Ligonier Ministries Blog

Is it Ever Legitimate to Complain to God or to Express Anger to God?

2013-05-20T06:00:00-04:00

We have manifold references in Scripture to believers bitterly complaining and almost accusing God of unfairness or harshness. We sometimes look at these instances and think, “Well, if Moses can do it, if Job can do it, then it must be my prerogative as a Christian to voice my bitterness and complaints.”

We need to notice not just the complaints the biblical saints sometimes make, but the responses God gives.

But we need to notice not just the complaints the biblical saints sometimes make, but the responses God gives. Let’s take Job’s complaint as an example. As Job struggled with his afflictions, he found it impossible not to grumble that God would let one as righteous as he was suffer so greatly. Eventually, however, God answered Job’s complaints with stern words: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me” (Job 38:2–3). What did Job say? Did he continue to complain? No. Instead, he declared: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know... Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:3b, 6). He was severely rebuked for the attitude that he expressed to God. Likewise, Habakkuk the prophet complained bitterly that God was not being just by allowing wickedness to go unchecked. He demanded an answer from God, and when God gave it, Habakkuk said, “My body trembled; my lips quivered at the voice; rottenness entered my bones; and I trembled in myself” (Hab. 3:16a).

It is never proper to accuse God of wrongdoing.

It’s vital that we understand prayer in terms of the qualifications that are found throughout the Bible. By considering the scope of the Bible’s teaching on this subject, we may conclude that it is acceptable to bring all our cares to God, including matters that may move us to frustration or anger. However, we must not come to God in a spirit of complaint or anger against Him, for it is never proper to accuse God of wrongdoing.

Excerpt from R.C. Sproul's, The Prayer of the Lord.

Twitter Highlights (5/19/13)

2013-05-19T17:00:00-04:00

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

The lost sinner can be only the recipient of new life, never its initiator. —@drstevenjlawson bit.ly/fB8z7f
— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) May 13, 2013

When God says something, the argument is over. —RC Sproul
— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) May 13, 2013

You can now listen to @refnet on iTunes Radio. Find us in the "Religious" category.
— RefNet (@RefNet) May 14, 2013

Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science (John Lennox).
— Ligonier Academy (@LigonierAcademy) May 15, 2013

We are secure, not because we hold tightly to Jesus, but because He holds tightly to us. —RC Sproul
— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) May 16, 2013

God displays His providence as much in suffering as in prosperity. —RC Sproul
— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) May 17, 2013

Registration for this year's Fall Conference at @refbiblecollege is free: ligm.in/Z1nVBS
— RefBibleCollege (@RefBibleCollege) May 19, 2013

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:

Free: 2013 Fall Conference at Reformation Bible College

2013-05-18T11:00:00-04:00

Does God care about truth? Clearly, the answer is yes, for the words He speaks are truth itself (John 14:6). Is God concerned with goodness? How could he not be, since "no one is good except God alone"? (Mark 10:18). Does God love beauty? I suspect that most of us would answer, "yes," but do we really believe it? Do we design worship with beauty in mind? Do we look at writing music, telling stories, and sculpting and painting as callings? How often do we think about promoting beauty in the culture and adorning all that we do with what is beautiful?

Such questions are important because it is easy for us to lose sight of the extent to which God prizes beauty. Our Creator made the world with beauty in mind, as we see in the variety of colors, shapes, and other elements in the world around us. The Lord prizes artistic endeavors such as the writing and playing of music, for He worked through David to appoint musicians for His worship (1 Chron. 25). Moreover, the first people described in Scripture as being filled with the Spirit were artisans skilled in sculpting, carving, and design, men who crafted the tabernacle, its furniture, and the priestly garments (Ex. 31:1–11).

As Christians, we must be concerned with what concerns God, which means that beauty must be our focus as well.

On September 27–28, 2013, we are gathering once again for our annual Fall Conference at Reformation Bible College. This year we are considering the theme "Creation and Recreation: Reflecting the Creator's Glory" and focusing on the role of beauty in the Christian life. Sinclair Ferguson, Nathan Clark George, Andrew Peterson, and R.C. Sproul Jr. will be joining me as we consider God's call to work for beauty in all of life and reflect the glory of the Lord, who "has made everything beautiful in its time" (Eccl. 3:11).

