all your life. So often,
the decisions of career and vocation are made way too
early, and we get locked into professions that are not at all
fulfilling for us or the best use of our gifts.
I've been wrestling with a career decision. What thinking
processes should Christians use in decision making?
Unfortunately, in today's Christian environment the whole
idea of thinking has become suspect. It's as if using our
412
Career Issues
natural abilities of intellect — particularly in areas of career
somehow represents a lack of faith. The concept is that we're
supposed to entrust our career and our vocation to God, and
God will do the thinking for us; God will show us through
some kind of miraculous sign what he wants us to do.
I think the most significant thing we're called to do when
we're seeking the will of God in our lives, whether it's for
our vocation or for our choice of a mate or where we're to
live, is to think. Now, how are we to think? In what way are we
to think? The Bible tells us that we ought to make a sober
analysis of our gifts and talents. We recognize in doing so
that it is God who gives us the gifts. It is God who gives us
the talent, and it is God whom we are trying to serve and
whom we want to please. That's why we want to discern what
his will is for our vocation. How do we make a sober analysis
of our gifts and talents? We have to think, and we have to
think deeply and accurately. We can get some help in this
process. We are encouraged by Scripture to seek the counsel
of others because usually our gifts are recognized by the
body of Christ. People in our church, in our family, and in
our circle of friends have a tendency to call attention to the
gifts we display. I also believe strongly in making use of those
people who are highly skilled in helping us discern what our
gifts and talents are. There are a lot of Christian vocational-
counseling organizations available.
Sometimes we get forced into patterns ofjobs or careers
where we have the skills, we have the talents, but we really
don't have the desire or the motivation to apply ourselves
100 percent. I grant that it's possible God could call us to a
task we hate to perform, but God is a much better man-
ager than that. For his jobs in this world, I think God likes
413
R.C. SPROUL
to hire the people who not only have the gifts he gave
them and the talent he gave them but who are motivated
in those directions. Somehow, I think one of the great lies
of Satan is to tell us that we are supposed to be unhappy
with our labor. God has called you to be fulfilled in your
labor, so it's perfectly legitimate to ask yourself, What can I
do that fulfills me?
We have been programmed to a certain extent by our
culture to a work ethic that ends in retirement. What
is the biblical concept, if any, of retirement?
Frankly, I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one
hand, there is something noble about saying to a person,
"You have done the job, you have really made a contribu-
tion, and now we're going to give you an opportunity to
spend your twilight years with your avocation or doing
whatever you'd like to do. We're going to give you a pen-
sion." There's some virtue in that.
On the other hand, I'm a bit skeptical about the under-
lying motivation for that whole process. Let me give it an
analogy. We've seen all kinds of conflict in our culture be-
tween labor and management; there's an arena that I'm
keenly concerned about. A lot of people are down on man-
agement, and other people are angry at unions and labor.
We see the whole history of trade unionism in the United
States, for example, as having an interesting, informative
impact on our culture and life as we know it. If I go out in
the streets and ask people, "Who is the traditional enemy
of the union?" I would be willing to guess that at least 80
percent of the people would answer, "Management."
414
Career Issues
But the traditional — the original — enemy of the union
was the nonunion worker, particularly in the level of the
unskilled labor where if you had four people competing
for a job and nobody had specified skill, and there are
only two jobs available, that meant two people got jobs
and two didn't. Right now approximately 25 percent of
the workforce in the United States is union. So that
means that when an unskilled job becomes available in a
union shop, there's one person out of four who has a tre-
mendous advantage over the other three because he has
his union card.
Now you ask, what does that have to do with retire-
ment? The fact is that the workforce, the whole labor
force, is a competitive system. I'm just skeptical enough
to think that maybe this whole idea of retirement was con-
jured up by somebody who wanted to make room for
other people to get a job, and they said, "Let's just pack
this guy out of here so that we can open up that slot in
the organization and I can step into it." I don't know if
that's really true or if that's just a jaundiced view that
comes out of my experience. If you think of some of the
greatest leaders and the greatest contributors to the
world, you'll find that so many of them made those contri-
butions after they would be at what, in our culture, is the
mandatory retirement age. There seems to be something
arbitrary about that.
There is built-in dignity of labor in the Scripture, and
God calls me to labor in his vineyard until I die. It may not
be at one particular job, but I have to be actively produc-
tive as long as I possibly can.
415
R . C. SPROUL
Is God's highest calling full-time Christian ministry,
certain spiritual activities such as prayer or witnessing,
and Bible study? Are they higher priorities than the
everyday activities of a person in business?
Is full-time Christian service the highest vocation there is? I
have to say yes and no. I once heard a Methodist preacher
say that God only had one son and he made him a
preacher. I'm very zealous to uphold the dignity of those
who labor in full-time Christian service because we live in a
culture, even within the church, that does not hold those
people in high esteem. In fact, the simple way to measure
it is to look at the economics of how ministers are paid. I
know lots of people will respond to that and say, "Well, we
feel it is our duty to make sure that our pastors are not in
this for 'filthy lucre.' They're not in it for what they can
make out of it, and so we're bound and determined to
keep them humble. Therefore we won't pay our tithes and
will make it necessary to keep them the lowest-paid profes-
sional group in America." I think God is very distressed by
that in terms of our value system.
But to say that full-time Christian service is the highest
calling is to overreact. I hold to the Reformation position,
the concept of vocation in which God calls us to all differ-
ent ways to serve him. A man who's making steel, a person
who's farming and who's producing food, a person who
makes clothes — those are all vital services that are just as
important in God's view as full-time ministry. I don't think
we can elevate full-time Christian service above other voca-
tions in an absolute way.
But you're also asking about priorities for a person who
416
Career Issues
is in, say, the business world. Is it more important for him
to be making a profit, or is he supposed to give a priority
to prayer and Bible study, etc.? The Bible does have priori-
ties for everybody. Jesus put it this way: "Seek first the king-
dom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will
be added unto you." When he said "first," the New Testa-
ment Greek word he uses is protos, which means not just
first in a series, in a sequence, but first in terms of order of
priority. So Jesus does give seeking the things of God the
highest priority.
The New Testament makes it very clear that we have a
responsibility to work and that there's a dignity to our
labor and to earning a profit. There's nothing wrong with
that. In fact, that's what makes survival possible for the
human race. The way that you profit is by meeting the
needs of others and providing goods and services for
them. The way they profit is by meeting your needs and
offering goods and services to you. We are designed by
God so that we are able to meet both the responsibilities of
our spiritual growth and the responsibilities of our labor.
What does it mean to be called into the ministry? Does
that mean that you have certain spiritual gifts and you
choose to use them full-time, or does that mean that
you're called to some special appointment for full-time
service in ministry?
This is a question that a lot of people struggle with, particu-
larly those who think that maybe God is calling them to
what we call full-time ministry — the ordained ministry.
417
R.C. SPROUL
They're wondering if they are running from God and
being disobedient to that call.
In my church (and in most churches) we have a distinc-
tion between what we call an internal call and an external
call. It's a nice distinction, but it also gets very fuzzy
because the internal call is highly subjective. Within myself
I have a feeling or an inclination that God is somehow
moving me toward this particular course of action to seek
ordination into the ministry.
I'm not a mystic by inclination, but I cannot deny that
there are genuine mystical elements to the Christian faith.
Certainly the apostle Paul experienced such moments and
communicated them. I believe God does incline us
inwardly in certain ways and at certain times, but because it
is so subjective, we can easily deceive ourselves. I'm not
always sure that I can distinguish between the internal lead-
ing of the Spirit and indigestion. I don't mean to be face-
tious, but we need to be very candid about this because
some people think every hunch or every thought that pops
into their mind is a direct communication from God, and
that results in all kinds of problems. For example, Jim
Jones was convinced that his inclinations were from God,
and he led his followers to commit mass suicide.
The Bible tells us to test the spirits to see if they are of
God. That's why the church has a distinction between the
internal and external calls — the subjective and objective.
The apostle Paul tells us that we ought not to think more
highly of ourselves than we should and that we ought to
think soberly. And then he goes on to talk about callings
and gifts and abilities. So we are called to make a sober
analysis of the gifts and talents God has given us and at the
418
Career Issues
same time a sober evaluation of the needs of the church
of the kingdom of God — and consider prayerfully that
God may be inclining us to use these particular gifts and
talents in a full-time, ordained way for his kingdom.
The external call comes when the church (the body of
Christ itself, the visible church, the institutional church,
other people) recognizes those abilities and talents and
actually calls me or you to pursue that task. That's why
even though I had a seminary education, I couldn't get
ordained until I either had a call to a church or a call to
teach in a Christian college, which is the basis by which I
was ordained. Even though I had given evidence of an
inward call, I still had to have the outward call before I
could qualify for ordination.
How should Christian values impact business
ethics in the office?
I remember having a discussion a few years ago in the
boardroom of one of the Fortune 500 corporations here in
the United States. I was speaking to the chairman of the
board, the president, and several vice presidents of this cor-
poration on the issue of the relationship between theology,
philosophy, and ethics. At the end of the discussion the
chairman of the board looked at me and said, "Do I under-
stand you to be saying that ethical issues — that is, policies
that we have in our business organization — touch the
whole question of ethics, and in turn those ethics touch
the question of philosophy, and in turn philosophy
touches theology? Are you saying to us that how we run
our business ultimately has theological significance?"
419
R.C. SPROUL
I said, "Yes, that's what I'm trying to say." And it was like
the lights came on in this- man's head for the first time in
his life. It astonished me that he thought this principle to
be so obscure.
When we use the term ethics, we're talking about doing
what is right. From a Christian perspective, we believe that
the ultimate norm and ultimate standard of rightness is
the character of God and his perfect righteousness. So bib-
lical principles of ethics have great relevance for the busi-
ness world. I'm talking about simple things like God telling
us it's wrong to steal. You don't have to be a Christian to
appreciate honesty and respect for private property in the
business community.
I once talked to someone who was astonished because
they gave $5,000 to an automobile salesman in Orlando,
Florida, to have some work done and the guy took off with
the $5,000 and never did the work. His wife was really upset,
saying, "How can people do that? That's crooked business."
One doesn't have to be a Christian to feel violated when a
businessman steals one's money. The Bible tells us to honor
contracts, to pay our bills on time. What businessman
doesn't appreciate it when his customers pay him what they
owe him? The Bible has much to say about false weights and
measures. How do you like it if you are buying "short mea-
sure" in perfume or in ketchup? That's a business consider-
ation. All of these are very practical, concrete principles of
ethics that touch the very heart of doing business.
Honesty, industry, integrity — we know that the Christian
has no corner on these particular virtues. These virtues are
significant in every realm of business and, most important,
how we treat people in the realm of business. Do we treat
420
Career Issues
them with dignity? That is a top priority of Christian ethics,
that we treat our customers, our employees, our personnel
with dignity.
What do you think of committed Christians being
in partnership with nonbelievers, particularly
nonbelievers who are hostile to the Lord?
Let me first make a little theological correction. If I under-
stand the New Testament, every nonbeliever is hostile to the
Lord. The Bible tells us that all fallen people are by nature
at enmity with God. I think this is one of the Bible's most
provocative statements. Nothing makes the unbeliever
angrier than to suggest that he is, in fact, at enmity with God
and in a hostile relationship with God. They'll prefer to say
that they're just indifferent, not hostile. God says they are
hostile. I don't think there are some people who are particu-
larly hostile and others who are not. If you're not willing to
submit to the lordship of God, then that unwillingness to
commit yourself to God is an act of hostility against God.
Jesus was crucified for proclaiming that very same idea: If
you're not for him, you're against him.
Having said that, let's get to the substance of your ques-
tion. I presume that you're referring to hostility that is par-
ticularly open. We need to distinguish between an ethical
issue and a prudential one. I think the Bible does make it
clear that Christians are not allowed to be engaged in mar-
riage partnerships with unbelievers. But what about a busi-
ness partnership? There are many ventures and enterprises
in this world, many vocations in the secular world, for
example, that Christians and non-Christians are involved
421
R.C. SPROUL
in that are perfectly legitimate vocations. I don't think
there's anything dictating from an ethical perspective that
a Christian not be in a partnership with a non-Christian.
For example, two doctors performing their greatly needed
services could work side by side for a common cause even
though one is a Christian and one isn't. I can see two men
making automobiles or programming computers, one a
Christian and one not.
Obviously, the most important thing in a Christian's life
is his commitment to Christ. If he is in a daily partnership
with a person who is openly hostile to that, it's almost inevi-
table that their vastly different approaches to what's ulti-
mately important to them will create certain points of
friction in that relationship, and it may at times create fric-
tion at the point of decision making in that business. But I
must say that when the friction comes up between a Chris-
tian and a non-Christian in a business partnership over
ethics, it is not always the Christian who is pushing to do
the ethical thing.
The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian
is not that one is good and the other isn't; the difference
lies in whether or not they've embraced Jesus as Savior.
Do labor unions pose ethical problems for Christians?
I'm sure there are many Christians who are troubled by cer-
tain elements of the labor movement and its history. I have
all kinds of mixed feelings myself because I've been deeply
involved in the whole arena of labor and management rela-
tions in an attempt to mediate difficulties and seek recon-
ciliation between labor and management. So often in this
422
Career Issues
country organized labor (in this case unions) and man-
agement have been enemies. But we've seen a swing in the
last few years. People are beginning to realize that as far as
the national economy is concerned, we're all in this
together. There has been much more close cooperation be-
tween these two segments of our society than in times past.
There's so much historical hostility on both sides that it's
difficult to wade through it all.
The problem that I have with labor unions is that the
traditional enemy of the union worker is not management,
but the nonunion worker. Union members sometimes
have an advantage in gaining a job, while a nonunion mem-
ber is blocked out of the possibility of employment. That's
why I think states have had to move to right-to-work laws,
which I think are very healthy.
But the other side of that coin is the whole principle of
collective bargaining. I'm not convinced that there's any-
thing wrong, in principle, with collective bargaining, but
we've seen grave abuses in the last few years. One person
said that there have been so many strikes in America that
we look more like a bowling alley than a producing nation.
The labor union has accomplished a tremendous
amount of good, and I don't see anything within the con-
cept of a union that is principally opposed to Christian eth-
ics or that would make it impossible for a Christian to be
actively engaged in a union. Even though my background
is in management, I have found that I tend to have more
sympathy with labor than I do with management when we
actually get into mediation. I deal with these issues in the
noneconomic aspects — those that deal with human dig-
nity — not at the bargaining table where they're debating
423
R.C. SPROUL
about wages and benefits. I think that at the heart of the
issue between labor and management, people are saying,
"Even though I may not be highly skilled in my job, I am
still a human being, and I want to be treated with dignity."
If we see that as the core motivation behind trade unions,
we'll have a deeper appreciation for them.
How can an employer show employees
Christlike dignity?
One of the best ways to affirm the dignity of an employee
is to set high standards for him. To set low standards and
make no demands for performance is a thinly veiled insult
to employees, and they will catch the drift. If we don't hold
a standard of excellence in front of them, we're not doing
anything for their dignity.
We need to value people as people. I was deeply involved
for many years in a movement in the labor-management
arena that is called "The Value of the person Movement"
in business and industry. We recognized that noneconomic
issues are ultimately behind the volatile hostility that exists
between labor and management, employer and employee,
and results in so many strikes and the disruption of produc-
tion and of school systems. The studies have shown again
and again that industrial sabotage and disputes over wages
and salaries have roots in a deeper level of dissatisfaction.
The only place I can fight back with somebody who is deni-
grating my dignity, the only leverage I have is at the bar-
gaining table, where we're dealing with salaries, perks, and
that sort of thing.
But every worker in this country wants to be valued as a
424
Career Issues
person. What can I do to demonstrate value to the person?
Well, let me count the ways: One thing is to recognize that
they are people. Now that may seem like a simplistic
answer, but when we interviewed dozens of laborers in
steel mills in western Pennsylvania, I kept hearing the
same response, particularly from black, unskilled laboring
people, who said to me, "The thing I hate about working
in this place is the foreman comes in here and he ducks
his head." I said, "What do you mean 'he ducks his head'?"
It took me a long time to pull out of these men what it was
they were objecting to, and it was simply this: When man-
agement came onto the foundry floor and they caught the
eye of somebody working in a dirty job, in an unskilled
position, the manager almost imperceptibly turned his
head away or dropped his eye to the ground rather than
making direct eye contact with the worker. The worker got
the message. It was a nonverbal message, but it came
through loud and clear: You are nothing; you are not even
worthy of having somebody look at you. On the other
hand, if somebody goes out of their way to notice the labor
of a person in a job and that person feels appreciated,
then his dignity is enhanced and restored.
425
i6
Money Matters
Give me neither poverty nor riches-
Feed me with the food allotted to me;
Lest I be full and deny You,
And say, "Who is the Lord?"
Or lest I be poor and steal,
And profane the name of my God.
PROVERBS 30:8-9
Money Matters
(Qiaestionns in This Sections:
Is God concerned with the material well-being of Christians?
How can we get a proper view of Christian economics and keep
money from becoming an idol?
First Timothy 6:9 tells us that "those who want to get rich fall into a
temptation and a snare, and many harmful and foolish desires which
plunge men into ruin and destruction." Does that mean that the
Christian should not want to get rich?
How should Christians respond to the overwhelming temptation of
materialism in our culture?
What do you believe the Bible teaches about tithing as it relates to
Christians today?
What does the Bible teach about our responsibility to pay taxes to
the government?
What about debt? Should Christians use credit cards, borrow money
for cars, homes, vacations, etc.?
Is there a clear biblical position against lotteries and casino gambling?
What should be a Christian's position on paramutual betting?
In 2 Corinthians 8. 13-15, it sounds as if Paul is prescribing a sort of
economic equality. How does this passage relate to Christians today?
429
Money Matters
Is God concerned with the material
well-being of Christians?
The short answer to that, emphatically and definitely, is
yes. Not only is God concerned about the material well-
being of Christians, he's deeply and profoundly concerned
for the material well-being of the whole world. God cre-
ated a material world. He created man as a material crea-
ture with profound material needs. All we would have to
do is go to the Sermon on the Mount to see Jesus' great
expression of compassion for those who are in material
want. There's a tremendous emphasis of concern in the
New Testament that we as Christians have a profound care
for those who are hungry, poor, naked, and homeless.
That concern indicates a concern for the material welfare
of people. The New Testament has a lot to say about
wealth and poverty and the various causes and circum-
stances involving those conditions.
There are frightening warnings to the rich, for example,
particularly those who would put their confidence in their
wealth rather than in the benevolent concern of God. In
this regard Jesus says, "Take no thought for tomorrow,
what you should eat, what you should drink, what you
should put on; but rather, consider the lilies of the field
that they neither toil nor spin. Solomon in all his glory is
not arrayed like one of these." He is saying that we can
become so preoccupied with the accumulation of wealth
that we miss the kingdom of God; we have a concern for
431
R.C. SPROUL
the material things to the neglect of the spiritual things.
Because we see the world. preoccupied with material things
and woefully neglecting the spiritual, we may be inclined
to become extremists in the opposite direction and say,
"All that God cares about are spiritual things." Again, a
balanced view of Scripture will prevent us from coming to
that conclusion, because there is nothing wrong with a
concern for material welfare.
In another manner of speaking, God cares for people,
and people are material creatures who require material
things in order to survive. If God cares for people, obvi-
ously he cares for their material well-being. Health and
healing from sickness are material matters, and so God's
concern for our health is a concern for our material well-
being.
How can we get a proper view of Christian economics
and keep money from becoming an idol?
There are many people who think there is no such thing as
Christian economics, that economics is neutral, just like
anything else. Though I'm convinced the Bible is not a
textbook in economics, it has much to say that applies to
principles of property, monetary exchange, and even the
use of currency.
The most important protection against the idolatry of
"mammon," whereby we fall into that grave sin of worship-
ing material goods or the money that can purchase these
things, is to have a clear understanding from a biblical per-
spective of what economics is. It's interesting to me that
432
Money Matters
the term economics comes from the Greek word oikonomia,
which is the New Testament word for stewardship.
I think the central economic principle in the Bible is
that ultimately God is the owner of all things in this world,
but he does in his law sanctify and protect what we would
call private property. If you would look, for example, at the
Ten Commandments, you would see that at least two of the
commandments specifically protect the right to private
property and also speak against a misuse and abuse of my
property or your property. While private property is pro-
tected, there's no foundation at all in the Scriptures for
any kind of communistic or even socialistic precept of
economics.
With that right of private property comes the awesome
responsibility of handling one's material goods according
to the principles that God has set forth. God doesn't give
us these things so that we can do with them as we please.
There's a lot more to economics than simply the right to
private property, but I stress that particular point because
somewhere along the line many Christians have gotten the
idea that private property itself is a sin.
I hear people misquote the Bible in saying that money is
the root of all evil. What the Bible actually says is that the
love of money is the root of all evil. When we have a passion
simply for the acquisition of material goods, when that
becomes our god and we serve it, then money becomes an
idol. I don't think we can look at the subject of economics
in a simplistic way, but we need to see the whole of what
Scripture says concerning material goods. We need money
and the things it provides; God gives us these things to
433
R.C. SPROUL
enjoy. But we must learn the principles he has given for
how possessions and money are to be used.
First Timothy 6:9 tells us that "those who want to get
rich fall into a temptation and a snare, and many
harmful and foolish desires which plunge men into
ruin and destruction/' Does that mean that the
Christian should not want to get rich?
In the New Testament we find this passage, as well as other
equally sober ones (some from the lips ofJesus) that warn
us against setting our hearts on riches, living our lives with
our principal goal being to accumulate wealth. It's not
simply a moral issue, but there's much said here in terms
of wisdom and prudence. I think the apostle is warning us
to watch ourselves, to be very careful, because the pursuit
of wealth can become a subtle and devastating trap. The
desire for these riches and the power that goes with them
can blind a person to things that are much more valuable
and important in the sight of God. It can so distract our
attention from the ultimate wealth — spiritual wealth — that
we get tripped up and snared, caught in this pursuit to
such a degree that we'll compromise our integrity, do
almost anything to gain that power. Wealth can destroy us.
We read that other aphorism in the New Testament:
"The love of money is the root of all evil." Money, in and of
itself, doesn't do anything — it doesn't go out and kill
people, for instance. But our passion for money and the
power it gives us indicates something about our hearts.
Jesus said that we are not to store up treasures on earth,
but to store them up in heaven (Matt. 6:19-20). Those
434
Money Matters
admonitions and warnings are very serious, and we need
to search our souls to be sure that we are not caught up in
a desire for wealth and prosperity to the point that we
neglect the things of God.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have clothes on
your naked body, to have food in your hungry stomach, to
have a comfortable house to live in. There's nothing
wrong in trying to make a profit in the marketplace. Ulti-
mately, your profit can help everybody; it can have a posi-
tive effect on the world. Without profit there's no
commerce, and without commerce there's no material well-
being. The desire to prosper is a legitimate one. God even
promises certain elements of prosperity ultimately for his
own people. But the pursuit of prosperity is always to be cir-
cumscribed by the priorities of the kingdom of God. I
think the apostle is telling us that if we get a fixation for
prosperity and get out of balance, we miss the kingdom.
How should Christians respond to the overwhelming
temptation of materialism in our culture?
Probably the temptation a Christian has to worry about
least is materialism. Why? Materialism proper is a philo-
sophical worldview that sees ultimate truth as strictly mate-
rial — there is no ultimate spiritual reality. In that sense,
materialism is not a temptation to a Christian because a
Christian would have to abandon his concept of God and
everything spiritual in order to think like a materialist. Ulti-
mate materialism as a philosophy has no room whatsoever
for God.
Usually what we mean by materialism is not this sophisti-
435
R.C. SPROUL
cated philosophy I've just described but rather the acquisi-
tion of goods and the gaining of wealth that become the
ultimate end in life. That temptation is real for Christians
because Christians like creature comforts just as much as
anybody else does. We, too, can fall into the sin of greed or
covetousness. Christians have to be very conversant with
the New Testament warnings about setting one's heart on
material pleasures and gains. At the same time, we don't
want to despise them, denying that good things, material
or not, come from God. We are to understand the proper
place and use of the material. As Paul said, he learned how
to be abased, how to abound, and he learned to be con-
tent whether or not he was prospering.
Because there's a lot of affluence in our culture, there
tends to be a lot of guilt about the enjoyment of prosper-
ity. If you read the Old Testament for ten minutes, you'll
see that the Jewish people did not perceive prosperity as a
crime. God was constantly promising the blessing of mate-
rial well-being to people as a consequence of obedience.
The issue for Jesus is, Where's the heart? Our priority is
to be the seeking of the kingdom and its righteousness. If,
in the seeking of the kingdom, God is pleased to bless you
with abundance and prosperity, don't feel guilty about it,
but thank him for it and use it responsibly.
What do you believe the Bible teaches about tithing as
it relates to Christians today?
There are many people who believe that tithing is no
longer incumbent upon Christians because it's an Old Tes-
436
Money Matters
tament mandate that is not specifically repeated in the
New Testament.
Even though this was part of the law of the covenant of
Israel in the Old Testament, I don't think that everything
God demanded of his people in the Old Testament is
abrogated if the New Testament is silent about it. I would
say that if the tithe were abrogated, we would expect to
have an explicit teaching in the New Testament that says
tithing is no longer in effect. Tithing was a responsibility
central to the old-covenant economy and would be carried
over, particularly when you understand that the new-cove-
nant community was established principally among Jews,
who would obviously continue that practice unless they
were told that it was no longer necessary. I would say that,
in the absence of any evidence of a repeal, tithing carries
through into the New Testament.
When Jesus was on earth and the new covenant hadn't
been established yet, he did bless the Pharisees for their
tithe. He rebuked them for failing in weightier matters,
but Jesus certainly congratulated them for at least being
scrupulous in their tithing. They tithed their mint and
their cummin, which meant that they tithed down to the
smallest of things. Most of the tithes in the Old Testament
were done agriculturally or with livestock — it was an agrar-
ian society. But these Pharisees were so scrupulous about
giving their ten percent to God that if they grew a little bit
of parsley in the backyard, they tithed that. It would be as if
you found a dime on the street and made sure a penny of
it went to God. Jesus said that these men were so scrupu-
lous they paid down to the last penny, and he compli-
mented them for that (Luke 11:42).
437
R.C. SPROUL
When the New Testament refers to giving, it talks about
giving out of our abundance and out of a spirit of grati-
tude. Whenever the two covenants are compared, particu-
larly in the book of Hebrews, we are told that the New
Testament is a much richer covenant. The benefits we
receive as Christians far exceed the benefits that the
people of the old covenant enjoyed. But it also follows that
the responsibilities of New Testament people exceed the
responsibilities of the Old Testament people. We're in a
better situation. I would say that the tithe is not some high
ultimate standard for the super-Christian, but it's the rock
bottom. It's the starting point for a person who is in Christ
and who understands something of the benefits he
receives from God.
What does the Bible teach about our responsibility to
pay taxes to the government?
On the surface it would seem that the biblical answer to
the question is very simple. Our Lord said, "Render there-
fore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Matt. 22:21).
