No Believer Could Ever, or, Logs-in-Eyes ‘r’ Us

It’s election season again, which means I once again enter into that weird phase where my ideological friends regularly make me cringe. Sometimes it’s over the top rhetoric in favor of some guy on the red team, other times it’s over the top rhetoric in against some guy on the blue team. People who ought to know better say things like, “No believer could ever vote blue.” This is logically equivalent to “All persons who voted blue are not believers.”

Yikes. Now please don’t misunderstand me. You will likely never meet a man more committed to the sanctity of live, to limited government, to conservative ideology than me. I am also a deeply committed believer myself. Last but not least, I have never voted for, nor can I imagine ever doing so, a democrat for any office. I’m more than happy to say this radically different thing, “No believer should ever vote blue.” Could never? Don’t be ridiculous.

Here is a brief list of things that are at least on par with voting blue if not worse, that believers can and have done.
1. Committed sexual infidelity.
2. Committed murder to cover up sexual infidelity.
3. Refused to share table fellowship with fellow believers because of their ancestry.
4. Denied the Lord three times.
5. Passed out from drinking.
6. Murdered his or her unborn child.
7. Driven drunk with his children in the car.
8. Whatever it is you’ve done that you desperately hope no one ever finds out about.

The first two on this list is a man God called a “man after His own heart.” The second two are man Jesus called “the Rock.” The third is a man God called righteous in his generations. That’s King David, King David again, Peter, Peter again, and Noah. The sixth is the one sixth of procurers of abortion in American, while professing to be evangelical Christians. The seventh is me and the eighth is you.

According to Jesus, there is only one sin a believer can not ever commit, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. While there may be some uncertainty as to what exactly that is, voting foolishly is surely not what it is. Which means that while it may well be a sin to vote Democrat, it is certainly a sin to suggest that this particular sin is a sure sign that that sinner is outside the kingdom. This sin, however, even those under His grace, are prone to commit.

The solution is for us to understand that while all sins are heinous, and while some sins are more heinous that others, believers are more than capable of committing the most heinous of sins. While His promises include washing us of our sins, they don’t include our being freed from committing sins until we have crossed over.

Education and admonition are good things. And it is certainly true that there are forces of foolery inside the church that seek to deny the sinfulness of voting for the Baby Killing party that should be directly challenged, calling such a sin unforgivable is a lie against the breadth and scope of the grace of God in Christ. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of which I am chief (I Tim 1:15).

Posted in abortion, Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, church, ethics, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, politics, RC Sproul JR, wisdom | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Former Astrologer Marcia Montenegro, Lying Media & More

This week’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in 10 Commandments, appeal, Biblical theology, covid-19, Devil's Arsenal, ethics, ism, Jesus Changes Everything, Lisa Sproul, Month of Sundays, new age, philosophy, politics, post-modernism, RC Sproul JR, shepherd's college, typology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Former Astrologer Marcia Montenegro, Lying Media & More

Name It Blame It, or, Pinning Failures on Failure

Some time ago I published an Ask RC podcast titled, “What’s wrong with the enneagram?” One of my (many) concerns is that as with so many other so called assessment tests, we always face the temptation to excuse our sin on the basis of our personality type. The bossy person gives free reign (pun intended) to his bossiness by claiming to be gifted at administration. The more I’ve been thinking about this, however, the more I see it everywhere.

One of the reasons, for instance, that the Christian’s strategy of “Hate the sin, love the sinner” hasn’t been able to broker peace with the sexually confused is because the sexually confused wind their identities up in their confusion. Thus we have “Side B” Christians, celibate sexually confused people who are willing to give up gay sex, but not gay identity. When we hate the sin of the LGBTQ, they inevitably conclude we hate them because they think they are their sin. Even the “alcoholic,’ if he maintains a friendship with Bill W., even if he hasn’t had a drink in decades, holds on to his self-identity as an alcoholic.

We need not, however, find ourselves in these extreme circumstances to make the same mistake. I make it too. That is, even someone like me who rejects enneagram and other personality profiles, who rejects sexual confusion and who isn’t a friend of Bill W. still falls for this temptation. I needed no personality test to know this- I am introverted. I tend to find interaction with other humans less stimulating, more tiring. I’m far more likely to become a hermit than a salesman. Sometimes, witnessing my lack of enthusiasm, people reach the conclusion that I am rude. I am discovering that they are right.

