Ask RC- What about head coverings? What does “because of the angels” mean?

I’m for them. Here are just a few thoughts on the matter. First, I am happy to concede that men of good will differ on this issue. That said, I’m delighted that one person who shared my perspective was my father. That, of course, doesn’t settle the issue. It does help my confidence that I’m not out in left field.

Second, I’m also happy to boldly suggest that virtually every Christian, from the time of Paul’s epistle to about half a century ago, agrees with me on this issue. That also doesn’t settle the issue, but it helps my confidence even more that I am not out in left field. What potent interpretive insight, I wonder, did the church miss all those centuries? Isn’t it just a bit curious that all believers believed the same thing on this issue until the rise of feminism?

Third, one thing I’m certain of- having our wives cover their heads at corporate worship is certainly not a sin. Looking down our noses at those who do not do so is a sin. Doing so is certainly not. Failing to do so, on the other hand may be a sin. By resistless Pascalian logic, the choice should be obvious. That is, if choice A is certainly not a sin and choice B possibly could be a sin, isn’t it clearly safer and better to choose A?

Fourth, I’m highly skeptical of the “Her hair is the covering” argument. It strikes me that if that were the case, Paul wouldn’t have had to say anything. As messed up as the Corinthian church was, I don’t suspect there was a strong husbands-with-bald-headed-wives contingent there needing to be rebuked. Such is not to say I understand precisely where the long hair fits in on all this.

Fifth, please notice the grammar above. This is an issue for husbands, not wives. That is, no man will be able to stand before the throne of God, and when He asks why his wife worshipped uncovered, say, “Yeah, what about that? Why don’t we get her in here?” Wives, that means that if your husband doesn’t want you to cover, covering is a sin. We are to obey those in authority over us unless or until they command us to do what God clearly forbids or forbid us to do what God clearly commands. I don’t believe this is an issue that rises to the level of “clearly.” It would, I suspect, give the devil quite a laugh if a woman covers her head as a sign of submission to a husband who asked her not to.

Sixth, I really don’t like to make a big deal about this. When I am asked in person about this issue, I typically reply, “I’ll probably commit a more grave sin in the time it takes me to answer the question than it is to be wrong on this issue.” It would never cross my mind to think less of any family with a wife’s head uncovered.

So why did I bother to answer it? So I could get to the second part of the question. Here I have what may be the wisest answer I could ever give. What is meant by “because of the angels?” I don’t know.

Posted in apologetics, Ask RC, Biblical Doctrines, church, creation, kingdom, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ask RC- What about head coverings? What does “because of the angels” mean?

God is Creative; Appeal; Covid and Festivals

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in Biblical Doctrines, creation, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on God is Creative; Appeal; Covid and Festivals

Living Dead Documents

It is a dangerous thing when the church determines to follow the world. We’re used to folks bemoaning that propensity, talking about our problem of worldliness. Chuck Swindoll once said “If you take a white glove and drop it in the mud, the mud doesn’t get all glovey.” In the same way, when we follow the world, we aren’t helping the world, we’re actually becoming worldly and dangerous.

But there’s an alternate perspective. There is an iron law of reality, that because we are salt and light, because we are the center of the story, at the end of the day, the world ends up following us. I’m particularly mindful of this during election season. Whoever is elected in November, the following January they’re going to put their hand on some book of some faith, and they’re going to hold up their right hand and make a solemn vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And whatever act they do as their first act as president after that is likely going to violate the Constitution of the United States. We like to believe in a romantic kind of way that the highest law in our land is the Constitution. But it is a dead letter. No one follows it; no one cares about it. It is not even a wax nose being twisted and shaped into something unrecognizable. It’s just done.

How did that happen? The short answer to that is that we’ve developed a view of jurisprudence that looked at the Constitution and decided that it was a living document. That we should not be bound by the thoughts of the original author, writing for the original audience, but rather, we can have some wiggle room by looking at it in light of our day and our perspective, and justify it by calling it a living document. If we look a little deeper, we see that the propensity to call the Constitution a living document was actually born out of an earlier commitment by the Church to treat the Bible the same way.

