Welcome to the 2005 Shepherds
Conference. General Session number 4, Questions
and Answers with John MacArthur. This is a time for question and
answer and it's sort of put me on the spot. The idea is not
to try to find a question I can't answer, that's pretty easy. Through
the years at Grace Church, as many of you know, we have done
this. Very often on a Sunday night
or on a Wednesday night we just throw the microphones open and
I try to find out what's on the hearts of the people and help
them with a biblical understanding of things. And we kind of did
this because Paul in the book of Acts dialogued with them out
of the Scripture. D'Alego reasoned with them out of the Scripture.
And it really was a dialogue. And I think it's important for
us to do that. I'm more than happy to try to help in any way
I can. Any question you might have,
if you have the... to step up to the microphone
and ask it, I'll be glad to make an effort to answer it. Just
give me your name and then your question. Matthew Phillips from
Grace Fellowship in Inglewood, Florida. Speaking of the study
Bible, I've got a quick question regarding the notes. Sorry, go ahead. Thank you. It speaks here in Romans 6.6. It says the believer does not
have two competing natures, the old and the new, but one new
nature that is still incarcerated in unredeemed flesh. And over
in 1 John, the third chapter, the fourth verse, there's a note
there that says, although genuine Christians have a sin nature,
I guess my question is, does the old man indeed die at regeneration? Or does every blood bought delivered
one? Are they a spiritual schizophrenic? Yeah, and I understand where
you're going and there may be some... and it may be better
to use some other terms than I use, since nature is not a
biblical term to start with. But what I was trying to say
there is that you cannot view salvation as addition You cannot view salvation as,
okay, I am this old man with this old nature and then I got
saved, which means I got a new nature. My old nature remains
unchanged. My old self is unchanged. I just have this new thing added
to me. The Scripture never describes
regeneration as addition. It always describes it as transformation. And the language I used in the
Romans 6 note is the definitive language. That is not to say
that we do not have remaining sin, as theologians call it,
or residual sin. It is not to say that we do not
still have a sinful disposition as R.C. was pointing out today. There's not enough chalk to make
enough marks to cover all the ground of our sin. But I don't...I
don't want to see the nature of salvation as being... simply
addition because the language of the Bible is always transformation. So in Romans 7, Paul says, in
making, I think, a clear distinction, sin it is in me. But he said,
it's not I, it's sin that is in me. So he understands that
he is a new creation. There is a new ego. There is
a new I. and its longings are holy and its affections are spiritual
and its love is toward God and its longings are directed in
the path of righteousness, its disposition or its bent is toward
the law of God which he loves, he says. But he sees something
inside of him warring and so the way I express it there is
that we are a new person. new creation, created in Christ
Jesus with all new longings and desires and loves and affections. But we are incarcerated in this
unredeemed humanness and that's why in Romans 8 he says, we are
waiting for the redemption of the body. And I think that's
the terminology that is consistent with the way Paul writes. I mean,
I think we understand that the glory of the future for us is
not streets of gold. I can't get too worked up about
streets of gold, even transparent gold and pearl gates. I mean,
I understand that John is trying to describe the indescribable.
What appeals to me about heaven is the redemption of the body
and being liberated from this body of sin that hangs on. That's what appeals to me about
eternity. So I am a new creation. I am
unfortunately incarcerated. in this unredeemed flesh, not
just the physical but all the things that go along with the
flesh in my mind and my emotions and my feelings. So I'm only trying to make that
distinction. We still have a principle operative, but it's...I remember
I grew up and I heard that you're an old man and then you become
a new person in Christ and now you have...you used to have a
black dog and now you have a white dog and the black dog fights
the white dog. Whoever you say sycum to, wins. That was the
illustration that stuck in my mind. And that is not what regeneration
is. So I'm only trying to make that
distinction. We are whole new beings with all new affections
and longings. In fact, Romans 8 goes on to
say that we have now in the power of the Spirit the ability to
fulfill the Law, whereas prior to that we had no ability to
do that. Okay? Hi, John. My name is Greg from Napa, California.