The Bible calls me to love my brothers, to be actively involved in the lives of others. It does not call me to not be tired. That I am inclined toward the sin of rudeness, that I am selfish enough that I think being tired is sufficient reason to hide away isn’t a sign that I have a particular personality but that I struggle against a particular sin. My calling isn’t to grant a title to that temptation and then excuse my failure to overcome it by claiming, “That’s just the way I am.” “That’s just the way I am” doesn’t remove our guilt. It merely describes it.

When I name my weakness I make it my pet, something safe and manageable. When I give up that name, I can begin the good work of putting my weakness to death, nailing it to the cross. When I take the blame rather than shift it I can take my medicine and start to get better. Introvert can join the long list of things I used to be, that are no longer a part of my identity. I am not a slave to my habits, my temptations, my psychology, my past. I have been set free by Jesus. Whom He sets free is free indeed.

Posted in Biblical Doctrines, Devil's Arsenal, ethics, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, RC Sproul JR, repentance, sexual confusion | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

What should I expect from my local church?

It is an easy thing to grumble about the marketing mentality of so many local churches. Rather than taking direction from God’s Word we take it from sociological studies, surveys, and sage savants. What we often miss is that churches adopt these strategies because the “market” is asking them to. We want what we want, and they are happy to give it to us. What though of what we ought to want? Shouldn’t what we look for in a local church come from God’s Word? Here are three things we should expect from our local church.

1. Care. The church exists to care for the flock of Jesus Christ. That care, of course, covers quite a bit. We find in the book of Acts that the church not only provided sound teaching, which we will get to, but also provided for the needs of its widows. Those whose natural families were unwilling or unable to help the widows found provision through the deacons of the local church. Your local church should be a safe place to seek out the care you need.

The deacons, however, were not social workers helping the widows manage the Roman bureaucracy to get food stamps. No, they distributed to the widows that which had been given freely by the body. You should not expect the church to subsidize bad decisions. You should expect it to care for those within who are in need.

2. Teaching from the Word. Note that when the office of deacon is created in Acts that part of the motive was to remove the weight of those duties from the leadership of the church. They were to turn their attention to the ministry of the Word and prayer. You should expect your local church to be that place where the Bible is taught with faithfulness and fervor. It should be preached, with authority.

That means you should expect to have your sins confronted, your presuppositions challenged, your toes stepped on. A preacher who never makes you say “ouch” is almost certainly a hireling. Run away, and be glad he won’t chase after you. You should also expect, however, to be given the balm of Gilead, to hear preached with joy the good news of all that Jesus has accomplished and promised. If you come away from church without the joy of your salvation, you may be in the wrong place.

3. Prayer. Remember that the leadership at the church in Acts was freed to devote themselves to the ministry of the Word, and to prayer. Remember also that when Jesus cleansed the temple, He reminded all that were there that the temple was to be a house of prayer.

Your local church should be a place where those in leadership with persistence and compassion, pray for those under their care. This demonstrates not only a fitting love for the flock, but a robust grasp of from whence comes our help. It should also be a place where the saints in the pews also pray for those in leadership, and for the other saints in the pews. Everyone there should be praying for everyone there.

One more thing you should expect. Expect all leaders and all of the flock to sin, and to sin against you. It is not the gathering of the sinless but of the repentant. Don’t expect the church militant to have gained all the victories of the church triumphant. The church should be a place of grace, a hospital for the wounded and the wounding.

This is the fourth installment of an ongoing series of pieces here on the nature and calling of the church. Stay tuned for more.

Posted in Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, church, grace, kingdom, prayer, preaching, RC Sproul JR, repentance, theology, wisdom, worship | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sophisticated Lady or, The Blushless Bride

We’ve all heard the horror stories. First there was the church that offered visitors a free oil change during the “service” if you would come. Then we heard of simple cash rewards. More recently a church raffled off a new Harley Davidson motorcycle. You couldn’t buy raffle tickets; you could only earn them either by visiting or bringing visitors in. Tetzel is spinning in his grave, but only because he is appalled that he never got this sophisticated.

