Larson, question comes in with
a cultural emphasis on politics as the answer to the problems. What are some thoughts on how
to flip these conversations to the real answer to Christ? I
think we've always got to press behind whatever people think
the question is to the question that's behind the question. And
so, ultimately, if someone's against human trafficking, why?
If that's the issue, why? Why would that be wrong? Why
are human beings of any worth? Why do we have a moral obligation
to one another? Why? And you can always get the conversation
back to someone looking at you with a look on his or her face
in sheer annoyance that you're making them answer these questions
or even think about them. But the reality is that's what
we do. We just keep pressing the things back. Why? We're two-year-olds. Why? Why? Why? Because the further we press
back with why, the closer we get to the fundamental questions.
And so when I meet people, regardless of what they tell me their position
is on an issue, I just always ask the question, why? And then
I keep pressing. And I think that's, well, you
might say that's presuppositionalism. Well, yes, it's at least in part,
it's rooted in that, but it's also classical apologetics. It's
just making people give answers and you just press back. making
people think, and I'm sort of an election junkie. I've always
loved to sit up late watching election returns come in. I found
out it's easier to sit up late watching election returns come
in in California than in Florida. But what you quickly discover
as an election junkie is that the day after the election, a
campaign has been begun for the next election. And one thing
we can say to people who are really worried about politics
or avid about politics is, have you ever thought that there is
some stability beyond politics, that there is some resting place,
some certainty, some assurance? And if you're worried, I think
a lot of people are worried. What's happening to the republic?
And what we can assure them of is there's someone in charge.
There's someone who knows what he's doing and that we can look
beyond all of the ebb and flow of the moment to, if I were a
Calvinist, I'd say a greater election that is stable. Amen. I talked just this week about
the fact that for many on the left, politics has become religion. And in a secular age, you see
the secular left increasingly unsecular. They're just politicizing,
making religion out of their politics. My warning is that
that can happen to conservatives, too, if we're not careful. We
can treat politics as far more important than a Christian ought
to think. You can think of it as far less
important than a Christian ought to think, but if we despair or
think that the kingdom has arrived based upon an election, then
we're making politics religion. We have to be warned of that.
LARSON Dr. Nichols, a question came in.
What are the qualifications that Ligonier used to define evangelicals
in the State of Theology survey? In other words, how do we come
up with that definition of evangelicals? That's a great question. You
can go to thestateoftheology.com for that survey, and you'll see
the numbers. There were 3,008 people surveyed,
and of that 3,008, and I'm going from memory here, I think it
was somewhere in the neighborhood of 800, thereabouts, are labeled
evangelical. So that's that demographic category.
For that survey, which was conducted by LifeWay, which is the research
arm of the Southern Baptist Convention and a well-respected research
arm, we partnered with them to carry out that part of the survey.
For that survey, it's a self-identifying label. But what we also have
in the survey, it's 34 statements that you have to respond to.
The last four were supplied by the National Association of Evangelicals,
which took what was an old, from David Bebbington, a historian,
the so-called quadrilateral to define evangelicals, took that
four-fold quadrilateral and turned it into statements with some
slight revisions. And so there's both a self-identifying
label and then an actual litmus test, as you will. And it's biblicism,
the authority of Scripture, it's conversionism, the necessity
of a new birth, it's also crucicentrism, the necessity of Christ's atoning
death on the cross, and then an activism, the idea of being
active in faith. And the sort of slight twist
that that fourth question put to it was, not only must we know
the gospel, but we must be active in sharing the gospel. So we're
talking about this as both a self-identifying label and a bit of a litmus test. But all of you all have talked
about this many times. This is a very difficult label,
evangelical. And it's one of those labels
that the more elasticity that gets applied to it, Eventually
it's going to snap or it's going to be so elastic that it just
sort of loses its identity. And that's what we're seeing.
It's been alluded to numerous times, that reductionism of just
trying to get to the lowest common denominator and reduce and reduce
and reduce. That makes this label very difficult,
and then you throw into the mix the political use of it at election
time. Now it gets even more difficult.