The information, the seminars, I walk away encouraged because
it's great practical information and top-notch. I also realize
that the church is in a war, and as your first talk on the
war for the truth in Jude, I'm encouraged in one sense, but
sometimes I walk away feeling a bit discouraged knowing there's
a lot of battles going on out there, and I almost feel like
the dam's about to break and I'm just plugging the hole with
my finger. But yet I know what Christ said,
that I will build My church and the gates of hell will not prevail
against it. We are told what's wrong with
the church. From your perspective, can you tell us what's right
with the church right now? Yeah, and I think you put your finger
on it, Greg. What's right with the church is that Jesus Christ
is building His church and the gates of hell will not prevail
against it. That's what's right with the church. And look, I
don't want to get...I don't want to get so caught up in the doctrine
of divine purpose and divine sovereignty so caught up and
swept away by the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is going to
build His church that I lose the biblical balance of contending
for the faith. The Lord Jesus contended for
the faith. I was trying to point that out last night. He...the
Lord Jesus, I think, went mercifully to a Pharisee and tried to expose
His heart to him. to show Him what He really was.
And nobody knew better the sovereign plan of the ages than the Lord
Jesus Christ did. There's always going to be tension
in these doctrines. And we are called to earnestly
contend for the faith. Later on in Jude we're going
to be...we're going to be told that we need to snatch brands
out of the burning. that we need to go on a rescue
operation right into the teeth of error and get people out of
there without getting ourselves polluted and defiled and the
work is so dangerous that we need to know that we'll not perish
in the process because He's able to keep us. So, you know, it's
a constant tension. But since I have no responsibility
for the decree of God and I have no responsibility for fulfilling
God's sovereign plan, I am left therefore with only one responsibility,
and that is to be faithful to the proclamation of the gospel,
faithful as a believer to maintain a pure life before God so that
I'm useful, and faithful to contend for the faith. How God implements
my My service is His problem. It's the same thing with my faith
in salvation. It's the same thing with my obedience
in sanctification. It's the same thing with my intercession
in prayer. It's the same thing with every
area of my spiritual experience. God has a sovereign purpose that
He's working out in the world that is beyond me. What is not
beyond me is that which God demands of me. And I see that passion. fiery in the heart of Jesus who
weeps over the city of Jerusalem, who is so infuriated when He
goes to the temple that at the beginning and the end of His
ministry He cleans it out. I mean, literally assaulting,
as it were, what had become the apostate center of Judaism. I see it. His words are incessantly
confrontive, they're direct. He pleads with people, come unto
Me, all you that labor, etc. Whatever it is you believe about
the sovereignty of God, if it begins to weaken your resolve
to fight the battle, then your theology has become lopsided
and you've fallen over too much on one side. And yet, I comfort
myself in this, I am not responsible for the outcome. When I read a statement For example,
in the purpose-driven church, if I can find the key to someone's
heart, I can lead anyone to Christ. That's a very shocking statement. Leading someone to Christ has
no dependence on me. Doesn't matter what I know about
them. Doesn't matter what I don't know about them. All I can do is proclaim the
truth. I don't want to get caught up in the outcome. I have nothing
to do with the outcome. All I have to do with is the
effort. And I want to give my life in
the greatest effort that I can give and I want to follow my
model who is the Apostle Paul who he said, hey, this is war
and we're soldiers, have at it. I rest at the end of the day
in the confidence that when it's all said and done through my
faithful effort, somehow God will work His work. And I have
the privilege of being used in that way and even the amazing
grace of receiving an eternal reward for that. But my devotion
to this battle is not at all mitigated by my knowledge of
the sovereignty of God. It is motivated by that. I'm
on the winning team. I know how the thing is going
to end. I want to make the maximum commitment to it. OK? All right. Thank you. My name is Steve Cole. I'm from Flagstaff, Arizona,
and we're a town of about 60,000 and a university. And there's
a lot of pressure on a pastor, especially one of the larger
churches in town, to cooperate with other evangelical churches
in common ventures, whether it's an outreach on campus or groups
like Campus Crusade and InterVarsity, neither of whom am I particularly
enamored with their theological purity or methodology. And I would just be interested
in the guidelines you use on both cooperation and fellowship.