We have our standard ways of measuring the worldliness of the church. We can note that the divorce rate within the evangelical church is roughly equal to the rate among the lost. In one mammoth evangelical denomination, the rate is actually higher. We can look at it ideologically and note that over half those polled who consider themselves evangelical also affirm that there is no such thing as objective truth. Or, we can see the fruit of that affirmation.

In a time of philosophical crisis in ancient Greece, when two competing schools of thought found themselves in a Mexican standoff, a new school arose. The Sophists did not take a side in the titanic struggle between Heraclitus and Parmenides, between the many and the one. Instead they argued that arguing was a waste of time. This school was interested in persuasion, not proof. In fact, like modern relativists, they believed that proof was impossible.

In the modern, or perhaps postmodern West, we are sophists once again. We have added this Western twist — pragmatism. Now persuasion is no longer in the pursuit of rhetorical laurels, but is in the service of selling things. Indeed we live in such a sophisticated age that we are told that the key to success is selling even ourselves. And once again the church has fallen prey to the wisdom of the world. We think that our pathway to success lies in selling ourselves, in presenting ourselves not just as a product, but as a superior product.

What was once the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church has become now Oakmont Family Worship Center. The trouble is that there are no oaks, no mountains, few families (that is, the families all split and go their separate ways as soon as they enter), no worship, and precious little center.

What Oakmont Family Worship Center offers instead is a series of bulletpoint benefits that fit the demographics of the area. They have a gym, a wide array of twelve-step programs, youth groups, women’s groups, men’s groups, singles groups, and, of course, their own coffee bar right in the narthex, I mean, the “greeting center.” Which in turn means that not only are there no oaks, mountains, families, worship or center, but neither is it one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

It is not one because, unlike the true church, its being isn’t centered on the work of Christ. It spits on the liturgy, on the music, even on the convictions of our fathers. It is the first church of what’s happening now, and thus is untethered from the church in history.

Neither, of course, is the church holy. It not only is not set apart, but labors diligently to mimic the world. It is unholy on purpose, because its reason for being is pleasing the lost, rather than the One who finds the lost. It moves from embracing the wisdom of this world in embracing a sophist agenda, which, in turn, leads it into embracing the wisdom of the world, because that’s what attracts the world. The church begins with the assumption that it can be whatever it wishes and concludes by wishing to be just like the world.

The prototypical Oakmont is not catholic either. Not only does it begin with a marketing strategy, but that marketing strategy is to reach a particular niche (virtually always yuppies, not coincidentally). “Oakmont” is focused on bringing in upwardly mobile professionals. Its vision of the church extends only as broadly as the demographic it is seeking. When we affirm the catholicity of the church we are not only affirming that the church encompasses every tongue and tribe, but that it unites every tongue and tribe. And, as noted above, it transcends time, uniting this century and the last, and the one before that, all the way back to the Garden.

Worst of all, Oakmont is not apostolic. It rejects not only the faith once delivered unto the saints, but likewise it rejects the messengers who delivered that faith. It takes its cues from modern-day church growth gurus, who, in turn, take their cues from the madmen of Madison Avenue. Oakmont isn’t concerned with what the apostles said because they make their decisions based on what the market says. And one thing the market cannot bear is sound, old, demanding doctrine. When demographics divide, that’s good marketing. But when doctrine divides, that’s bad marketing.

Sophistry in the church, then, not only guts the church of her defining marks but gives her a new identity. Now she is no longer the bride of Christ, but a painted lady. When the church hustles the world, it becomes a worldly hustler. In short, like Israel before her, when the church cavorts with the world, she finds her lamp stand removed, she finds herself divorced and alone.

The world is a cruel lover, but more important, God is a jealous God. When the church plays to consumers, she will find herself consumed by the One who is a consuming fire. Praise God, however, that the church itself, the true church, will never fall. For her Groom has promised, despite her wandering eye, to remove every blot and blemish. And all His promises are yea and amen.