But back to the survey, it's a self-identifying but also a
litmus test. LARSON I'm a millennial, and
many of my friends and acquaintances do not believe attending church
is important to their walk with Christ. How would you respond
to their erroneous thinking? Christ died for the church, Acts
20, and Christ is the head of the church, and every believer
has been placed by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ. It's
totally unimaginable that someone for whom Christ has died and
someone who has been placed into the universal church would not
be a participant in the local church. There's just really not
even a theological category for that. So, as one who pastored
a church for thirty-four years, I think that that would call
into account serious question about that person's personal relationship with Christ,
meaning, do they even know the Lord? Because 1 John says, one
of the tests that you have been truly born of God is that you
love the brethren. And if you're not a part of a
local church, you're a very selfish person, and you love yourself,
and you want to do what you want to do rather than giving your
life in service, in ministering to those who are a part of a
local church. That's God's design for Christianity. There's no such thing as a Lone
Ranger Christianity. That is so foreign to New Testament
Christianity, it's antithetical to New Testament Christianity.
So, I can't even imagine someone who's a true believer in Jesus
Christ, who does not want to be a part of a local church,
and further, who is actually not a part of a local church
unless, of course, circumstantially hindered, being, for example,
in a rest home, and not able to physically come to church. But I think it seriously calls
into account the genuineness of their salvation to not want
to be a part of a local church. Therefore, you're not wanting
to sit under the preaching of the Word of God, which is the
primary ordinary means of grace. You're not wanting to worship
God in a corporate setting, and you're not wanting to give to
other people as God has designed it in a local church family. So, you know, Hebrews 10 says,
forsake not the assembling of yourselves. as is the practice
of some, and I would say those some are those who did not come
all the way to Christ, who trample underfoot the precious blood
of Christ, who insult the Spirit of grace and show themselves
to be apostate. LARSON Does attendance at a same-sex
wedding imply acceptance of same-sex marriage? Yes, because you need to recognize
that attendance at a wedding, those who are in attendance are
considered to be the celebrating party. So, I mean, that made
very clear, for instance, in the book of Common Prayer, which
is the order of weddings that's most familiar in church weddings
in the United States. If there be anyone here who knows
any reason why these two should not be lawfully wed, let him
speak now or forever hold his peace. I think that should answer
the question. It doesn't answer the question
of how you handle this in friendships and in family. It just simply
says that you are there to say this is right. And, you know,
if you go and you don't hold your peace, that would be an
interesting headline story. But I don't think that's what
you're going to do. And so, I think Christians are
looking for a way…and look, it's not just a wedding ceremony.
It's also, you know, there's the entire celebration of the
wedding, and we don't know exactly what it means in every situation
when you have next-door neighbors. How do you relate to them? How
do you show Christ's love? How do you act grounded only
in truth? How do you have a conversation?
How do you build a relationship? So, there are a lot of interesting
questions there, but to me… The wedding ceremony is a very easy
question, simply because even of the language that is invoked.
And in the history of the Book of Common Prayer, the reality
was that if you stayed, you were a, so long as you lived, a testifier. to the fact that they were lawfully
wed. Let what God has put together let no man put asunder. So, if
it's attending or not a ceremony like a swearing-in, that's one
thing. That's not what this is. This is the covenant of marriage
being claimed here. You either believe it is or it
isn't. LARSON What law did Christ obey for His active obedience? Adamic? Mosaic? Moral law? all of the above. Yeah, so there
was an original covenant of works given with Adam which required
perfect perpetual personal obedience, and that is in some way echoed
in the law of Moses. That's a big discussion, but
in some way echoed in the law of Moses, summarized in the moral
law, and Christ fulfilled it all, not only the moral law but
the ceremonial law and all the the equity of the civil law of
Israel. So, at every point as law echoes
through the Scripture, Christ debated it all perfectly. LARSON
At what point does God create a person's soul and join it to
a physical body? GODFREY Is there a Traditionist
here? Did you hear that confession?
The distinguished Dr. Mohler has confessed himself
to be a Traditionist, close, almost, almost persuaded. I think
it's most consistent. In the same way that we understand
the federal headship of Adam, I think that's the easiest, most
consistent way to understand that. But it doesn't answer…the
problem is it doesn't particularly…I'm trying to avoid saying what it
means. That'll save us a lot of time. GODFREY And help keep
you all from error. I mean, if they don't know what
we're talking about… SPROUL So why don't you define the terms? Well, classically and historically,
there were two approaches to the creation of the soul. The
creationist view that said God immediately creates the soul
at the conception or some such beginning moment of the body.