I've heard you say in the past you've gone over and spoken with
Jack Hayford's church on various occasions, those kind of things,
even though obviously there's a pretty big chasm theologically
between you. So apart from, I mean, I hope
we're all clear we don't do that with liberals or Catholics or
those who deny the gospel, but among evangelicals who profess
some version of the gospel, how do you determine when you roll
up your sleeves and join with them and when you just say, I
can't do that? You know, it really comes down to a case-by-case
situation. And one thing you said needs
to be emphasized, that the text of Corinthians, the sixth chapter,
being unequally yoked, that's not talking about business. That's
not talking about anything secular. That's talking about in any kind
of ministry. So if it's with unbelievers, that's a slam dunk. That's easy. So when you're talking
about believers, Here's the question I ask. Is this an opportunity to go
to some people who need to know more about the truth and to have
their doctrine clarified or to be called to some understanding
they don't have? If I have the opportunity to
do that, I'm more likely to go. And maybe I need to say to those
of you who might criticize me for that. made a decision long
ago, many years ago, that I would not spend my life saying what
I believe is critical truth only to people who already believe
that. That's pointless. So I may show up in places where
you wonder why I'm there and you'll have to trust me for what
I said. So that is an issue for me. I
will tell you, I have even gone...I drove past a rank liberal church
in Los Angeles the other day and mentioned to Patricia that
I had preached there one time and I would preach there again. It would be no different to me
than Paul going to Mars Hill and talking to the philosophers,
or going into a synagogue and talking to the apostate there. That's one aspect of it. The
other aspect of it is mutual cooperative ministry and it gets
a little more hairy at that point. And I guess I...I've been at
this long enough and I'm old enough and I think I'm sort of
out there. Most people, you know, you say
John MacArthur and it doesn't take a long time for them to
react. I mean, you know, I've been at it a long time and it's
either positive or negative typically. So, other people who cooperate
with me may have more to lose than I do because I'm sort of
known and I've put myself out and what I teach, so I'm not trying to protect
my reputation. But at the same time, I never
want to do anything that would confuse people about what I think
is important, what I think is crucial, what I think is critical
to the heart and soul of the gospel message. And so there
are times when I'm asked to be involved in certain events and
I say, I just can't do that because it would be tacit affirmation
and it's outside the boundaries of what I think is the core of
necessary theology. There are other times when I
say I will do that even though I don't necessarily affirm everything
because I think that the greater good is to participate and that
there is agreement on what really matters and there are some hills
to die on, frankly, and there are some hills not to die on.
So it really does come down to the individual situation and
I'm not going to stand here and defend myself and say I always
make that decision wisely. There probably have been times
when I didn't go somewhere I should have and I did go somewhere I
perhaps should not have because it sent confusing signals. And
when you are a pastor, and especially if you draw lines, you can be
confusing to people if they look to you and trust you and they
can't figure out why you would link up with these people. One
other footnote to that is this. People ask, what do people have
to believe to get into your church? This will help you to understand
how I think about that. And my standard answer is this,
if you can get into God's Kingdom, you can get into our church.
We have no higher standard. Well don't people have to sign
a doctrinal statement to get in? No. Well don't they have
to believe certain things? No. If God lets you in His Kingdom,
we'll let you in our church. It's that simple. We'll take the responsibility
then to do our best to train you and grow you up and shape
your thinking and your theology and your understanding of the
Word of God. That's why we're here. We're not here to wait
for you to perfect yourself somewhere else. And so, there's a sense
in which...I mean, I have to take that view on the broader
scale as well. And I thank the Lord for every opportunity
I have. to work with those who are true
to the gospel and the authority of Scripture, even if there are
some issues of difference. If you're going to die on the
hill that you have to die on, then I'm going to stand with
you. You're a fellow soldier. Okay? Q. Dr. MacArthur, the Lord bless you.
My name is Barry McGee. A. Thank you. Q. The doctrines
of grace. I think probably like yourself and the vast majority
of my brethren here, I pursue a ministry of expository preaching
verse by verse through the Scripture. When? How? How not to systematically
preach through the doctrines of grace? I'm wondering what
your progression of thought has become on that and what you might
prescribe to the rest of us. Well, I know what you mean by
the doctrines of grace and, of course, I basically am an expositional
preacher. I am not a systematic theologian.