In the New Testament, the apostles teach us that we are to
give honor to whom honor is due and taxes to whom taxes
are due. We are to pay the tribute that is exacted from us
by the civil magistrates.
There have been many Christians, particularly in recent
years, who have raised some significant questions about
that. Questions like, Are we to willingly submit to Caesar
when Caesar transcends his realm of authority? Are we to
render to Caesar those things that are not Caesar's? We
remember that the context in which that question was
438
Money Matters
raised in the New Testament was a very puzzling situation.
People came to Jesus and asked him why his disciples
weren't paying their taxes. Jesus doesn't really answer the
question, and that bothers me. I've scratched my head and
thought, Is it true that they weren Y paying all the taxes they were
supposed to be paying? I mean, were the disciples guilty of tax eva-
sion?That's so foreign to the attitude underscored again
and again in the New Testament, of honoring the civil mag-
istrates and being responsible to our civic duties.
The other sort of loophole that some Christians are
examining is the statement, "Render unto the government
taxes that are due." Now, the government tells me what
taxes are due them. But that word, "due," is a loaded word,
at least in its historical meanings. Aristotle, for example,
defined the nature ofjustice as giving people what is their
due — not simply what they deserve, but what is due them.
There are circumstances in which certain things are due
another person or an institution. The unspoken presuppo-
sition is that the government is due taxes that are enacted
for just causes. And so some people (among them Francis
Schaeffer, before he died) raise the questions: Is it appro-
priate to give voluntarily taxes that are used for unjust
causes? Must Christians always submit to unjust taxes? It's a
taxing problem.
What about debt? Should Christians use credit cards,
borrow money for cars, homes, vacations, etc.?
There's a great controversy within the Christian church
about that question. Some people take the position that
under no circumstances should a Christian encumber him-
439
R.C. SPROUL
self in financial indebtedness, quoting such passages as
"Owe no one anything except to love one another" (Rom.
13:8).
There are numerous passages, particularly in the Old
Testament Wisdom Literature, that warn against the folly
that can befall us if we allow ourselves to be in debt in a cer-
tain way. I take those passages in the context in which they
are given, as wisdom sayings that warn us against practices
that are imprudent and can be destructive to our home. I
don't see those as absolute prohibitions against ever being
in debt. There is a responsible way to be in debt, and there
are provisions for indebtedness in Old Testament society.
In today's society, throughout much of the world, mone-
tary exchange — the whole process of trade — involves not
only hard currency but paper money. We use checks and
credit cards. Credit cards are used in different ways. Some-
times they are used exactly as the name suggests — as an
instant line of credit that includes carrying charges if we
don't pay our bill fully when it comes in. This is dangerous
because it's an enticement for people to live beyond their
means and to be less responsible in their purchasing habits.
I use credit cards because they provide a great conve-
nience for me; I don't have to carry large amounts of cash
when I travel. We also keep good records of our finances.
It has been my personal policy and practice never to pay a
carrying charge; that is, I pay those bills in full when they
come in. In essence, the credit cards for me become
another form of a check.
In America's economic system it has become standard
practice to borrow in order to provide for major necessities,
such as homes and automobiles. Very few people can pay
440
Money Matters
cash for a house. The fact that we can pay for a home over
thirty years has its benefits and its liabilities. We end up pay-
ing far more than the price of the property because of inter-
est. But at the same time we are able to become home
owners. Again, that to me comes down to a matter of steward-
ship and responsibility. I don't see any basic, scriptural prohi-
bition against credit, but we are to be wise in using it.
Is there a clear biblical position against lotteries
and casino gambling?
Is there an explicit, direct, biblical prohibition of casino
gambling or lotteries? Not that I know of. However, the
Christian church has consistently taken a dim view of
casino gambling and the use of lotteries based on the impli-
cations of certain biblical principles. For example, in the
church where I am ordained as a minister, part of our con-
fessional position is that we are to follow not only what the
Bible teaches explicitly but what can be drawn from the
Scriptures by clear and necessary inference. The Bible
does have clear principles that touch issues like this. The
most notable, of course, is the principle of stewardship,
whereby I am responsible to act as a steward of my posses-
sions, including my wealth, and not be wasteful or irrespon-
sible in how I spend my money.
The biggest problem I have personally with casino gam-
bling, and particularly with lotteries, is that they tend to be
very poor investments, and inevitably they exploit the poor
of the society. The poor man dreams of improving his
material welfare. He dreams of owning a house and a nice
car. He dreams of being liberated from the endless grind-
441
R.C. SPROUL
ing tasks of day-to-day toil with very small rewards. As a per-
son working for a low hourly wage or depending on a gov-
ernment welfare check, he never has much of an
opportunity to accumulate enough money to give himself
a solid base or invest in the future. His only chance to get
financial security and improve his situation is to hit the
numbers or to hit it big in the casinos. He will take his dol-
lar and hope to win the million-dollar jackpot. That's his
dream. But he doesn't have a full understanding of how
the system works and how huge the odds are against him.
We went through this struggle in the state of Pennsyl-
vania when I was living there, and everybody was worried
about organized crime and all of that. Well, organized
crime was already there. When I was growing up, there
was already a lottery in Pennsylvania. It wasn't state
owned; it was run by the Mafia, and you could buy a
number on almost any street corner in Pittsburgh. The
thing that astonished me was that when the state took it
over for the benefit of senior citizens, the odds for win-
ning under the state-run system were worse than the odds
under the Mafia's system. So I saw the state taking advan-
tage of people's desire for the get-rich-quick dollar and
exploiting the poor by this terrible form of investment.
What should be a Christian's position on
paramutual betting?
When an ethical question deals with our culture, it's impor-
tant that we try to address that ethical question from a
framework of biblical principles. If you go out in the street
and ask one hundred Christians, "Is gambling wrong?"
442
Money Matters
ninety-five to a hundred of them will probably respond
automatically, "Yes, of course." In other words, the subcul-
tural traditions of the Christian community have rigorously
opposed gambling of almost any type for centuries.
The Bible doesn't say, "Thou shalt not gamble." So we
have to be very careful before we declare to the world that
God is opposed to all forms of gambling. What about
investing in the stock market? What about investing in a
company? What about any kind of capital investments? In
all of these cases, you're taking a chance with your money;
each is a form a gambling. What difference does it make
whether you're investing in a horse race or stocks on the
New York Stock Exchange? Some theologians make a dis-
tinction between games of chance and matters of com-
merce or matters of skill. It is one thing to invest money
in a company that I am going to be operating myself, the
success of which, to some degree, will depend upon my
energy level, my industry, my wisdom and skill; it is
another thing to lay down money at a paramutual betting
window to see what happens in this game of luck.
I think the real issue of paramutual gambling or state
lotteries from a biblical perspective focuses on the biblical
principle of stewardship. God gives us certain resources, ben-
efits, talents, and skills, and we are responsible to use them
wisely. God takes a dim view of wasting money, of being care-
less with the goods he entrusts to us. The big problem with
gambling is that it isn't very good stewardship. In a horse
race or dog race or a state lottery, the odds are so stacked
against you, particularly in paramutual betting, that it is poor
use of one's investment capital. At that point I would say that
Christians ought not to support this enterprise.
443
R.C. SPROUL
In 2 Corinthians 8:13-15, it sounds as if Paul is
prescribing a sort of economic equality. How does this
passage relate to Christians today?
Paul does use the word equality in an economic sense in
this passage; he specifically says in verses 13-14: "Our desire
is not that others might be relieved while you are hard
pressed, but that there might be equality."
Some people have taken this simple verse to mean that
Paul has given sort of a cryptic proof text for Marxism.
Those who have tried to synthesize Marxism and Chris-
tianity make a lot of hay out of that particular verse, and I
think they completely pull it out of its immediate context.
They certainly pull it out of the context of what the rest of
the Bible says about private property. The Old Testament
system required that wealth be distributed not on the basis
of equality but on the basis of equity. Equity is a little differ-
ent from equality; that is, if a man works, he's entitled to
the abundanace — he reaps what he sows. And this carries
into the New Testament. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul says
that if a man won't work, he shouldn't eat.
In the 2 Corinthians passage, Paul is not referring to the
economic situations of individual Christians, but about
charitable giving among the churches. He's talking about
the responsibility of the congregations to participate
equally during a crisis — in this case, in the relieving of a
specific suffering congregation.
This is not the first plea from Paul to the Corinthian
congregation. There had been a famine in Jerusalem.
This, coupled with the extreme persecution leveled at
Jewish Christians in that region, had put them in a desper-
444
Money Matters
ate situation. A number of churches in other regions were
taking up a collection. Paul's first mention of this is found
in 1 Corinthians 16, where he urges them to be responsive
to the Jerusalem church's needs, as other churches have
responded. Now, in 2 Corinthians, he reminds them that
some of the other churches have been very sacrificial in
their giving.
Incidentally, some of the scholars who have studied the
historical circumstances of the Jerusalem church's pov-
erty argue that it was brought about by their experiment
in communal living, which ended in disaster and eco-
nomic failure. It was precisely because of their attempt at
Marxism, if you will, that the rest of the church had to
bail them out.
445
17
Life-and-Death
Issues
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works. . . .
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
psalm 139:13-14, 16
Life-and-Death Issues
(Qtwestioitis in Tlhis Sections:
What is your opinion of abortion, and are there any Scriptures that
would back it up?
Are there circumstances that might ever allow a true Christian to
justify abortion?
Based on the fact that God has given doctors the ability to use
amniocentesis to determine defects in a fetus, do you feel that
abortion should be used if the fetus proves to be abnormal?
Is a woman acting in sin when she aborts a pregnancy that is the
result of rape?
Does the Bible say anything about euthanasia?
In the case of a terminally ill person, who should decide when to
discontinue life-support systems—to "pull the plug"?
What should be the Christian stand on the death penalty?
449
Life-and-Death Issues
What is your opinion of abortion, and are there any
Scriptures that would back it up?
We are all aware of hellfire-and-damnation preachers who
rave and scream about the decadence of the world. It can
become tiresome to listen to all of that. I think we all
respect people who can disagree with others in a spirit of
charity, and as a rule, I try to abide by that as much as I
can. But when it comes to this question of abortion, my tol-
erance dissipates. I'm convinced that the matter of abor-
tion facing the American public right now is the greatest
wickedness in our nation's history. It makes me almost
ashamed to be an American. I'm ashamed of the medical
profession, but I'm most deeply ashamed of the church for
its failure to scream literally, "Bloody murder" about abor-
tion.
Abortion is a monstrous evil, and if I know anything
about the character of God, I am totally convinced that
this is an outrage to him. From the beginning to the end
of sacred Scripture, there is a premium on the sanctity of
human life. Anytime we see human life cheapened — as it
clearly is in the wanton destruction of unborn children
then those who have an appreciation for the value and the
dignity of human life need to stand up and protest as
loudly as they possibly can.
From a biblical standpoint, the issue focuses on the
origin of life. It would be merely sophistry for me to accuse
somebody of murder if in fact they were not killing a
451
R.C. SPROUL
human life. I think the biblical evidence is manifold that
life begins at conception. We see that repeatedly in the lit-
erature of the prophets in the Old Testament, in the psalms
of David, and in the New Testament where at the meeting
of Elizabeth and Mary, after she has conceived Jesus, John
the Baptist, as yet unborn, bears witness to the presence of
the Messiah, who also is not yet born. Neither one of these
are born infants, and yet there is communication taking
place. Jeremiah and the apostle Paul both speak of being
consecrated and sanctified while they were still in their
mothers' wombs. These and a host of other passages indi-
cate clearly that life begins before birth and, I believe, at
conception. I just pray that this nation will sober itself
about this and do something to restore the sanctity of life.
Are there any circumstances that might ever allow a
true Christian to justify abortion?
Long before Roe v. Wade, a movie came out entitled The
Cardinal, starring Tom Tryon, in which the cardinal faced
the excruciating ethical dilemma of being faithful to his
church or faithful to the love and compassion he felt for a
member of his own family. His sister was put into that very
rare situation of being threatened with death in the deliv-
ery of a baby. The physicians had to make the choice: the
mother or the unborn child. In this case, the cardinal was
his sister's guardian, and he had to make that choice. He
wanted very much to save his sister, but canon law at that
time required that he take the stand for the unborn child.
The reaction of people was strong, and they were very
much divided over it. When anyone faces the question of
452
/
,
ife-a /
1
d-Dea I h Issues
making a decision between who lives, the baby or the
mother, we enter a completely different ethical sphere
than when we are debating the issue that is before the
American public today, that is, abortion for the sake of
convenience. I think we need to distinguish clearly be-
tween the two.
So often the issues get confused when people take a posi-
tion against abortion-on-demand. They say, "Does that
mean you would let a woman die in a life-threatening situa-
tion or make a young girl who's been a victim of rape go
through with a birth?" I think that's a completely different
matter. I would prefer to separate those questions before
trying to answer them. I would say that better men and
more knowledgeable students of ethics than I are divided
on the question of whether there ever is a justifiable time
for abortion. My personal opinion (this is just R. C. Sproul,
not the dogma of Christendom) is that abortion is never
justifiable. This becomes a lot more iffy when it comes to
an either-or situation, the mother's life or the child's, but I
would not crusade against those who differ with me. How-
ever, I am militantly opposed to abortion-on-demand.
When I was pregnant with my last child, my doctor
asked if I wanted to have amniocentesis to determine
if the baby was normal. Based on the fact that God has
given doctors the ability to use amniocentesis to do
this, do you feel that abortion should be used if the
fetus proves to be abnormal?
As Christians, we have to go back a step further and settle
the question of when life begins. If, for example, one takes
453
R.C. SPROUL
the traditional and classical Christian view that life begins
at conception, then the question could have a parallel ques-
tion; that is, suppose we didn't have that information prior
to birth and the child was born deformed — should we
then destroy the child after it's born?
Some people would say, "Well, you're confusing the
issue." No, we're not, because the real issue is whether or
not we have the moral right to destroy human life after it
starts. If the taking of a human life after it starts is a form
of murder, then it would be murder before birth or after
birth. It really wouldn't make a whole lot of difference
morally.
I believe that life begins at conception, so I would not
accept abortion as morally justifiable if one knows through
testing that the child is going to be deformed.
Most of the questions about abortion today have to do
with the issue of abortion-on-demand. Most abortions are
being performed for matters of convenience, not because
the people involved go through this excruciatingly difficult
problem of bearing a deformed child that is going to be
expensive and heartbreaking.
You are really asking a question here about euthanasia.
When we first were seriously debating this question of abor-
tion, back in the middle 1960s, I didn't hear anyone
from a theological or ethical scientific perspective
advocating infanticide, and I didn't hear anybody back
then advocating euthanasia for older people. That is not
the case today, and I think that the prophets back then
who warned that acceptance of abortion would lead to
acceptance of euthanasia were correct.
454
Life-and-Death Issues
Is a woman acting in sin when she aborts a pregnancy
that is the result of rape?
Those who are opposed to abortion-on-demand are
opposed because they are convinced that human life
begins before birth. Obviously, the issue that has divided
this nation so vehemently is not the question of whether or
not it's legitimate to have an abortion in the case of incest
or rape or when the life of the mother is threatened, but
rather what we might call abortion for convenience. I
point that out not to dodge the specific aspect of your
question but to warn people not to get sidetracked by that
"special case" issue.
Many scholars and theologians who are rigorously
opposed to abortion-on-demand believe abortion in cer-
tain mitigating circumstances and situations to be ethically
viable, as in the case of incest, rape, or when the life of the
mother is threatened. I would say only a very small minor-
ity of theologians would argue that abortion is always
wrong and is always a sin. I would have to count myself in
that very small minority. I do think that we should never be
involved in therapeutic abortions. Again, I recognize that
there's certainly a much less clear ethical premise when
you're dealing with these difficult questions. I certainly
don't think that it is clearly against the law of God to have
a therapeutic abortion in the case of rape and incest. The
very act of rape is such a terrible outrage to the dignity of a
woman. Then to ask her to bear the consequences of that
outrage in a pregnancy to which she was not voluntarily
acquiescing — I can certainly understand those who would
want to say that it would be permissible. The reason I hesi-
455
R.C. SPROUL
tate is that I'm convinced that it would still be a human
life, and as grievous a situation as it would be for that
expectant mother, I would ask her to bear that grief for the
sake of saving the child's life.
Does the Bible say anything about euthanasia?
There is no explicit mention of euthanasia in the
Scriptures. Certain principles set forth in Scripture do
apply, however. Our generation, as never before, is feeling
the intensity of that question because of the advances of
technology and modern medicine. People are being kept
clinically alive who, if left to nature, would die. That raises
a whole set of moral questions about which many conscien-
tious physicians are seeking clear guidance.
In principle, the question of euthanasia has been with us
as long as there have been suffering people. Obviously,
suffering is not a twentieth-century phenomenon; people
of all generations have had to deal with pain. Scripture
does not contain a statement that allows one to hasten the
termination of the life of a person who is suffering. The
only passages we have are ones given without comment
for example, when Saul, in the midst of humiliating defeat,
asks his armor bearer to help him fall on his own sword so
that he can commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner
by his enemies. This is a form of euthanasia, but the
Scriptures don't indicate God's response to this.
In general the Scriptures strenuously uphold the sanctity
of life, and we know that one of the great struggles for the
saints in Scripture was their desire to die and not to be
allowed to do so. Kierkegaard wrote at length about this
456
Life-and-Death Issues
being one of the most miserable situations for a person of
virtue to be in — to long for death and not be allowed to
die.
Moses asked to die; Job asked to die; Jeremiah asked to
die. And today many people ask to die. The pattern in Scrip-
ture seems to teach that we are not allowed to actively
engage in the destruction of human life, even to put some-
one out of his or her misery. We do make distinctions be-
tween active and passive euthanasia. Is it possible to allow
people to die naturally, to die with dignity? This question
really requires a much more lengthy and detailed statement,
but I would say that there are times when it is permissible to
allow people to die — to forgo further treatment, for
instance, or elect not to be kept alive artificially.
In the case of a terminally ill person, who should
decide when to discontinue life-support systems—to
"pull the plug?
Last year I addressed eight hundred physicians at the
University of Alabama in Birmingham. I was asked to
address that precise question: How you decide when to
pull the plug? I was also interested to note that the largest
single specialty group present at that particular convoca-
tion was a group of neurosurgeons. It's so often cast into
their hands to make that decision as to when to pull the
plug because they perform the examination to see if a
person is brain-dead; that is, showing no signs of activity
within the brain.
The questions surrounding the pulling of the plug are
not simplistic. They involve the application of not one but
457
R . C. SPROUL
several principles of ethics. I hesitate to give a quick answer
as to an absolute time when you pull the plug and when
you don't.
Who, ultimately, should make this decision? What I recom-
mended to that body of physicians was not dictated so much
by biblical law as by prudence. Such a weighty decision ought
not to be made capriciously or by someone's unilateral sug-
gestion. It should be decided jointly. There is wisdom in
much counsel, and I would say that three basic parties ought
to be involved in the making of that decision. It's a decision
of such tremendous import that I think the clergy ought to
be involved. It takes moral courage for a clergyman to inter-
ject himself into a family situation, but families desperately
need spiritual guidance at this point, and they deserve to
have a pastor help them make that decision. I think that goes
with the territory of our theological background and train-
ing; we should be able to help people decide such things.
But the pastor should not make it unilaterally. He should be
in deep consultation with the family and with the physician.
The medical aspects of life-support systems are so techni-
cal and complex that we need the input of the medical
experts in order to make a sound evaluation of the situa-
tion. So these three parties — the family, the physician, and
the clergy — need to be involved in the decision.
What should be the Christian stand on the
death penalty?
I'm convinced that our whole criminal justice system is in
serious need of reformation and restructuring because it is
not working and many inequities exist within it. Christians
458
Life-and-Death Issues
are divided about the issue of capital punishment. First,
there is the basic question of whether or not capital punish-
ment in and of itself is a good or bad thing. I think the
majority opinion of the Christian church throughout its
history has been that capital punishment is a good thing.
This position has been taken, not because Christians are
particularly bloodthirsty, but because Christians read the
Scriptures. The Word of God institutes, ordains, and com-
mands capital punishment in Genesis 9:6.
When the state legislature of Pennsylvania voted to rein-
troduce capital punishment, the then governor of the state
vetoed it on the grounds that the Bible said, "Thou shalt
not kill." He was aware that the Bible said, "Thou shalt not
kill," and he was quoting from the Ten Commandments in
Exodus 20. Yet if you go to Exodus 21, 22, and 23 (the holi-
ness code), God sets forth the provisions for those who
break that commandment. For those who murder, God
commands that they be executed.
Fine distinctions are made between voluntary and invol-
untary manslaughter, malice of forethought, and the vari-
ous kinds of situations that fall within the complexity of
our jurisprudence. So I'm answering this question in its
broad principle.
Usually, the great objection to capital punishment is that
human life is so precious and so valuable that we ought
never to lift our hands to snuff it out. Also, every human
being is redeemable. Another argument is that capital pun-
ishment is not a deterrent. But the institution of capital
punishment was not given as a deterrent but as an act of
justice. What is the biblical rationale? Capital punishment
is instituted very early in the Old Testament — before
459
R.C. SPROUL
Moses, before Sinai, before the Ten Commandments, back
in the days of Noah, where God says, "If by man, man's
blood is shed, by man shall his blood be shed." That's not
a prediction. The structure of the language there is an
imperative; it is a command. The reason is given: "Because
man is made in the image of God." In other words, the
Bible says that human life is so sacred, so precious, so
holy — human life has so much dignity — that if with malice
of forethought you wantonly destroy another human
being, you thereby forfeit your own right to life. God
doesn't merely allow the execution of murderers; he
commands it.
460
I®
Suffering
If God is for us, who can be against us?
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up
for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?
Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
ROMANS 8:31-32,
35
Suffering
©westioins iin This Sectiom:
If God is all powerful, then why does he allow suffering?
Why would a loving and holy God allow a child to suffer through a
serious illness such as cancer?
When we experience trials, how can we determine if they are the
consequences of violating a scriptural principle, a test from the Lord,
or an attack from Satan?
People speak of the "problem of pain." Is it not more accurate in a
fallen world to speak of the "problem of pleasure"?
In Colossians 1:24 Paul says he does his share in "filling up that which
is lacking in Christ's sufferings." What is meant by this phrase?
How would you counsel Christians who are suffering with illness or
old age who would rather be in heaven with their Lord than here?
Can suffering in general rather than suffering for our Christian faith
be counted as sharing the suffering of Christ?
What is the difference between God testing us and tempting us?
In the book of 1 Thessalonians we're called to give thanks in all
circumstances. I've sometimes heard my brothers and sisters in Christ
giving thanks for things such as illness or death. Should we be doing
this?
As someone in the health profession, I see people suffering every
day. What can Christians expect from God in regard to healing?
463
R.C. SPROUL
What does the Bible teach us about comforting one who is suffering
as a result of a crime he has committed?
In James 5:14-15 the sick are told to call upon the elders of the church
to anoint them with oil and lay hands on them. Do any Christians
today practice this, and should we?
464
Suffering
If God is all powerful, then why does
he allow suffering?
A recent controversial book on this matter was titled
When Bad Things Happen to Good People. A common objec-
tion to religion is, How can anybody believe in God in light
of all of the suffering that we see and experience in this
world?
John Stuart Mill raised this classic objection against the
Christian faith: If God is omnipotent and allows all this
suffering, then he is not benevolent, he is not a kind-
hearted God, he is not loving. And if he's loving to the
whole world and allows all this suffering, then he's cer-
tainly not omnipotent. And given the fact of evil, or the
fact of suffering, we can never conclude that God is both
omnipotent and benevolent. As brilliant as John Stuart
Mill is, I have to demur at that point and look at what the
Scriptures say about these things.
Keep in mind that from a biblical perspective, suffering
is intrinsically related to the fallenness of this world. There
was no suffering prior to sin. I interpret Scripture to say
that suffering in this world is part of the complex of God's
judgment on the world. You are asking, How can a righ-
teous judge allow a criminal to suffer? How can a just
judge allow a violent offender to be punished? The ques-
tion we should ask is, How can a just judge not allow punish-
ment for those who have committed acts of violence or
crimes of any sort? Behind that question always stands the
holiness of God and his perfect righteousness. Our under-
465
R.C. SPROUL
standing of God is rooted and grounded in the teaching of
Scripture that he is the jus,t Judge. The Judge of all of the
earth always does right.
In the ninth chapter ofJohn, the Pharisees say to Jesus,
"Why was this man born blind? Was it because of his sin or
the sins of his parents? "Jesus said, "Neither one." We can't
come to the conclusion that an individual's suffering in this
world is in direct proportion to that individual's sin. That
was whatJob's friends did when they came to him and tor-
mented him by saying, "Boy, Job, you're really suffering a
lot. This must be an indication that you're the most misera-
ble sinner of all." But the Bible says that we can't use such a
formula. The fact is, if there were no sin in the world, there
would be no suffering. God allows suffering as part of his
judgment, but he also uses it for our redemption — to shape
our character and build up our faith.
Why would a loving and holy God allow a child to
suffer through a serious illness such as cancer?
We usually associate the love of God with the benefits we
receive from him and the blessings that come from his
kind and merciful hand. Because his love usually manifests
itself in good things that happen to us, we sometimes fall
back in shock and consternation when we see a child
struck by disease or some other trauma.
Before we speak to the question of why God allows chil-
dren to suffer, we need to ask the bigger question: Why
does God allow suffering to happen to any person,
whether he's two years old, two months old, or twenty years
old? The Scriptures tell us that suffering came into the
466
Suffering
world as a consequence of the fall of man and of creation;
that is to say, it is because of sin that God has visited judg-
ment upon this planet. That includes the curses of pain,
disease, sorrow, and death that attend the consequences of
wickedness.
How could a loving and holy God allow a baby to suffer
a debilitating disease? I think the answer is partly con-
tained in that very question. God is holy, and in his holi-
ness he exercises judgment against the wickedness that is
prevalent in human nature. When we ask the question with
respect to infants, sometimes lurking behind that question
is the unspoken assumption that babies are innocent. Virtu-
ally every church in the history of Christendom has had to
develop some concept of what we call original sin because
the Scriptures teach us so clearly that we are born in a sin-
ful state and that the curse of the Fall attends every human
life. That sounds grim and dreadful until we realize that in
that judgment on fallen humanity comes also the temper-
ing of God's wrath with mercy and grace and his whole
work of redemption. We believe with great joyous antici-
pation that there is a special measure of grace God has
reserved for those who die in infancy. Jesus said, "Suffer
the little children to come unto me, for to such belongs
the kingdom of God."
One warning that I have to raise at this point is that we
dare not jump to the conclusion that an individual per-
son's particular disease or affliction is a direct result of
some particular sin. That may not be the case at all. As
humans, all of us must participate in the broad complex of
the fallenness of our humanity, which includes the tragedy
of disease.
467
R.C. SPROUL
When we experience trials, how can we determine if
they are the consequences of violating a scriptural
principle, a test from the Lord, or an attack from Satan?
First of all, we need to recognize that any one of these possi-
bilities exists when we enter tribulation, suffering, or trials of
any sort. In fact, other things may be the cause of a trial we
are called to endure. We may be the innocent victim of some-
body else's unrighteous behavior, and we might ask why God
allows us to be the victim of someone else's unkindness.