I am looking forward to the fellowship, instruction, and worship that we will enjoy at this conference, and, in our efforts to be a blessing to the surrounding community, this will be a free conference. We extend a special invitation to people in Central Florida, but we welcome all to come and learn how they can work for beauty and see how Reformation Bible College is endeavoring to help Christians do just that. Will you please join us this September?

Just My Imagination

2013-05-18T06:00:00-04:00

It's the fuzzy stuff around the edges that gets us. When we are aware we are facing a text from God's Word, we tend to tread carefully. We move slowly, break out our exegetical tools, and get to work. The trouble comes when we're dealing in broad generalities. We take a vague notion grounded in our private wishes, and turn these into convictions. I had a friend in college who was signed up for the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. Two years into the program he wanted out, having adopted a pacifist perspective. I asked him how he came to this conclusion- "I just can't see Jesus blowing some guy away" was his answer. Now there are some thoughtful, nuanced arguments out there in favor of pacifism. I don't believe them, but I can respect them. This, however, is some microscopically thin ice.

The question, of course, is not what one can imagine, but what the Bible teaches. And insofar as we are ignorant of what the Bible teaches, our imaginations will prove to be nothing but trouble. Jesus, you'll remember, told His disciples before sending them out with the gospel, to bring a sword. What though if they didn't have one? Jesus said sell your cloak and buy one. Jesus gave us Romans 13, reminding us that the state is God's minister of justice that does not bear the sword in vain. Jesus is not as safe and sweet as we think He is.

This problem, however, is not just from pacifists. We all face the temptation of taking the flimsiest of evidence, and filling it in with our own imaginations. Were I Jesus, this is how I would look at this issue… But we're not Jesus. Jesus is Jesus. Worse, sometimes we even put words in His mouth. I had another friend in college that aspired to serve as a minister of the gospel. We opened up our Bibles and I showed her how it forbids ladies from serving as elders in the church. She agreed. For a few weeks. After some distance from our "Let's open the Bible and see what it says" conversation she was back to her old plan. I asked her how that came to be. "RC," she asked me, "what are we supposed to do when the Holy Spirit calls us to do what the Bible forbids us to do?" Already blessed with deep pastoral reserves I replied, "Tell that spirit to go back to hell where he came from." Her vague, internal, unverifiable promptings were pushing against God's Holy Word, and she wasn't sure which should give way.

The Bereans were noble, not because they constructed a wonderful image of Christ in their own minds, but because they returned to the Word, checked by the Word. And we are called to do the same. When a text seems to butt up against one of our convictions, may we deal with the text, rather than seek to trump it with our own wisdom. It may be our conviction is wrong. It may be our understanding of the text is wrong. But it cannot be that something is more right than the text. It alone is the Word of God.

Just My Imagination was originally published at RCSproulJr.com

Living with a Sense of Eternity

2013-05-17T06:00:00-04:00

It is commonplace today in Reformed theology to recognize that the Christian lives "between the times" — already we are in Christ, but a yet more glorious future awaits us in the final consummation. There is, therefore, a "not yet" about our present Christian experience. John Calvin well understood this, and he never dissolved the tension between the "already" and the "not yet." But he also stressed the importance for the present of a life-focus on the future.

Calvin sought, personally, to develop a balance of contempt for the present life with a deep gratitude for the blessings of God and a love and longing for the heavenly kingdom. The sense that the Lord would come and issue His final assessment on all and bring His elect to glory was a dominant motif for him. This, the theme of his chapter "Meditation on the Future Life," was a major element in the energy with which he lived in the face of the "not yet" of his own ailments and weakness. When he was seriously ill and confined to bed, his friends urged him to take some rest, but he replied, "Would you that the Lord, when He comes, should find me idle?" By living in the light of the return of Christ and the coming judgment, Calvin became deeply conscious of the brevity of time and the length of eternity.

This sense of eternity overflowed from his life into his work. It was so characteristic of him that it flowed out naturally in his prayers at the conclusion of his lectures. Here we see the wonderful harmony of his biblical exposition, his understanding of the gospel, his concern to teach young men how to live for God's glory, and his personal piety. A fragment of one of these prayers, chosen almost randomly, fittingly summarizes this all-too-brief reflection on the heart of God that Calvin expressed in his learning and leadership:

May we be prepared, whatever happens,
rather to undergo a hundred deaths
than to turn aside from the profession of true piety,
in which we know our safety to be laid up.
And may we so glorify thy name
as to be partakers of that glory which
has been acquired for us
through the blood of thine only-begotten Son. Amen.