I preach the text, but I am amazed how those same doctrines just
keep coming out of the text, place after place. The analogy
of Scripture, analogia Scriptura, the Scripture is analogous to
itself because it has a single author, is...listen, if anything
has been proven to me, that has. I mean, I've spent now thirty-six
years expositional time in the New Testament and a lot of it
in the Old Testament that's not taped and some that is. And I will just tell you, the
Scripture is perfectly consistent and clear on all these doctrines.
And I feel that that's the best way to teach truth is out of
the text and then compare the text with the text. But periodically
I will stop. in that flow of exposition. And
I'll do doctrinal series. I've done it all through the
years. In fact, I just completed maybe nine messages, I don't
remember, eight or nine or ten messages on doctrine. And I did it backwards. I started
with the perseverance of the saints because that's a question
a lot of people have. Is my salvation permanent? And I ended up that message by
saying it's permanent because it was predetermined before the
foundation of the world. God predetermined to conform
you to the image of His Son and whomever the Father chooses,
He gives to the Son and whomever the Son receives, He keeps and
whomever He keeps, He raises at the last day and no one is
lost. So the perseverance is guaranteed by the doctrine of
sovereign election, so we backed into sovereign election and then
from there we backed into the issues of of grace and how it
has to be irresistible, it has to be grace from above, from
on high to change our hearts because we are depraved. I don't call it the doctrine
of total depravity, I call it the doctrine of total inability. And then we backed into the issue
of the atonement and we talked about limited atonement is the
term we like to use. It's probably not the right term
since we all know the atonement is limited, it's limited people
who believe. We all know that. The question
is who limited it? Is man limited or does God limit
it? Is it a potential atonement for the whole wide world or an
actual atonement for certain people? So we backed into that
and we talked about the atonement. Then we talked about what was
the reason for the atonement on behalf of those who would
believe and we went back to the love of God. And so, we did a
whole thing on the sovereign, eternal love of God in which
He loves His own in a way different than He loves the world. And
then we backed from there into the doctrine of redemption and
then we backed into the doctrine of assurance and we were sort
of right back where we started. That's been over the last couple
of months or so. So periodically I will do that
because when you do teach the text, and this is the thing,
look, nobody has been here...well few have been here all these
years and people tend to come and go. And so you always are
dealing with people who can't quite put it all together and
it's really helpful periodically to get above the text. You've been...you know, most
of us live our lives in the worm's eye view. We're looking at it
from ground level. It really helps sometimes to
get above it. But even when you do that, even
when you do that and you do it on a topical level, the power
of it comes because you link together passages which you carefully
exposit. So it's expositional theology,
expositional thematic preaching where you really let the text
make the point. One of the things that happens,
I've already been asked to speak at a conference next year and
they say, we want you to tell us what thirty-five years of
Bible exposition has taught you. And the first thing that came
to my mind was that if you teach the Bible year after year after
year after year, you better never say anything you can't defend
from the text or they're going to question it. they learn to
expect that. That's a great expectation. So
I think you have every reason to do that. I think it's great
to do that. In fact, it's pretty common for me in a sermon to
find a doctrinal point in a text and do an excursus on that doctrinal
point in which I draw other texts together to make that point.
I believe in Bible exposition, listen, that is theological before
it is practical, okay? I'm not just wandering through
the text trying to make cute ideas flow out of an outline
and tell you how to apply this. I'm much more concerned to show
you principles of doctrine that weave the fabric of your life
together. So expositional preaching for
me is doctrinal. And the difference is, I take
one text and I might do a little excursus on several doctrines
there, but I can turn the table sometime and take many texts
and cover one doctrine. Okay? Good question. If we define the word Catholic
to mean all those who agree with and live according to the official
writings and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, would
you agree with the following statement? All Catholics go to
hell. Well, I would say everybody goes
to hell who doesn't believe the true gospel. Is that fair? Within the context of that definition,
is that fine then? I do not believe that Catholic
theology can save anyone. Isn't that the whole point? I
mean, you heard it this morning. That's a horrible way to live
your life. It's just a horrible thing. I was talking to one of our missionaries
in Italy today and he was saying, what you heard this morning is
compounded And by the rest of the system
that's so convoluted and warped that just makes it worse. That's
the foundation of it that's so bad. But I think for a person,
I think somebody attending a Catholic church could possibly be saved,
but it wouldn't be because of the theology of the system. Maybe
they're reading the Bible, maybe in their own reading of the Scripture
or hearing Maybe just like R.C. mentioned the publican beating
on his chest, he talked about the Pharisee, the publican beating
on his chest. Where did he get that information?