Sometimes trials and tribulations come to us as a direct
judgment of God. It can be part of the corrective wrath to
his children, or the punitive wrath to those who are obsti-
nate in their disobedience toward him. Sometimes the
Lord does send circumstances or people that will help us
develop our spiritual muscles and character. It could also
be that we are being besieged by the enemy, something
Martin Luther frequently spoke of experiencing — what he
called "the infection," the personal assault that comes from
the prince of darkness.
It's not easy to discern between these causes. We need to
begin by recognizing that God is sovereign over all tribula-
tions. Whether it's a tribulation that follows as a conse-
quence of my sin or God's putting me to a test or my being
the victim of another person or the object of Satan's
attack, God is sovereign over all of those things. In the
midst of tribulation, instead of losing myself in trying to
discern for sure what the cause is and trying to figure out
why this thing is happening to me, it's important that I ask
the deeper question, How am I to respond to it?
We can begin by searching our hearts to see if there are
468
Suffering
any wicked ways in us that could be legitimate reasons for
God to be correcting us. We ought to rejoice that God does
this because it is an indication of his love for us. The correc-
tion of the Lord is designed to lead us to repentance and to
the full restoration of fellowship. When I enter into a trial or
into some type of tribulation, I should be saying, "Lord, is
there something that you're trying to say to me? Is there an
area of my life that needs attention or cleaning up?" Our nor-
mal posture of confession should be intensified in the midst
of tribulation. It may not be, as I said, an act of God's chastise-
ment, but he may be in a sense complimenting us by calling
us to suffer for righteousness' sake so that we can participate
in the trials that were so much a part ofJesus' ministry.
It's good to remember that the very baptism we receive
is, among other things, a sign of our willingness to partici-
pate in the sufferings of Christ. Again, we come before
God and say, "I don't know for sure why I'm suffering. But
God, I want to suffer honorably in a virtuous way, in a way
that will show my loyalty to you." That's the important
thing when these things happen.
People speak of the "problem of pain.
"
Is it not more
accurate in a fallen world to speak of the "problem of
pleasure"?
I can understand how God would allow pain to afflict
people who are in radical rebellion against him and are
daily involved in cosmic treason. If God is just and holy, we
would ask, How would he not visit judgment upon them? If
God is good, then, being good, he must punish that which
is evil, and if he left evil unchecked and only gave happi-
469
R.C. SPROUL
ness and pleasure to the wicked, you would begin to won-
der about the integrity of God.
Why does God, in spite of my sin and my disobedience to
him, allow me to participate in as much happiness as I am
able in this world? Speaking on a practical level, pleasure
and pain produce very different results. Sometimes the
presence of pain in my life brings the practical benefit of
sanctifying me. God works in me through affliction. As
uncomfortable as pain may be, we do know that the Scrip-
tures tell us again and again that tribulation is a means by
which we are purified and driven to a deeper dependence
upon God. There is a long-range benefit to us that we would
presumably lose were it not for the pain we are called to
"endure for a season." The Scriptures tell us to endure for a
season because the pain we experience now can't even be
compared with the glories stored up for us in the future.
Conversely, pleasure can be narcotic and seductive so
that the more we enjoy it and the more we experience it,
the less aware we become of our dependence on and need
for God's mercy, help, and forgiveness. Pleasure can be evil
disguised, designed by the devil to lead us into ultimate
ruin. That's why the pursuit of pleasure can be a danger-
ous thing. Whether experiencing pain or pleasure, we
don't want to lose sight of God and our need for him.
In Colossians 1:24 Paul says he does his share in "filling
up that which is lacking in Christ's sufferings." What is
meant by this phrase?"
This text has been a focal point of controversy in the his-
tory of the church, particularly in debates between Catho-
470
Suffering
lies and Protestants. The body of Christ is one of the princi-
pal images used in the New Testament to describe the
church. One of the favorite themes of the Roman Catholic
Church has been to call the church the continuing incarna-
tion, in more than just a mystical or spiritual sense.
Part of the Catholic Church's doctrine has involved the
"treasury of merits." This refers to works of the saints that,
being above and beyond the call of duty, are added to the
merit that was accrued by Christ through his life of perfect
obedience. This excess merit is deposited into the treasury
of merits and may be used by the church to help those who
are in purgatory.
The idea behind that principle is the suffering of the
martyrs, those who went to their deaths in faith before the
gladiators of Rome. They were seen as suffering meritori-
ously. When Paul speaks of the suffering and affliction he's
enduring as his "filling up that which is lacking" in the
afflictions ofJesus, some people interpret that to mean
that as an apostle and as a Christian, Paul's suffering adds
to the meritorious suffering ofJesus. Jesus is the principal
sacrifice offered for our sins. No one could be redeemed
without his merit, but that merit is not the full measure of
merit available to the church. In and of itself it is not com-
plete. In other words, Christ left room for more merit to
be added through victorious and innocent martyrdom and
suffering of the saints.
Protestant doctrine finds that interpretation of the text
abhorrent because one of the cardinal tenets of classical
Protestantism is the sole sufficiency of the sacrifice of
Christ; his suffering rendered perfect merit, and nothing
can be added to it. There is no lack or deficiency in the
471
R.C. SPROUL
atonement of Christ. What Paul means in this passage is
that Christ calls all of his people to participate in his afflic-
tions and in his humiliation. The phrase Tilling up what is
lacking" does not indicate a deficiency in Jesus, but simply
means that the full measure of suffering that Christ and his
church experience is part of God's redemptive plan. Suffer-
ing is designed to shape us more and more into Christlike-
ness, and ultimately it brings glory to God.
How would you counsel Christians suffering with
illness or old age who would rather be in heaven
with their Lord than here?
I would first commend them for their preference be-
cause they're in good company. We find that sentiment
expressed frequently in Scripture. In the Old Testament,
Job, Moses, Jeremiah, and others cursed the day of their
birth, and in the midst of their suffering they begged
God to allow them to die. Simeon, even after he saw the
Messiah, made the same request when he said, "Now,
Lord, let your servant depart in peace." Paul talked about
his own ambivalence, saying that he was torn between two
things, to depart and be with Christ, which was far better,
or to remain here on earth, which he said was more need-
ful for other people. He wanted to be of service to his
flock, but his personal preference was to die and go to
heaven.
Not long ago Billy Graham made such a statement pub-
licly. He said he was tired and that the thing that he
wanted more than anything else was to be able to go home
and be with Christ. Not only is this desire simply the posi-
472
Suffering
tive longing for your soul's fulfillment and reaching the
destiny of your spiritual pilgrimage (and all of us should
look forward to heaven), but that preference is also moti-
vated, many times, by serious suffering and affliction. Life
has become such a burden and filled with so much pain
that a person yearns for simple relief. Sometimes state-
ments about wanting to die are thinly veiled requests for
some sort of euthanasia. And though I would commend a
person for his or her desire to depart and be with Christ, I
would urge them not to take any steps to hasten that
moment through their own hand.
Kierkegaard wrote of the struggles involved in the Chris-
tian life and of the effects of dread in a book called Sickness
Unto Death. He said that one of the most difficult experiences
for any human being is to want profoundly to die and yet not
be allowed to do so. I visited with a woman not long ago who
was in that situation. She had been afflicted with tremendous
suffering and pain. She looked at me with tears rolling down
her cheeks and said, "I just don't know if I can take any
more." She just longed for the simple cessation of the pain.
I'm sure she had contemplated suicide. Although I certainly
understand a person's deep desire to be relieved from that
suffering, we believe that God is the author of life and death,
and it is not within our rights to take our own life.
Can suffering in general rather than suffering for our
Christian faith be counted as sharing the suffering of
Christ?
I think it can. If the suffering is done in faith — that is,
throughout that suffering we place our trust in God — then
473
R.C. SPROUL
I think we are participating in the sense that we are willing
to suffer and to trust God in the midst of suffering, even as
Jesus trusted the Father. There is a special promise given
in the Scriptures to those who are suffering for righteous-
ness' sake as a result of being unjustly persecuted.
What if a person is suffering from an illness or some
other tragedy that is not a direct result of persecution? He
still enters into suffering that requires a measure of trust in
God, and that is a virtuous thing for people in that state. At
that point, insofar as they are imitating Christ's willingness
to suffer, I would say that they are participating at least indi-
rectly in that whole process.
What if I'm suffering punishment because I've commit-
ted some kind of crime? I don't think we can call that par-
ticularly virtuous or say that we are participating in the
suffering ofJesus in any redemptive way. In fact, this is
directly addressed in 1 Peter 2:20.
In regard to the man born blind (John 9), the question
was asked ofJesus, "Who's sin was it, this man's or his par-
ents', that he was afflicted with blindness?" Jesus said it
was neither. In other words, the question was a false
dilemma. And those who asked it were trying to reduce to
two options something that had more than two. There
was another option. Jesus said, "It wasn't because of his
sin or his parents' sin. This person was born blind so that
the power of God and the grace of God may be made
manifest." That person was suffering not from persecu-
tion. His suffering was used by God to bring honor and
glory to Christ.
I mention this instance because it is a clear biblical case
in which suffering has theological value — not merit, but
474
Suffering
value — insofar that it is useful to the purposes of God.
Christ himself tells us that we are going to have afflictions
and suffering in this world. He certainly indicates that we
are going to suffer persecution, and he gives a particular
blessing to that in the Sermon on the Mount, saying that
the reward will be great. He also indicates that there will
be other kinds of suffering that come our way and that we
are suffering in him and with him.
What is the difference between God testing us
and tempting us?
The difference is between an action that is holy, legitimate,
and righteous, and an action that would be beneath the
character of God. As James tells us in the New Testament,
"Let no one say when he is tempted that he is tempted of
God." An explanation follows that temptation is something
that rises from within the evil inclinations of our own
hearts. We can't excuse our sin by saying that the devil
made us do it or, worse, that God has provoked us or
inclined us to sin.
There is some confusion on this because of the words in
the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus instructs his disciples to
pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil." It almost suggests that, if we have to ask God not to
lead us into temptation, perhaps there are occasions when
he does. That concept has to do with being led into the
place of testing.
The Bible does tell us that God will put his people
through a trial or a test or an ordeal ultimately for their
benefit, but sometimes for other reasons not always under-
475
R.C. SPROUL
standable to us. Adam and Eve failed their test in the
Garden of Eden.
Jesus, of course, was led by the Spirit into the wilderness
to be tested. God led him there to be tempted, not by God
but by Satan. In that particular incident we have an exam-
ple of the difference. God put Jesus in the wilderness to be
tested. Satan's activity was to tempt him. To tempt some-
one is to entice him or her to commit an evil act. In that
sense, it would be totally out of character for God to entice
someone to sin. For his redemptive purposes and for our
own character building he may put us in a situation where
we are put on trial and are vulnerable to the attacks of the
enemy — as Job was, as Christ was, and as Adam was.
Luther often spoke of the unbridled assault Satan
directed against him. He was struggling against depression,
but he never thought of that as an enticement at the hands
of God. Satan will tempt us in the sense of trying to seduce
us and persuade us to disobey God, though even in that
temptation Satan is under the sovereignty of God.
In the book of i Thessalonians we're called to give
thanks in all circumstances. I've sometimes heard my
brothers and sisters in Christ giving thanks for things
such as illness or death, and I think this is crazy.
Should we be be doing this?
I don't think it's crazy. In these situations, people are try-
ing to be faithful and obedient to what that passage calls us
to do. But a lot of misunderstanding and confusion attends
this passage. The Bible repeatedly tells us that we are to
remember at all times and through all circumstances who
476
Suffering
God is. We must remember that he's sovereign in and over
all human circumstances that befall us. As Romans tells us,
we are promised that "all things work together for good to
those who love God" (Rom. 8:28). That's not because the
things themselves are working for my benefit, but because
God, who is sovereign over everything that takes place in
my life, is using whatever happens in my life to my ultimate
advantage. He will use the suffering and the pain, and he
will triumph over the wickedness that comes into my life.
Paul illustrates the concept of rejoicing in all things
when he says in Philippians 4:11-12 that he has learned to
be content in whatever state he finds himself. He has had
to learn how to live with a lot and how to live with little,
how to deal with being honored and with being insulted
and ill treated. He says in effect, "Whatever else happens
to me — if I'm rich, if I'm poor, if I'm hungry, if I'm full, if
people are loving me, if people are hating me — whatever
those circumstances are, I know who I am and I know
that God is committed to me. Because of that, there is
something for me to rejoice about in that circumstance."
I don't think Paul meant by that passage that when he was
shipwrecked or being beaten with rods he uttered a prayer
of thanksgiving, saying, "Isn't this wonderful!" If I see cir-
cumstances that are plainly evil, I'm not to rejoice in the evil
that is there, but I'm to rejoice in the God who stands over
that evil and who stands over the grief and the sorrow.
The shortest verse in the Bible, 'Jesus wept" (John 11:35),
tells you something. Jesus goes to the home of Mary and Mar-
tha, and they are angry with Jesus. Martha comes to him and
says, "Master, where have you been? Our brother died four
days ago. If you had been here, it wouldn't have happened."
477
R.C. SPROUL
They are really angry with him. Did Jesus respond with, "Hey
look, don't worry. I was just setting the stage for this dramatic
resurrection that I'm about to perform. Relax, we're going
to have a party, and I'm going to bring your brother back to
life"? Jesus wept. He entered into the reality of human suffer-
ing and grief, fulfilling the Scripture that it's better to go to
the house of mourning than to spend your time with fools.
Then he proceeded to show the triumph of God over that sit-
uation by raising Lazarus from the dead. So I think that ear-
nest Christians who seek to rejoice in all circumstances are
motivated to give God the praise and honor, and to try to
overcome the pain of their situation by that practice. But we
must take care not to be flippant about it. We should not
deny the reality of the pain, the tragedy, or the suffering.
This isn't healthy faith.
As someone in the health profession, I see people
suffering every day. What can Christians expect from
God in regard to healing?
I don't know how many times I've seen on the walls of pas-
tors' studies or in Christian homes the little sign, Expect a
Miracle. If a miracle is something we can expect, like we
expect the postman every morning, it ceases to be miracu-
lous — it's no longer extraordinary, and it no longer does
the job that miracles were designed to do, namely, to call
attention in an astonishing way to the intervention of God.
On the other hand, the New Testament tells us to bring
our prayers before God, particularly for those who are sick.
So I expect God to be merciful because he promises to be
merciful, and I expect God to be present in times of
478
Suffering
trouble because he promises to be present in every time of
trouble. I expect that God will take our prayers seriously
when we pray on behalf of the sick. I do not expect that
God is going to heal everybody we pray for because I don't
know that God has ever promised to do that. And I have
no right to expect something from God that he has not
categorically promised in every situation.
In the New Testament we see that Jesus, as far as we know,
had a perfect healing record. When Jesus asked the Father to
heal somebody, they were healed. But even the apostles were
not that consistent. There were times when they prayed for
the healing of people and those people were healed* and
there were times when they prayed for people and they were
not healed. I think that in those situations, practically speak-
ing, what we should do is bring our requests before God in
fear and trembling, in passionate intercession, and then let
God be God. We do expect the presence of his Holy Spirit.
The Bible tells us that in the world we have tribulation, the
world is full of suffering, we are going to suffer, and God
promises to go with us: 'Yea though I walk through the valley
of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for thou art with
me." I have never ceased to be amazed at how some Chris-
tians I know have testified to the overwhelming sense of the
presence of Christ that comes to them in those situations.
That's when we can most expect God to be with us.
What does the Bible teach us about comforting one who
is suffering as a result of a crime he has committed?
The basic posture of the Scriptures regarding a matter like
that is one of charity. For example, as Christians we have a
479
R . C. SPROUL
clear mandate in Scripture to be engaged in the visiting of
those who are in prison. Some have taken a narrow view of
that, insisting that it's only those who are political prison-
ers or those who are being persecuted because they're
believers — for righteousness' sake — and are unjustly incar-
cerated. Some people say that ministry to those in prison
doesn't include a ministry to those who are there because
they are guilty of committing certain crimes.
Certainly being incarcerated in prison is one form of suf-
fering that is a direct consequence of one's sinful behavior.
I think the church historically has taken that to mean very
clearly that whether they're guilty or innocent, whatever
the cause of their suffering, we are still called upon to exer-
cise a ministry of mercy to them.
As a director of Prison Fellowship, I see the visitation of
prison inmates as a very important ministry that fulfills a
mandate of Christ. Our basic posture is to be a people who
are bringing consolation and kindness and charity. If we
see somebody hungry, we're not supposed to ask them why
they're hungry or how they got to be hungry. Maybe
they're hungry as a direct result of their own sinfulness,
but we're supposed to feed them.
There are some boundaries to our charity. For example,
the Bible takes a hard stand against people who habitually
refuse to work: "If he refuses to work, neither let him eat."
In the teachings of the apostles beyond the New Testa-
ment, one of the earliest documents is TheDidache. It gives
specific instructions on how long we should be charitable
to people who are suffering as a direct consequence of
their refusal to repent. It takes a tremendous measure of
wisdom to know where the charity ends and the rebuke
480
Suffering
and admonition begin. On the other hand, admonition
and rebuke are not necessarily incompatible with charity.
That can be a part of love, although it's not usually consid-
ered a part of consolation.
This is a particularly relevant question now with the
national controversy over AIDS. I've seen many Christians
taking the position that because some people suffer from
AIDS as a direct result of immoral practices, Christians
ought not to lift a finger to alleviate their suffering. I find
that a total antithesis to the spirit of the New Testament. If
these people are suffering, we're supposed to be agents of
relief with a ministry of kindness and charity to them,
regardless of the causes of their suffering.
In James 5:14-15, the sick are told to call upon the
elders of the church to anoint them with oil and lay
hands on them. Does anyone still practice this? Should
Christians today practice this?
Actually, the implementation of that injunction in the
book ofJames is very widespread in Christendom. For
example, in the Roman Catholic Church it is elevated to
the status of a sacrament. The last of the seven sacra-
ments is called by the name extreme unction. We usually
think of it in terms of what is called last rites; somebody
will be on their deathbed and a priest is called to hear a
final confession. That doctrine or sacrament began in the
Roman Catholic Church in direct response to that pas-
sage in James, and it was seen primarily not as a transitory
benediction for somebody about to depart this world, but
as a healing rite.
481
R.C. SPROUL
In the Episcopalian church there is what is called the
Order of Saint Luke, because Luke was a physician. This
denomination practices and advocates the anointing of oil
and the laying on of hands for those who are sick.
Certainly in the Pentecostal and Assemblies of God
churches this is widely practiced. Throughout the whole
charismatic movement there is a tremendous importance
affixed to this verse in James.
Should people do it? I would say yes, but I think it's also
important that we understand some things about the
anointing with oil as it was practiced in New Testament
churches.
Some historians insist that in this passage James is refer-
ring not to a religious rite so much as a medical rite. One
of the medical practices was to anoint a person with oil
with the belief that this oil had some medicinal value to it.
With modern medicine available to us, it would no longer
be necessary to do this for such therapeutic reasons.
The normal understanding of that text is that it was a
symbol of the Holy Spirit and it was accompanied by the
prayer that God would intervene and raise up the sick and
that the actual anointing of oil would be a religious rite.
Again, the Roman Catholic Church sees it as a sacrament.
Others don't necessarily call it a sacrament but would see it
as a significant religious observation.
When the New Testament calls us to perform an act of
mercy like this, I think we should do it. I don't know of any
church that doesn't pray for the sick. We still visit the sick
and pray for them. This particular rite has disappeared
from many churches while it's still maintained in others. I
see no reason for its cessation.
482
19
The End Times
But you, brethren, are not in darkness,
so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.
Therefore let us not sleep, as others do,
but let us watch and be sober.
I THESSALONIANS 5:4, 6
The End Times
(Quaestiomis inn This Sectioin:
Are we living in the last days?
Should Christians spend their time studying the biblical prophecy of
the Second Coming?
What signs do you see today of Christ's second coming?
Does the Bible tell us when Jesus will return?
In light of national and world conditions, do you feel that the
kingdom of heaven is truly at hand?
What did Jesus mean when he said, "Truly I say to you, this
generation will not pass until all these things be done"?
Do you believe the Antichrist will come from within the church?
Do the Scriptures say that during the last days the earth will be
destroyed or that God will regenerate the substance that already
exists here?
Do we stand before God in judgment upon death or later?
Will the Christian have to go through the final judgment in the same
way the non-Christian will?
The Bible teaches that we will be judged by the measure in which we
judge others. Is this an indication that on Judgment Day, the process
of judgment will be significantly different among people?
What does Scripture teach us about the future role of Israel?
485
The End Times
Are we living in the last days?
We have to be careful not to be guilty of whatJesus rebuked
the Pharisees for — what I call the Red Sky Syndrome. If you
recall, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they had an abil-
ity to predict the weather. They could look at the sky, and if
it was red at night, they would say, "Sailor's delight." And if it
was red in the morning, they would say, "Sailors take warn-
ing." But they missed the signs of the times, and they missed
the first advent of Christ. They missed the coming of the
Messiah right in their midst in spite of the fact that a host of
biblical prophecies heralded the appearance ofJesus on the
scene — and Jesus rebuked them for it.
When somebody asks me, "Are we in the last days?" I sus-
pect what they mean by that is, "Are we near the last chap-
ter of history prior to the coming ofJesus Christ?" I can't
say yes or no. So I will say, "Yes, and I don't know." The
sense in which I say yes is this: We have been in the last
days since the first advent of Christ. And so the Scriptures
tell us that we are to be living in the spirit of diligence and
of vigilance from the time that Jesus departed this planet
in clouds of glory until he returns. But when people ask
me, "Are we living in the last days?" I suspect what they
mean by that is, "Are we living in the last minutes of the
last hour of the last day?" Do I think that the return of
Jesus is close; is it on the horizon?
I hope I have learned something from other people's
mistakes in the past. For example, when Luther went
487
R.C. SPROUL
through all of the turbulent upheaval of the Christian
church in the sixteenth century, he was convinced that the
fragmentation of the church at that time was the harbinger
of the return ofJesus. But Luther was wrong. Jonathan
Edwards, living in the middle of the eighteenth century,
shortly before this nation was formed as a republic,
reflected on the way in which religion had declined from
1620 to 1750. He was convinced that the world was going
to the dogs and that it was running out of time, that Jesus
was going to come any minute. Edwards was wrong. So
when I look at two titans of theology like Martin Luther
and Jonathan Edwards and I see them making predictions
and voicing their expectations of the near return ofJesus
and being wrong, that gives me pause.
The only thing I can say, however, is that we're about 450
years closer to it than Luther was and 235 years closer to it
than Edwards was. There's much that is going on in the
world today — that tells me that these are the times when
Christians should be reading the Bible in one hand and
the newspaper in the other.
Should Christians spend their time studying the biblical
prophecy of the Second Coming?
If God gives us information about anything, obviously he
expects us to be diligent in the study of it. One biblical
scholar made the statement that approximately two-thirds
of the doctrinal material of the New Testament Scriptures
are concerned in one way or another with the second com-
ing of Christ. So just from the sheer volume of information
in both the New and Old Testaments that focuses on the
488
I he End Times
future consummation of the kingdom of God, it's obvious
that this was a burning matter of importance to the early
Christian church and to the teaching ofJesus himself.
In the Olivet discourse (Matt.
24),
Jesus gave very strong
admonitions to his disciples to not be like the Pharisees,
who could read the weather forecasts but failed to see the
signs of the times. They missed the first coming ofJesus.
Had they been cognizant of the Old Testament Scriptures
that foretold the Messiah and applied them carefully to
what was going on in the first century, they shouldn't have
missed his presence.
Notice that the basic defense of the claims ofJesus
found in the New Testament is grounded in the fulfillment
of Old Testament prophesies concerning the person and
work ofJesus. Of course, the New Testament also makes
future prophecies because the New Testament does not
finish all of the work of redemption that God has in mind
for this planet. There is still another chapter to be written,
as Jesus indicated, and so he tells us to watch for the signs
of the times. He calls us to a position of diligence and to
be alert, to be awake and not to be deceived.
The warnings come both from Jesus and from the apos-
tle Paul that in the last days great deceptions will occur: a
false Christ, false rumors, and falsehood so severe that it
might even deceive the very elect of God. How are we to
be able to discern between the true Christ and the Anti-
christ or the false messiahs who will come unless we give
great heed to those prophetic passages of Scripture? They
were given to the church for a reason — for our instruction.
I would say that the New Testament emphasis is on dili-
gence and vigilance. At the same time we ought not to be
489
R . C. SPROUL
preoccupied. There is a tendency among some people to
focus all their attention on futuristic prophecies. This
becomes almost a kind of magic or wizardry by which
we're looking for the Second Coming behind every bush.
I think the whole of Scripture must be taken into account,
not only prophecies concerning the future. In fact, we are
given instruction about the way we conduct ourselves now
because of what the future predicts.
What signs do you see today of Christ's second coming?
Jesus taught us in the New Testament that we should pay
attention to what he called the signs of the times so that
when he comes, we won't be caught by surprise. In 1 Thes-
salonians 5, Paul writes that the day of the Lord will happen
suddenly and without warning, just like a thief in the night.
Some people believe that, since we don't know when
Jesus will come again, we ought not even think about the
signs of the times — knowledge of such things was never
intended for us. In the Olivet discourse, Jesus clearly sug-
gests that we be vigilant and diligent and aware of what's
going on around us. It was incumbent upon the people of
Israel to see the signs that had been prophesied in the Old
Testament for the original birth of the Messiah. As you well
know, the vast majority of people missed him altogether.
The question, though, is, What are the signs? Some that
Jesus mentions are things that are, for the most part, hap-
pening all the time: wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes,
famines, apostasy in the church, godlessness reigning, and
so on. These are the classical signs indicating that the time
ofJesus' return is near. Since these are things that happen
490
The End Times
in every generation and in every age, the only way in which
they would have any importance to us would be if they
took place in significant numbers or intensity.
It's interesting to me that in the calculus of violence, the
most bloody, militaristic, warring century in all of recorded
history is the twentieth. This has been the century of world
wars. We've also seen some of the worst natural catastro-
phes in our century, unprecedented in terms of their
destructive capacity.
Jesus also focuses attention on events developing around
the Jewish nation. There are Christian theologians who are
divided about the importance of contemporary Israel to
the biblical predictions ofJesus. In Luke, for example,
Jesus predicts the destruction ofJerusalem in ad. 70 and
says the Jews will be carried off until the times of the Gen-
tiles will be fulfilled. Romans 11 talks about the times of
the Gentiles being fulfilled at the end of the age before
God brings about the completion of his kingdom. That's
why there was so much excitement in the church in 1967
when, for the first time since ad. 70, Jerusalem was no
longer held captive by Gentiles. I see that as potentially
very significant.
Does the Bible tell us when Jesus will return?
Certainly not specifically. Many people have attempted, by
a careful (and sometimes a not so careful) examination of
the prophetic passages of Scripture to establish a time-
table. Some have even predicted months, days and years
none of which, up to this point, have been correct.