Adapted from Sinclair Ferguson's contribution in John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine & Doxology.

$5 Friday: Justification, Prayer, & Anger

2013-05-17T00:00:00-04:00

It's time for our weekly $5 Friday sale. This week's resources cover such topics as justification, prayer, anger, the blood of Christ, philosophy, theology, abortion, apologetics, and more.

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

View today's $5 Friday sale items.

Desiring God: An Interview with John Piper

2013-05-16T06:00:00-04:00

Here's an excerpt from Desiring God: An Interview with John Piper in May's issue of Tabletalk.

Tabletalk: How did you become a Christian?

John Piper: God wakened me from spiritual death when I was a child under the faith-filled instruction and example of my happy, Spirit-filled, mentally healthy, fundamentalist parents. I am told I professed faith in Jesus as my Savior when I was six. I don’t remember it. So the reason I know I am alive is because I am breathing, not because I can recall the moment of my birth.

Continue reading this interview with John Piper or begin receiving Tabletalk magazine by signing up for a free 3 month trial.

The Reformed Doctrine of General Revelation: What It Is and What It Isn't

2013-05-15T06:00:00-04:00

In the 1967 prison film Cool Hand Luke, starring Paul Newman, the warden utters one of the most memorable lines in film history when he says, in his deep southern drawl, "What we've got here is failure to communicate." I am often reminded of this line when reading about or participating in discussions of the Reformed doctrine of general revelation – particularly when that discussion touches on contemporary debates about science and Scripture.

In one of the Q&A sessions at Ligonier's 2012 National Conference, Dr. Sproul was asked his opinion on the age of the universe. His answer, which should be carefully listened to by all Christians who are involved in discussions of science and Scripture, may be viewed here. Because his answer was so helpful, Ligonier posted an eight-part blog series explaining the theological and hermeneutical basis for what Dr. Sproul said. At the heart of these blog posts was an attempt to outline the Reformed doctrine of general revelation.

Some, who are either not familiar with the traditional Reformed doctrine of general revelation or who disagree with the Reformed doctrine, have expressed concerns that it entails placing fallible scientific theories on the same level of authority with Scripture – or worse, on a higher level of authority. Such a concern stems from a failure to understand the Reformed doctrine of general revelation. This failure to understand may be the fault of Reformed Christians for not stating the doctrine clearly. It may be the fault of critics for not listening carefully. It may be the fault of both to one degree or another. In any case, what we have is a failure to communicate that is leading to serious misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

The purpose of this brief post is to explain what the traditional Reformed doctrine of general revelation is, and just as importantly, to explain what the traditional Reformed doctrine of general revelation is not.

What General Revelation Is

In order to understand the Reformed doctrine of general revelation, it is necessary first to have a clear grasp of what Reformed theology means by the term "revelation." The word "revelation" simply refers to "revealing" or "unveiling." In Reformed theology, it can refer to God's act of communication to man or to the content of that communication.

Reformed theologians have also traditionally defined general revelation in contrast to special revelation. Article 2 of the Belgic Confession (on the means by which we know God) states the distinction in the following words:

We know Him [God] by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation.

The distinction between general and special revelation focuses more on the extent and purpose of revelation.ⁱ General revelation is referred to as "general" revelation because it has a general content and is revealed to a general audience. Through general revelation to all men, God communicates His existence, His power, and His glory, such that men are left without excuse.

A further distinction that must be made is the distinction between immediate and mediate general revelation. Immediate general revelation occurs without an intermediating agency. Mediate general revelation occurs through an intermediating agency. John Calvin described immediate general revelation in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:

There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity [divinitatis sensum]. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty (I.3.1).

In other words, God has revealed Himself by directly implanting knowledge about Himself in all men. In a later chapter, Calvin described the mediate general revelation that God accomplishes through His created works:

The final goal of the blessed life, moreover, rests in the knowledge of God [cf. John 17:3]. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men's minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken, but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him (Institutes, I.5.1).

God, then, reveals Himself through His works. Here, Calvin is simply restating what the Psalmist said in Psalm 19:1–2.