That came out of his own heart because he was one of those people
who had been trying to establish his own righteousness and came
to the conclusion that he was so filthy on the inside, all
he could do was cry out to God for mercy and that's how Old
Testament conversions happened. And I think conversions can happen
like that in a Catholic environment where a person just is absolutely
at the end of their rope. a la Martin Luther, but it's not because of the system,
it's because they have been crushed by the weight of sin and have
nowhere to turn but to mercy available from God through Christ. But I do not believe that people
in the Catholic Church who believe Catholic theology are saved.
One step removed from what you heard today is the fact that
what If you heard R.C. articulate to you that understanding,
which is an accurate representation of Roman Catholic theology, I
do not believe could be explained by the average Catholic. I don't
think they even know what the theology is behind the stuff,
behind the symbols. Okay? John, this is a... My name is Gary Bolden. I am
a prison chaplain and a pastor. This is a follow-up to what that
brother asked just now. This was a discussion we had
at lunch about the presentation from Dr. Sproul. I tell people,
I use John 3, 16, Romans 10, 8 through 10. I tell people that
they can be saved if they believe in Jesus Christ. It's faith plus
nothing else, and that works. And my question to you is that
I don't explain to people the justification by grace through
faith. That takes some time. I can go into it when necessary,
but I don't. I just give them some basic stuff. And my question
to you is this, in regards to a person's religious persuasion
or denomination, can they be saved with just John 3, 16, Romans
8, 9, and 10, Ephesians 2, 8 through 10? That's my question. Yeah,
I think as long as they understand the true meaning of those verses.
The meaning of the Scripture is the Scripture. If you get
the meaning wrong, you don't get the message. So when you
say, Jesus, What Jesus? Who are you talking
about? When you say faith, what do you
mean by faith? When you say grace, how extensive
is grace? The answer to your question is
that people can be saved by true understanding of the gospel.
John 3, 16 contributes to that as long as they understand what
that means. Ephesians 2, 8 and 9 contributes to that. If you say to someone, you have
to confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, that opens a whole plethora of things
that need to be understood. What do you mean, Lord? What
do you mean resurrection? What's the resurrection about?
It's an affirmation of a fitting and suitable and completed offering
for sin. Why was that necessary? because
somebody had to die for your sin. Why? Because you're a sinner
and you cannot be righteous before God. In other words, you can
take any of those verses, but you cannot treat those verses
in a superficial way so that people are dealing with terminology
that doesn't have any content or doesn't have the full intended
content of Scripture. Again, I would back up in front
of that and say, I really believe. that the doctrine that is missing
in much of contemporary evangelism is this doctrine of utter inability,
this doctrine of total depravity. That's the real issue here. You
know, the modern movement in evangelicalism, you can look
at all the modern stuff, whatever it is, the trend, all the sort
of Jesus wants to fix your life and make you happy and fix your
marriage and fulfill your life. satisfy you and make you feel
better about yourself. That's nothing but...that's nothing
but the human potential movement. Let me...let me be real blunt.
Jesus didn't come into the world to help you fulfill your purpose.
He came into the world to take you out of whatever purpose you
had intended and to set you on a course to fulfill His purpose. I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm
just saying, look, you have a presentation of the gospel that says, just
pray this prayer and ask Jesus to come into your heart and forgive
your sin. Wow, welcome to the Kingdom. Are you kidding me? There's not enough preaching
of law. There's not enough preaching of condemnation. There's not
enough preaching of eternal judgment. There's not enough preaching
of human inability, of depravity, of the wretchedness of the human
heart and its utter inability to do anything to please God.