When Martin Luther was going through the tremen-
491
R.C. SPROUL
dous upheaval and agitation in Europe during the Protes-
tant Reformation, he thought that the great distress com-
ing upon the church in the sixteenth century was a clear
sign of the eminent return ofJesus. Luther looked for it
in his lifetime, and he was wrong by at least five centuries.
In the middle of the eighteenth century, before the
Declaration of Independence was signed but more than
one hundred years after the Pilgrims had settled this
country, Jonathan Edwards was much inclined to think
that the return of Christ was about to happen. Edwards
was wrong. I mention these two men because there aren't
too many men whose theological expertise I respect more
than I do Luther's and Edwards's. To see that both of
them were wrong makes me very careful about giving pre-
cise predictions about the day and the hour of Christ's
return.
We remember that on the Mount of Olives Jesus told his
disciples that even the Son did not know the day and the
hour of his return; that is in the Father's hands. There is a
day and an hour that God has ordained, and he just does
not reveal it precisely. Yet at the same time Jesus was zeal-
ous, as were Paul and the other writers in the New Testa-
ment, to instruct the church of certain things they ought
to be paying attention to — signs of the times, things that
would have to happen before they could expect the return
ofjesus.
Of course, there's a great dispute as to what those things
are and if any of them have taken place. Some people
believe that all such signs have already taken place. I don't
know that this is true, but I think we have every reason to
be optimistic that the day is drawing very close. I think
492
Ike End Times
many of the things that Jesus speaks of (and that are men-
tioned in other Scriptures as well) as harbingers or signs of
the times have already taken place or are taking place now.
There has been a tremendous renewal of interest in the
return of Christ. I'm very hopeful that it will be soon,
though I can conceive of its being another two or three
thousand years.
In light of national and world conditions, do you feel
that the kingdom of heaven is truly at hand?
I don't think that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. I
think there's a very real sense in which the kingdom of
heaven (or the kingdom of God, which is the way the other
Gospels describe that phrase) is already here. It was once
announced that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. We
find that announcement early in the New Testament Gos-
pels. The use of the term heaven as "kingdom of heaven" is
found in Matthew's Gospel. It is the announcement given
byJohn the Baptist, who is a forerunner for the appear-
ance of Christ, the King of the kingdom.
This whole concept of the kingdom of heaven or the
kingdom of God is the motif that unifies the Old and New
Testaments. This is the big concept that ties together all of
redemptive history. It has to do with the reign of God over
his people and over the world. The promises in the Old
Testament of the coming of the kingdom of God were
made with respect to a vague, distant future time, through
the lips and the writings of the prophets.
But when John the Baptist appears on the scene,
there is a new sense of urgency when he makes the
493
R.C. SPROUL
announcement that the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
He speaks of the ax being laid at the root of the tree. He
uses the image of the farmer whose fan is in his hand;
that is, the moment has come in which the kingdom of
heaven in some sense is about to break through in power
and in significance. Of course, this is the announcement
that stirred up the Jewish nation and created so much
backlash against John the Baptist. He was saying that the
kingdom of heaven was at hand and they were not ready
for it. When Jesus came on the scene, there was a slight
change in the tenor ofJesus' announcement. He also
preached repentance because of the kingdom of God,
but his disciples didn't fast as did the disciples ofJohn
the Baptist. Then he made the strange announcement:
"The kingdom of God is among you." He said, "If you see
me casting out Satan by the finger of God, then you know
the kingdom of God has come upon you." In a certain
sense, the kingdom of God broke into history and began
with the ministry ofJesus and certainly with the crucial
moment at which Jesus ascended to the right hand of
God for his coronation, where he now rules as the King
of kings and Lord of lords.
People ask me if the kingdom of God is at hand. I think
what they usually mean is, Is Jesus returning soon? I think
there's every reason to be encouraged and hopeful that the
final chapter of the kingdom of God is at hand. What I'm
trying to stress is that the kingdom of God has already begun.
It hasn't been finalized and it hasn't been consummated
and that won't happen until Christ returns in glory. I think
we have every reason to expect that to be near.
494
The End Times
What did Jesus mean when he said r "Truly I say to you,
this generation will not pass until all these things be
done"?
That's one of the toughest statements ofJesus in all of the
New Testament. Some seminary students may recall that
the famous New Testament scholar, missionary, and musi-
cian Albert Schweitzer wrote his principal work in which
he confessed his difficulty with Jesus' identity precisely
because of that passage and the sister passages from the
other Gospels that refer to that discourse on the Mount of
Olives.
Jesus was talking to his disciples, and in this particular
context he was talking about the temple. He said that the
time will come when not one stone will be left upon
another, and he pointed to the walls of the temple ofJeru-
salem, saying that they would be destroyed and trampled
underfoot. In that same discourse he talked presumably
about the consummation of his kingdom and his glorious
return at the end of the age. The disciples come to him,
and they ask, "When will these things take place?" He says
on one occasion that "this generation will not pass away
until all of these things take place." Other statements he
makes are, "You won't go over all of the cities of Israel
until these things take place" and, "Some of you will not
taste of death until all of these things take place."
Schweitzer looked at that and said that it's obvious that
some of the hearers ofJesus died before everything that he
announced in the Olivet discourse took place and that the
Jewish missionaries did not go over all of the nations. They
still haven't covered all of the nations of the world. He said
495
R.C. SPROUL
that that generation has passed away and Jesus hasn't
returned. So the conclusion was wrong, and Jesus died in
disillusionment. According to Schweitzer, this represented
Jesus' hope that God would bring the kingdom of God in
that generation, but it didn't happen.
Radical scholars say that the second generation of Chris-
tians had to revise the teaching ofJesus in order to
account for this great blunder on the part of their teacher.
They said that he announced his coming well before it
actually happened. Some try to squeeze the text to say that
in the phrase "this generation will not pass away," Jesus is
using the term generation not to describe an age group but
a type of person. Jesus called people a wicked and adulter-
ous generation. He was simply saying that this kind of wick-
edness and this kind of sinfulness will be around until he
comes back. That may be whatJesus meant.
I think there's a better explanation, although there's not
space for the details of it here. Technical scholars in the
New Testament have given close attention to the function
of the phrase "all of these things," which is two Greek
words, ponta touta. When Jesus uses those terms, he uses
specific reference to the destruction ofJerusalem, which in
fact did take place in the year a.d. 70 and did take place
within that generation and before many of them died.
Do you believe the Antichrist will come from
within the church?
I'm not sure whether the Antichrist will come from within
the church, but I hold that out as a very distinct possibility.
As I'm sure you're aware, there has been a great deal of
496
The End Times
speculation in church history in attempts to identify the
person of the Antichrist of whom Scripture speaks in such
frightening terms and of whom Paul mentioned would
manifest himself prior to the return of our Lord. Usually
the candidates for that office have been people of enor-
mous political power. Some thought it was Nero. Many
identified Hitler, others even Mussolini because of the
numerological formula that fit his title. That kind of specu-
lation has gone on repeatedly.
But when Paul warns about the appearance of the man
of lawlessness, who is usually identified with the Antichrist,
he makes the statement that this person will be one who
seeks to receive worship and that he will set himself up in
the temple of God and ask to be treated as God.
Paul mentions that in the second letter to the Thessaloni-
ans. It's because of that reference to the appearance of the
man of lawlessness in the temple of God that many have
come to the conclusion that the Antichrist will be a reli-
gious person from within the church.
There are other factors, too. There is the prophetic
teaching of Christ and of the apostles that in the last times
a tremendous apostasy will exist within the church — a fall-
ing away from faithfulness to Christ. It would be very possi-
ble for the church to become a breeding ground for that
which is opposed to Christ himself.
Also, we see that Satan is described in the New Testa-
ment as having a sort of metamorphic character. He is
deceptive; he has the ability to transform himself, as the
New Testament says, into an angel of light. In theology we
say that Satan has the power to appear sub species boni; that
is, under the auspices of the good, masquerading as a good
497
R.C. SPROUL
personage. So, what better place to communicate a grand
delusion than in the context of the church itself?
I have to add this qualifier to that. Though it's very possi-
ble that the Antichrist could come from the church, never-
theless all of these things could also be said of secular
personages who usurp ecclesiastical authority, as in the
ancient world when pagan rulers would come in and dese-
crate the temple of God and set themselves up to be wor-
shiped. In that sense the spirit of the Antichrist doesn't
necessarily have to be identified with the church.
Do the Scriptures say that during the last days the
earth will be destroyed or that God will regenerate the
substance that already exists here?
There's a great deal of controversy about how the end of
the world will come. Many people are frightened by the
startling images Scripture uses to describe the end times.
When we're told that the heavens will roll up like a scroll
and the earth will melt, and we see this conflagration that
involves a tremendous intensity of heat, some see a cryptic
foretelling of some kind of nuclear holocaust by which this
whole planet will be utterly annihilated.
Though there are differences of opinion in this matter,
the overwhelming consensus of believers throughout his-
tory has been that though there will be a catastrophic
moment ofjudgment at the end of the age, the expression
of God's wrath upon the earth will not involve the total
annihilation of this planet. Rather, the classical view looks
for a renovation of this world. We all agree that we look for
498
The End Times
a new heaven and a new earth, seen by John in his vision
(the book of Revelation).
In what we call eschatology, which is the study of the last
things, there are a couple of principles that I think are
important to keep in front of us when we pay attention to
what the Bible says about this catastrophic moment at the
end of history as we know it. For example, in Romans Paul
says that "the whole creation groans together with us in tra-
vail," waiting for the redemption that God is going to bring
upon his people. Man's fall brings the whole earth into
pain, sorrow, travail, and tragedy.
We find in Scripture that along with the redemption of
the human race will also come the redemption of the
human race's environment, which is this world. God cre-
ates humanity and God redeems humanity. And so it is that
he creates a world, and his plan of redemption is to
redeem this world. The way I look at it, which is somewhat
speculative, is that this mass of conflagration during the
last days that the Scriptures speak of is a kind of purifica-
tion of this world. Not utter annihilation, not utter destruc-
tion, but a purification of the old, which is then renewed,
restored, and brought to life again.
Do we stand before God in judgment upon
death or later?
We have to make a distinction, as I think the Bible does, be-
tween the judgment that we receive immediately upon our
death, at which we are brought before Christ, and what the
Bible speaks of as the last judgment. There's a reason the
Bible refers to the last judgment as the last. That which is
499
R.C. SPROUL
last presupposes that there have been some kinds ofjudg-
ment prior to it. The Bible says that it's appointed for man
to die once, and then the judgment. I think there's much
in the New Testament to indicate that at the moment we
die, we experience at least a preliminary judgment.
Paul, for example, said that he longed to depart and to
be with Christ, which was far better than to remain here in
this life and in the ministry he had. Historic Christianity
has almost universally, but not quite, confessed the idea
that the departed saints go immediately to be in the pres-
ence of Christ, in what is called the enjoyment of the inter-
mediate state; that is, we are disembodied spirits, and we
await the final consummation of the kingdom of Christ,
whereby we will experience the resurrection of the body.
When, in the Apostles' Creed, we say, "I believe in the
resurrection of the body," we're not talking about Christ's
body but about our future resurrected bodies. As I say,
historic Christianity believes that there is an immediate
transference from this world into the presence of Christ,
at least in our disembodied spirit state. For that to happen,
some kind ofjudgment has to take place. For example,
Paul would not be ushered into the presence of Christ im-
mediately upon his death without Christ first making an
evaluation that Paul was indeed one of his — that he was a
justified man in a state of salvation. I think there is a pre-
liminary division of the sheep and the goats prior to the
final judgment on the last day, of which Scripture speaks.
Jesus warns repeatedly of that last judgment.
Very few people in our secular culture find a discussion
ofjudgment to be relevant; it is politically incorrect to
judge others or, to some extent, even ourselves — to distin-
500
The End Times
guish between right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Yet
these very same people will commend the teachings of
Jesus as wise and wonderful. But if Jesus of Nazareth taught
anything, he taught repeatedly and emphatically that every-
one of us will in fact be brought before the judgment
throne of God for a final, consummate judgment.
Will the Christian have to go through the final
judgment in the same way the non-Christian will?
There's a sense in which we will not, and there's a sense in
which we will. There's a lot of confusion about judgment
in the Bible, partly due to a confusion between two words,
judgment and condemnation. In the book of Romans, Paul
makes it clear that one of the great fruits of our justifica-
tion is that we have moved beyond the scope of condemna-
tion. There is no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus. So those who are in Christ need not have any
fear of ever having to face the punitive wrath of God in the
final judgment. We have to make certain that we are in
that state of grace before we have the confidence that
we're not going to experience condemnation.
But we still must face what I would call the judgment of
evaluation. Jesus warns again and again that everything we
do, whether we're believers or nonbelievers, will be
brought into the judgment. I will stand before God, and
my life will be reviewed by my Father. Obviously my sins
will be covered by the atonement and righteousness of
Christ, and I will have the supreme advantage of standing
at the judgment throne of God, where Christ is the judge
and also the defense attorney for his people. That's a situa-
501
R.C. SPROUL
tion that the unbeliever doesn't have. His judge is not his
defense attorney — he doejsn't have a defense attorney. All
he has is a prosecuting attorney accompanying him in the
courtroom. So that's all the difference in the world be-
tween how the unbeliever stands in the last judgment and
how the believer stands in the last judgment.
When we talk about our justification, we recognize that
we are justified through the merits of Christ, through the
atoning grace ofJesus. But we are still to be judged accord-
ing to the level of our obedience in this world. This doc-
trine is held by virtually every Protestant church in the
world, yet many Protestants forget that Christians will be
rewarded in heaven according to their obedience. There
are at least twenty-five times in the New Testament that we
are told we will be rewarded according to our works. We
don't get there by our works; we get there through the
merit of Christ. What rewards we receive in heaven will be
distributed according to the level of obedience and
response we give to the mandates of Christ. So our lives
will be evaluated, and some of us will get greater rewards
than others as we are evaluated at the last judgment.
The Bible teaches that we will be judged by the same
measure by which we judge others. Is this an
indication that on Judgment Day, the process of
judgment will be significantly different among people?
It would obviously follow from the statements that Jesus
makes in the New Testament that whatever form ofjudg-
ment we give is what we can expect to receive. But there
are a couple of things we need to mention by way of clarifi-
502
The End Times
cation. First of all, we know that the final judgment of our
lives as we stand before the Divine Tribunal will be at the
hands of an infallible, omniscient, perfectly righteous
Judge and that the judgment will be absolutely just. A truly
just judge always considers mitigating circumstances. In
other words, any act that I'm involved in of a moral kind,
be it good or evil, is really a complex act. The degree of
wickedness or virtue of my act is related, for example, to
many things, one of which is my understanding of what I
am doing. If I have a clear understanding that something
is wrong and I go ahead and do it willfully, that makes my
crime more severe than if I am confused about it. That
doesn't necessarily excuse me altogether, but it is a mitigat-
ing circumstance. And a just judge considers all of those
actions and activities when he makes an ultimate verdict
about it.
Now whatJesus tells us is that when he takes everything
into account, not only in the judgment of evaluating
whether we were guilty or innocent, virtuous or wicked, he
also dispenses benefits, rewards, and punishments on the
last day. In the verse you cited, Jesus is warning us that if,
in this life, we refuse to be merciful to people, God will
take that into consideration, and as part of his just punish-
ment for us he will withhold his mercy. If I, being a sinner
and a guilty person, tend to be merciful toward others,
God will take that into account when he gives his final judg-
ment, and he will be inclined to show more mercy toward
the merciful. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall
obtain mercy." There is a tremendous advantage to being
merciful in this world because God will weigh that in the
balance of our final judgment.
503
R.C. SPROUL
What does Scripture teach us about the future
role of Israel?
Some Christians believe that the New Testament church
replaces Old Testament Israel as the subject matter of Old
Testament prophecies about Israel. That is to say that the
church today is regarded as the new Israel. If this is so,
then any prophecies in the Bible having to do with Israel
now refer to the Christian church and have no specific ref-
erence to the nation of Israel.
Other Christians are convinced that the Scriptures have
much to say about ethnic, national Israel and that God still
has another chapter to write for the Jewish people as such.
I am persuaded that God will write a new chapter for eth-
nic Israel, for the Jewish people who are alive in the world
today. I'm persuaded of that principally because of Paul's
teaching in his epistle to the church at Rome; in this letter
he makes a clear distinction between the Jewish people
and the Christian church (Rom. 11). In that distinction he
speaks about the fact that God still has work to do with the
Jewish people.
One of the most important sections of all of Scripture
that teaches about future things is what we call the Olivet
discourse, called such because it takes place on the Mount
of Olives (Matt. 24). Here, Jesus and his disciples discuss
future events. Jesus speaks about the last times and the
signs of the times and those things that will transpire at the
end of the age before he returns to this planet. For exam-
ple, in Luke 21:5-28, Jesus predicts the imminent destruc-
tion of the city ofJerusalem and the temple. This took
place in ad. 70, when the Romans perpetrated a holocaust
504
The End Times
against the Jewish people by destroying Jerusalem, slaugh-
tering about one million Jewish people, and tearing the
temple down. The Jews, of course, then went into exile.
But when Jesus made this prophecy about the destruction
ofJerusalem, he said that Jerusalem would be trodden
underfoot until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. So
even our Lord talked in his prophetic utterances about a
period in which that exile of the Jewish nation would end
and they would return to Jerusalem, which has taken place
in our own very day. Beyond that, I do not know and can't
speak specifically to Israel's situation.
505
2©
Lifestyle Ethics
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, His own special people,
that you may proclaim the praises of Him
who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
I PETER 2:9
Lifestyle Ethics
©tmestioins in TM§ §ecti©im:
Why do Christians think they know how other people should live?
Should Christians impose their ethics upon non-Christians?
How can we as Christians ascertain when God's Word was applicable
to a certain culture and therefore may not be applicable to us today?
How do we uphold Christian ethics without being judgmental?
Do you feel more pressure as a public figure to live on a higher level
of Christian ethics?
If things are going to get worse and worse until our Lord's coming,
why should we concern ourselves with social activism and political
involvement to make things better?
What is the biblical basis for human dignity?
What is our responsibility toward the poor?
Could you give an example of how Christ's teaching about turning the
other cheek applies to today's life situations?
In terms of the arts, is there a difference between secular and Christian?^
Should a Christian attorney defend someone he knows is guilty?
Rahab the harlot, the Hebrew midwives, and others throughout the
Old Testament supposedly lied to protect others, and God, in turn,
blessed them. Does this mean that Christians today may have
occasion to lie with God's blessing?
509
R.C. SPROUL
The Bible calls drunkenness a sin. What are the dangers of our cul-
ture calling drunkenness a disease?
According to the Bible, is there anything wrong with using hypnosis to
help people stop smoking or to overcome some other addiction or
behavior pattern?
Why is the use of drugs such as crack escalating in our society?
Is it wrong for scientists to engage in genetic engineering?
Should Christians support AIDS research?
510
Lifestyle Ethics
Why do Christians think they know how
other people should live?
We hear the expression "holier than thou" quite often in our
society, and people hate to have religion shoved down their
throats. People are willing to let me practice my religion, but
they don't want me hounding them to change their values.
Lurking behind all this is society's tendency toward a relativis-
tic view of ethics; the overriding idea is that every person has
the right to do what is right in his or her own mind.
But if God is and if he is the Lord of the human race, the
Creator of all of us, and if he holds us accountable to him,
then there is an objective standard of what is right in his
sight. God reveals very clearly that one of the great symptoms
of our human fallenness is the idea that people have the
right to do what is right in their own minds. The whole con-
cept of theJudeo-Christian religion is that ultimate righteous-
ness is declared, not by my personal preferences or by yours,
but by God and his supreme character. If I as an individual
come to an understanding of what God requires of people,
then that means I am required to do certain things. I may
also understand that he's requiring certain things of me as
an individual and of people as members of community.
We consider Isaiah in the temple when he had a vision
of the holiness of God. He disintegrated before that
appearance of God's majesty and cried out, "Woe is me, for
I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips." And then he
went on to say, "And I dwell in the midst of a people of
511
R.C. SPROUL
unclean lips." Isaiah recognized that his sinfulness was not
unique. The fact that he recognized that other people
were also guilty of the same sins did not mean that he was
entertaining a judgmental spirit toward those other
people. He was simply recognizing the truth of the matter:
God was sovereign and holy in relation not only to him but
to everybody else as well. In practical terms I could say
that, for instance, God not only prohibits me from adul-
tery but he also prohibits you from adultery.
The fact that God's law extends beyond ourselves is a
point that has been recognized by professors and teachers
of ethics quite apart from the Christian faith. Immanuel
Kant studied this question thoroughly and talked about
the appearance of what he called the categorical impera-
tive, the sense of duty that is present in every human
being. Every human being has some idea of what is right
and wrong. He made a statement very similar to Jesus': "So
live that the ethical decisions that you make would be good
if they were elevated to the level of a universal norm." He
understood that no man is an island.
Should Christians impose their ethics upon
non-Christians?
This question comes up every time a moral issue is
debated in the legislature or some other government
arena. Do Christians have the right to impose their ethics
upon those who don't share the same religious perspec-
tive? Well, there are different ways to impose ethical stand-
ards upon people. When we talk about ethical authority,
ultimately I would say that the only being in the universe
512
Lifestyle Ethics
having the intrinsic right to impose an obligation on any
other being is God himself. Only God is the Lord of the
human conscience. We would also have to qualify that and
say that God has at the same time delegated certain author-
ities who have the right to impose ethical obligations on
other people. He has delegated the right to parents to
impose obligations upon their children. He has also estab-
lished, created, and ordained governments to impose cer-
tain standards of law upon their constituents.
When we live in a free society where the democratic pro-
cess is functioning, the majority of people in the society
are given the right to vote. That vote involves an exercise
of one's will that ultimately will become the law of the land
if I am voting with the majority. One of the things that very
much frightens me is that I hear very few Christians and
non-Christians who seem to be aware of the weighty respon-
sibility that is involved in casting a vote for something.
When I am voting for a law, for example, what I am asking
is that if that law is passed, then obviously that law must be
enforced. I am voting that all of the power that is vested in
the government of the United States of America — or in the
state of Florida, or in the city of Orlando, wherever we
are — be marshalled to enforce that law. Anytime I do that,
I am imposing some kind of restraint on other people's
freedom. That is a very weighty responsibility.
For Christians who have pet projects unique to Christian
enterprises, to use the law and law enforcement to get their
way in a public arena may be an exercise in tyranny. Of
course, we have been victims of the same kind of tyranny
when other people have become the majority and have used
laws that are unjust to discriminate against us or other
513
R.C. SPROUL
people. I think that Christians ought to be keenly protective
of the First Amendment not only for ourselves but for every-
body else out there. So I would be very hesitant before
imposing uniquely Christian principles upon non-Christians.
How can we as Christians ascertain when God's Word
was applicable only to a certain culture and therefore
may not be applicable to us today?
The real question here is, Is everything that is set forth in
Scripture to be applied to all people of all time and of all
cultures? I don't know any biblical scholar who would
argue that everything set forth in Scripture applies to all
people at all times. Since Jesus sent out the seventy and he
told them not to wear shoes, does that mean that evange-
lists today would be disobedient unless they preached in
their bare feet? Obviously that is an example of something
practiced in the first-century culture that has no real appli-
cation in our culture today.
When we come to the matter of understanding and
applying Scripture, we have two problems. First, there is
understanding the historical context in which the Scrip-
ture was first given. That means we have to go back and try
to get into the skins and into the minds and languages of
the first-century people who wrote down the Scriptures.
We have to study the ancient languages — Greek and
Hebrew — so that we can, as best as we know how, recon-
struct the original meaning and intent of the Word of God.
The second difficulty is that we live in the twentieth cen-
tury, and words that we use every day are conditioned and
shaped by how they are used in our here and now. There's
514
Lifestyle Ethics
a sense in which I'm tethered to the twentieth century, yet
the Bible speaks to me from the first century and before.
How do I bridge that gap?
I also think we need to study church history so that we
can see those principles and precepts that the church has
understood as applying across the centuries and speaking
to Christians of all ages. It helps to have a historical per-
spective. You've heard the cliche that those who ignore the
past are doomed to repeat it. There is much to be learned
through a serious study of the history of the world and the
history of the Christian faith, and how other generations
and other societies have understood the Word of God and
its application to their life situation. By doing that, we'll
readily see elements of scriptural instruction that the
church of all ages has understood not to be limited to the
immediate hearers of the biblical message but to have prin-
ciple application down through the ages.
We certainly don't want to relativize or historicize an
eternal truth of God. My rule of thumb: We are to study to
try to discern a difference between principle and custom.
But if after having studied we can't discern, I would rather
treat something that may be a first-century custom as an
eternal principle than risk being guilty of taking an eternal
principle of God and treating it as a first-century custom.
How do we uphold Christian ethics without
being judgmental?
One of the principles of Christian ethics is that we are not
to manifest a judgmental spirit. If we are judgmental in
our attitudes and in our spirits, we've already violated the
515
R.C. SPROUL
Christian ethic. The Christian ethic has something to say
about how we respond to other people's sins. We are not
to whitewash other people's sins. We are called to demon-
strate discernment, to be able to recognize the difference
between good and evil.
I've often said that every nonbeliever in America knows
one verse that's in the Bible: "Judge not lest ye be judged,"
and they appeal to that by saying that nobody ever has the
right to say that anything they do is wrong. For a judge in a
courtroom to declare an accused person guilty of a crime
is not judgmental. For a Christian to recognize sinful
behavior in another Christian or non-Christian as sinful is
not judgmental.
To be judgmental in the sense in which it's prohibited in
Scripture is to manifest a censorious attitude, a pharisaic
attitude of condemning people out of hand and consign-
ing them to utter worthlessness because of their sin with-
out any spirit of patience, forbearance, kindness, or mercy.
That's whyJesus warns us about noticing the speck in our
brother's eye when we have a log in our own eye. The person
who is running around examining specks is a person who
has this judgmental spirit that Jesus found absolutely abhor-
rent. That doesn't mean that we are to be loose on sin or to
call good evil or evil good. Judgmen tal describes an attitude.
When a woman was brought to Jesus because she had
been caught in the act of adultery, how did he deal with
her? He didn't say that she wasn't guilty; he didn't explain
away her sin, nor did he endorse or encourage her sin. He
said to her, "Go and sin no more." He asked, "Where are
those who condemn you?" They had all departed out of
embarrassment moments before, and Jesus said, "Neither
516
Lifestyle Ethics
do I condemn you. Go in peace." He dealt with that
woman. Though he rebuked, admonished, and corrected
her, he did it gently and with a concern to heal her and
not to destroy her. It is said ofJesus in the New Testament
that a bruised reed he would not break. Ajudgmental
spirit breaks people who are bruised. There is to be none
of that present in the church or among the people of God.
Do you feel more pressure as a public figure to live at
a higher level of Christian ethics?