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.

The Apostle Paul elaborates on the same idea in Romans 1:19–20.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

As John Murray explains, "We must not tone down the teaching of the apostle in this passage. It is a clear declaration to the effect that the visible creation as God's handiwork makes manifest the invisible perfections of God as its Creator, that from the things which are perceptible to the senses cognition of these invisible perfections is derived, and that thus a clear apprehension of God's perfections may be gained from his observable handiwork."ⁱⁱ

What General Revelation Is Not

In order to understand what general revelation is not, a number of further distinctions must be made.

First, the human interpreters of God's revelation, whether general or special, are not to be equated with the revelation itself. The words "special revelation" do not refer to the biblical scholar who is studying the Word of God. Nor do the words "general revelation" refer to the scientist studying God's created works.

Second, human interpretations of God's revelation, whether general or special, are not to be equated with revelation itself. The words "special revelation" do not refer to commentaries on the Word of God. Nor do the words "general revelation" refer to scientific theories about God's created works.

Third, the word "infallibility" refers only to God and His acts of revelation. It does not refer to the human interpreters of those revelatory acts (whether general or special). Nor does it refer to the human interpretations of those revelatory acts (whether general or special).

Thus, when Dr. Sproul says that interpreters of God's created works might help us correct a misinterpretation of Scripture, he is not placing fallible human science over the infallible Scriptures. He is comparing a fallible human interpretation of God's special revelation with a fallible human interpretation of God's general revelation. Those who either do not understand or who do not agree with the Reformed doctrine of general revelation will inevitably misunderstand the hermeneutical point that Dr. Sproul is making.

Again, both general and special revelation are infallible acts of God. These two kinds of revelation can never be in conflict because the source of both is the one God. Human interpretations of these two kinds of revelation, however, can be and have been in conflict. Again, God's act of general revelation and God's act of special revelation are not and cannot be in conflict. Fallible human exegesis and fallible human scientific theories, on the other hand, can be in conflict. And as Dr. Sproul has explained, if there is a conflict between fallible human interpretations of general revelation and special revelation, the conflict may be due to a misinterpretation of general revelation (e.g. an erroneous scientific theory) or it may be due to a misinterpretation of Scripture (e.g. an erroneous interpretation of one or more biblical texts). The fact that fallible human beings can misinterpret general and special revelation does not mean that God's revelation itself is fallible. It means that we are fallible.

In short, general revelation is not synonymous with science, scientists, or scientific theories, and to say that general revelation is part of the context we must take into consideration in our exegesis of special revelation is, therefore, not to say that science, scientists, or scientific theories are on the same level as Scripture.

There are a number of other distinctions that must be understood if we are to fully grasp the Reformed understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Science. Several of these are discussed in the eight-part blog series mentioned above.

ⁱ Louis Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932), 128)
ⁱⁱ John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 40.

Delighting in Our Duty

2013-05-14T06:00:00-04:00

Here's an excerpt from Delighting in Our Duty, Burk Parsons' contribution to the May issue of Tabletalk.

When we think of the law of God, the first thing that should come to mind is love—God's love for us as fallen sinners, directing us to love Him, enjoy Him, and glorify Him. God's law is a gracious gift to us, and it has three primary uses. First, the law functions as a teacher by showing us God's perfect righteousness and our unrighteousness and sin, and it shows our danger of God's judgment, leading us, by God's grace, in repentance and faith to Jesus Christ who fulfilled all the righteous demands of God's law (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; Gal. 3:19–24). Second, the law functions to restrain evil in all realms of society, preserving humanity and, thus, serving God's overall plan of redemption for His covenant people (Deut. 19:16–21; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). Third, the law functions as a guide to righteous living for all men, and it directs us as God's beloved children by teaching us what pleases our heavenly Father and fulfills the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; 1 Thess. 4:1–8).

Continue reading Delighting in Our Duty or begin receiving Tabletalk magazine by signing up for a free 3 month trial.