We have lost any sense of constitutionalism in our country precisely because in the Church we have lost the idea that the Bible is a binding document on us, and that the only way to understand what it says is to seek out and understand what the original author sought to communicate to the original audience. We have a whole army of people who call themselves evangelicals, but who also call themselves egalitarian. To profess to be an evangelical, I would think, would in some part be an affirmation of the authority of Scripture, if not its inerrancy and infallibility. And yet we look at the Bible and see Paul saying things like “Women are not to exercise authority or to teach in the church”, or “Wives are to submit to their own husbands as unto the Lord” and they will bristle under this and will turn around, having affirmed their belief in the authority of Scripture and say “Well, that’s Paul. Paul is culturally conditioned. We are culturally conditioned. And so what we’re going to do is erase this, ignore this, and look at this as something that’s not binding on us anymore.”

In praise of liberal Christianity, which J Gresham Machen would argue is no Christianity at all, they at least have the courage to say “Paul in the Bible is wrong here. We don’t agree with Paul; we think the Bible errs here.” But the egalitarian evangelicals are trying to have their cake and eat it too. “We don’t want to be bound by what Paul said and what Paul meant, so we’re going to turn the Bible into a living document. We’re going to take those parts that go against the zeitgeist, against the spirit of the age, and we’re going to call them culturally bound statements that we’re not obligated to submit to. We’re going to rewrite our own perspective on the relationship between men and women, or even homosexual behavior.”

We’re people who are adrift. We’re adrift because we’ve cut off our moorings ourselves. We don’t want to be bound by a Constitution politically. We don’t want to be bound by the Bible in our churches. And what we end up with in both instances is the tyranny of the powerful. When we submit ourselves to God’s Word, what we find is liberty. When we cut ourselves off from God’s Word, we find tyranny, whether in the Church or in the world. I want in one sense, the Bible to be dead. Not without life, not without the power to change, but in the sense that it doesn’t change. The grass withers, and the flower fades, but the Word of our God endures forever.

Posted in abortion, apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, church, Devil's Arsenal, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, philosophy, post-modernism, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

On the occasion of our 4th Anniversary, an Ode to Lisa, and More…

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in 10 Commandments, apologetics, Books, Devil's Arsenal, grace, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, Lisa Sproul, RC Sproul JR, special edition, Westminster Shorter Catechism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On the occasion of our 4th Anniversary, an Ode to Lisa, and More…

New Theses, New Reformation

Thesis 45 We must not look to others for our value or importance.

It is supposed to be part and parcel of being an American that we would both delight to be and aspire to be free. Freedom is our corporate, cultural highest good. To be sure we understand what freedom means less and less with each passing day, but whatever it means we know it’s good. We know it’s worth fighting for. We honor our forefathers for the sacrifices they made to make us free. We inhabit the land of the free.

It is true enough that political freedom is something we ought to aspire to and long for. But we ought to note that governmental tyranny is not the sole kind of tyranny in the world. Governments alone are not our potential slave masters. We not only live in an age where governments tell us where we may live, how much of our income we may keep, and how much rent (real estate taxes) we must pay on “our” land. We also live in an age where the broader culture seeks to enslave us. It wants to ensure that we drink this brand of soda, that we wear this label on our clothes, that we stream these television programs.

The same basic principle can be often at work even in our relationships. We exchange a bit of our independence for the approval of our peers. We only believe that we are of value or significance when other people, friends, customers, employers, etc. likewise believe it. We can even be enslaved by our relationships.

Our dignity, however, is not wrapped up in our friends or in other merely human relationships. It is not under the control of those for whom we work, or who work for us. It is outside the baileywick of our peers. Instead it rests in Christ. Our Father in heaven, if we are in Christ, has cast His love upon us. We are the exceedingly great reward of His Son. And His Spirit has consented to not only dwell with is, but within us. We are called to be a free people; Jesus makes us free indeed (John 8). A mature believer not only knows who he is, but whose he is, and rests therein. A mature believer rejoices to remember that he not only bears God’s image, as all men do, but is being made into the image of Christ, the express image of the glory of the Father.

This is true of us as individuals, and true of us corporately. The church too often seeks the approval of those outside her doors, believing ourselves significant only when we are trending on twitter. We are together the bride of Christ. We are, though we in ourselves are not at all worthy, that for which He suffered the wrath of His Father. We cannot allow ourselves to be enslaved, because we have already been bought with a price. We must cherish and protect our freedom, for so our Master, the one who set us free, commands.