TODD PURDUM Fertilization. We mean, we don't mean conception
the way, you don't mean conception the way modern doctors speak
of it. You mean when God says, let there
be life. Yes. Whatever you say. And the alternative point of
view historically, all the way back into the ancient church
period, was the traditionist, or that the soul is passed from
the father, in particular the parents, into the… So, is the
soul immediately created in the new life, or is the soul in some
way passed from the parents to the child? That's exactly right, and there
is no clear biblical answer to this, and the traducingist basically
doesn't have an answer to the question, when, other than the
same thing as the creationist when God says, let there be life.
But the question is, what's prior to that? And I like the symmetry
and the theological pattern of understanding the tie between
the federal headship of Adam and that we are all of Adamic
seed and understanding from whence comes the soul, which is the
first question answered by traducionism, is from whence, not when. The complicating factor comes
along with the doctrine of original sin. So, if God immediately creates
the soul, is He immediately creating a sinful soul, which would be
impossible? So, how does the sin get attached
to the soul? LARSON You're asking the wrong
man. GODFREY Well, I know. I'm just showing my broad-mindedness. But the creationist response
is the soul is an undying spiritual creation of God that cannot be
created by dying creatures. So, it's complicated. There's, I think, not a really
clear answer in the Bible or in in convincing theological
discussions of these things, and that's why the discussion
and the difference of opinion continues. The really important
thing to remember is we all have a soul. So, don't lose…never
lose…in the midst of really interesting theological discussion, never
lose hold of the fundamentals. In our nonjudgmental age, how
do we defend God's goodness in instances of His justice in the
Bible? We need to recognize, by the
way, it's a very important issue here, that the most cogent, powerful,
anti-theistic arguments being made right now are moral arguments,
not rational arguments. And that's a shift in apologetics
where in the early 20th century, your Bertrand Russells and logical
positivists and people like that said, you know, there's not enough
intellectual There aren't enough sufficient
intellectual grounds to believe in the existence of God. Now
it is, you believe in God that's immoral, and especially the God
of the Bible. And, you know, it's not as if
God doesn't answer that question in the Scriptures. He's not going
to answer human beings. He's going to display His character,
and only at the end of history will everyone understand the
judgment and justice of God. In the meantime, we who are believers,
just as Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament
have to understand that the God who is right is just. And He who reigns over all the
earth is just, and whatever He does is just. Our concept of
justice is derivative and corrupt. We have it because God is just,
and He's given us in His image an understanding of justice.
But we would not act justly if justice were entrusted to us.
We have to trust that God acts totally, perfectly justly, because
justice is His. And who is the grasshopper to
complain of the justice of the Creator? But that's what we're
looking at here, and we have to confront these arguments head-on,
but ultimately there is no rescue from the Bible. You know, we
believe in every single word of the Bible, and that means
that whatever God does is just, and if you can't handle that,
you just can't handle that. But this is the issue. Then where
was the justice on the cross? You want to look at injustice.
Well, where's the justice from that human perspective in that
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us in order that in
Him we might be the righteousness, become the righteousness of God?
You know, God's justice is so perfect that those who come to
faith in Christ are saved, and His justice is so perfect that
anyone who does not will suffer eternal punishment. The Old Testament
conquest of Canaan. This is where Christopher Hitchens,
one of the four horsemen of the new atheism, now dead, but Christopher
Hitchens said, you know, I don't understand the theological liberals
who say they want to get rid of the Old Testament and that
vengeful, bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament and just cling
to sweet Jesus. He said, I have to wonder if
theological liberals have read the book of Revelation. And there's
enormous truth in that. If you don't like the book of
Judges, you're going to hate the book of Revelation, where
He comes with a sword coming from His mouth and will come
to rule with a rod of iron. And that chapter ends with what
makes Canaan look like a preschool Sunday school party. If God is
just, then it is right, and He is just, and it is right. Let
me just add something here. In terms of how we think about
God's attributes, I think sometimes we need to guard against pitting
them against each other. It's very easy to do that with
justice versus mercy or wrath and love. And one of the great
doctrines of God is the simplicity of God, that He is not a being
that is composite. And we see this even, you know,
reflect on this, go back to this wonderful scene where Moses is
asking to see the glory of God. And if you look at that, what
God tells Moses is, I will let my goodness pass by you. And then immediately we have
God saying, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and
I will harden whom I will harden. And there they are put right
together in this one being of God. So as you wrestle with these
things and think through these things, just be careful to maintain
that simplicity of God and not pit these attributes, or the
God of the Old Testament versus the God of the New Testament.