There's...where is the brokenness? Where is the penitence? Where
is the contrite heart? Where is the trembling at My
Word? Where is that? And if you don't have that, then
you start talking about grace and people don't know what grace
is. And even faith can be so superficial. That's why I wrote the book Hard
to Believe. Jesus said, you know, if any man come after Me, let
him deny himself. It's the end of you. It's not the beginning
of you, it's the end of you. Here I am, Jesus, fix my life,
make...fulfill my dreams. You know, I don't know if you've
seen that book on dreams. You know, you dream your dream,
fulfill your dreams. God put the dreams in your heart.
Jesus is here to help you fulfill your dreams. That's a big lie.
Your dreams are meaningless to Him. Is that not true? I'm not being
harsh, I'm just saying, look, you...you come to Jesus and you
say, I deny myself. The word means to refuse to associate
with. I refuse to associate with the person I am. I'm over, I'm
done, it's the end of me. It's not Jesus fixes your life, it's
the end of you, you're done. You've been broken and crushed
by the law of God, you're hopeless, helpless, headed for hell and
you reach out pleading, pleading for Jesus to be merciful. That
same book says, if you want to be a Christian, believe that God loves you and
wants to forgive all your sins. How can anybody know that? How
do I know if a sovereign God wants to forgive all my sins?
Do I know that? Am I supposed to know the eternal
decree? All a sinner can do is say, I'm
crushed, I'm broken, I'm shattered, I'm hopeless, I have nowhere
to turn. God, be merciful to me, a sinner, and that discretion
is with God. No magic words. So what I'm saying
is, of course those Scriptures contribute, of course. But I've
been trying to deal with this issue, I think I said this last
year, I never thought when I got out of seminary I'd spend most
of my life trying to defend the gospel from evangelicals. But
it's turned out that way. At first I write the gospel according
to Jesus, then I write the gospel according to the Apostles, then
I write the shame to the gospel, then I write hard to believe
and I...every time I turn around there's some weird aberration
of the gospel. And again, that's where we are
in that whole Jude thing. We're talking about a common
salvation that's not common. There are all kinds of things
out there masquerading as the gospel. So, do those verses indicate
truth that's necessary for the gospel? Yes, as long as you have
the content. You can't use those as formulas.
They're not buzzwords, they're not magic words, they're not
mantras. They have to have meaning. And you know, the idea that you
can talk to somebody, you know, and five minutes later get them
from being an outright pagan into the Kingdom of God, that's
a stretch. In all honesty, that's a stretch. Where is that...where
is that heart work? Where is that soul work? Where
is that conviction of the Spirit of God? If I had an hour to talk
to someone about Christ, I'd spend fifty-five minutes talking
about their sins. and their condemnation, and I'd
spend the last five minutes talking about the solution. Okay? I didn't mean to...thanks for
pulling my trigger there. John, this may also pull your
trigger. You guys are trying to do that, I know. Not really.
Go ahead. My name is Jerry Garwood. I'm an elder at Calvary Baptist
Church in Santa Barbara. I'm also a rocket scientist and
excited about my son who graduated with his MDiv here recently.
And I love this place. I love you. I praise God for
you and what you're doing. This is my second Shepherd's
Conference here. And God bless you. May we have
lots more. With that said, I want to just share. My question is
dealing with even as a born-again Christian. I've been saved 27
years. I'm 59. Praise God, my Catholic wife
came to Christ four years later. All my kids know the Lord. I
got 13 grandkids, and we're praying for them daily that they'll grow
in Christ. And it's exciting. At the same time, I have to admit
that in my heart, sometimes I'll find myself maybe intellectually
wandering off into a domain that just gets me in trouble almost
every time. And I keep trying to figure out
how does God live with himself in the area of eternal damnation,
eternal punishment, eternal torture? And I, quite frankly, I'm not
challenging God. I know that I'm the one that
I'm wrong, if I come up with some kind of a wrong result. But I remember, and what makes
me have peace is that I know there will be some things that
apparently remain in the domain of what I would call maybe some
secrets God has, and I may never understand, because He truly
is sovereign. Deuteronomy 29, 29 helps me out. It says, to
the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our
sons. Then Romans 11, 33. all the depth of the riches of both,
you know, wisdom and knowledge of God and so on. So, some things
are past finding out. Is that where you would put that
issue? And should I put thinking about it? Let me say this right
now. I don't think what I say about
that would have control over your thoughts, but let me say
this. I don't think anybody would have
a problem with sovereign election. if it weren't for eternal damnation.