Explaining the Universal Phenomenon of Religion

2013-05-13T06:00:00-04:00

Have you ever wondered why there's a universal phenomenon of religion? You can go anywhere on the globe and you'll find evidence of cultic practices of sacrifice. Why is that? I suggest that it is because the original program and prescription for the worship of the living God was sacrifice. Adam told it to Cain, Abel, and Seth. Seth told it to Enoch, and he told it to his sons and they to their sons and so on. It was taught to Abraham. It was taught to Isaac. It was taught to Jacob. It was taught to Joseph. It was taught to Moses. It was also taught to Ishmael and to Esau, and so the idea of the requirement of sacrifice in faith pervaded the whole human race.

But today the need for sacrifices to be made in faith is forgotten—we hear that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere. In fact, the basic requirement of sacrifice is unknown—it doesn't matter what your religious practices are. It doesn't matter what you worship. It only matters that you do worship. It's said that the Jews worship God in their way, the Muslims worship God in their way, the Buddhists worship in their way. The unspoken assumption is God is obligated to receive, honor, and respect any kind of worship that people bring.

God didn't respect all of the worship in Genesis 4. He had no respect for the worship of Cain. And Cain responded in anger when he saw that his worship was unacceptable to God. A faithful man, a righteous man, would have said, "O my God. I'm heartily sorry for having sinned against You. Teach me Your statutes, O Lord, show me the more excellent way. Change my heart, so that the offering that I bring You next Sabbath day will honor you. I'm glad, at least, Holy Father, that You were pleased with my brother's offering. Father, give me an attitude by which I can learn from my brother, because my brother lives by faith and is trying to obey You." But that was not Cain's response.

In reality, that is never the response of the godless to the godly. Which of the prophets did they not kill? Which of the reformers in church history was not despised by the organized church? Like Cain, who rose up and slew his brother Abel, wicked churches have spilled the blood of true Christians. In fact, it was the church that rose up to kill Jesus because He did not respect their sacrifices.

Twitter Highlights (5/12/13)

2013-05-12T17:00:00-04:00

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

On @ligonierconnect there are now over 800 different worldwide classes, small groups, and churches engaged in discipleship.
— Ligonier Connect (@LigonierConnect) May 6, 2013

It is one thing to believe in God; it is quite another to believe God. —RC Sproul
— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) May 7, 2013

If you take away the cross as an atoning act, you take away Christianity (R.C. Sproul).
— Tabletalk Magazine (@Tabletalk) May 7, 2013

We tend to be impatient. When I pray for patience, I tend to ask for it "right now!" —RC Sproul
— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) May 8, 2013

May God give His church, again, men who are fearless... —@drstevenjlawson instagram.com/p/ZGbGjyLbE1/
— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) May 9, 2013

Calvinism is actually the most loving theology possible, for it is a theology of grace. —Joel Beeke bit.ly/J5XhZN
— Reformation Trust (@RefTrust) May 10, 2013

It’s very hard for a man to believe that God is gracious to him. The human heart can’t grasp this (Martin Luther).
— Ligonier Academy (@LigonierAcademy) May 10, 2013

If we think we are becoming perfect, then we are far from becoming perfect. —R.C. Sproul ligm.in/JsXMTx
— Ligonier Ministries (@Ligonier) May 10, 2013

You can also find our various ministries on Facebook:

Should the Pastor Preach Against the Sins of His Congregation?

2013-05-11T06:00:00-04:00

Of course. And of course not. The sermon is that part of the service where God's Word exposes our failures, and proclaims Christ's provision. The end is not the sin, but neither can the sin be ignored. We do not preach simply to tell the congregation, "Stop it. Try harder. This is the right way to go." Rather we preach to tell the congregation, "Stop trying harder. Jesus already went this way." That is, we want to face our sins, give thanks for the forgiveness of our sins, and in gratitude seek to follow the royal law of love. As such we do indeed preach sin. The notion that we hide their sins from the flock, so as not to offend, to keep them from leaving the church is pure folly. No church has enough musical skill, no pastor enough entertaining style, no coffee shop enough tasty coffee to keep the crowds coming. What we have are the words of eternal life, which begin with Repent, and end with and believe the gospel.

Even in less seeker-friendly services though we can find the same problem. Here we are willing to preach against sin, but against the sins of those who are absent. We may fuss about the bad theology, or the bad strategy of the church down the street. Or we may thunder against the sins of the world. But it is the sheep of our fold that need to know and repent from their sins.