It's a horrible thing to do. Don't pit these things against
each other. is somehow a negative thing, whereas mercy is a positive
thing. That's an insult to God. His justice and His mercy, again,
they're the same because He is one. But to fail to call for
God's justice is to fail to honor and worship the one true and
living God. GODFREY And I think when people are pressing us on
that point, it's appropriate to press back and ask them, do
they believe that in human experience there are wicked, evil acts that
deserve punishment? And most people are not so depraved
as to deny that. And one of the few good things
that could be said about the Nazis is they give us a great
example of where most people will agree there were egregious,
wicked acts that had to be punished. Well, if there are egregious
evil acts in history that have to be punished, then who gets
to say what are the evil acts that have to be punished? And
if there is a God, He gets to say. And that's, I think, a line
of argument we have to press that taking the moral high ground
by the secularist is ultimately inconsistent because they can
take the moral high ground that they are taking only if they
ultimately deny there are any evil acts that ought to be punished.
LARSON I have been assaulted with troubling thoughts to the
point that I have begun to doubt my salvation and the Lord's love
for me. I don't know why now, after walking
with the Lord over thirty-five years, I don't know what more
I can do but stay in God's Word and prayer, but they persist. Please help. Well, I would say,
first of all, 1 John 5, 13, these things I've
written unto you that you may know that you have eternal life. It is God's gift to true believers
that they have the assurance of their salvation. The Holy
Spirit who convicts of sin and who calls us into relationship
with Christ, who regenerates us, is the very same Holy Spirit
who gives the assurance of salvation. Assurance is an inside job. by the Holy Spirit, and it really
does not come from a pastor or a parent or an evangelist. It
comes from the Holy Spirit ultimately. There are external evidences
of assurance of salvation, which is a changed life. but there
is the inward witness of the Holy Spirit from Romans 8. I think those who would doubt
their salvation and doubt the love of God usually comes from
someone who's not sitting under the regular, systematic preaching
of the Word of God, that the truth that they so desperately
need to hear that God uses to bring the assurance of their
salvation, they have been sitting under such a weak presentation
of the truth that they don't really have the anchor for their
soul that they should have. So, obviously, not knowing who
wrote this question and not knowing where they go to church, but
As someone who has pastored and met with untold numbers of people
about their assurance of salvation, I have found that more times
than not it's because they're not under the preaching of the
Word of God. and their soul, their heart lacks the strength
that is provided by the Holy Spirit through the medium of
the Word of God. So, there are many other things
that could be said from that. I think you need to know by what
basis does anyone have assurance of salvation. And it's certainly
in an understanding of the finality and the sufficiency of the death
of Christ upon the cross to take away all sin in the life of the
one who believes, and there is now therefore no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus. It would be unbelief to reject
that. It is true saving faith to accept
that. And then also with that, as I
just mentioned, there is the evidence of a changed life, and
1 John gives like nine evidences of the one who has been born
of God. And everyone who is born of God,
these evidences, these changes will be seen in a life to such
an extent, there's no way that anyone could pull this off on
their own. This is a work of God. There is no explanation but that
God did it in a person's life. And if you don't see the evidence
of a changed life, then you have serious reason to question the
validity of your conversion. Because not everyone who says
to me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he
who does the will of my Father in heaven. And again, not to
even know who wrote the question and not to know any of the background,
nevertheless, as a pastor for 34 years, most people who came
and asked that question were people who did not have faith
in Christ. And so I was not quick to rush
in and say, oh, no, no, no, we all know you're saved. Because
that's not always the case. And more times than not, in my
experience, of course, I was in the deep south where everybody's