I really have never thought that sovereign election is a difficult
issue. It's everywhere in the Scripture.
What makes sovereign election hard to swallow is that there
are some people who weren't chosen. And it would be fine if they
went out of existence. And that's why a John Stott becomes an annihilationist. It's not...it's not because of
the text. It's because of the emotional struggle with that. And it's good to remind yourself
that what makes the doctrine of sovereignty difficult is the
doctrine of eternal punishment. That's a good reason to hold
to the doctrine of sovereignty because it's so clear in Scripture.
Then you have to deal with the doctrine of eternal punishment.
And what you've just said is no different than every one of
us feels. So join the club. First of all, I...we have those
thoughts, we struggle with those thoughts. I'm comforted on a
couple of fronts. One, people who don't want God
and don't want Christ now won't want Him then. The second thing
is that clearly there are degrees of punishment. I mean, that's
clear. How much sorer punishment shall
he be thought worthy who tramples underfoot the blood of the covenant,
counts it an unholy thing. Few stripes, many stripes. The terminology regarding hell
is very strong. Gehenna, the place of burning,
gnashing of teeth, which I think are the pangs of a fully activated
conscience that reminds the damned soul of all of the past sins. I mean, I understand the horrors
of that. And I don't know that I will ever come to terms with
those emotionally. I don't know that I will ever... I would worry about myself if
I ever was at peace with that. You know what I mean? I mean,
I would think that I had crossed a line if it didn't wrench my
soul. And I would at that point, I
think, I would be unfit for ministry because I would have lost my
compassion. I would have lost my heart. I
would have lost the grief that made Jesus weep. I constantly
go back to Jesus weeping. He knew. Well, what's He crying...I
even asked the question, what are you crying about? You decided
this. But it's not that simple. There's
tension in all these great doctrines. And He just said, how often I
would have gathered you but you would not. I think in a sense
the Bible talks about judgment as being...people being caught
up in what they've chosen for themselves. So all I can say
is I will never be at peace with that doctrine. Never. And I think one of the joys of
heaven will be that will be removed from our knowledge. Okay? I think I have time for one more
question and then we'll finish tomorrow. Yes, sir. My name is
Duane Dunbor. I'm a native son of Michigan,
moved out here to California. When I was back in Michigan in
the ministry, before I left to come out here, I had an older
gentleman in a small church grab my arm and say, Duane, don't
you ever lose your flyer, no matter where you are and where
you minister. And then I moved to Southern California. And since
being here in the context that I've been in, there's been a
lot of pushing on me because of things like saying you're
angry when you preach, or naming names, or different things. There's
been a lot of pressure to not do that in the context where
I'm ministering. The last few years, I feel like
I've grown and got some of that youthful zeal taken away or matured. And then I sat here yesterday
morning and felt very good because somebody who obviously was not
youthful zeal was... not a problem... was doing these things that my
heart felt so good to hear and had felt good saying. And yet,
I know just two or three weeks ago I was preaching and referring
to the purpose-driven life, but indirectly, purposely indirectly,
and not naming names. And I also went to the 1 Corinthians
passage wood, hay, stubble, and it will be before God, and let
God measure people's ministries. I don't want to judge their motives,
but let me tell you the truth. With this weekend, I've been
very encouraged, but now I'm at a struggle. There seemed to
be spiritual growth, there seemed to be a maturing in me, or whatever,
and then now I still feel that challenge to share, and how do
you balance that? How do you balance this need to not judge
people's motives and yet the need to keep the church safe
from doctrinal error? Yeah, you know, you can never
judge people's motives. Never. I mean, that's a basic
principle. You just don't know their heart. I wouldn't do that.