Yes, I do. I realize objectively that every Christian is called to
the same standard of righteousness. God doesn't grade on
a curve; we all have the same law to which we are called to
conform. At the same time, we recognize that the New Testa-
ment gives specific warnings to those who are in positions of
leadership in the ministry or in teaching, as I am. I tremble
at the New Testament warning: "Let not many become teach-
ers, for with the teaching comes a greater judgment." That
greater judgment is not due to our having a higher law but
rather due to the advanced level of knowledge and under-
standing we are expected to have about theology (including
the laws of God) and the Christian way of life.
To whom much is given, much is required. The more we
understand and are aware of what God requires, the
greater our culpability is when we don't maintain it.
Also, Jesus warns that it would be better for a person to
have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown
into the abyss than to lead any of the little ones astray. God
takes very seriously the responsibility a teacher has to be
accurate and disciplined in whatever he teaches. If I teach
517
R.C. SPROUL
falsehood, for example, and use the position I have as a
teacher to influence and persuade people, that means
trouble for me on the Day ofJudgment.
Even though there is no double standard ultimately, cer-
tainly there is culturally. We're all acutely aware of it. When-
ever a minister is involved in some kind of sin, it becomes a
public scandal. It brings a blemish to the whole community
of God because of the office that the minister represents.
It was scandalous in the Old Testament when the priests
were engaged in corrupt practices at the temple. God dealt
at times very harshly with the priests who had violated their
office and that sacred trust they held. It's a frightening
thing to think about.
I can remember when I moved to Boston twenty-some
years ago. The first night we arrived, our clothes had not yet
arrived. The only thing I had to wear out to dinner was one
of those clerical collars and the black vest. I didn't even have
a shirt to wear underneath it. I know that when I was driving
my car down Route 128 in Boston and somebody cut in front
of me and I had the impulse to blow the horn, I hesitated
because of that which clearly revealed that I was a clergyman.
So, yes, there is that pressure. That's undeniable.
Given the great apostasy in the world, many Christians
consider these to be the last days. If things are going to
get worse and worse until our Lord's coming, why
should we concern ourselves with social activism and
political involvement to make things better?
This question assumes several things. It assumes that we
are in that period that the Bible designates as the great
518
Lifestyle Ethics
apostasy. I'm not sure that we are in that period, though
we may well be. In the last two hundred years, for example,
we've seen a serious decline in the world influence of Chris-
tianity, particularly its influence on culture in the Western
world. We've seen things take place that were unheard of
in the past. The death of God was proclaimed not by secu-
lar philosophers or by atheists but by self-confessed Chris-
tian theologians. So we have seen serious manifestations of
departure from classical Christian orthodoxy, which leads
some people to conclude that we are in an age of great
apostasy.
On the other hand, it could be said that we are in an age
of unprecedented renewal. Those who are more sanguine
about reading the signs of the times would have a more
optimistic view of the present state of affairs.
I don't have an inside view of God's timetable concern-
ing the consummation of his kingdom. I'm hoping he will
bring the kingdom to pass soon. It may very well be that
we're in the last hours of the last days. I certainly hold that
as a very real possibility.
And if that is the case, how would that influence the
agenda of the church? I'm of the opinion that even if we
were in the last fifteen minutes of redemptive history and
if we knewJesus was coming in the next quarter hour, we
still would have the mandate to do those things that he
told us to do until he returns; that is, to be his witnesses,
to manifest his kingship, to show and to illustrate what the
kingdom of God is supposed to look like — and that
includes giving food to the hungry, shelter to the home-
less, and clothes to the naked. The church's agenda has
been established by Jesus between the time of his depar-
519
R . C. SPROUL
ture and the time of his return. Regardless of how soon or
how far away that return is, we are called to active involve-
ment in the goals and the mandates of the kingdom.
Sometimes I become so discouraged by the opposition
of the world structures to Christianity and the lack of influ-
ence we seem to have in the culture that I find myself fall-
ing back into a "snatching a few brands from the fire"
mentality, just trying to reach an individual here and there
and abandoning the larger tasks given us by Christ. I have
to resist that, and I urge every Christian to resist that temp-
tation.
What is the biblical basis for human dignity?
As a Christian I do not believe that human beings have
intrinsic dignity. I am totally committed to the idea that
human beings have dignity, but the question is, Is it intrin-
sic or extrinsic?
Dignity, by biblical definition, is tied to the biblical con-
cept of glory. God's glory, his weightiness, his importance,
his significance, is what the Bible uses to describe the foun-
tainhead of all dignity. And only God has eternal value and
intrinsic (that is, in and of himself) significance. I am a
creature — I come from the dust. The dust isn't all that sig-
nificant, but I become significant when God scoops up that
dust and molds it into a human being and breathes into it
the breath of life and says, "This creature is made in my
image." God assigns eternal significance to temporal crea-
tures. I don't have anything in me that would demand that
God treat me with eternal significance. I have eternal sig-
nificance and eternal worth because God gives it to me.
520
Lifestyle Ethics
And not only does he give it to me but he gives it to every
human being.
That's why in the Bible the great commandment not
only deals with our relationship with God but our relation-
ships with human beings. "Thou shalt love the Lord your
God with all your heart, with all your might, and with all
your strength . . . and your neighbor as much as you love
yourself," because God has endowed every human creature
with value.
What is our responsibility toward the poor?
If you do a word study of poor as it appears in Scripture,
you will find that four categories emerge.
The first group consists of people who are poor as a
direct result of indolence; that is, these people are poor
because they are irresponsible. They are lazy. They refuse
to work. The response of God to that particular category of
the poor is one of somewhat harsh judgment and admoni-
tion. "Consider the ant, thou sluggard." Go watch the ant
and learn how to live. Paul takes a strong view in the New
Testament: "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat"
(2 Thess. 3:10). So the basic posture toward that group of
people is one of admonition and a call to repentance.
Sometimes, however, people will oversimplify it and say
that the only reason people are poor is because they are
lazy. That's just not true. There are a lot of people who are
poor for reasons that have nothing to do with being sinful
or lazy. So we come to the second group of the poor identi-
fied in Scripture, those who are poor as a direct result of
calamity, disease, accident, and that sort of thing. Scripture
521
R . C. SPROUL
tells us that it is the responsibility of the church and of
Christian people to pour out their hearts in compassion
and to give assistance to those who are suffering through
no fault of their own, as a result of natural calamity.
The third group is comprised of those who are poor as a
result of unfair exploitation or tyrannization by the power-
ful, those who are victims of corrupt governments or are
the almost incidental casualties of war. In that situation,
you see God thundering from heaven, calling for justice to
be given to these people, and God pours out his indigna-
tion against those who would sell the poor for a pair of
shoes and who would tyrannize them through illegitimate
means. In that sense, we should be advocates of the poor
and defenders of the poor.
The fourth and final group of the poor that we find in
the Bible are those who are poor voluntarily; that is, they
are poor for what the Bible calls "righteousness' sake," will-
ingly sacrificing any worldly gain as a personal commit-
ment on their part to devote their time to other matters.
Those people are to receive our support and our approval.
Could you give an example of how Christ's teaching
about turning the other cheek applies to today's life
situations?
There's much confusion about whatJesus meant in the
Sermon on the Mount when he said that when somebody
strikes you on the right cheek, you are to turn the other
cheek to him as well. Many people have taken that to mean
that Christians are to be doormats if they become victims
of a violent assault; if somebody punches you in the face,
522
Lifestyle Ethics
you're supposed to turn your face around and get
punched on the other side. What's interesting in the
expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side
of the face. The vast majority of people in the world are
right-handed, and for somebody to be smacked in the
right side of the face, either you have to hit them from
behind or you have to hit them with a left hook. If I hit you
on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did
it with the back of my right hand.
To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language,
that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, sim-
ilar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur
were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your
opponent. It's not limited to simply a physical attack but
rather has primary reference to someone's insulting you.
The context in which Jesus speaks has to do with a
debate with the Pharisees over their understanding of the
Old Testament law, particularly that which we find in the
Mosaic code that says the punishment for crimes was to be
based on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We
often hear that expression today as if this were an expres-
sion of a primitive, barbaric, and unusual punitive system
in the Jewish nation. But I think if we look at it unemotion-
ally, we will see that there's never been a more equitable
and just concept for punitive measures than a tooth for a
tooth and an eye for an eye; it's equal. But among the rab-
bis this statement had become an excuse, a justification,
for a spirit of bitter vindictiveness and cruel and harsh
treatment of those who had broken the law.
This "turn the other cheek" saying is given in the same
context as the statement "If your enemy wants you to go
523
R.C. SPROUL
one mile, go two. If he wants your coat, give him your
cloak as well." Jesus is saying that we should bend over
backward to not be involved in a spirit of bitter vindictive-
ness. The rest ofJesus' teaching indicates that it's not
wrong for someone to seek justice in the law courts. If a
widow is defrauded of her inheritance, that doesn't mean
that she has to go out and give everything else she has to
the one who stole it from her. But Jesus is talking about an
ethic here that I believe calls for us to imitate the attitude
of mercy and forbearance and patience that is found in
God himself.
In terms of the arts, is there a difference between
secular and Christian?
I think there is, although that difference at times is exceed-
ingly difficult to articulate and to pinpoint. Abstractly I
would say the great difference between Christian art and
non-Christian art would be in perspective.
Art is a means of communication; wherever there is art,
some content is being communicated. By "art" I refer in a
general sense to music, sculpture, painting, etc. Art can be
categorized in terms of form and content, but all art forms
communicate something.
There was a famous phrase in the sixties taken from the
title of Marshall McLuhan's book The Medium Is the Mes-
sage. That means that the form itself conveys a message, a
nonverbal message, just as the content in a work of art
does. In a song, there are not only the words but also a
structure, a form of the music that is being played. There
are certain kinds of music that are very orderly, say, a Bach
524
Lifestyle Ethics
cantata. The structure of Bach's music follows a decisive
pattern, and there's no attempt to be chaotic. Some mod-
ern musicians have attempted to create chaos, although
it's an impossible task because you cannot intentionally be
unintentional. You can't intentionally create ultimate
chaos. There is still a pattern to this pretended chaos.
They're trying to communicate through a very loose kind
of form, whether it's in painting or in music, a statement
against harmony and order and rationality, all of which
have theological implications. It's part of the secular mood
of despair that says there is no ultimate coherency.
In the world of the theater of the absurd, actors on stage
utter nonsense words, implying that man has come to the
place where even his language is meaningless. But even
those nonsense syllables are a form of communication,
and there is a message there, incoherent as it may seem.
At the other extreme, there's the attitude that, for art to
be Christian, it must include a Bible verse or depict people
with halos over their heads. I am convinced that if we look
in the Scriptures we'll see that God is a God of beauty. He's
the ultimate foundation of beauty, and his character is
beautiful. Part of the task of man is to mirror and reflect
the character of God. That means we are called to produce
art and that that art be excellent.
Should a Christian attorney defend someone
he knows is guilty?
Part of this question is simple to answer. Just because an
attorney knows that his client is guilty does not disqualify
that person from all of the rights that the nation gives him
525
R.C. SPROUL
to legal counsel and a fair trial. It is the responsibility of
the attorney to give the best legal defense he can for a
client even if the client is guilty. The client may even enter
a guilty plea. It may be the task of the attorney to argue for
mitigating circumstances or to try to demonstrate through
historical precedent that these mitigating circumstances
should be taken into account when sentencing comes up.
There are many defenses that are still significant — and
legitimate — for a person who is clearly guilty.
What if the man is pleading innocent and the attorney
knows that he's guilty? Can an attorney, in good con-
science, support something he knows to be fraudulent?
Knowing that a person has committed a crime or done
certain things does not mean that we know in advance that
that man would be judged guilty of a particular crime in a
particular courtroom given all the circumstances of the
trial. I would think that within the restraints of honesty and
integrity, a lawyer could provide a legitimate defense for
someone he knows to be guilty. A lawyer's actions become
questionable when he becomes an accomplice in attempt-
ing to defraud the bench and to fool the jury into believ-
ing something other than what he knows the reality to be.
We see this kind of dishonesty every day in divorce
courts. I've seen it happen again and again: The man is
guilty of adultery and wants to get out of the marriage, so
he sues his wife on grounds of cruel and unusual treat-
ment, or something like that. The attorney knows very
well that the guilty party in the breakup of the marriage
is the husband, not the wife. Yet he'll continue to repre-
sent the husband and get everything he possibly can for
his client. I have problems with that. In any profession
526
Lifestyle Ethics
medical, legal, and theological — there are people of great
conscience and also people who are not all that scrupu-
lous. Their whole concern is with winning or losing the
case, and they operate from a foundation of expediency
and from the motivation of the best financial solution. At
that point we make a mockery out of any quest for truth
and justice.
Rahab the harlot, the Hebrew midwives, and others
throughout the Old Testament supposedly lied to
protect others, and God, in turn, blessed them. Does
this mean that Christians today may have occasion to
lie with God's blessing?
The short answer I would give to that is yes, there may be
occasions when God-fearing people are called upon to lie
in the sense of speaking something that is not the truth.
There are many Christian ethicists who believe that the
prohibition against lying is absolute and that there is
never any justification for the so-called white lie. Others
point to Rahab and the Hebrew midwives as examples;
their lies are reported and later on they're included in
the roll call of heroes. It doesn't explicitly say that God
blessed or sanctified them for lying, but it seems to imply
that there's not a word of rebuke for their blatant dishon-
esty in these situations.
There are other occasions in Scripture where we see
people lying in ways that I think are clearly contrary to the
Word of God. For example, some have tried to justify
Rebekah's involvement in the deception of her husband so
that Jacob could receive the blessing instead of Esau. She
527
R.C. SPROUL
was involved in this conspiracy to deceive her own hus-
band, and some have tried to defend her by saying that if
God had willed that the elder should serve the younger,
then it was God's plan for Jacob to receive the patriarchal
blessing rather than Esau. All that Rebekah was doing was
making sure the will of God came to pass. All that Judas
was doing when he betrayed Jesus into the hands of his
enemies was making sure the will of God came to pass
and God held him eminently responsible for his treachery.
I'm sure that Rebekah, though she may have been blessed
of God, was blessed in spite of her lying and not because of
it. Some would place Rahab in the same category.
Over the centuries, in the Christian church, there has
developed an ethic of truthfulness that is linked to justice.
The Christian is always to give the truth and to speak the
truth to whom the truth is due. The question now
becomes, Is there such a case for the so-called just or justi-
fied lie? I would say so, and the situations falling most
clearly into that category would involve war, murder, or
criminal activities. If a murderer comes to your house and
he wants to know if your children are upstairs in bed and
you know that it's his intent to murder them, it's your
moral obligation to lie to him, to deceive him as much as
you possibly can to prevent those lives from being taken. I
think that would also be true in cases of war. I don't think
a person is required to tell the enemy where his group is
concealed any more than a quarterback in a football game
is required to announce to the defense what the intended
play is. He can use faking and deception in order to exe-
cute that play. That's sort of a war game on the football
field. Numerous Christians lied to the Nazis in order to
528
Lifestyle Ethics
protect Jews from capture and extermination. I think that
in cases in which we know that lying will prevent such evil,
it is legitimate.
The Bible calls drunkenness a sin. What are the
dangers of our culture calling drunkenness a disease?
Drunkenness has been referred to as a disease partly out of
the motivation to be compassionate toward people who suf-
fer under a very debilitating and dehumanizing problem.
Those who have labored through the suffering involved
are tired of condemnatory attitudes, and they say, "Hey,
look, let's quit screaming at these people and try to be a
little bit more helpful and compassionate. Quit heaping all
this blame on them as if they were just immoral people."
There is also some evidence in the literature to indicate
that certain kinds of alcoholism involve genetic chemical
imbalances, and so in that physiological aspect there may
be some basis for recognizing that alcoholism is not merely
a moral weakness. But there are dangers in calling this
problem a disease. God does call it a sin. He holds us ac-
countable for our behavior with respect to the use of alco-
hol. He calls us to temperance, and he tells us that we're
simply not allowed to get into a pattern of drunkenness.
God is saying that we do have a moral choice in the matter
and that we can't simply blame our environment or some-
body else for this problem.
Even beyond that clear theological difficulty, I see a psy-
chological concern. If I say to somebody, "You have a dis-
ease" or, "You are sick," I may be motivated to say that to
take them off the hook, to protect their self-esteem, which is
529
R.C. SPROUL
a noble motivation. However, I may inadvertently be crush-
ing their spirit because I'm.saying, "There's nothing you can
do. You're sick. It's as if you caught the flu or you've got can-
cer. Some kind of foreign antibodies invaded your system.
The only way that you'll ever be cured is if somebody comes
up with a wonder drug and cures you." In other words, we
render a person hopeless by telling him that he's sick
unless at the same time we can offer a medicinal cure. I
don't know anybody who's able to do that.
I think that the organization that has worked most effec-
tively with this problem is Alcoholics Anonymous. They
have that spirit of compassion and gentleness, but at the
same time they hold each other accountable, and they
encourage one another to work to get out of the situation.
According to the Bible, is there anything wrong with
using hypnosis to help people stop smoking or to
overcome some other addiction or behavior pattern?
I'm not exactly sure how to answer that question. We have
seen the phenomenon of hypnosis being used in what I
would call illegitimate ways as an attempt to penetrate
areas of the occult. But I'm not sure we understand all of
what hypnosis is or how it is or can be used.
To the degree that I understand it, hypnosis involves a
kind of intense mental concentration whereby we can
focus our consciousness on certain crucial ideas, feelings,
or incidents. This could be useful in surgery; it is also used
sometimes in therapy to help a person remember a trau-
matic event, for instance. I don't see anything intrinsically
or inherently wrong from a moral standpoint with the use
530
Lifestyle Ethics
of hypnosis in appropriate settings for a person who is
struggling with an addiction or something of that sort. The
therapist talks to the patient and puts him into a hypnotic
state. There is nothing magical about that. The therapist
continues the conversation with the patient, trying to com-
municate a focused message, for example, "You do not
need to continue the use of this substance. It is harmful
for you." They repeat that over and over so that when the
person returns to an awakened state of consciousness, that
thought is imbedded in their mind and they will keep
going back to it. It is almost like an intensified level of con-
centration to learn a lesson. Insofar as that's all it involves,
I don't see anything wrong with it.
Why is the use of drugs such as crack escalating in our
society today?
I can remember when I was in high school being scandal-
ized when one of my favorite movie actors was arrested in
Hollywood for smoking a marijuana cigarette. Not that
many years ago, that kind of behavior was frowned upon
not only in the church but throughout the secular culture.
But now we have gone through an explosive level of
upheaval in drug use and abuse. It is even affecting the
role models that come from the world of sports, as we're
all sadly aware. The studies that have been done so far in
child psychiatry indicate that in children between the ages
of thirteen and nineteen years, the greatest single influ-
ence in the shaping of their self-image, their identity as
people, is not their parents but the peer group to which
they are striving to belong. So we have to say that once cer-
531
R.C. SPROUL
tain patterns of behavior become acceptable within a par-
ticular age group, we see a, ripple effect whereby more
young people are drawn into them.
One of the reasons for the escalation is the high visibility
of drug use in the music culture. That's one of the earliest
places where the use of hard drugs became acceptable.
Suddenly the patterns that were taboo in earlier generations
had become upbeat, the "in" thing for certain subcultures,
and had spread prolifically into other elements of society.
But there are much deeper reasons for this escalation of
drug use. I think there is a philosophical crisis in our cul-
ture whereby we have lost the understanding of what it
means to be human. What does it mean to be a person?
Historically we saw ourselves as people created in the
image of God. But the modern view of man is that we are a
cosmic mistake, we're grown-up germs, and we are insignifi-
cant. That's an unbearable feeling, and any release from
the pain — if only for a few moments or hours — is welcome
relief from that pessimistic view.
Is it wrong for scientists to engage in genetic engineering?
I feel hopelessly inadequate to answer some of the very
perplexing issues that have arisen because of the explosion
of modern technology. In the case of most ethical ques-
tions, theologians have had the benefit of two thousand
years of careful evaluation and analysis of the moral dilem-
mas involved, whereas questions of biomedical ethics for
the most part have exploded onto the scene in the twenti-
eth century. We've been caught with relatively little time to
think through all of the ramifications.
532
Lifestyle Ethics
An awful lot is contained in the term genetic engineering.
Are we talking about the kind of experiments that were
made infamous by Mengele during World War II, trying to
carry out the unbelievably diabolical plans of Hitler to cre-
ate a master race through the purification of genes? That
kind of thing is clearly evil.
But genetic engineering also involves serious researchers
doing everything in their power by examining the genetic
code to see if there are ways in which serious illnesses, dis-
eases, and distortions can be therapeutically treated
through genetic means. Now, here you're talking about sci-
ence's legitimate task of having dominion over the earth
and exercising mercy and compassion toward the ill and
finding cures for horrible deformities and diseases. We
ought not to say that all genetic engineering is evil. Some
of it, I think, has a legitimate use. Individual issues under
the umbrella of genetic engineering need to be consid-
ered individually as to their moral integrity. And while the
engineers, the specialists, and the researchers themselves
have the most information by which to make judgments,
theologians and philosophers must stay in touch and make
their voices known. These issues fall outside the bound-
aries of mere technology and need to be examined and
debated in the realms of religion and ethics.
Should Christians support AIDS research?
I'm somewhat surprised at the frequency with which this
question is being raised within the Christian community.
Of course Christians should support AIDS research. Why
wouldn't we support AIDS research? We're committed to
533
R.C. SPROUL
ministry to the sick and the alleviation of suffering. When
we find someone sick, it's not our responsibility to ask
them why they're sick. When we find someone hungry, it's
not our responsibility to ask them why they're hungry.
When we find someone homeless, it's not our responsibil-
ity to ask them why they are homeless. Our responsibility is
to clothe the naked, to minister to the sick, and to visit the
prisoners. We don't say that a prisoner in jail is there
because he's committed some great sin, and therefore we
shouldn't visit him. On the contrary, we're commanded to
visit people who are in prison in spite of the fact that they
are there because they've done something wrong.
The fact that AIDS is a disease that generally has its roots
in immoral types of sexual behavior is no reason for the
church to act as God's policeman and his executioner. We
are to work always and everywhere for the alleviation of
pain and suffering in this world. I might add that there are
many, many people who have become victims of AIDS
through no direct actions of their own. AIDS has been
transmitted through blood transfusions. Children have con-
tracted this dreadful disease through transfusions in hospi-
tals or through dirty hypodermic needles. It's been traced
to transmissions through tattoos. We can't just assume that
AIDS is a badge of improper sexual conduct. I don't see
any compelling reason for the church to be against re-
search of AIDS.
I'm really trying to say two things here. One is that even
if the only people in the world who had AIDS were guilty
of gross and heinous sin, that in and of itself would not pre-
clude Christian involvement in seeking a cure and allevia-
tion of suffering for them. That's principle number one.
534
Lifestyle Ethics
Principle number two is that, as a matter of fact, that's
not the case with people and AIDS. There's really no rea-
son I can think of that a Christian would or should be
opposed to research. In fact, one of the great testimonies
of the Christian church has been its place on the cutting
edge when relief of suffering was concerned as in the cases
of the hospital movement and the creation of orphanages.
I think the AIDS situation is a marvelous opportunity for
Christians to dedicate themselves to human service.
535
21
Christians and
Government
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.
For there is no authority except from God,
and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. .
.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.
ROMANS 13: 1, 3
Christians and Government
©mestioitis in This Sectioin:
Is it wrong to confront authority? And if it's not wrong, how do you
do it in the right way?
What is a Christian's responsibility to government?
Should Christians work to have Christian values in public policy?
Are biblical solutions to world problems outdated?
Today we continually hear people screaming for moral rights. Do
these people have a legitimate basis for these claims?
Are there certain biblical ethical standards the government should uphold?
How do you respond to a politician who says that his or other
politicians' personal ethics should have no bearing on whether or not
someone votes for them?
What does the Bible have to say about laws created by man?
Are we being too judgmental when we criticize the private lives of
political leadership?
Both Peter and Paul call us to submit to governing authorities. In light
of that, is revolution ever possible for a Christian, and if so, under
what circumstances?
Even though the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right in the
U.S. Constitution, do we as created beings have this inalienable right?
Many people expect happiness in life. But should that be a rightful
expectation, especially for the Christian?
539
R.C. SPROUL
What is the relationship between Christian education and public
education?
In the judicial courts we are required to swear an oath on the Bible
before taking the stand. Since the Bible says that a person should not
swear on anything, is it right for a Christian to refuse to swear on the
Bible in court?
540
Christians and Government
My whole life I've had the feeling that it's wrong to
confront authority. Is it wrong or not? And if it's not
wrong, how do you do it in the right way?
I suppose this feeling was ingrained in you very early
through parental discipline and instruction. When I was a
small boy, the one absolute nonnegotiable law of our house-
hold was that you didn't talk back to your parents and you
don't sass your teachers or the next-door neighbor. Woe
betide us if we talked back to anyone who was in a position
of authority. I remember that once I took on a science
teacher in class, and boy, I really got in trouble over that.
I think the Bible tells us that we are to give honor to
those who are in authority over us. But I think it is per-
fectly legitimate for us to raise some questions: "Is this the
proper way to do this?" or "Is this a legitimate use of
authority?" As long as the questions are asked or the
confrontation is done in a spirit of genuine humility and
respect, it is legitimate.
This was a very difficult issue for me as a seminary stu-
dent. I studied under some of the most radical scholars
alive, people who systematically attacked the atonement of
Christ or the resurrection of Christ. Inside I would be out-
raged by the fact that these were professors in the theologi-
cal seminary and they were denying the very basic claims
of the Christian faith. Yet I realized that no matter how
wrong they were in that classroom, I had to respect the
office they held as professors. When I studied in Europe,
541
R.C. SPROUL
I found a completely different environment from the one I
encountered in this country. When we assembled in the
amphitheater and the professor opened the classroom
door and entered the room, every student rose and stood
at attention until the professor stood at the lectern and
nodded for us to sit down. Thereupon he would lecture
for sixty minutes. No student was ever allowed to raise his
hand and ask a question. At the end of the lecture the
professor closed the book, stepped from the lectern, and
we stood up again as he walked out. I appreciated that. It
communicated a sense of honor.
We've lost the capacity to honor those in authority.
Again, if the authority commands us to do something
God forbids or if it forbids us to do something God com-
mands, not only must we confront that authority but we
must disobey.
What is a Christian's responsibility to government?
The New Testament gives us some broad principles on how
we are supposed to respond to government. For example,
Romans 13 elaborates on the origin and institution of gov-
ernment as something that God ordains.
The great theologian Augustine said that government
is a necessary evil, that it is necessary because of evil. And
most theologians in the history of the church have said
that human evil is the reason even corrupt government is
better than no government at all. The function of govern-
ment is to restrain evil and to maintain, uphold, and pro-
tect the sanctity of life and of property. Given this
function, the Christian understands that government is
542
Christians and Government
ordained of God, and so Christians, first of all, are called
to respect whatever it is that God institutes and ordains.
For God's sake we are called to be model citizens. We are
told to bend over backwards to honor the king or be obe-
dient to the civil magistrates. That doesn't mean a slavish
obedience to the civil magistrates. There are occasions on
which Christians not only may but must disobey the civil
magistrates. Anytime a civil government requires a Chris-
tian to do what God forbids or forbids them to do what
God commands, then the person must disobey. But our
basic posture toward government, according to the New
Testament, is to be submissive and obedient citizens of
the state. We are also given the duty of praying for earthly
governments that they may fulfill the tasks God has given
to them.