Posted in 10 Commandments, assurance, Biblical Doctrines, church, communion, Devil's Arsenal, RC Sproul JR, Reformation, Theses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Theses, New Reformation

Clericalism; Love Is; Driving Them Out

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, church, Devil's Arsenal, ism, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, RC Sproul JR, Reformation, Roman Catholicism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clericalism; Love Is; Driving Them Out

Final Study on The Holiness of God Tonight

We finish our study on The Holiness of God tonight at 7 eastern. We will not be welcoming friends into our home tonight due to health concerns, but you can tune in live on Facebook Live, at RC-Lisa Sproul. Hope to see you there.

Posted in Bible Study | Comments Off on Final Study on The Holiness of God Tonight

Ask RC- Was the Reformation necessary?

Yes. It may be easy to miss that truth when one considers all the seemingly random things that came together to bring the Reformation to pass. What if that thunderstorm had not re-routed Luther from law school to monkery? What if Tetzel’s sales territory had been further south? What if Gutenberg had been born twenty years later? These realities had a significant impact, along with sundry political intrigues and a dozen other less than theological forces.

And no. It wasn’t necessary if we mean by Reformation the split between the Roman and the Protestant churches. That didn’t have to happen. It could have been avoided had one thing happened, had Rome repented of her heresies and come back home. It is not pedantic but important to remember that Protestants did not split from the church, but rather Rome did. Just as the faith of Abraham is the faith we affirm, and Judaism has left it, so with Rome and biblical Christianity.

It is true that Luther himself was not shy about getting into theological battles. He did not have a strong reputation as a diplomat and a peacemaker. But such misses two critical realities. First, Luther’s battle at the beginning, from his own perspective wasn’t against Rome but for her. He genuinely, albeit naively, believed that when those in power in Rome learned of the heresy being wrought by those who were selling indulgences that the hammer would come down and the church would be made right. Luther and Tetzel were like two brothers fighting in the back yard, until Luther broke away saying, “Wait until Dad gets home. You’re going to be in big trouble.” Trouble is, when Papa came home, it was Luther who got the switch. Secondly, while Luther was fighting, he was fighting to protect the peace that we have with our heavenly Father. It was his love of the peace won by Christ that led him to fight.

The Reformation, the split, was not made formal when Luther was excommunicated. Rather this happened during the counter-Reformation, when the Council of Trent formally and unchangeably adopted its sixth session condemning as damnable heresy the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was her departure from the faith once delivered. The Protestant church was and is the church continuing, that against which the gates of hell will not prevail. The church did not end and then start anew with a different group. Rather Rome fell away as an institution.

It is not a bad thing at all to mourn the lack of institutional unity between Rome and the evangelical church. It is tragic indeed. It is a bad thing, however, to see the evangelical church as having been overly scrupulous or pedantic in its protestations, to lay the disunity at the feet of those who are in subjection to the Word of God alone. Those who deny the gospel, who not only deny being under the authority of Scripture alone but affirm themselves as above the very Word of God, they remain at fault. The Spirit, through the gospel however, even now has power to redeem everyone still caught up in Rome. Let’s pray that He does.

Posted in apologetics, Ask RC, Biblical Doctrines, church, grace, kingdom, RC Sproul JR, Reformation, Roman Catholicism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ask RC- Was the Reformation necessary?

Political Unwritten Rules; Bible in 5 I Kings

Today’s Jesus Changes Everything Podcast

Posted in abortion, apologetics, Devil's Arsenal, ethics, Jesus Changes Everything, kingdom, post-modernism, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Political Unwritten Rules; Bible in 5 I Kings

How To Recognize a Neo-Liberal Church

The serpent, of course, disguises himself as an angel of light. The bride, on the other hand, is still besmirched and muddied. Telling the true from the false is never easy. The former point reminds us not to be fooled by appearances. The latter reminds us that we will never find the perfect church. If you do, don’t join it because you’ll ruin it. Because neo-liberal churches are liberal, they are to be avoided. Because they are neo, they are not always easy to see. What follows then are a few diagnostic tests that ought to help you along the way.