I don't question. I don't assign to people evil
motive, evil intent. I can't do that. But I am commanded
to not despise preaching. but to examine everything carefully
and hold fast to what is good and let go of what is evil. And
I will tell you this, it's just a basic... it's a basic principle
and it's been that way for a long, long time. If you publicly advocate
something, I'm not going to betray a private conversation, I'm not
going to betray a phone call or something that was said in
private, but if you become an advocate for something that is
inconsistent with Scripture, then those of us who understand
that that is inconsistent with Scripture are required to rise
up and to protect people from that error. It's a question of... If you're going to play fast
and loose with Scripture and twist and tangle and untangle
and turn and use fifteen different translations to say whatever
you want to say and wiggle your way around to make your point
and tie some verse to it and it's an unfair treatment of Scripture,
It would be one thing if nobody knew you were doing that, but
if thirty million people know you're doing that and people
are asking you questions constantly, then... Look, if I write a book,
let me tell you, if I write a book and something in that book is
not right biblically, please answer me and tell me the truth
and take that book down with a biblical argument. It's a fair
game. I'm not trying to protect myself. Look, I'm just...it's about the
truth for me, just about the truth. It's not personal, never
has been, never will be. I do think, just in answer to
your question, I'll stop with this. Don't be argumentative. You know, Paul says, a servant
of the Lord must not strive. Don't make trouble. Don't be
argumentative. Don't be hostile. angry, don't be ugly, be sweet
and gracious. And it's really important as
a young man that you show love and compassion and tenderness
and sweetness in all the relationships personally. And even when you
speak about these issues, you speak with a certain amount of
restraint and you don't attack the person, you don't attack
the motives, you just deal with the issue. And don't ever deal
with private issues, don't ever deal with personal conversations.
But when somebody says, this is the truth and spreads it from
one end of the evangelical church to the other and I'm convinced
that this is not right, this is not helpful, do I have a responsibility? Of course I have a responsibility. When a lady comes into my church,
she's 65 years old and comes up and says, Pastor, I read this
book, something's wrong with this. Pastor, what's wrong with
this book? It's not right. What's my responsibility? Just because you say it doesn't
mean we all roll over. It doesn't mean we all bow down. Just because everybody thinks
you're right doesn't mean we bow down. Everything has to be
taken to that Berean test, doesn't it? Take me there anytime. It's all about the truth. And when you get something this
pervasive, I mean it's really pervasive, there's no question
it's going to come up. And what am I going to say? Well
I don't want to say anything. I do want to say something. It's
not right. It's not accurate. It's not true.
Not everything is wrong, it's not all bad and its intentions
may be good, but it's not an accurate handling of Scripture.
It's not an adequate presentation of the gospel. It's not a true
representation of what God wants. He wants His will, His glory,
His purpose, not yours. You know, I mean, I think...I'm
not going to be intimidated, I'll put it that way. by people
who think all of a sudden I've stepped over some evangelical
foul line. But at the same time, over the
years, it's interesting, you know, I live in two worlds. In my church, week in and week
out, week in and week out, people don't think I'm controversial.
They don't because there's not...we're not fighting that battle in Grace
Church. I just come, pray, preach, love the people, lead the people,
nurture the people, teach the people. But beyond this church
there are issues that threaten the body of Christ and for some
reason the Lord has given me the opportunity to address those
issues. And I feel like I... This isn't something you choose
to do because it's really fun to do this and be engaged in
this. Even my wife says, you know,
why don't you just write a book that everybody likes? My standard answer is, not everybody
even likes this book, you know, and this is the Word of God.
I mean, how can I? So anyway, you get the picture.
Be sweet, be gracious, be humble, be moderate, be kind. It's more important now, and
part of the problem you see is, until you've taught your people
long enough that they have the criteria to make discriminating
judgments, until you've taught them long enough to be discerning,
they're going to think you're picking on people because they
don't comprehend the issues. So don't worry about fighting
the war outside your church. Don't worry about, you know,
attacking something somewhere else. You stay, you focus, you
nurture your people and eventually they're going to understand the
truth. I don't even fight those battles here. I've said more
in this few minutes to you about this issue of the purpose thing
than I've said totally to my whole church. It's not... It's not a part of our life.
They know how to discern these issues. So that's where you focus
your life. And if God gives you a broader
platform, then you have to decide, you know, how you're going to
address that. Okay?