We have another responsibility, and this is the one that
sometimes brings us into controversial areas. I personally
believe in a separation of spheres of authority between the
church and state. I think it is a marvelous structure in the
United States of America that does not allow for the state
to rule the church or the church to rule the state. Histori-
cally that meant that the church was answerable to God
and the state was answerable to God. Separation of church
and state assumed a division of labor; the church has its
job, and the state has its job. The church is not to maintain
a standing army, and the state is not to do evangelism or to
administer the sacraments. Nevertheless, they are both
regarded as being under God.
Unfortunately, in today's culture separation of church
and state means separation of state and God, as if the state
and the government were answerable to no one but them-
543
R.C. SPROUL
selves — as if the government didn't have to respond to
God. But God monitors governments; God raises them
up and brings them down. Every human government is
accountable to God and is accountable to maintain its
affairs with justice and with righteousness. When the gov-
ernment is no longer acting justly and no longer protect-
ing life — sanctioning abortions, for example — then it is
the task of the church to be the prophetic voice, to call the
state to task and tell the state to repent and do what God
commands it to do.
Should Christians work to have Christian values in
public policy?
One year I was invited to speak at the inaugural prayer
breakfast for the newly elected governor of the state of
Florida. On that occasion I had the opportunity to speak
with men and women who were in strategic places in gov-
ernment. A question that's very high on their agenda: At
what point are we to maintain that very careful line of sepa-
ration of church and state?
In our political heritage, as well as in our Christian heri-
tage, we understand that there is a difference between the
institution of civil government (the state) and the institu-
tion of the church. It is not the church's task nor responsi-
bility to tell the governor how to govern or to make the
government establish our religious preferences. However,
we also have to keep in mind that both the state and the
church are under God. The state is not sovereign; the state
never has the right to do wrong. The state is always under
the authority of God. God institutes government, God
544
Christians and Government
ordains government, and God will judge government. He
holds government and all other institutions in our society
responsible for doing what is right.
What is right in given situations — right business prac-
tices, right labor practices, right judicial practices? Right
and wrong are not uniquely decided by Christians. There
are certain commandments we are to perform as Chris-
tians. For example, the Lord's Supper. We're not supposed
to ask unbelievers to participate in the Lord's Supper. How-
ever, God tells me as a Christian to pay my bills on time.
He tells me not to use false weights and balances in my
business. I think that it's perfectly appropriate to recom-
mend that the state have sound currency and not destroy
the weights and balances of our society, to have honorable
contracts and to do what is right. In other words, in those
spheres of ethics that are right for all people, I believe it is
a Christian's responsibility to remind the state to stand for
what is right.
Are biblical solutions to world problems outdated?
Years ago, when I was teaching philosophy at a university, I
participated in a symposium of professors of philosophy.
One gentleman in that group reminded us that there are
only about five basic issues in the whole history of philoso-
phy. There have been five thousand different approaches to
those five basic issues, but the same basic questions of philos-
ophy are struggled with repeatedly by every generation.
I would say that in principle this is also true in the field
of ethics. We are faced with new ethical issues that make
application of ongoing principles difficult in a new environ-
545
R.C. SPROUL
ment. For example, previous generations didn't have to
worry about when to pull- the plug of a life-support system
on somebody dying in a hospital. You didn't have to worry
about that ethical dilemma because you didn't have the
sophisticated equipment that makes that dilemma a reality.
In that sense we have situations that previous generations
did not have to struggle with ethically.
However, the principles we draw from sacred Scripture
about the sanctity of life and the dignity of death, for exam-
ple, speak eloquently to those specific problems that come
to us afresh in each generation. I believe that we find in
Scripture not simply the insights and opinions of primitive
Hebrew seminomads. If that were the case, I would say
there may be some collective wisdom here that we can get
from them that may have application here or there. But I
have a higher view of Scripture than that.
I believe that what we find in Scripture is transcendent
truth — truth that comes to us from an eternal perspective.
In philosophical terms, this truth is sub species iternatotus.
That means that we get nothing less than the mind of the
Creator, who knows and reveals to us principles of what is
right, good, and beautiful, and these principles can be
applied throughout the scope of human history. For me,
to think that the Scriptures were no longer applicable to
my society or that they were out of date or old-fashioned
would be to think that God is out of date and old-fash-
ioned and irrelevant. He is the one who is from everlasting
to everlasting. The principles and the truths he reveals to
us are from that eternal perspective. I cannot conceive of
any point in world history where his truth would become
outmoded or outdated.
546
Christians and Government
Today we continually hear people screaming for moral
rights. Do these people have a legitimate basis for
these claims?
I think there's a lot of confusion about the very language
of rights and obligations. Obligation, for instance. As
Christians, part of our profession of faith is a recognition
that God and God alone ultimately is Lord of our con-
science. Only he has the intrinsic right to impose obliga-
tion upon his creatures. He can delegate that to say that
parents can demand certain things from their children,
and certain other authority structures can be set in place.
Ultimately, all obligation is dictated by God, who is the
source of all moral obligation. If there is no God, I would
have to say there is no such thing as moral obligation. So-
called moral issues would simply become matters of per-
sonal preference.
When you talk about rights, I think it's crucial to distin-
guish between moral rights and legal rights. A moral right
is something that is granted to us as creatures from God.
It's built into creation; God is the source and the author of
any moral rights we have.
A legal right is a right granted by a human institution,
notably the state. The states differ in terms of the rights
they give. Human rights has become a worldwide issue
because we witness groups of people — and individuals, as
in the case of political prisoners — suffering from various
types of oppression, according to the rights that the states
over them protect or violate. We consider certain rights
intrinsic to being human, those rights given us by God the
Creator. And some states are not providing rights from a
547
R.C. SPROUL
legal standpoint that should be maintained on the basis of
their being rights initially-given by God. When we speak of
a violation of human rights, we are usually referring to
these rights.
On the other hand, a state may grant a legal right for a
person to do something they have absolutely no moral
right to do before God. For example, I personally see that
as the issue in abortion. I hear people saying all the time
that a woman has the right to her own body, to do with the
issue of her own body what she wants. If she has conceived
a child, she has the right to get rid of it through therapeu-
tic abortion. People insist that she has the right to do that.
What kind of a right? Obviously she does have the legal
right to do it because the Supreme Court has granted that
legal right in our country.
The issue, though, that has caused so much debate and
controversy in our country is, Does she have the moral right
to do it? We know what the law allows, but what does God
allow? If a person were to say to me that they had the moral
right to abortion, I would say, "Where did you get that moral
right? Are you sure you have that moral right? Are you telling
me that God Almighty has given you the right to dispose of
your unborn child?" I shudder to think of anybody ever
standing before God and saying that they have the right to
do that. We never have the moral right to disobey God.
Are there certain ethical standards the government
should uphold on a biblical basis?
In light of the contemporary concept of the separation of
church and state that is so important to our own govern-
548
Christians and Government
ment, there are many who interpret that concept to mean
that the state is not accountable to God, that it is not sub-
ordinate to divine authority. In other words, God has no
jurisdiction over the affairs of government. Nothing could
be more antithetical to biblical teaching. If we acknow-
ledge (as our forefathers did) that God is the creator of
the universe, then it should go without saying that God is
sovereign over everything he creates. To be sure, he
ordains and institutes the church for one particular task,
and he ordains and institutes governments for another
task. It's not the responsibility of the church to be the state
or the state to be the church, but the concept of separation of
church and state does not mean the separation of state and God.
The state, as much as the church, is under the authority
of God, and every earthly authority at some point will be
held accountable by God for how they exercised that
authority. No state government, no earthly government,
ever has the right or the authority to rule by their own pref-
erences without being accountable to some ultimate stan-
dard of righteousness and justice. When the New
Testament teaches that the government is grounded in
divine mandate, as we read in Romans 13, we are told that
governments are called to be ministers of God for the sake
of righteousness. So it is the responsibility of the state to
uphold standards of righteousness and ofjustice.
Obviously, states can become corrupt, and states may vio-
late the standard of God's righteousness and those stand-
ards ofjustice that are rooted ultimately in the character of
God himself. When they do that, they will be held account-
able by God. We read throughout the history of the Old
Testament that God's authority extends not only over the
549
R.C. SPROUL
nation of Israel but also over those who are ruling Bab-
ylon, Persia, and all of the. other nations of the world.
We remember in Psalm 2 that the psalmist's complaint
was that the rulers of the world were taking counsel against
God, saying, "Let us cast his cords from off us and let us cast
his ropes asunder"; that is, the rulers of the pagan nations
were declaring their independence from God. The answer
to the psalmist was, of course, that he who sits in the heav-
ens shall laugh, but only for a moment. Then he will call
them into account because Godjudges all other judges.
How do you respond to a politician who says that his
or other politicians' personal ethics should have no
bearing on whether or not someone should vote for
them?
We're hearing that question quite frequently in these times
because so many scandals have involved public figures
and those in political offices. One common view is that
people's personal ethics are their own business and what
they do in private is of no import to their public ability to
serve in office.
I think it is important to distinguish, as we do in theol-
ogy, between personal ethics and social ethics, and I think
it's possible for a person who is of disreputable character
privately to function publicly in a very just and upright
manner. But certainly a person's personal ethics will give
rise to serious questions about how he will behave in terms
of social ethics. For although we distinguish between per-
sonal and private, ultimately, they can't be separated
because they are closely related.
550
Christians and Government
For example, if a man has been convicted repeatedly of
being a thief, you'd hardly want him to serve as the secre-
tary of the treasury. There's no way of being absolutely cer-
tain that person would run off with national funds, but
there are strategic points of integrity that are demanded of
people in public office. I think the public has a right to
expect a high degree of personal ethics from our leaders.
In looking at the United States' history, we can go back
to the forties, when there was an epidemic rise in the
divorce rate. Some sociologists point the finger at Holly-
wood for that. They say here we had movie stars who made
a business of having five or six husbands or wives, multiple
marriages and divorces that were part of the sensational
grist for the media with these Hollywood stars and starlets.
Somehow they were able to survive in their careers because
their performance was of such a high standard in their
field that people were willing to excuse or overlook their
personal shortcomings. But what happens is that the role
models — in Hollywood, in the athletic world, or in the
political arena — begin to be imitated by the culture at
large, and the population suffers negative effects. So while
some public officials have found it possible to keep their
personal failings from affecting their public functioning, it
is still important and better overall for the country that
they maintain high personal standards.
What does the Bible have to say about laws
created by men?
Frederic Bastiat, the French jurist, wrote a very significant
book on law in which he distinguished between what he
551
R.C. SPROUL
calls "rule by men" and "rule by law." He articulated the
classic European concept of lex rex. This European concept
holds that law, not people, is to be king and that the ulti-
mate authority that would govern a nation would not be
the whims or the personal preferences of individuals but
that we would be governed by law.
"Rule by men" versus "rule by law" is confusing to many
people because they'll ask, "Don't men make the laws?" Of
course they do. I don't think the Bible prohibits national
governments from legislation; that's one of the responsibili-
ties God gives them. In order to govern, they must make
laws. They have to legislate. That's the duty of governments.
How does human legislation compare with divine law?
The idea that law is king means that there is a bedrock of
law that is rooted ultimately in the character of God that
can be discovered through nature. That's why historically,
even in the United States, we were grounded in the princi-
ple of natural law, saying that certain laws are revealed and
endowed by our Creator, certain basic principles that we
call the law of the nations, the common law of all people.
Every nation is accountable to those laws, and whatever
individual laws we enact or legislate in our own countries
must be brought into conformity to that higher law that
ultimately reaches to the character of God.
At the same time, the Bible takes a very dim view of
people passing laws and then acting as if those laws came
directly from God. That was the debate that Jesus had
with the Pharisees. The Pharisees created laws and passed
them off as the revealed law of God, and they confused
the law of God with human traditions. Jesus roundly con-
demned this.
552
Christians and Government
Are we being too judgmental when we criticize the
private lives of political leadership?
As long as there have been public officials, not only in this
country but in any country, there has been a desire on the
part of the majority of their constituents that political lead-
ers manifest a life of personal integrity.
The danger is that we can become judgmental — hyper-
critical and hypocritical as well — petty in our criticisms of
people in public life. Serving in public office is an
extremely difficult task for anyone. The average person in
this country has no idea what the loss of privacy means, for
instance. When we began the Ligonier Ministries back in
Pennsylvania about twenty-five years ago, I was a minister
and was dealing with the public frequently. And as people
came to our facility demanding more and more personal
attention from me, my family and I experienced the real
loss of personal privacy. It was very difficult to handle. This
was just a taste of what public officials go through.
Such sacrifice, though, goes with the territory of being a
public figure. A person in public life will be submitted to
much closer scrutiny in terms of his or her personal integ-
rity, and I think the people have the right to expect their
leaders to manifest an example of personal integrity.
There's no question — in my mind, at least — that young
people take their cue from the examples set by public fig-
ures as they are observed on television, in the press, and in
the movies. It's important that we — especially Christians,
who should be leaders in compassion and understanding
temper any evaluation of public figures with a profound
553
R.C. SPROUL
sense of understanding and compassion for the difficult
position in which they're placed to serve.
Both Peter and Paul call us to submit to governing
authorities. In light of that is revolution ever possible
for a Christian, and if so, under what circumstances?
It certainly is clear that the New Testament puts an empha-
sis on the Christian's responsibility to be a model of civil
obedience. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that the powers that
be are ordained by God. That doesn't mean that they are
sanctioned by God or that God endorses everything that
civil governments do; we know better than that. But Paul is
saying that it is God who brings government to pass, and
we are called to submit to the rulers of the government out
of respect for Christ.
Peter says that we ought to obey the civil magistrates
"for the Lord's sake" (1 Pet. 2:13-17). How is Christ glori-
fied by my submitting to the governor of the state of Flor-
ida or to the Congress of the United States of America? I
think the broad issue here is the ultimate biblical struggle
between competing voices of authority, the principles of
Satan and of God. The issue is, Does the human person
manifest a spirit of obedience to the law of God, or do we
participate in a spirit of lawlessness? It's interesting that
the Antichrist in the New Testament is identified with the
man of lawlessness.
I think that when we are called to obey the civil mag-
istrates, it's because the New Testament sees a hierarchi-
cal structure of authority, and that the ultimate authority
in heaven and earth is God. God delegates authority to
554
Christians and Government
his only begotten Son: "All authority has been given to
Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). Yet under-
neath the authority of the Son, who is the King of kings
and the Lord of lords, are levels of earthly authority, such
as government at its various levels down to the authority
of employers over employees and parents over children.
We see that ultimately authority finds its sanction in
God's authority and sovereignty. The principle is not diffi-
cult to understand: If I am willy-nilly and careless in my
obedience to authority at the lower levels, I am therefore
implicitly placing myself in a posture of disobedience to
the ultimate authority that stands above and behind the
earthly. It is the law of God that we disobey. We apply this
principle when we say that a child who doesn't learn to
respect his parents will have trouble respecting anything
or anyone else. By my being scrupulous in my civil obedi-
ence, bending over backwards to obey my teachers, my
employers, my governors, and my police officers, I am
honoring Christ, who is the ultimate model of authority
and of obedience to the law.
Is it is ever justifiable to engage in revolt? Many Chris-
tians would say no. This was a crucial question at the time
of the American Revolution, and Christian theologians fell
on both sides of that issue. I believe that those who did jus-
tify the Revolution said the only time it's justifiable to
revolt is when the government itself becomes lawless and
functions in an illegal or unlawful manner. In colonial
America the revolt was against the unlawful taxation that
was taking place. That requires a longer history lesson
than we have time for here.
555
R.C. SPROUL
Even though the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable
right in the U.S. Constitution, do we as created beings
have this inalienable right? Many people are frustrated
because they expect happiness in life. But should that
be a rightful expectation, especially for the Christian?
First we have to distinguish between the U.S. Constitution
as a legal document that circumscribes the way in which
people are to be treated under the law of the state and the
principles operating in the kingdom of God that are set
forth in God's law.
When the Constitution guarantees the inalienable right
of the pursuit of happiness, it is meant to protect a free
society from other people's attempts to destroy or to hin-
der that pursuit. Even the Constitution recognizes limits to
this inalienable right. For example, it recognizes that if the
thing that makes me happy is murdering other people, I
don't have an inalienable constitutional right to pursue
happiness in that manner. What we're saying here is that
the law is set up to allow people to pursue those things that
bring happiness to them. Of course, the Constitution
doesn't guarantee the acquisition of happiness, only the
right to pursue it, and that right to pursue happiness is sub-
ject to some limitations.
Does God give us this inalienable right? When we con-
sider that a right gives us a legal claim, we have to say that,
no, God does not grant us rights in the way a country's con-
stitution does. The Bible nowhere gives any sinful human
being (meaning any human being) an absolute guarantee
or right of happiness. The Bible does hold out all kinds of
promises concerning the attainment of happiness, but hap-
556
Christians and Government
piness is ultimately a gift from God, a manifestation of
God's grace. If God were to deal with us in terms of rights,
it would mean that he treated us strictly according to jus-
tice. The only way we would have an inalienable right
would be to say that we are so virtuous and meritorious
that if God is just, he must bestow happiness upon us.
That's the very opposite of what Scripture teaches regard-
ing our condition before God. We are guilty people before
our Maker, and therefore our Maker owes us no happiness
whatsoever.
In spite of the fact that God doesn't owe us happiness,
he pours out joy and peace and happiness and blessedness
in abundance to his people. I think it's perfectly legitimate
for a Christian to pursue joy and contentment and the ful-
fillment of our humanity in everything that God has made
us to be, which is found in our reconciliation with God.
When we are reconciled to God and living according to his
will and principles, happiness is often a by-product and,
even at that, a result of God's grace and gifts. It is certainly
not a demand that we make upon him.
What is the relationship between a Christian education
and a public education?
In recent years we have seen the beginnings of sectarian
schools in numbers that are unprecedented in American
history — save for the manifestation of parochial schools
sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church. In the case of
Catholic theology and practice, the church has always
seen education as an extremely important aspect of its
whole program.
557
R.C. SPROUL
For the most part, Protestants have been content with the
public school system. Part of the reason for that is that the
Protestant church was intimately involved in establishing the
systems and structures that were communicated through pub-
lic coeducation years ago. There has been a growing secular-
ism in this country and a new understanding of the concept
of separation of church and state, which many people under-
stand to mean a separation of the state from God. Classically,
both were seen as being under the sovereignty of God and
were committed to a basically common value system. That's
no longer the case. Now the state has to walk a tightrope of
human rights to make sure it doesn't do anything that will es-
tablish one religion over another in the school system.
The concept of antiestablishmentarianism historically
has argued against establishing a particular Christian
denomination as the state-endorsed church, as in the case
of the Church of England. Now it has come to mean that
Christianity has no particular benefit over Judaism or Islam
or Hinduism or anything else. It tends to be the under-
standing of the state that public education is not to be reli-
giously oriented in any way; it is to be neutral. This, of
course, is manifestly impossible because you cannot have a
curriculum of any type that is totally neutral. Every curricu-
lum has a perspective, and that perspective is either theo-
centric or it is not. Either it acknowledges the ultimate
sovereignty and supremacy of God or it does not. It may
remain silent, but that silence is a statement.
I would say the great difference between Christian edu-
cation and public education right now is in their commit-
ment to their ultimate perspectives, whether it is God
centered or not God centered. Christians have to make a
558
Christians and Government
decision as to whether to receive an education that's com-
petitive in the other disciplines or to pay twice as much to
get that God-centered perspective. Frankly, many Christian
schools are not excellent in the academic disciplines, and
so it becomes a very difficult decision to make.
In the judicial courts we are required to swear an oath
on the Bible before taking the stand. Since the Bible says
that a person should not swear on anything, is it right
for a Christian to refuse to swear on the Bible in court?
The New Testament makes it clear that we are not to per-
form unlawful oaths and vows. Jesus warns in the Sermon
on the Mount that we are to swear not by earth, nor by the
altar, nor any of those things that are anything less than
God. James reiterates that by saying "Do not swear, either
by heaven or by earth. . . . But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and
your 'No,' 'No.'" (James 5:12).
However, there is a biblical provision for sacred vows and
oaths; that is, there are lawful places and lawful kinds of
vows and oaths that we take. In fact, a covenant is not a cov-
enant without a vow, and that's what we're doing when we
take vows in marriage and in other situations, such as
those involving contractual agreements — we are entering
into a covenant. The whole basis of our relationship to
God is based on vows and oaths, oaths that God swears,
because he can swear by nothing greater than himself.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong about the swearing of
oaths and taking of vows, but I think whatJesus was object-
ing to was that the Pharisees were trying to fudge in their
vows and their oaths by swearing by lesser things than God.
559
R.C. SPROUL
The swearing of an oath unto God or before God is an act of
worship because in that vow we are saying, "So help me
God," which is what we say in the courtroom: "I swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help me God." I'm taking an oath before God. I am acknow-
ledging at that moment that God is omniscient, he is there,
he sees everything that I do, he can hear the words that I'm
saying; God is sovereign over my vows, and he has authority
over my vows. I'm recognizing God as God at the moment I
take an oath. It's a religious act at that point.
If I say I swear by my mother's grave, I've just now com-
mitted an act of idolatry because I have presumed to think
that my mother's grave has the ability to hear my vows, to
judge my vows, and to be sovereign over my vows. I've
attributed deity to the grave of my mother, which is a crass
form of idolatry. That's whatJesus was objecting to when
he said, in essence, "Don't swear by the altar. The altar
can't hear you. The altar can't judge you. The altar isn't
God." The only thing you can swear by that's a legitimate
vow is God himself in an act of worship.
I'm not sure that it's wrong to swear an oath in the court-
room, but we're actually taking a vow to God, not to the
Bible. We don't ask the Bible to bear witness to our vows. We
don't ask that book to listen in on us, to be the judge of our
consciences or be sovereign over us. But I just wonder where
we ever got that symbolic practice of placing the hand on the
Bible. I think it would be just as awesome andjust as solemn,
in fact even more solemn, to do it with your hand behind
your back. But as long as you don't swear to or by the Bible, I
think that it would be legitimate to swear on the Bible if you
want to.
560
22
Puzzling Passages
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,
which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place,
until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private
interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy
men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 PETER 1: 19-21
Puzzling Passages
(Qtwestioms in This Sectiom:
What is the order of Melchizedek?
God instructed Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock to bring forth
water. Instead, Moses struck the rock. Because of this act, God
punished both Moses and Aaron. Why?
Why in the Old Testament does God demand so much violence and
war of the Jewish nation?
The Lord says in the Old Testament that he loved Jacob but he hated
Esau, and in i John, John actually says that if we say we love God but
hate our brothers, we're wrong. How can we reconcile these two
passages?
Did Jacob really wrestle with an angel all night, or was that story a
symbolic way of saying that he was struggling with an issue?
In the book of Judges it appears that a human sacrifice was
performed and accepted. Please explain.
Proverbs 21:14 says, "A gift given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe
concealed in a cloak pacifies great wrath." Why is this in the Bible?
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." What is meant by this?
Would you please expound on Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says,
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might"?
What does the Apostles' Creed mean when it says that Jesus
descended into hell?
563
R.C. SPROUL
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Don't let your right hand
know what your left hand is doing," and in another passage he says,
"Let your light so shine before men." This seems like a contradiction.
In Matthew 24:32-34, Christ tells the parable of the fig tree. In your
opinion, just what does the fig tree represent?
Could you explain what Jesus meant when he said, "You will know the
truth and the truth will set you free"?
Could you comment on Jesus' statement that we shouldn't throw our
pearls before swine?
In the story of the adulterous woman, what did Jesus write in the
sand?
In Acts 16 Paul encourages Timothy to be circumcised, then later
condemns the practice. Was he being hypocritical?
What is the Christian view of baptism for the dead by proxy, referred
to in 1 Corinthians 15?
What does the writer of Hebrews 6 mean when he writes, "It is
impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been
enlightened and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit"?
Lately people have been talking to me about "curse Scriptures." Is this
something Christians should be worried about? Are curses passed
down?
564
Puzzling Passages
What is the order of Melchizedek?
The book of Hebrews, of course, has as one of its central
themes the high priestly work of our Lord Jesus. To com-
municate to the Jewish people that Jesus was the High
Priest created some serious problems. In the Jewish
expectation, their king was to come from the tribe of
Judah. Jesus was from the tribe ofJudah. But the priestly
tribe, the tribe of Aaron and of his descendants, was the
tribe of Levi. So ifJesus is not from the tribe of Levi, how
can the New Testament say that he is a High Priest? For
Jesus to be High Priest, he would be expected to be a
descendant of Levi from the line of Aaron and Moses.
But he clearly was not. What the author of Hebrews is
doing here is reminding us that there is another priest-
hood in the Old Testament in addition to the priesthood
that bears the name of Aaron or Levi. The author goes
back into the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis
where we read the story of Abraham coming back from
battle and meeting a gentleman whose name is Melchize-
dek. Melchizedek is identified as a priest-king; he's the
king of Salem, which means the king of peace, and he is a
priest as well as a king. The point the author of Hebrews
makes is this: Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek and
Melchizedek blessed Abraham.
Then the author raises these questions: Does a person
give a tithe to the greater or to the lesser, and who blesses
whom in a situation like that? In Jewish categories, the one
565
R.C. SPROUL
who gives the blessing is superior to the one who receives
the blessing, and the lesser gives the tithe to the greater. In
the activity that takes place in the meeting between Abra-
ham and Melchizedek, Abraham clearly subordinates him-
self to this strange king Melchizedek. He pays the tithe to
Melchizedek; Melchizedek blesses Abraham. So whoever
this Melchizedek is, or wherever he came from and what-
ever he does, he's of a higher nature than Abraham.
Then the writer asks the question in Jewish terms, "If
Abraham is the father of Isaac, and Isaac is the father of
Jacob, and Jacob is the father of Levi, who's greater, Jacob
or Levi? Jacob. Who's greater, Jacob or Isaac? Isaac. Who's
greater, Abraham or Isaac? Abraham. Well, if Abraham is
greater than Isaac and Isaac is greater than Jacob and
Jacob is greater than Levi, who's greater, Abraham or Levi?
Abraham. And if Abraham is greater than Levi and Mel-
chizedek is greater than Abraham, who's greater, Melchize-
dek or Levi?" Whew! You know the answer. Melchizedek is
of a higher order than Levi, so Jesus' priesthood is supe-
rior to the priesthood of Aaron. That's the point.
God instructed Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock
to bring forth water. Instead Moses struck the rock.
Because of this act God punished both Moses and
Aaron (Num. 20:1-13). Why? And why did he punish
Aaron when Moses was the one who committed the act?
I'm very much puzzled — as are a number of Bible schol-
ars — by that episode in the Old Testament. The Bible
doesn't really give us a clear explanation as to why God was
566
Puzzling Passages
so upset by this action of Moses or why Aaron was impli-
cated in it as well.