1. If the church notes anywhere that it is part of the ECUSA, the PCUSA, the ELCA, the UCC, the UMC, the DOC, or any other mainline denomination, it’s not likely to be neo-liberal. It is instead paleo-liberal and you need to run for your life.
2. If the church trumps the plain teaching of specific texts in light of broad principles across the scope of the Bible, it is likely a neo-liberal church. Paul tells us, for instance, that wives are to submit to their own husbands, as unto the Lord. Neo-liberals trump this text with the general principle that we are to submit to one another, the broad principle of “servant leadership” and this little nugget, “I just can’t see Jesus insisting that a woman submit to Him…” This same principle is at work with respect to ordaining women in the church. Sure Paul tells us that women are not to exercise authority over a man, but we know the Holy Spirit calls people to this thing or that, and who are we to argue with the Holy Spirit?
3. If the church spends much time touting the wisdom of those outside the church, it is likely a neo-liberal church. To be sure blind squirrels do find nuts, and God gives grace to those outside the kingdom, but beware when the church is all abuzz with the wisdom of this advertising wizard or that psychology guru. If your pastor gets his reading list from Oprah, you are probably in a neo-liberal church.
4. If your church is so zealous to meet people where they are that they end up leaving them where they found them, you are likely at a neo-liberal church. This one is particularly sticky. Take, for instance, those who practice the perversion of sodomy. A sound church will of course believe, and act on the belief that the gospel is bigger than this or any other sin, that those who repent and turn will find their sins forgiven, and their lives empowered for obedience. On the other hand, a sound church will never embrace those who practice gross and heinous sin without repentance. If discipline is not practiced, if, any time discipline is mentioned leadership chimes in that they’re all about grace, not law, you are likely in a neo-liberal church.
5. If your church is ecumenical beyond the confines of the gospel, it is likely you are in a neo-liberal church. We all ought, of course, love our brothers and sisters in Christ even when we disagree on important, though non-essential issues. No one is suggesting that a warm attitude toward the Baptists down the street is a danger sign. A warm attitude toward the liberals down the street is a problem. A warm attitude toward Rome is a problem. A warm attitude toward peace-loving Muslims is a serious problem. What often drives this kind of ecumenical spirit is embracing “inclusivism” a clear doctrinal heresy that is becoming ever more common in churches that on the surface look evangelical. Here the view is that the grace of God is spread abroad to other faith traditions. This is often in turn driven by a cozy relationship with post-modernism wherein we confuse biblical humility with betraying Jesus. That is, when our narrative doesn’t allow us to affirm “Thus saith the Lord” or “There is no other name under heaven by which a man must be saved” because this makes us look like we have “cornered the market on truth” then we are in a neo-liberal church.
6. If your church is willing to make affirmations, but is unwilling to make denials, it is not really making affirmations and is likely a neo-liberal church. It is one thing to say, “Jesus saves.” It is another altogether to say, “Only Jesus saves.” It is one thing to affirm that we will enter into heaven when we die because we trust in the work of Christ. It is another thing to say that those who do not so trust will suffer the wrath of the Father into eternity. Here the sheer ugliness of hell doesn’t inflame our evangelism. It eviscerates it, because we would rather believe it doesn’t exist. If your church leaves open this question, open the door and walk away.
7. Last but not least, if your church leadership is often speaking about what they want to believe, rather than what they do believe, you might be in a neo-liberal church. This works in two directions. First, it may be a sound biblical doctrine that they “want” to believe because there it is in plain sight in the Bible. But something, namely worldliness, makes them hesitate. Second, they may mean that their convictions are formed not by what the Bible says but what makes them feel good. “I like to believe that hell is empty” is nice talk for “I don’t believe the Bible and what it teaches about hell.” “I like to believe that God gives everyone a chance, and judges us by the sincerity of our hearts” is nice talk for, “I don’t believe the Bible and what it teaches about the need for regeneration, faith and repentance.”

Remember, these folks will not hiss at you. They will tell you they are sorry to see you go. In reality, you are an aggravation to them, and they are a danger to you. When we agree that the Bible gives us our answers, we can overcome any disagreement. When one of us believes that the Bible is true, and must be believed no matter what the world says, and the other believes we need to look reasonable and accommodate ourselves to the world, we have unequal yoking. Get out, and get into a faithful church.

Posted in apologetics, Biblical Doctrines, church, grace, kingdom, Kingdom Notes, post-modernism, preaching, RC Sproul JR | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How To Recognize a Neo-Liberal Church