saved. and you have to get someone lost
before you can get them saved. They needed to come to the realization
that just because they grew up in church or walked an aisle
or something like that, that doesn't mean you're in. And in
a genuine new birth experience, God the Holy Spirit gives assurance
of salvation. So, even with a question like
that, and there may be others here who can identify with that,
I think it's a soul-searching question. But let me say, I don't
think you should search your soul over that alone, and that's
the limits of a question-and-answer period like this. We can answer
theological questions, we can answer pastoral questions generally,
but I would say to this dear soul, find a godly pastor who
can examine the whole of your doubts, the whole of your life,
the whole of your faith, and really lead you to the promises
of Christ and to life in Him. So, it's absolutely true that
doubts sometimes arise because you're not converted, but Ersinus
in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, when he gave evidences
of true faith, said the first evidence of true faith is doubt,
and he meant by that that By and large, in the world, people
don't doubt their salvation if they're not connected to salvation
in some way. William Perkins said, a desire
for grace is an evidence of grace. So, this is a delicate spiritual
issue. I urge you to find some wise
Christian, preferably a wise, faithful pastor who can really
talk this through and decide what is the problem. Is the problem
a lack of assurance or a lack of faith? help you resolve the
problem. And some people are obsessive-compulsive
in their personality and temperament, and everything has to be perfect.
And they kind of go through life, it's hard for them to accept
certain things. And there are personality issues
that come to the surface. But just to even follow up on
what you said, Yes, you need to talk to a spiritual leader,
whether it's a pastor or an elder or a teacher, but at the end
of the day, that man cannot say, you're saved. At the end of the
day, that's a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of someone,
and the pastor can only ask diagnostic questions and help frame the
picture. But at the end of the day, the
God who saves is the God who gives assurance. I don't always pick the order
that these questions come up in. And just remember, we have a
lot more to get to, and this could be a long conversation. Are our children saved, or will
they go on their own journey? The Bible says, you and your
house will be saved. Yes and no. Paul said your children are holy
if you're a Christian. I believe, and my church officially
teaches, that holy children dying in infancy are elect and saved. So, if you're worried about children
dying in infancy, I think those holy children are saved. As children
grow up, And we may have some slight differences of opinion
on this point. As children grow up who are children
of the covenant and have been marked with the seal of the covenant,
they are holy unless they reject the covenant
in unbelief. And so, our duty as parents,
I believe, is always to be calling our children to faith. just as
ministers are always calling all of us to faith. Our job as
parents is not in the first place to encourage doubt in our children. It's to encourage faith in our
children and to call them to live as the holy children of
God. But some of the brothers may
see things differently. They'll be wrong, but you should
still listen to them. Oh, we're going to have to decide
how much we want to talk about this, brother. So, I am a Baptist. And that's not a surprise, that's
not a press release. And this is a conversation that
goes on, but I believe that the child is receiving covenant promises
through Christian parents that explain that the child rightly
raised by Christian parents is raised in the nurtured admonition
of the Lord that comes with spiritual benefits. But that the child
is a sinner who must make a positive confession of Jesus Christ as
Savior and must be converted. genuinely converted, and that's
why we disagree about baptism, and no small matter. GODFREY,
Jr.: : I agree with what you just said. WEBB, Jr.: : It didn't
sound like what you said was conversion, but rather just not
rejection of the gospel. Well, I think both those things
can work together. I don't think they have to be
set at odds with one another. But I don't think you should
raise a child in a Christian home and say, you're not a Christian
because you haven't been converted yet. I don't think that's the
way to talk to our children. I think the way to talk to our
children is you need to be loving Jesus. You need to be trusting
Jesus. You need to be resting in Jesus.