Posted in 10 Commandments, church, ethics, evangelism, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, music, post-modernism, preaching, RC Sproul JR, worship | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sophisticated Lady or, The Blushless Bride

Happy Dependence Day

We all are prone to putting people we love and admire on a pedestal. We are also often prone to being skeptical, even cynical about those we don’t love and admire. We make angels out of some mere men, devils out of others. We overlook the clay feet of our heroes and overlook the humanity of our enemies.

This is true not only of people but of peoples. That is we can elevate one nation above all proportion, or demonize a nation. Today one nation celebrates the anniversary of its founding. America is exceptional in world history, and we have much to give thanks for.
Our founding principles, of limited government, equality before the law, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all wonderful things. Liberals, however, hate those principles. Which is why they hate our country.

We would be fools, however, if in reaction to that hatred we were to blind ourselves to weaknesses in our founding fathers. Our fathers claimed all men were created equal, but were comfortable with some men being the property of others. They, like the rest of us, did not live up to their noble aspirations.

We are a nation that finally freed those being held in bondage. But did so through violence that left millions dead. We are a nation that welcomed some yearning to be free to Ellis Island, while also a nation that locked up Japanese Americans in internment camps. We are a nation that created more prosperity than the world has ever known, and also a nation that confiscated the gold of its own citizens. We are a nation that was founded on limited government but now enforces empire around the globe.

Worst of all, we are a nation that fought the genocidal Nazis, murderers of 6 million and less than a generation later determined that unborn babies are not worthy of legal protection, that they are less than human, with more than 60 million unburied. The same flag represents both the Greatest Generation and the Never Born Generation.

We are a nation where the state subsidizes “artwork” of a crucifix in urine and jails those burning rubber on “pride” flags painted on our highways. We are a nation that is as far from our founding as Israel was from its founding when God sent them into exile.

To be sober-minded we need to remember the full reality of both our history and our present. We need to not throw out the baby of biblical wisdom in our founding principles with the bathwater of our national rebellion against those principles. Let us celebrate everything good that God in His grace blessed our country with.

Let us also, however, repent for every failure we’ve had along the way. Let us in turn repent for all our rejection of His blessings in our own day. And let us pledge our allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ who reigns over all principalities and powers. He has never let us down, nor will He ever. On this and every Independence Day, let us remember and give thanks for our dependence on Him.

Posted in 10 Commandments, abortion, ethics, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, Nostalgia, persecution, politics, RC Sproul JR, sexual confusion, sovereignty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Happy Dependence Day

Marcia Montenegro; Debate & Supremes; Sara’s Pleasure & More

This week’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in 10 Commandments, Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, church, Devil's Arsenal, ethics, In the Beginning, interview, Jesus Changes Everything, Lisa Sproul, Month of Sundays, new age, politics, RC Sproul JR, Sacred Marriage, sexual confusion | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marcia Montenegro; Debate & Supremes; Sara’s Pleasure & More

Heresies, Damned Heresies, Goldilocks and Elisha’s Bears

Too Hard

There are at least three working definitions of heresy. First is the view that all error is heresy. This view has as an advantage that it recognizes the unity of truth. Because God is one, and God is truth, truth is one. Any error that we hold, if carried to its logical conclusion will lead us to wicked, damnable errors. If we adjust all that we think to make it consistent with the error we hold, we will enter into heresy. The disadvantage to this view, like many broad definitions, is that it draws the circle too wide. If we are all guilty of error, and if all error is heresy we are certainly all guilty. Which makes no one guilty. Definitions exist to differentiate, not to be all-inclusive.

Too Soft

A second view holds that heresy is holding to any doctrine specifically condemned as heresy at an ecumenical council. The Arian heresy, which denies the deity of Christ, was condemned as heresy in the first half of the first millennia of the church. The Pelagian heresy was likewise condemned. This view has as an advantage being tied to the labors of the church at its broadest. That is, it is the church as the church that names the heresy, rather than each of us as individuals. It has as a disadvantage the hard truth that there have been no ecumenical councils in quite some time. Such would be rather hard to pull off in our day. Heresy, however, is rather easy to pull off. This view ends up with too narrow of view of what heresy is.