If we read the text carefully, as well as read between the
lines, it appears that God had given Moses some instruc-
tions, but Moses got a bit presumptuous and took it upon
himself to make this gesture in an inappropriate way.
That's the only reason I can think of for God's response;
Moses' sin was one of presumption. He did not do it in the
right way — at the right time or in the right manner — that
God instructed.
The fact that Aaron is included in the punishment
would indicate that he must have been somehow included
in the action. The fact that the Bible is silent on his involve-
ment doesn't exonerate Aaron altogether. We have to pre-
sume here that the text doesn't say everything that took
place, and we know that God does not punish the inno-
cent. The fact that God punished Aaron is evidence
enough for me that Aaron was guilty of complicity in this
event and that presumably both of them, Aaron and
Moses, acted in an arrogant way, doing something that was
unauthorized. Because of that, they forfeited certain bene-
fits and blessings in the kingdom. Of course, they were not
excluded from fellowship with God, but they endured the
censure and the rebuke of God.
The same sort of thing occurred with the census of
David (1 Chron. 21). Did God ordain the census that
David took, or was it instigated by Satan? In the one ver-
sion it's attributed to God, in the other one, to Satan. Of
course, I don't think that's ultimately a contradiction
because God is sovereign over Satan, and God will allow
certain things to come to pass by giving a long leash to
567
R.C. SPROUL
Satan. The Jews might say God ordained this, but he didn't
sanction it. He stood sovereign over it, and perhaps that
has bearing on that text as well. Ultimately, we have to trust
in the character of God, that he is just, even when we don't
get the whole picture.
Why in the Old Testament does God demand so much
violence and war of the Jewish nation?
One of the most difficult episodes for us to handle as
people who live on this side of the New Testament are the
Old Testament records of what is called the herem. This is
where God calls Israel to embark in what we could call a
holy war against the Canaanites. He tells them to go in
there and wipe out everyone — men, women, and children.
They were forbidden to take prisoners and were to utterly
destroy and put the ban, or curse, upon this land before
they occupied it for themselves.
When we look at that, we shrink in horror at the degree
of violence that is not only tolerated but seemingly com-
manded by God in that circumstance. Critical scholars in
the twentieth century have pointed to that kind of story in
the Old Testament as a clear example that this couldn't be
the revealed Word of God. They say that this is the case
where some bloodthirsty, ancient, seminomadic Hebrews
tried to appeal to their deity to sanction their violent acts
and that we have to reject that as not being supernaturally
inspired interpretations of history.
I take a different view of it. I am satisfied that the Old
Testament is the inspired Word of God and that God did
in fact command the Jewish nation to institute the herem
568
Puzzling Passages
against the Canaanites. God does tell us in the Old Testa-
ment why he instituted that policy against the Canaanite
people. It's not as though God commanded a group of
bloodthirsty marauders to come in and kill innocent
people. Rather, the background was that the Canaanites
were deeply entrenched in unrestrained forms of pagan-
ism that involved even such things as child sacrifice. It
was a time of profound inhumanity within that nation.
God said to Israel, "I am using you here in this war as an
instrument of myjudgment upon this nation, and I'm
bringing my violence upon this unbelievably wicked
people, the Canaanites." And he said, "I'm going to have
them destroyed" (Deut. 13:12-17). In effect, he said to
the Jewish people, "I want you to understand something:
I'm giving to the Canaanites their just deserts, but I'm
not giving them into your hands because you're a whole
lot better. I could put the same kind ofjudgment on your
heads for your sinfulness and be perfectly justified to do
it." That's basically the sense of what God communicated
to the Jews.
He said, "I am calling you out of my grace to be a holy
nation. I'm tearing down in order to build something
new, and out of what I build new, a holy nation, I'm going
to bless all of the people in the world. Therefore, I want
you to be separated, and I don't want any of the influ-
ences of this pagan heritage to be mixed into my new
nation that I'm establishing." That is the reason he gives.
People still choke on it, but if God is, indeed, holy — as I
think he is — and we are as disobedient as I know we are,
I think we ought to be able to handle that.
569
R.C. SPROUL
The Lord says in the Old Testament that he loved
Jacob but he hated Esau,, and in i John, John actually
says that if we say we love God but yet hate our
brothers, we're wrong. How can we reconcile these
two passages?
God, who created us, has the right to demand of his crea-
tures anything he desires; he certainly has the right to
demand that we love others. And how can we, who are sin-
ners, hate other people who are sinners for doing the very
same things we are doing? Loving God, others, and our-
selves is the great commandment, given first by God and
then echoed by Jesus in the New Testament.
But if we're commanded to love everybody, how do we
deal with this statement of God: 'Jacob have I loved; Esau
have I hated"?
First of all, we are dealing with a Hebrew idiom. It is the
Hebrew form of speech we call antithetical parallelism,
whereby the Scriptures speak in terms of direct opposites.
To understand it, we have to see that whatever God means
by hating Esau it means the exact opposite of what it
means to love Jacob.
We use the terms love and hate to express human emo-
tions and human feelings that we have toward people, but
in the context in which this particular text occurs, when
the Bible says that God loves Jacob, it means that he makes
Jacob a recipient of his special grace and mercy. He gives
Jacob a gift that he does not give to Esau. He gives mercy
to Jacob. He withholds that same mercy from Esau because
he doesn't owe Esau the mercy and he reserves the right as
he says back then and in the New Testament, "I will have
570
Puzzling Passages
mercy upon whom I will have mercy." He displays benevo-
lence. He gives an advantage; he gives a blessing to one
sinner that he does not choose to give to another. The
Jewish person describes that differential by using contra-
dictory terms. One receives love; one receives hate. Now
again, we have to remember that the Bible is being written
in human terms, the only terms we have, and we can't read
into the text the idea of feelings of hostility or of wicked-
ness toward a human being. That's not what the Bible
means when it uses that kind of language for God.
When Israel wrestled with the angel all night, is this to
be taken literally, or is this a symbolic way of saying
that Israel wrestled with an issue?
So often when we are faced with the question of interpret-
ing a narrative like that literally or symbolically, we have to
be very careful of what governs our answer. So often how
we side on a question like that is conditioned or governed
by our prior view of the supernatural. There are people
who would come to a text like that with the previous judg-
ment that there is no supernatural realm and that any
scriptural report of the miraculous or the supernatural
must be recast into naturalistic terms and interpreted
according to psychological states. This in a sense compro-
mises the text.
I have to say that when we allow that kind of prejudicial
approach to Scripture to affect our interpretation of Scrip
ture, we have violated the text, and we have violated objec-
tive principles of literary interpretation. I have much more
respect for the scholar who would say that the text clearly
571
R.C. SPROUL
suggests that there was a real wrestling match going on be-
tween Jacob and this angel than for someone who tries to
spiritualize or relativize the episode by calling it a symbol.
Now, there are clearly times when the Bible is using imag-
inative language, symbols that ought not to be interpreted
in concrete historical terms. The basic principle that
would apply in interpreting a text such as this (or any
other text where there's a question of whether it should be
interpreted literally or figuratively) is that the brunt of the
matter must be decided by a careful analysis of the literary
genre in which the text appears.
People ask me if I interpret the Bible literally, and I usu-
ally say of course. What other way is there to interpret? To
interpret the Bible literally does not mean to impose a
wooden, concrete literalism upon the Scripture. To inter-
pret it literally means to interpret the book as it was written.
That's a scientific approach; that is, you interpret poetry
according to the rules of poetry, letters according to the
rules of letters, historical narratives according to the
genre of historical narratives, and so on. Otherwise you
are changing the intended meaning of the author, which
is simply unethical.
My governing consideration in that text would be,
What is the literary style or form in which it appears? If
it's historical narrative, then I think it should be interpre-
ted as historical narrative. Incidentally, in the case of this
particular story, I'm persuaded that the text does have all
of the elements of historical narrative, and I think the
author intended to convey that there was a real visitation
of a real angel and that there was a real wrestling match.
572
Puzzling Passages
In the book of Judges it appears that a human sacrifice
was performed and accepted. Please explain.
Not only do we have that difficult question as it appears in
the book ofJudges, presumably with the vow ofJephthah to
sacrifice his daughter (Jud. 11:29-35), but also even earlier,
in the book of Genesis, chapter 22, when God tells Abraham
to offer his son Isaac on the altar at Mount Moriah.
Kierkegaard wrote a book that wrestled with this issue,
and he described it as the temporary suspension of the eth-
ical. I don't think God suspends the ethical even for Abra-
ham. The question you're wrestling with is how could God
accept or command a practice that he reveals elsewhere as
being utterly repugnant to him?
Abraham did not have the benefit of the first five books of
the Old Testament, in which all the laws and legislations and
codes of holiness of Israel were set forth. But presumably he
had at least the benefit of what we would call a natural law.
That is the law that God gave to man from Adam onward,
the chief principle of which is the sanctity of life and the pro-
hibition against murder. Abraham had to be confused by this
command of God to offer his son on the altar. He would
have to know that it was utterly inconsistent with natural law.
But at the same time, it's like a man who comes to a red
light at an intersection and a policeman is standing there
with a white glove, waving him through. The light says stop,
but the policeman says go. The policeman always supersedes
the written motor-vehicle code. You obey the policeman and
not the traffic light. So perhaps Abraham was thinking that
although he knew what the law said, if the author of that law
told him to break it, he had better break it.
573
R.C. SPROUL
You asked specifically about the problem in the book of
Judges. In the holiness cocle, in the legislation of the Penta-
teuch, child sacrifice, practiced by other ancient religions,
was seen not only as something that God frowned upon
but as a capital offense in Israel — an utter abomination to
God. Scripture speaks in the strongest possible language
prohibiting the sacrifice of human beings as a religious
activity. Religion can sink no lower than when it seeks to
appease the deity through human sacrifice — with the obvi-
ous exception of the perfect sacrifice that was offered once
for all, where God sacrificed his own Son for our sins.
My understanding of the book ofJudges is this: Just like
the rest of the Bible and particularly the Old Testament,
Judges records for us not only the virtues of the people of
God but also their vices. Jephthah's vow was a sinful one.
He should have never made that vow in the first place.
God didn't command him to make it; he made that vow
and then in a mistaken concept of vow keeping thought it
was his moral obligation to keep it when he discovered that
he'd actually promised to kill his own daughter.
In fact, we would call that an unlawful vow. Once a per-
son makes a vow to sin, he is required not to keep that vow
if it obligates him to sin. I think that this passage is not so
difficult from a theological standpoint but is simply a
record ofJephthah's sin.
In Proverbs 21:14 it says, "A gift given in secret soothes
anger, and a bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies
great wrath. " Why is this in the Bible?
That's a tough one. I think to understand it we have to do
574
Puzzling Passages
a couple of things. First of all, we have to understand the
nature of a proverb. A proverb is not an absolute moral
law. A proverb is an expression of practical wisdom that is
drawn from the daily experiences of life. They are not abso-
lutes. For example, in English we have the proverbs Look
before you leap, and He who hesitates is lost. If you made
both of those absolutes, they'd cancel each other out. The
same would be true if we made all the proverbs in the
Bible into absolutes.
What makes this so difficult is that the proverb here
draws practical wisdom from human sinfulness and tells us
that the bribe sort of greases the skids and puts people's
wrath away. The author of Proverbs, as a matter of practical
wisdom, is very much concerned about human relation-
ships and how to get along. One of the recurring themes
of the book is dealing with people who are angry: "A soft
answer turneth away wrath." That makes sense. It's not just
a matter of virtue but one of practicality.
I remember once when I was coming out of Pittsburgh
off the Liberty Bridge through the tunnels. I saw that the
light was going to turn red. I was going to have to sit there
for a long time. This policeman was motioning me over
into another lane, and I went right around and back into
the lane I wanted. Just as I was going to get past him, the
light turned red and I had to stop. The policeman ran up
to my car and started pounding on the roof. I knew I was
in big trouble. I just turned to him and said, "I'm very
sorry, officer." That sort of defused him, and he told me to
go ahead and leave. That made me think that a soft answer
does turn away wrath. It works.
This verse uses a literary device called parallelism
.75
R.C. SPROUL
saying the same thing in two similar ways. It says, "A gift
given in secret soothes anger." There's nothing wrong with
giving a secret gift to somebody. Then we see the parallel
statement: "A bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies great
wrath." What's being described here is the same thing as a
surprise present. A bribe will also turn somebody's anger
away.
I would say that the author of Proverbs is doing very
much the same thing that Jesus did when he said that we
are not as wise in the Christian community or in the believ-
ing community as thieves are out there. He talks about the
unjust steward and says we can learn practical ways of get-
ting along with people by watching how the thieves do it;
they know how to stop people's anger and wrath as a mat-
ter of practical wisdom. I think that's what the author had
in mind.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish/'
What is meant by this?
I'm sure you've heard that verse quoted many times in
church — anytime there is a building program or a new edu-
cational program, for example. People are told that they
have to catch the vision. We've set the goal before us, and
without a vision the people perish. It's translated to mean
in contemporary situations that without a goal, a project,
or an objective, the people will be destroyed. That may be
a secondary application of the original text, but that is not
what the text meant when it was written in antiquity.
The original meaning of that text, "Without a vision the
people perish," had to do with a prophetic vision. In the
576
Puzzling Passages
Old Testament, God revealed himself through the procla-
mations of his prophets. Sometimes they received a word
from God. These prophets functioned as agents of revela-
tion, like Jeremiah and Isaiah. They were human vehicles
through whom God spoke his word to the people. What
the Proverbs are saying is that without the supernatural
revelation of the word of God, the world would perish.
When Jesus appears in the New Testament, the proph-
ecy of the Old Testament "The people who walk in dark-
ness have seen a great light" is fulfilled. So often in the
Bible, the concept of divine revelation is expressed
through that metaphor of light into darkness. What I
hear that text saying is that without the light of God's rev-
elation, humanity would be left in utter darkness, and we
would, in fact, perish.
We know people who aren't involved at all in the Judeo-
Christian faith. They have no commitment to it whatso-
ever. They're still alive, they're not perishing, they're doing
fine. They may not be perishing now, but they may be per-
ishing ultimately.
Aside from that consideration, there's no significant
culture that we know of in this world that has not
received some of the fallout of the benefits of divine reve-
lation. There's no place in the darkest point of this world
and in the darkest hour of the dark ages where the light
of God's revelation has been totally snuffed out or
obscured or eclipsed. In fact, we couldn't live as human
beings on this planet for five minutes except by the Word
of God. No wonder Jesus said that it's through the Word
of God that we live.
577
R.C. SPROUL
Would you please expound on Ecclesiastes 9:10, which
says, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with
all thy might"?
Before I answer that question specifically, I think it's impor-
tant to make a few basic comments about the type of litera-
ture we find in the book of Ecclesiastes. It's very similar to
the book of Proverbs and comes under the category of
Hebrew Wisdom Literature, in which nuggets of wisdom
and practical application of godliness are set forth in very
succinct statements. We can easily get confused if we try to
treat these statements as if they were moral absolutes. I'm
convinced that the Bible provides many moral absolutes in
the law of God that is expressed therein. But what you find
in the maxims of Wisdom Literature are practical guide-
lines for behavior.
This particular passage from Ecclesiastes is not a univer-
sal absolute that says, "Anything you do, do with all of your
might." There are lots of things that we do with our hands
that are ungodly, and we ought not to be doing them with
any commitment. What the book is saying here is that in
the labor to which we are called, in the devotion that we
give to God, in those things that are just and proper and
good to which we apply ourselves, we are to do these
things with determination, not in a casual manner. It's
somewhat similar to Jesus saying that he would rather
people be cold or hot, not lukewarm. Those who are luke-
warm he said he will spew out of his mouth. He seems to
have more respect for a zealous hostility than for indiffer-
ence, for example.
The spirit of slothfulness falls under the rebuke of the
578
Puzzling Passages
Wisdom Literature repeatedly. God calls us to an attitude,
a lifestyle, of purpose and diligence. That means we are to
do the tasks that are set before us with not only diligence
but a certain kind of zeal for them. That very idea and sen-
timent is again repeated in the New Testament and espe-
cially with respect to seeking the kingdom of God. Jesus
tells us that we are to set ourselves with a decisive spirit of
endurance in seeking God's kingdom.
What does the Apostles' Creed mean when it says that
Jesus descended into hell?
The Apostles' Creed is used as an integral form of worship
in many Christian bodies. One of the more puzzling state-
ments in that creed is: [Jesus] descended into hell.
First of all, we have to look at the creed from a historical
perspective. We know that the Apostles' Creed was not writ-
ten by the apostles, but it's called the Apostles' Creed
because it was the early Christian community's attempt to
give a summary of apostolic teaching. This, like other
creeds in the church's history, was partly a response to dis-
torted teachings that were present in some communities; it
was statement of orthodox belief. The earliest reference we
can find to that "descent into hell" element of the Creed is
around the middle of the third century. That doesn't
mean that it wasn't in the original — we don't know when
the original was written — but it seems to be a later addition
and has caused no small amount of controversy ever since.
The reason for it is theological as well as biblical.
We see this problem: Jesus, when he's on the cross in his
dying agony, speaks to the thief next to him and assures
579
R.C. SPROUL
him that "today you will be with me in paradise." Now that
statement from Jesus on the cross would seem to indicate
that Jesus was planning to go to paradise, which is not to
be confused with hell. So in some sense Jesus goes to para-
dise. We know that his body goes into the tomb. His soul
apparently is in paradise. When does he go to hell? Or
does he go to hell?
In 1 Peter 3:19, Peter talks about "this Jesus, who by the
same spirit by which he is raised from the dead goes and
preaches to the lost spirits in prison." That text has been
used as the principal proof text to say that Jesus, at some
point after his death, generally believed to be between his
death and his resurrection, went to hell. Some people say
that he went into hell to experience the fullness of the mag-
nitude of suffering — the full penalty for human sin — in
order to give complete atonement for sin. That is regarded
by some as a necessary element of Christ's passion.
But most churches that believe in an actual descent of
Jesus into hell do not see him going to hell for further suf-
fering because Jesus declares on the cross, "It is finished."
Rather, he goes to hell to liberate those spirits who, from
antiquity, have been held in prison. His task in hell then is
one of triumph, liberating Old Testament saints. I person-
ally think that the Bible is less than clear on that point
because the lost spirits in prison could very well refer to
lost people in this world. Peter doesn't tell us who the lost
spirits in prison are or where the prison is. People are mak-
ing a lot of assumptions when they consider that this is a
reference to hell and that Jesus went there between his
death and his resurrection.
580
Puzzling Passages
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, "Don't let your
right hand know what your left hand is doing/' and in
another passage he says, "Let your light so shine
before men." This seems like a contradiction.
When Jesus gave this teaching, he used several different
styles of communication, the most famous of which is the
parable. Another style of teaching that was common
among the rabbis was to give a nugget of truth in what was
called an aphorism. An aphorism is simply a succinct, pithy
little statement that encapsulates or crystallizes a spiritual
truth. Sometimes if you push these too far, you'll find
some that rub up against each other and apparently are in
conflict with each other.
When Jesus says, "Don't let your right hand know what
your left hand is doing," he has just gone through a very
lengthy rebuke for the ostentatious public display of piety
that was the favorite preoccupation of the Pharisees. They
prayed and dressed in sackcloth so that everybody would
know how spiritual they were. They paraded their spiritual
disciplines before the watching world as a matter of per-
sonal pride rather than out of godliness. They fought with
each other over who got the seats of honor at the feasts
and who was more religious than the other. Jesus severely
rebuked them, for they were praying not to God, but they
were praying to be seen by people. He rebuked them for
the obvious hypocrisy of that. He told them to go into their
closets and pray to God in secret, for God would listen to
them in secret.
It's in that context that Jesus says, "Don't let your left
hand know what your right hand is doing." In other words,
581
R.C. SPROUL
if you're going to be doing these honorable things that are
really ultimately an offering to God, they don't have to be
known by people. This is something we do privately, anony-
mously. We don't parade our offerings and our worship to
God for the sake of being seen.
By the same token, we are called to make visible the
invisible kingdom of God by living lives of integrity. Our
outward integrity is to be so clearly on display that it will
be a beacon to those who observe it.
In Matthew 24, Christ tells the parable of the fig tree.
In your opinion, just what does the fig tree represent?
When Jesus taught in parables, he drew examples from the
normal activities of daily life — from stone masonry, agricul-
ture, etc. He used the fig tree to teach a lesson on more
than one occasion. We remember the occasion on which
he cursed the fig tree for having blossoms but not giving
any fruit. The indispensable indicator for the presence of
fruit for a fig tree was not what season it was but whether
or not it had blossoms. If it had the blossoms, it should
have had the fruit. Jesus saw a fig tree blossoming out of
the normal season, which would make it a special species
of fig tree. He went over to get something to eat, and there
were no figs, and so he cursed the fig tree as an object les-
son of hypocrisy.
Flipping that around, when he uses the parable here, he
uses the fig tree's propensity for blooming and bearing
fruit as a positive indication for looking to the future. Jesus
had given the Olivet discourse, in which he told his disci-
ples to be alert to the signs of the times so that when he
582
Puzzling Passages
returns at the end of the age, his coming is not a total sur-
prise to those who are to be watching for him.
What, specifically, does the fig tree represent? It's exceed-
ingly dangerous to interpret parables in an allegorical
sense. In an allegory every element of the story has a one-
to-one correlation to some figurative or symbolic repre-
sentation. There are times when Jesus did use allegory, as
in the parable of the sower. But in that case Jesus provided
the allegorical interpretation of the parable. Other than
that, the normal use of parables is to communicate
through the little story one single, simple lesson. We get
into big trouble if we look at all of the elements of the
story and want to make each concrete element a symbol
for something in particular. I don't think you can do that
with the parable of the fig tree. I think it is like most other
parables; there's one basic lesson that Jesus is trying to
communicate to his disciples, and that is to watch and be
ready. When you see the signs of the times, look up, know-
ing that your redemption is near. When we see the things
happening that he describes in the Olivet discourse, we
should be alert to the fact that our redemption is soon,
and it may be that these things are harbingers of the very
return of Christ himself.
Some would like to look at those particular elements like
the fig tree and say that's the restoration of Israel to their
homeland or the recapturing of the city ofJerusalem, but
such interpretations are speculative. I would rather be
more careful and just say that it's the general meaning of
the text to be careful, to be vigilant, to watch for the signs
of the times.
583
R.C. SPROUL
In the book ofJohn there's the statement that "you
will know the truth and the truth will set you free."
Could you explain what Jesus meant by "set you free"?
At least a clue to the meaning can be found by taking a
good look at the context. When Jesus made that statement,
he was talking about discipleship, and he said, "If you con-
tinue in my word, then are you my disciples, and you will
know the truth and the truth will set you free."
When he said that, it agitated some of the clergy who
were standing nearby, the Pharisees specifically. They
became very annoyed with Jesus for saying that, and they
protested, saying, "Hey, we're in bondage to no man." And
then they said, "We're the children of Abraham. "Jesus
rebuked them severely, saying, "You're the children of
those whom you serve." And then he told them they were
children of Satan because they were doing the will of their
father, the devil.
On the one hand, Jesus identifies sonship in terms of
obedience: "You are the son of whom you obey." Since the
track that Jesus takes is one that emphasizes obedience, I
think that's the clue. When he's speaking of freedom, he's
not speaking of political freedom or financial freedom.
He's speaking of spiritual freedom — freedom from bond-
age or slavery to wickedness. Jesus picks up on this theme
more than once, as do other speakers and writers in the
New Testament. When Paul, for example, describes the
condition of fallen man, he talks of fallen man as being in
bondage to his own evil inclinations. And conversely, the
Holy Spirit is described as one who is the author of liberty:
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
584
Puzzling Passages
This touches on a major issue in theology that has to do
with natural man; that is, fallen man's moral power or
moral ability. Every church that I know of in the World
Council of Churches has some doctrine of original sin.
They don't all agree as to the exact degree to which the
human race has fallen, and there are details of debate that
center around original sin. But original sin is not the first
sin, the sin that Adam and Eve committed. Original sin
refers to the result of mankind's initial transgression
against the law of God. Not only was guilt incurred and
man exposed to punishment, but something happened tp
our moral constitution. There is a blemish in our very
structure and makeup so that now, as human beings, we all
have a tendency and a proclivity toward evil that was not
put there by God in the first place. Insofar as we surrender
to the wicked impulses that somehow can dictate our lives,
we are in moral bondage and need to be liberated. This is
one of the great messages of the New Testament gospel:
Christ liberates us from the power of evil.
Could you comment on Jesus' statement that we
shouldn't throw our pearls before swine?
That statement is what we call one of the hard sayings of
Jesus. It's so uncharacteristic ofJesus to talk that way about
people — to call people swine, particularly for a Jew to call
somebody swine. Such a shoot-from-the-hip statement
from Jesus startles us.
When Jesus sent the seventy disciples out to proclaim
the gospel, he told them to travel light. He told them that
when they came to a village, if the people refused to hear
585
R.C. SPROUL
them, they were to shake the dust off their feet and go else-
where. It's in that kind of a context that Jesus talked about
giving pearls to swine. In reaching out to others with the
gospel, we're not to give up easily (this patient attitude
runs through several parables and in Scripture in general).
But from the standpoint of strategy, it's ineffective to be
reaching out constantly to people who are steadfastly, ada-
mantly opposed to the Christian faith. We see many, many
cases in which those people mellow and actually come to
Christ. But to spend all of your attention on those people
is not the best use of time and energy.
If people despise the things of God, we are certainly not
supposed to write them off or to stop being concerned
about them, but at the same time, we're not supposed to
invest our best things over and over again in those people.
In the story of the adulterous woman, what did Jesus
write in the sand?
We have no idea what Jesus wrote in the sand. In fact, that
is the only reference that we have anywhere that Jesus ever
wrote anything. I suspect he was literate and he could
write, but he didn't leave any documents for us to read to
this day — so we can only guess what he wrote in the sand.
My guess is that he was being very specific. The text notes
that these people were in a frenzy; they had taken up
stones and were going to kill this woman who had been
caught in the act of adultery. They tried to entrap Jesus
with a theological issue concerning the law of Moses and
the law of Caesar. On that occasion Jesus made the com-
ment, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." And
586
Puzzling Passages
then he waited for the executioners to volunteer, and he
stooped down and wrote in the sand. We're told that as he
wrote in the sand the people, beginning with the older
ones, started to leave — they put down their stones and
walked away.
We can only speculate, of course, but I figure that Jesus
looked one man in the eye and wrote the name of this
man's mistress, and for another guy he wrote down, "extor-
tion," and for another, "embezzlement." I think he could
see the sins of these people. He started writing them down,
and nobody wanted to see any more, so they put down
their stones and got out of there in a hurry. This is sheer
guesswork, but that, to me, is the kind of thing that Jesus
would do to defuse a mob that's bent on passing judgment.