I do talk that way to my children. But I do, and I do without hesitation,
I also want them never to remember a time when they were not taught
to love Christ and raised in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord, but I want them to know at a specific, and I don't
mean a moment, and a date, and a time. I mean, I need their
profession of the fact they come to know not only that they sin,
but that they are sinners, and that they need a Savior, and
come to know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, and make that abundantly
clear in an understanding there's a before and after. That may
be the biggest difference. What defines the before and after? It's a good discussion for us
to have, but that's why believers' baptism follows from our understanding
of conversion, and thus our understanding of regenerate church membership,
and thus what it means to be buried with Christ in baptism
and raised to walk a newness of life. It's a very clear before
and after conversion. LAWSON Can I just add something,
just very quick? Yeah. The Bible is very clear
that it says, David writes in Psalm 51, in sin did my mother
conceive me. That does not mean that her conception
was done out of wedlock. It means that David was a sinner
in the womb of his mother. And Augustine well argued if
that's not the case, there would never be death in the womb, that
there is that one that has been conceived in the womb is a sinner,
and therefore there can't even be a death before the delivery
because there's death in that womb. David goes on to say, it's
either Psalm 57 or 58, that I came forth from my mother's womb speaking
lies. So, the only way to get into
the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said to Nicodemus, is you must
be born again. That there was something desperately
wrong about your first birth. That you were born in spiritual
death, Ephesians 2 verse 1 makes that crystal clear. No matter
how old you are, no matter how young you are, that until you
are born again, you are spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. No matter how many times you've
been brought to church, no matter how much water's been sprinkled
on you, you are separated from a holy God because of your sin.
And the only way to enter into the kingdom of heaven, I want
to say that one more time, the only way to enter into the kingdom
of heaven is for you to be sovereignly, monergistically regenerated by
the Spirit of God and given faith and repentance. I think we do
a tremendous harm to evangelism and the preaching the gospel
to give children any thought that they are a Christian until
they have actually entered into the kingdom of heaven. Now, I
know there's a difference in opinion among us, but if we can't
get that part right, then I think our evangelism is enormously
hindered. I'll never forget the night my
daughter was converted. She rode in the car with me to
church that night, and I was preaching John 17, verse 1. Father, the hour has come. Glorify
the Son, that the Son may be glorified in you. As we were
driving to church, I told her, You need to be born again, and
I can't do that for you, and I'm the pastor of this church. As you hear me preach tonight,
you need to ask and pray that God will act upon your soul and
upon your heart. And I remember that night, she
did not come back. I took our three sons home, my
wife took her home, and she didn't come in until, they didn't come
in until 10 o'clock that night, and I thought, oh my goodness,
now I'm gonna have to go up to the bedroom, and this is gonna
be a huge, you know, parental night, talking with my daughter,
who had been very resistant at that time, not very resistant,
but resistant to us. And she came in and walked into
the den and said, Dad, I've been born again. And we went upstairs
and got her three brothers and brought them down to the den. And she said, I want to ask for
you to forgive me for the way I've acted towards you, but I
have been born again. If I had given her any hope that
she was right with God until she was born again, I would have
misrepresented the gospel to her. Now, answer the question
in Acts 16 and you're a whole household. This is really interesting. For
two consecutive years after I was in class with R.C., The entire
class at the end of the semester left and I was left in the room
one-on-one with R.C. And for two years in a row, he
said, what do I have to do to get you to be a Presbyterian? And I said, R.C., I would love
to be a Presbyterian. You have better pulpits than
we have. So I literally, I stuck out my
arm and I said, twist my arm, make me a Presbyterian. I would
love to be one. I seriously would. And he said, Acts 16. And I said, R.C., you didn't
read the next verse. Everyone in that household believed
in Jesus. I said, I would love to accept
that, but this says they all believed in Jesus. Now, a one-year-old
cannot believe in Jesus. A two-year-old cannot believe
in Jesus. GODFREY So is a one-year-old
or a two-year-old lost if they die at one or two? Is that what
you're saying? No, I think they are lost, but I do believe that
one-year-old or that two-year-old does go to heaven. And we are
left with an implication that is not directly stated in Scripture,
but I do believe from David and from Job and from other passages
that that infant does…God applies the grace of God as the implication.
that we would have to make, and that one does go to heaven. So,
I do believe that. GODFREY Well, you see, I think
then on a number of points we're agreed. We mustn't miss where
we are agreed. I believe all our children are
born in sin, as you articulated it. I believe all our children
need to be regenerated sovereignly by the grace of God. I think
the difference in some ways is this question of how we raise
our children and whether I'm rather opposed to the notion
that we put pressure on our children to have a specific experience
and moment of conversion. Some of them will, and those
who do, I rejoice in that. I rejoice in that. That's the
way the Lord works in some of our children. But in others,
there's a time they never know except of believing in, knowing,
living for Jesus. And to say to them, you can't
really be trusting Jesus because you never had a crisis experience,
I don't think is accurate to the Scriptures. I think it is
possible. I believe with Luther that John
the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb because he
leapt for joy in the presence of Jesus in Elizabeth's womb.