In what sense then is it wrong to preach against the sins of the congregation? Well, we are not called when we step into the pulpit to deliver a sermon inspired by Mr. Jones' inability to make it to church on time, or Mrs. Brown's immodest clothing choices. Now it may well be that someone needs to talk to Mr. Jones, or Mrs. Brown, but the sermon is not the time for that. We do not take up the time we have been given to open up the text of God's Word in order to do private discipleship in public. We do not accuse the brethren in a context in which they cannot speak to their own defense. We do not abuse our opportunity to put someone in his place. That's not our place when in the pulpit.

How do we avoid both of these failures? The preacher should preach to his own sins. It is likely that this will include the sins of his own congregation. But thankfully they don't exclude the preacher. When we preach against our own sins we can address where "we" go wrong, and are in need of grace and repentance, rather than a situation where I preach against where "you" go wrong.

Preaching ought to convict. Otherwise it's just wasted time. It ought, however, to also provide the solution to our guilt, in extolling the provision in Christ. May we preachers decrease, and the One we preach, may He increase.

Should the Pastor Preach Against the Sins of His Congregation? was originally published at RCSproulJr.com

The Heresy of Perfectionism

2013-05-10T06:00:00-04:00

An ancient heresy of the distinction between two types of Christians, carnal and Spirit-filled, is the heresy of perfectionism. Perfectionism teaches that there is a class of Christians who achieve moral perfection in this life. To be sure, credit is given to the Holy Spirit as the agent who brings total victory over sin to the Christian. But there is a kind of elitism in perfectionism, a feeling that those who have achieved perfection are somehow greater than other Christians. The "perfect" ones do not officially—take credit for their state, but smugness and pride have a way of creeping in.

The peril of perfectionism is that it seriously distorts the human mind. Imagine the contortions through which we must put ourselves to delude us into thinking that we have in fact achieved a state of sinlessness.

Inevitably the error of perfectionism breeds one, or usually two, deadly delusions. To convince ourselves that we have achieved sinlessness, we must either suffer from a radical overestimation of our moral performance or we must seriously underestimate the requirements of God's law. The irony of perfectionism is this: Though it seeks to distance itself from antinomianism, it relentlessly and inevitably comes full circle to the same error.

To believe that we are sinless we must annul the standards of God's Law. We must reduce the level of divine righteousness to the level of our own performance. We must lie to ourselves both about the Law of God and about our own obedience. To do that requires that we quench the Spirit when He seeks to convict us of sin. Persons who do that are not so much Spirit-filled as they are Spirit-quenchers.

One of the true marks of our ongoing sanctification is the growing awareness of how far short we fall of reaching perfection. Perfectionism is really antiperfectionism in disguise. If we think we are becoming perfect, then we are far from becoming perfect.

If we think we are becoming perfect, then we are far from becoming perfect.

I once encountered a young man who had been a Christian for about a year. He boldly declared to me that he had received the "second blessing" and was now enjoying a life of victory, a life of sinless perfection. I immediately turned his attention to Paul's teaching on Romans 7. Romans 7 is the biblical death blow to every doctrine of perfectionism. My young friend quickly replied with the classic agreement of the perfectionist heresy, namely, that in Romans 7 Paul is describing his former unconverted state.

I explained to the young man that it is exegetically impossible to dismiss Romans 7 as the expression of Paul's former life. We examined the passage closely and the man finally agreed that indeed Paul was writing in the present tense. His next response was, "Well, maybe Paul was speaking of his present experience, but he just hadn't received the second blessing yet."

I had a difficult time concealing my astonishment at this spiritual arrogance. I asked him pointedly, "You mean that You, at age nineteen, after one year of Christian faith, have achieved a higher level of obedience to God than the apostle Paul enjoyed when he was writing the Epistle to the Romans?"

To my everlasting shock the young man replied without flinching, "Yes!" Such is the extent to which persons will delude themselves into thinking that they have achieved sinlessness.

I spoke once with a woman who claimed the same "second blessing" of perfectionism who qualified her claim a bit. She said that she was fully sanctified into holiness so that she never committed any willful sins. But she acknowledged that occasionally she still committed sins, though never willfully. Her present sins were unwillful.

What in the world is an unwillful sin? All sin involves the exercise of the will. If an action happens apart from the will it is not a moral action. The involuntary beating of my heart is not a moral action. All sin is willful. Indeed, the corrupt inclination of the will is of the very essence of sin. There is no sin without the willing of sin. The woman was excusing her own sin by denying that she had willed to commit the sin. The sin just sort of "happened." It was the oldest self-justification known to man: "I didn't mean to do it!"