What are we to do with our brothers and sisters if we
know them to be involved in sin? We get some instruction
in the New Testament on these things. We are told that if
we see a brother or sister engaged in a serious matter of
sin, we are to go to them privately and discuss this with
them. If there is no repentance, then we are to take two
elders, and so on. There is a procedure to be followed
(Matt. 18:15-17). Notice that, in the spirit ofJesus, the pro-
cedure bends over backwards to protect the dignity of the
guilty person. And the whole purpose of this is not to
accuse or to punish but to redeem. It's not an exercise of
judgmental spirit. The New Testament says that there is a
love that covers a multitude of sins. We are not to be con-
fronting each other with peccadillos; we are not to be nit-
pickers. One of the Christian community's great
weaknesses today is its pettiness. Pettiness can be very
destructive to the Christian community, and we tend to
587
R . C. S P R O U L
oscillate between two extremes — overly severe and judg-
mental or letting anything -go without daring to criticize.
We are called to keep each other concerned about righ-
teousness, but in a spirit of meekness.
In Acts 16 Paul encourages Timothy to be circumcised,
then later condemns it. Was he being hypocritical?
I don't think the apostle was being hypocritical at all. This
is a very interesting historical situation that the New Testa-
ment records for us. It does say that Paul circumcised Tim-
othy and then refused to circumcise Titus, and this became
a major controversy in the early church. Paul's reasoning
behind it, I think, can be ferreted out through a study of
Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans.
He talks about his concern for ethics and says that there
are certain things God prohibits and certain things he com-
mands. Then there are those things that are basically neu-
tral in the ethical sense — those things that in and of
themselves have no moral import or ethical significance.
He is consistent in his approach to these things, as we read
in correspondence to the Romans and Corinthians; these
are areas in which Christians can exercise their liberty.
But the Judaizing party sprang up and threatened to
destroy the infant Christian church by seeking to impose
the absolute law of circumcision on every convert to Chris-
tianity. The counsel ofJerusalem in Acts 15 was one of
those examples of the church having to respond to this.
The counsel's conclusion was that it pleased the Holy
Spirit not to add all of these burdens upon Gentile con-
verts that God had required of the Jewish nation in the
588
Puzzling Passages
Old Testament. What had happened in contemporary
terms is this: Those who wanted to cling to some of the
now antiquated practices were considered by Paul to be
weaker brothers, and Paul said we don't do anything to
cause the weaker brother to stumble. We want to be sensi-
tive to the weaker brother.
But suddenly the weaker brothers became so strong that
they wanted to tyrannize the church and make their prefer-
ences the absolute law of God. Whenever people do that, it
is a representation of legalism that destroys the essence of
the gospel. Paul, by the time he wrote Galatians, saw the
expansion of this group ofJudaizers as being such a threat
to the truth of the Christian gospel that he steadfastly
refused to engage in circumcision as a religious act and
used the strongest language to condemn those who were
trying to make a matter of personal preference the abso-
lute law of God.
You remember the earlier debate that Jesus had with
the Pharisees. Jesus was very harsh with them because he
said that they had taken the traditions of men and passed
them off as if they were the laws of God, something we
are not permitted to do. Jesus took the Pharisees to task
for doing it, and Paul did the same thing; that is, in the
earlier situation in which circumcision didn't have this
legal import to it, he went with the flow. He said if you
want to be circumcised, fine; if you don't want to, you
don't have to. So for those who wanted it, he did it. But
when they tried to make it a law that he circumcise other
people, he steadfastly refused to do it, in order to keep
the integrity of the gospel intact.
589
R.C. SPROUL
First Corinthians 15:29 says, "Otherwise, what will
those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead
are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for
them?" I know it's a Mormon doctrine to believe in
baptism of the dead by proxy. What is the Christian
view of this?
There's not a single text in all of Scripture that gives an
explicit mandate for the church to practice proxy bap-
tism, or baptism for the dead, and yet here is a practice
that has emerged in one religious body. The text cited as
proof of this is 1 Corinthians 15:29. We notice that Paul
does not say to his readers, "You should baptize the
dead," but he asks the question, "Why is it that some of
you are baptizing for the dead if in fact the dead are not
raised?" The fact that Paul asks a question about it indi-
cates that there were people practicing it. When he asks
the question, there is neither an explicit or implicit
rebuke for the practice. Some have looked at that and
said that the apostle Paul recognized that this kind of
practice was going on in the Corinthian community and
he didn't denounce it, so it has a tacit apostolic approval,
and perhaps we're missing something we ought to be
doing.
But we don't have a mandate to do it, and I think there's
much in Scripture to indicate that this practice is utterly
repugnant to God because of its theological implications.
We have to understand why Paul says what he says in
1 Corinthians 15. This entire chapter is Paul's magnificent
defense of the resurrection of Christ. He is responding as a
theologian to a spirit of skepticism that had emerged in
590
Puzzling Passages
the Corinthian church. Word had come to him that some
people in the church were denying the Resurrection. So
Paul explored the implications of that. If there is no such
thing as resurrection (which is what the Sadducees
believed) and if there is no life after death, what are the
consequences? First of all, if there is no resurrection, then
Christ is not raised. So if there's no resurrection whatso-
ever, that eliminates the resurrection of Christ. If there is
no resurrection of Christ, what are the implications of
that? That means you're still in your sins. There's been no
mark of divine approval on Christ's perfect sacrifice for
your justification. It means you're a false witness of God
because you've been running around telling everybody
that, in fact, Jesus was raised and that it was God who
raised him.
Paul goes on to say that if Christ is not raised, then those
who have fallen asleep have perished. The dead are dead.
We'll never see them again; it's all over. He goes on to give
them all these options.
In this process he uses a classical form of argument, the
ad hominem argument, in which you argue on the other
person's grounds and show the inconsistency of their posi-
tion. Paul, in essence, is saying, "I know some of you
people are out there practicing baptism for the dead and
at the same time saying that there's no resurrection. What
in the world are you doing it for?" In other words, he's
showing the folly of denying resurrection and practicing
something that would depend on resurrection for it to
have any meaning. But Paul is in no way endorsing the
practice of baptism by proxy.
591
R.C. SPROUL
What does the writer of Hebrews 6 mean when he
writes, "It is impossible to restore again to repentance
those who have once been enlightened and have
become partakers of the Holy Spirit"?
In the ongoing debate among Christians as to the possibil-
ity of losing our salvation, that text is certainly the one
most frequently discussed and debated. Those who believe
that you can fall from grace to the point of losing your sal-
vation look at Hebrews 6 as Exhibit A to prove it. There is
this solemn warning and admonition to those who had
been enlightened, who had tasted the heavenly gift, that if
they fall away, it's impossible to restore them again to
repentance.
It's difficult to know exactly what the author of Hebrews
means by this text, for several reasons. First of all, we don't
know who wrote the book, and second, we don't know to
whom it was written. Most important, we're not sure of the
immediate issue that provoked the writing. Some look at it
as a crisis of people caving in under Roman persecution
and people were denying Christ publicly. Maybe that was
the temptation. A more frequent view is that it was a temp-
tation to fall into the sin of thejudaizing heresy of return-
ing to a legalistic structure of Old Testament religion.
My position on the passage is this: There is a strong
admonition here saying it's impossible to restore again to
repentance those who have been enlightened, tasted the
heavenly gift, and participated in the Holy Spirit. I ques-
tion whether the author is describing a Christian in the
first place. On the surface it would seem that he is because
those descriptive terms "enlightened" and "tasted the heav-
592
Puzzling Passages
enly gifts" would certainly be true of a Christian. However,
in the broader context of Hebrews he talks about those
who are church members, even as members of the body of
Israel in the Old Testament, who had all the benefits of the
church and the presence of Christ in their midst, who were
never really redeemed.
There are many commentators who believe that the
author of Hebrews is talking about people who are inside
the community and have the benefits of hearing the Word
of God. They are enlightened, they have the sacraments and
all of these things, but they're not genuinely converted.
I'm not persuaded, however, that that's what the text
means because he uses the phrase as you quoted, "to be
restored again to repentance." Repentance in the book of
Hebrews and throughout the whole New Testament is a
fruit of regeneration. True repentance is only something
that a Christian can do, so there had been an authentic
prior repentance if he was talking about restoring them
again to repentance.
I take the position that what we have here is an ad homi-
nem argument throughout, in which the author is arguing
a reasoning through the other man's position. He's saying,
"OK, let's look at your position. Suppose it's the Judaizing
heresy. If you reject Christ and go back to the old system
and you've done away with the Cross, what possibility
would you have of being saved under that system? You've
just rejected the only way of salvation there is." He's not
saying that it's the unforgivable sin, but you couldn't be
restored as long as you were in that position. Notice he
doesn't say that anybody does it. In fact, at the end of that
text he says, "But I am persuaded of better things of you,
593
R.C. SPROUL
that which is consistent to those of your calling." I think it's
a hypothetical warning against an argument, but it doesn't
teach that any true Christian does lose his salvation.
Lately people have been talking to me about "curse
Scriptures." Is this something Christians should be
worried about? Are curses passed down?
When we talk about curses in contemporary American cul-
ture, it sounds like something out of the dark ages or like
some voodoo witch doctor who's putting a curse on some-
body by sticking pins in dolls. Yet the concept of the curse
is one of the most important concepts we find in Scripture
because the laws of God that he delivers to Israel in the
Old Testament are set before the nation in terms of two
polarities. On the one hand, when God gives his law to his
people and enters into a covenant with them, he says that
if they keep the terms of this covenant, if they obey his
laws, they will be blessed. He says, "Blessed will you be in
the city and in the country, when you stand up and when
you sit down, in everything you do I will bless you."
But he says, "If you break My law, disobey My command-
ment, and violate My covenant, then cursed shall you be in
the city, cursed shall you be in the country." Then what fol-
lows are terrifying penalties and punishments that God
promises to people who refuse to obey him. They are
encapsulated by the word curse. To be cursed in the Old
Testament meant ultimately to be cut off from the pres-
ence of God, to be sent out from his immediate presence,
just as the scapegoat was cursed in Israel by being driven
out into the wilderness, away from where the presence of
594
Puzzling Passages
God was focused in the center of the camp. To be cursed
meant to be sent into the outer darkness where the face of
God did not shine and the light of his countenance did
not penetrate.
As I said, it's so important because the whole idea of
atonement, not only in the Old Testament but also in the
New Testament, is centered on that concept of the curse.
In Galatians Paul tells us that Christ on the cross became a
curse for us; he was accursed — cut off from the Father, sent
outside the camp, even crucified outside the city limits of
Jerusalem — to make certain that the whole of God's curse
promised to the evildoer would be visited upon himself so
that he might bear the whole the sinner's punishment.
The Bible clearly speaks about curses, and the worst
possible curse is to be outside the circle of God's benefits.
He also says that there is such a thing as the visitation of
the consequences of evil upon future generations. In the
Ten Commandments we are told that the sins can be vis-
ited to the second or third generation. The descendants of
Canaan are cursed by Noah. Ham is the one who received
the curse, and he received it as a direct consequence of his
father. Accursed Canaan is the one who received the conse-
quence of the sin of his father, Ham.
I would say that the negative loss of many of God's prom-
ises to people flow down through time and space onto the
next generation. It doesn't mean that God directly pun-
ishes a person for a sin somebody else committed. God says
that each person is punished for their own sins. However,
we still deal with the consequences that come down from
previous generations and in that sense miss out on some of
the benefits of God.
595
INDEX
A
Aaron 566-561
Abel 329
abortion 295-296, 451-455
abortion-on-demand 453-454
Abraham 20, 135-136, 294-295
Adam and Eve 167, 270, 329, 585
adoption 393
adult education 365
adultery 400
afterlife 282-288, 292, 303-304
in case of suicide 291
in cases of miscarriage 296
of aborted babies 295
of animals 290-291
of children 294-295
of Old Testament saints 281-284
aging 260
AIDS 481, 533-535
Alcoholics Anonymous 530
American Revolution 555
amniocentesis 453
Ananias and Sapphira 163
angelic messengers 20
angels 22, 571-572
animals 290-291
anointing with oil 481-482
anthropomorphic language 202
Antichrist 496-498
anti-intellectualism 100, 235
597
R.C. SPROUL
antinomianism 123
aphorism 200
apostasy 497
Apostles' Creed 293, 579
Aquinas, Thomas 260
Aristotle 439
arts, the 524
Athanasius 260
atonement 14, 16, 472
attributes of God 6-8, 42, 354
attrition 112
Augustine 97, 260, 318, 542
authority 541-542
B
baptism 124-125, 339-342
of infants 295, 341
of the dead 590
of the Holy Spirit 60-61, 63-64, 239, 340
Bastiat, Frederic 551
beatific vision, the 9
Bible 190
as historically reliable 797
authority of 92-94
discrepancies in 797, 793
interpretations of 85, 87-90, 514, 571, 575, 578, 583
language of 267
relevancy of 545
selection of its books 78-80
study of 100, 221, 225, 228
translations of 97
truth of 77-78, 84
Bible manuscripts 80
criteria for acceptance 80
biblical prophecy 488-489, 504
598
Index
biblical study 86
Bill of Rights 182
birth control 391-393
birth of Christ 39
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 69-70
blessing 129-130
Bondage of the Will 259
born again 321-322
Buddhism 313
business partnership 421
C
Cain 329, 382
Calvin, John 139, 150, 157-158, 190, 259-260, 289
Camus, Albert 178
Canaanites 568-569
canon of Scripture 82
authority of 79
definition of 79
capital punishment 459
Cardinal, The 452
career 412
and ministry 417
and salvation 411-412
casinos 441
catastrophic events 32
character of God 6, 8, 16, 97, 182, 294, 354-355, 420, 552, 568
reflected by his people 242, 525
Character of God, The 7-8
child sacrifice 574
children 294
Chosen by God 8, 130
Christian 330
as a term 330
education 557-558
599
R.C. SPROUL
Christian beliefs 310-311, 313
Christian colleges 338
Christian life 67
Christian living 157, 249-252, 260
Christian values 419, 544
Christianity 1 73, 1 77-1 78, 184, 313
Christmas 362
church
attendance 331, 333, 385-386
criteria for 333
government 332, 334, 336, 338
structure 332
Churchfrom Abel, The 329
church growth 330
church life 361
problems 587
Churchill, Winston 412
City of God 259
clergy
education of 349
political involvement 344-345
comfort 479
common grace 321
Communion 358-359
confession in the church 359
confession of sin 154, 159, 359, 361
Confessions ofSaint Augustine, The 259
Congar, Yves 329
congregational church structure 332
contacting the dead 297-298
contentment 477
Council of Chalcedon 41
Council of Trent 81, 138
creation 58, 100, 152, 166, 186, 291, 302, 498-499
(see also nature)
600
i
Index
credentials of Bible teachers 88
credit cards 439
crime 479
Cullman, Oscar 162
curse Scriptures 594
curses 129, 166
D
David 295, 567
death 113
death penalty 458
deathbed conversions 114
debt 439
decision making 412
deism 11
deity of Christ 367-368
demons 310
devotions 227
dichotomous view of man 237-238
Didache, The 480
disagreement among Christians 85-86, 334, 336
discipleship 225
divine nature 40
divorce 399, 402, 404, 406
doubting 233
drugs 531
drunkenness 529
E
Easter 363
Eastern religions 288
economics
and Christian faith 432
and debt 440
and equality 444
601
R.C. SPROUL
education
adult 365
Christian 557-558
public 557-558
seminary 348
Edwards, Jonathan 147, 260, 289, 488, 492
election 108, 130, 133
Elijah 21
emotions, and spiritual growth 235
employers 424
engagement 374
episcopalian church structure 332
Esau 527, 570
eternal life 108
eternal security 136
ethics 511-512, 515, 517, 525, 528, 548, 550, 553, 588
euthanasia 456
evangelism 312-313, 322-323
personal 316
evil 267
evolution 98
existence of God 19, 188-189
existentialism 777
F
faith 309
fall of humanity 30
fasting 229-230
fear of God 17
fellowship 331
final judgment 501
First Amendment 182
forgiveness of sin 120, 153, 158, 358
fraternal orders 184
free will 26
602
Index
G
Gallup Poll of American Christianity 227
gambling 441-443
Garden of Eden 150
Garden of Gethsemane 206
genetic engineering 532-533
Gentiles 491
God
as author of creation 20
as revealed through nature 18
attributes of 6-8, 42, 354
character of 8
communication with us 204
existence of 19, 188-189
false views of 8, 15, 21
holiness of 8, 14-16
love of 5
omnipotence of 268
omniscience of 20
revelation of 19, 24, 577
sovereignty of 12, 25-27, 30, 99, 199, 476, 549
voice of 23-24
God the Creator 99, 153, 355
God the Father 9, 13, 96
God's invisibility 9
God's will 256, 258, 404
and prayer 206
discernment of 205
good works 125-127, 287
government 525, 544
and ethics 548
and morality 512
Christian response to 542, 554
instituted by God 542, 549
603
R.C. SPROUL
grace 119-121
common 321
Graham, Billy 66, 472
Great High Priest 116
guilt 128
H
Habakkuk 269
head coverings 347-348
headship 348
healing 478
heaven 282-288, 291, 300, 303-304
Hebrew Wisdom Literature 578
Heisenberg uncertainty principle 188
hell 301-304, 579
heresy 337
Hinduism 313
Hitler, Adolf 268-269, 497, 533
holiness of God 8,14-16
Holiness of God, The 8
Holy Spirit 57, 359
and God's will 255
and regeneration 58, 60
baptism of 60-61, 63-64, 239, 340
blasphemy against 69-70
filling of 60-61
grieving of 68
in Old Testament 58, 64
indwelling of 62
leading of 67-68, 255
quenching of 66
Spirit of truth 68
work of 66, 68, 78, 137, 192, 245, 272
human autonomy 27
human dignity 520
604
Index
human nature 40
human rights 541-548
human sacrifice 513
humility 253
humor 51
hypnosis 530
I
idolatry 14, 560
illness 412
images in churches 356
Imitation of Christ, The 155
Incarnation, the 42, 331, 363
indeterminacy principle 188
infant baptism 295, 341
infants
death of 295-296
infertility 393
inspiration of Scripture 68
Institutes 151, 259
intermediate state 292
Isaac 295
Isaiah 511
Islam 16, 111
Israel 577
nation of 491, 504
J
Jacob 521, 511
Jacob and Esau 29
jealousy 232
Jephthah 513-514
Jeremiah 451, 412
Jesus Christ
and God's will 206
605
R.C. SPROUL
and prayer 199
and world religions 314
as High Priest 116, 212, '565
as Lord 122-123
as only way to God 140
as the believer's priority 222
ascension of 277
character of 51
deity of 367-368
humor of 51
in relation to God the Father 43-44
incarnation of 42
intercession for us 277
names of 39-40
nature of 41, 43, 45
our need for 110
resurrection of 83-84
sayings of 46, 48-49
second coming of 490-492, 519
teachings of 304, 322, 466, 495, 501, 516, 522, 581, 584-585
works of 48
Jews 99
Job 457, 466, 472
John the Baptist 493
joy 77-72
Judaism 13, 16, 281
Judas 133, 135
Judeo-Christian religion 577
Judeo-Christian worldview 7 74
judgment 32, 158, 163, 468, 498-500, 502
as compared to discernment 164
final 501
justice 355, 524
justification 15, 121, 138, 287, 502
606
Index
K
Kant, Immanuel 512
Kempis, Thomas a 155
Kierkegaard, S0ren 456, 473
King Saul 297
kingdom of God 493-494
kingdom of heaven 493
Knowing God 356
Knowing Scripture 227
Knox, John 139
L
labor unions 422
Lamech 382
language of the Bible 21
last days 487, 489, 498, 518
last rites 481
Lazarus 478
leadership 517
life after death 288
life goals 257
life-support systems 457
lifestyle 511-512, 553
light of the world 248
Ligonier Ministries 553
limbo
doctrine of 296
Living Bible, The 90, 92
Lord's Day 351
Lord's Prayer 13, 199, 208-209
Lord's Supper 358-359
lotteries 441, 443
love of God 5
Lucifer 267
Luther, Martin 126, 139, 215, 226, 250, 259-260, 271, 289, 309,
468, 488, 491
lying 527
607
R.C. SPROUL
M
MacArthur, Douglas 412
magic 180, 208, 298, 490
marriage 378
and Christian principles 373
and Christianity 382, 384
and church attendance 385-386
and non-Christian spouse 385
and non-Christians 376
engagement 374
help for 402
interracial 379-380
problems 375, 384
Marxism 444
Mary 329
Mary and Martha 477
Masons 184
material goods 431, 436
materialism 435
McLuhan, Marshall 524
Medium Is the Message, The 524
mediums 297-298
Melchizedek 565
Mengele, Josef 533
Middle Ages 275
Mill, John Stuart 465
ministry 416-417,517
miracles 22-23
Miriam 381
miscarriage
and the afterlife 296
money 434
moral issues 319-320, 338-339, 395, 511-512
moral rights 547
Mormonism 380
608
Index
mortal sin 150
Moses 59, 202, 380, 457, 472, 566
mothers
and career 390
with small children 390
Muslims 99
Mussolini 497
N
narcissism 181
nature 18, 167, 552
(see also creation)
New Age 178-180
new covenant 437
NewJerusalem 284
New Testament
in relation to Old Testament 97
Nicodemus 83, 321
nonbelievers 94, 212
non-Christians 244, 319, 385, 421, 501, 512, 514
O
oaths 559-560
obedience 759, 253, 287, 554
offense of the gospel 31
7
old age 472
old covenant 438
old (or sin) nature 160-161
Old Testament 32, 58, 64, 94, 96, 282, 350, 376, 381, 400, 437,
493, 527
and war 568
relevance of 9
Old Testament saints 281-283
Order of Saint Luke 482
original sin 152, 295
doctrine of 45, 147-148, 585
out-of-body experiences 298-299
609
R.C. SPROUL
P
Packer, Dr. James 356
pain 470
parable of the fig tree 582-583
parables 582
paradise 283, 294
paramutual betting 442-443
pastors 342-343
peer pressure 397
perfection 242
personal evangelism 31
6
Peter 118, 275
Pharisees 69, 136, 160, 241, 251, 281, 437, 487
phenomenological language 21
philosophies 1 74-1 75
physical abuse 404
physical bodies 230
pleasure 469
politicians 550
politics 344, 550
polygamy 381-382
poor, the 441, 521
praise 355-356
prayer 214
and God the Father 202
and God's sovereignty 199
and God's will 206
and healing 479
and nonbelievers 212
and sin 213
answers to 200
practice of 207, 209
unanswered 393
predestination 29, 108, 132
presbyterian church structure 332
610
Index
Prison Fellowship 480
private property 433
prophecy 39, 577
prosperity 434-436
Protestant Reformation 309, 349, 356, 492
proverbs 575
providence of God 11
psychology 236
Psychology ofAtheism 85
psychopannychia 293
public education 557-558
public figures 51
7
public officials 553
public policy 544
public school 182
purity 246
pursuit of happiness 556
R
Rahab 527
rape 455
Rebekah 527-528
redemption 489
Reformation, Protestant 309, 349, 356, 492
regeneration 58, 60, 161, 321
reincarnation 180
religion 1 73
remarriage 401-402
repentance 111-112, 114, 117, 292, 494, 592-593
Resurrection, the 83-84
retirement 414-415
revolution 554
rewards 287
righteous
definition of 240
611
R.C. SPROUL
righteousness
definition of 245
Roe v. Wade 452
Roman Catholic Church
doctrines of 87, 112, 124, 137, 150, 229, 283, 296, 309, 357,
359, 392, 481, 557
rules and regulations 338
S
Sabbath 350-351
Sadducees 69, 281
salt of the earth 248
salvation 27, 29, 107, 113-114, 117, 119, 124-126, 135, 284, 310
loss of 115
our work in 120
Sartre
, Jean-Paul 1 78
Satan 497, 584
and temptation 476
attacks of 277
character of 272
depictions of 274-275
power of 268, 270-271, 273
pride of 275
Savior
our need of 16, 111
Schaeffer, Francis 189, 439
Schweitzer, Albert 50, 495
science 185
Scripture
authority of 82
inspiration of 68
truth of 77
seances 298
Second Coming, the 292
secular humanism 182
612
Index
seminary education 348
separation of church and state 548-549
Sermon on the Mount 163
Seth 381
sex 392
sexual abuse 405
Sickness Unto Death 473
sin
and prayer 213
and spiritual growth 155-156
confession of 154, 159, 359, 361
conviction of 129
forgiveness of 153, 158
God giving us over to 165
gradations of 150-151
nature of 213
sin nature 160-161
social activism 518
Sodom and Gomorrah 20, 33
soul sleep 293
sovereignty of God 12, 25-27, 30, 99, 199, 476, 549
Spirit of truth 68
spiritual battle 65
spiritual growth 65, 223-224, 253, 256
and sin 246
and the Holy Spirit 246
spiritualism 298
state lotteries 443
stewardship 441
street preachers 322-323
suffering 30, 470, 472-473, 478-479
and God's holiness 467
and God's omnipotence 465
and sin 474
and world's fallenness 465
613
R.C. SPROUL
as God's chastisement 469
in connection with guilt 31
suicide 291-292, 473
supernatural work of God 22-23
Supreme Court, the 183, 548
swearing oaths 559-560
T
taxes 438-439
teenagers
and church attendance 396
and the church 352
temptation 243, 475
Ten Commandments 433, 459-460, 595
thanksgiving 476-477
tithing 436, 438
treasury of merits 471
trials 468
tribulations
and God's sovereignty 468
tripartite view of man 237-240
U
usefulness 260
V
vision 576
W
war 568
wedding vows 377
When Bad Things Happen to Good People 465
wisdom 373
witnessing 312-313, 315-316, 322-323, 395
and family members 318-319
614
Index
wives
place in society 387-388
scriptural guidelines 388-389
women
and career 387
and motherhood 387
in ministry 345-346
worship 331, 352-354
615
^H
- you had the opportunity to quiz one of todays
foremost theologians, what would you ask?
"IfI'm happy with my life, why do I needJesus?"
"Why do Christians disagree about what the Bible says?"
"Is there a clear biblical position against lotteries and
casino gambling?"
With practicality, wit, and a seasoned, serious approach to
God's Word, Dr. R. C. Sproul tackles these and more than three
hundred other questions asked by ordinary people interested
in the Christian faith and lifestyle.
I'm always amazed at R. C. Sproul's ability to explain profound truths in an easy-to-
understand manner. He has done it again in this book, where he tackles some difficult
and controversial issues in a humble, yet insightful way."
Jerry Bridges, author of The Pursuit of Holiness
"R. C. Sproul gives short, sharp, satisfying answers to important biblical and theological
questions. This is an excellent, stimulating volume for occasional reading or prolonged
meditation."
Dr. James M. Boice, Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dr. R. C. Sproul, theologian, pastor, and teacher, is chairman of the board of Ligonier
Ministries. A graduate of Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free
University of Amsterdam, Dr. Sproul is currently professor ofsystematic theology at Reformed
Theological Seminary in Orlando and is director emeritus of Prison Fellowship, Inc. His many books
include Chosen by God; The Holiness of God; The Mystery of the Holy Spirit; The Glory of Christ-
Surprised by Suffering; If There 's a God, Why Are There Atheists?; Essential Truths of the Christian
Faith; and The Soul's Quest for God.
Spirituality/Theology
l,l 31809"0471 1" 8
ISBN Q-AM23-4711-H
9 780842"347112 l