Just Right

My own view is in the middle of these too positions. I agree with the second view that all those views which have been condemned as heresy by ecumenical councils are in fact heresy. I would add, however, that any denial of any element of any ecumenical creed, including the Apostles’ Creed, is heresy. That is, to avoid the charge of heresy, one must not only not embrace what the councils call heresy, but must affirm what the councils call orthodoxy. In light of the inability to put together an ecumenical council, indeed in light of the inability to reach agreement among all those claiming to be Christian churches, I would also add, though it is in the Apostles’ Creed only by implication, that one must affirm justification by faith alone in order to not be heretical. This doctrine Luther wisely called the article on which the church stands or falls.

Most of those councils which included condemnations of heresy dealt with issues of the incarnation and the Trinity. These are, of course, critical issues to the church. They should not, however, be given a privileged position about all the other affirmations of the Apostles’ Creed. To deny the resurrection, for instance, is as much heresy as to deny the humanity of Christ. To deny the virgin birth is as much heresy as to deny the two natures of Christ. Which means of course, that we have no unity with those who deny any of these things, whether we find these heresies in mainline denominations, or as in the case of denying the resurrection, whether these are held by those who would otherwise describe themselves even as “Reformed.” That is, among some of the hyper-preterists.

If my perspective is accurate on justification by faith alone, that too sets us apart from both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. Rome, which while in substantial agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy, but which speaks to the matter with greater clarity, not only does not affirm that we are justified by faith alone, but formally and unchangeably affirms that all of us who affirm that a man is justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the law, should be damned. See the sixth session of the Council of Trent.

To name heresy what it is is not to be unkind or unloving. It isn’t bigoted or narrow- minded. It is instead to guard the wisdom that has been handed down to us, and to protect His sheep from wolves. Truth be told, everyone, no matter how broadminded, draws lines somewhere. The only question is, are we drawing lines where God would have us draw lines? The answer to that, in the end, is found in His Word.

Posted in Apostles' Creed, Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, church, Devil's Arsenal, justification, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, RC Sproul JR, Reformation, Roman Catholicism, theology | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Heresies, Damned Heresies, Goldilocks and Elisha’s Bears

Why is it important to be a member of a local church?

While it is true enough that the concept of the invisible or universal church has its place, that place is not where a believer can hold membership. The Word of God calls on us to not forsake the gathering together of the saints (Heb. 10:25). This precludes the common foolishness of those who say they can worship God alone, or at their favorite spot. We have to gather, together, with other saints. But, it could be argued, one could gather with the saints without joining a particular body.

That’s true. What one cannot do without being a member of a local church is this:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Heb. 13:17).

For whom will those who watch out for souls give an account? The souls under their care. Who are the souls under their care? The members of the local body. We can love, labor beside, preach to, sing with any believer. But we will only give an answer for those under our care. If you can’t name the men whose care your soul is under, then you can’t be in submission to this text.

Joining a church is not like buying stock in a company. The defining quality of membership is not being eligible to vote on church matters. It is being under the authority of elders. What’s that you say? Elders are power hungry? Hypocrites? Incompetent? Bullies? Craven? Perhaps so. Perhaps you’ve even been hurt by the authorities over you in a previous church. None of which undoes the command in Hebrews.

The author of Hebrews doesn’t say, “But in this situation or that, forget about it. Don’t sweat it.” When we make excuses, which we all do, elders and laymen alike, for why we can’t obey the Word of God we’re making an argument we can’t win. All the “what if’s” in the world can’t topple a single jot or tittle of the Bible.

Joining a church doesn’t mean you can never leave. There is a great chasm between a sheep that moves from one flock to another and a sheep that wanders off on its own. The former never loses sight of the truth that it is being watched over. The latter never submits at all. Neither am I saying there are no hard choices to be made. Every church, every group of elders will have plenty of issues. Just like you do. As the saying goes, if you find a church without issues, don’t join it, because you’ll ruin it.

Trying to follow Jesus as a “Lone Ranger” isn’t merely asking for trouble. It isn’t merely unwise. It is sin, a failure to follow Jesus. Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews wrote it both under and with the full authority of Jesus. Hebrews, like the rest of the Bible, should all be in red letters. Let your elders watch over your soul, with joy. And let your joy match theirs.