In one strand of the Wesleyan tradition there is another type of qualified perfectionism. Here the achievement of perfection is limited to a perfected love. We may continue to struggle with certain moral weaknesses, but at least we can receive the blessing of a perfected love. But think on this a moment. If we received the blessing of a love that was absolutely perfect, how then would we ever commit any kind of sin? If I ever loved God perfectly, I would will only obedience to Him. How could a creature who loved God perfectly ever sin against Him at all?

Someone might answer: "We could still sin against Him in ignorance." But the perfect love with which we are called to love God is a perfect love of our minds as well as our hearts. If we perfectly loved God with all of our minds, from whence could this ignorance flow? One who loves God perfectly with the mind is perfectly diligent in studying and mastering the Word of God. The perfectly loving mind perceives correctly the light into our paths. A perfectly loving mind doesn't make errors in understanding Scripture.

But could we not still make mistakes because our minds are less than perfect? I ask why our minds are less than perfect. It is not because we lack brains or the faculty of thinking. Our thinking is clouded because our hearts are clouded. Take away the cloud from our hearts and our minds are illumined by the clear light of God.

A perfect love would yield perfect obedience. The only perfected love this world has ever seen was the love of Christ, who exhibited perfect obedience. Jesus loved the Father perfectly. He sinned not at all, either willfully or in ignorance.

Excerpt from R.C. Sproul's, Pleasing God.

$5 Friday: Church History, Theology, & Marriage

2013-05-10T00:00:00-04:00

It's time for our weekly $5 Friday sale. This week's resources cover such topics as church history, theology, marriage, the cross, worldviews, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and more.

Thanks to P&R Publishing for partnering with us this week.

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

View today's $5 Friday sale items.

There's Still Time to Join Us for a British Reformation Tour

2013-05-09T12:00:00-04:00

Ligonier Ministries exists to help as many people as possible grow in their knowledge of God and His holiness. So often this means helping Christians understand their connection with the generations of believers who came before. What were their lives like? What issues were on their minds? What was the context in which they read the Scriptures and applied them to their families, churches, and communities?

This is known as historical theology — the study of how Christian doctrine developed over the centuries. Traveling and seeing these places up-close provides for a robust learning experience that can marry knowledge with all five senses.

Imagine sitting by the shore of the Sea of Galilee in the shade of the synagogue at Capernaum where our Lord called His disciples to come and be fishers of men. Think about hearing the roar of the tumultuous crowd at the theater in Ephesus as they responded to Paul's ministry. Contemplate standing on the very spot where Martin Luther gave his courageous defense at Worms, Germany; or picture yourself walking in John Calvin's steps up to the academy in Geneva.

We have taken these trips with Ligonier students over the years, and because of the tremendous response, are pleased to announce that we will be creating more travel learning experiences to historic destinations in the future.

Last year we announced our plans for two British Reformation Church History Tours in 2013. A first tour from England to Scotland with Drs. R.C. Sproul and Robert Godfrey on August 15–23 and a second tour from Scotland to England with Drs. Sinclair Ferguson and Steven Lawson August 25–September 2. There is limited space still available for both tours.

Consider joining Ligonier Ministries for one of these times of fellowship and teaching to the shores of a country in which God's Spirit moved mightily. Let us learn how the gospel was recovered out of eclipse in Elizabeth's England and Knox's Scotland, and how we can guard against theological decline in our own day. We look forward to learning together as we travel together. You can review the full schedule and itinerary at our website:

Tour 1 — 2013 British Reformation Tour

Location: England to Scotland
Speakers: Robert Godfrey and R.C. Sproul
Dates: August 15 — 23

Tour 2 — 2013 British Reformation Tour

Location: Scotland to England
Speakers: Sinclair Ferguson and Steven Lawson
Dates: August 25 — September 2

Take advantage now of the early bird pricing before it expires on May 20. Remember, space is limited and bookings will be taken in the order they are received. Our travel partner for this trip is Sovereign Tours, who will handle all reservations, logistics, and other necessary travel arrangements. Please contact Sovereign to register today. The number is 877-768-2784, ext. 100.