Well, then he's going to grow up as a regenerated person with
faith all through his life and doesn't need a crisis experience. Go ahead, Al. Yeah, I think we
do need a crisis experience. I think that's what being born
again means. That's what I hope and pray for
in my children and in my grandchildren. I don't want it to be an artificial
crisis. I don't want it to be an orchestrated crisis. And when
you say a moment, I cannot tell you the moment when I became
a Christian. I can tell you the moment when I was nine when I
believe I came to know not only that I sinned, but that I am
a sinner under the conviction of preaching. and I just desired
Christ. The gospel was explained to me
far more completely over the next several days. I can't point
to a day. We used to have this stupid song
that used to be sung, you know, on a Monday Jesus saved me, and
people would stand up if they were saved on Mondays. You know, there's a sense in
which I was saved on a Friday and on a Sunday. two thousand
years ago, but there's another sense in which I had to be born
again. And I don't know when that happened
exactly in a moment in time, but I know that I was a lost
child who deserved nothing but hell. and then was saved by the
grace and mercy of God. And I came to know the sweetness
of the gospel of Christ. I came to know what it meant
to be born again. And I don't believe there's going to be anyone
in heaven who has not been born again. And I think Jesus made
that just emphatically clear in John chapter 3. I don't believe
that John the Baptist was regenerated in his mother's womb. I do think
he leapt with joy for Christ when he was in Christ's presence.
And I want my children to do that too. but I want them to
know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and be born again. I think that's even more important.
LARSON See, I knew it was going to take a while. We've talked about this just
internally, and I've heard some of you remark on this publicly
as well, is that we can have this conversation because we
have a commitment to the authority of the Scriptures, and we can
do it in fellowship with one another. And I think that's one
of the wonders of Ligonier Ministries is the breadth of perspective
on certain issues and yet a solid conviction. I think it goes back
to the large-heartedness of R.C. Sproul, and I rejoice that Ligonier, while
holding to the exclusivity of salvation in Christ alone, that
R.C. embraced me, embraced Al, and
others. In fact, Ligonier ended up really
in many ways being a haven and a refuge for so many Baptists
to find truth. And I'm so grateful that R.C. was so secure in his relationship
with the Lord that he did not keep us out, but allowed us to
have access to this ministry. And I rejoice in that. Yeah, I just want to come back
and affirm what Steve just wonderfully said. And I just want to remind
us all that R.C. prompted this conversation. orchestrated
to make sure this conversation took place, even in the context
of a Ligonier conference. And so we shouldn't be afraid
to do this as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are, to make Chris's
point, we're the last people on earth who can have an honest
theological disagreement, because we believe that truth matters,
and we're actually honoring the truth. We're honoring Christ,
and I believe we're honoring the purpose for which Ligonier
Ministries was established in having this conversation, which
I guarantee you will continue after this question time is over.
LAWSON Yeah, Chris, and just to add one more thing, there's
the substance of the gospel and there's the sign of the gospel. Where we agree emphatically unto
death is in the substance of the gospel. The difference would
be in the sign, and that's a totally different matter. I mean, I'll
go to the stake and die for the substance of the gospel, even
with my convictions. I don't know that I really want
to die for the sign of the gospel, but I'll die for the substance
of the gospel. Can I just add that I want to
be clear that our position, my position, is not that baptism
saves the baby, but baptism is the sign of the covenant in which
the child is already included, and I think that's what your
children are holy means, and that as that child grows up,
that child needs to be instructed in the meaning of baptism. that
that child will have faith in Christ. So, the point that we
are all agreed on, I think, is our children need to have faith
in Christ, and that's what we need to raise them for. Would
you thank our panelists this afternoon?