This is part of an ongoing series of pieces here on the nature and calling of the church. Stay tuned for more.

Posted in Ask RC, Biblical Doctrines, Big Eva, church, communion, ethics, RC Sproul JR, theology, wisdom | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Dance of Life, or The Devil in the E’Gals

The fall of Adam and Eve is one of the stickiest theological wickets we encounter in the Bible. How could both of them, whom God had declared good, do bad? But there is a stickier wicket still, perhaps made so by the fact that it’s not in the Bible. For an event of such cosmic proportions, the Bible is surprisingly silent. How did Lucifer, the angel of light, come to be the Serpent, the father of lies? Some suggest that it was pride that got in his way, that he aspired to the very throne of God, and when he could not have it, he was cast down.

Along a similar note, some suggest that it was his pride, but that it was a being lower on the chain that tripped him up. That is, it wasn’t that he wanted to be God, but that he refused to serve man. Some suggest that he balked when God revealed His plan, including the call of the angels to serve man. Man, after all, was made lower than the angels. Why should the greater serve the lesser? It seems it was the devil himself who first determined it’s better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven.

If the latter theory is the right one, we know who was the first to confuse ontology and economy, being and doing. But he was by no means the last. There is something in all of us that makes it seem somehow not right for the greater to serve the lesser. That something is pride.

The modern feminist movement, whether secular or “evangelical” suffers from the same sort of pride. The rejection of the plainly biblical affirmation that wives are to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22) is driven by this objection- how can I be equal to my husband, if I am called to submit to my husband? Equals do not submit to one another, the reasoning goes; they are equal.

Sadly, too often husbands reason the same way. They also see the plain teaching of Ephesians, and conclude that since their wives are called to submit to them, that they as husbands are the superior being, that they are imbued with greater dignity and worth. That foolishness also feeds the foolishness of the feminist movement.

Egalitarianism in all its forms flows out of the same notion. We are a culture that is fast losing any sense of manners, indeed any sense of honor. We seem to believe that showing respect to another is a denial of the equality of men. Worse still we seem to go out of our way to show disrespect, that we might prove our own equality. We even go out of our way to push away the respect directed toward us. When addressed as “Sir” and “Ma’am,” too many sirs and ma’ams respond, “Oh, please don’t call me that. It makes me feel so old.”

Of course some older folks are foolish. On their merits respect is the last thing they would deserve. In like manner some husbands are buffoons. But without exception every older person is an older person, and every husband is a husband. Role relationships do not exist in a way that perfectly mirrors objective qualities. The race doesn’t always go to the swift. Every soldier knows that not every superior officer is actually superior. But every soldier is taught to “salute the uniform.” Honor is due to the office, even when not due to the man in the office.

If we would dispel the destruction of honor in our day, we would do well to start by dispelling the myth that to serve is to be less, and to be served is to be greater. And there is no greater argument against such folly than God. One of the benefits of a careful study of the covenant of redemption is that it makes this very point.

God the Father not only does the work of electing a bride for the Son, but He does the job of making the assignments. With the respect to the persons of the Trinity, He is in charge. The Son, we confess, proceeds from the Father. The Spirit, we confess, proceeds from the Father and the Son. But we also confess this, “That these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 6).

The Son does not proceed from the Father because the Father is smarter than the Son. They, along with the Spirit, know all things. They are all equally omniscient. Neither is it because the Father is stronger than the Son. Each of the members of the Trinity are equally omnipotent. With respect to their ontology, or their being, each member is the equal of the others. But with respect to their work, there is genuine submission. If the feminists are correct, that submission means unequality of being, then the Unitarians are also right. There can be no trinity.

If then, these roles are not determined by ability, by what are they determined? Both the covenant of redemption and the covenant family operate the way they do because such is what manifests the glory of God. For the dance to proceed, one must lead, and others must follow. Anything else may seem more “fair,” but it won’t seem like a dance. And that, more than anything else, was what enraged the devil.

Posted in Biblical Doctrines, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, RC Sproul JR, theology, Westminster Shorter Catechism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Dance of Life, or The Devil in the E’Gals