Late this afternoon we heard from Thabiti Anyabwile on “Cosmic Treason: Sin & the Holiness of God.” He began by joking that his name is Swahili and roughly translated means “suffering for Jesus in the Cayman Islands.” And then he got down to business. He read Numbers 25 and divided his exposition of this chapter into four sections. He wanted to use this passage to make some observations about sin as cosmic treason.

The horrible context of this chapter (1-6)
The height of conflict (7-9)
The honorable commendation (10-13)
The harrowing condemnation (14-18)

The Horrible Context

This episode in the history of Israel follows the exodus in which God drew his people out of bondage. He had given them his Law, telling them that they were to have no other gods apart from him, no gods above him. God pledges to be their God and that they will be his people. Immediately prior to this chapter, Israel had run into Balaam and Balak. Hidden from Israel at this point was the divine hand of God protecting and preserving them.

So how striking it is when we come to Numbers 25 and we see that Israel, the people of God, have fallen into sexual immorality and idolatry. The people began to whore with the Moabites. The physical immorality is merely a symptom of the spiritual immorality and adultery. The tragedy of verse three of this section is that the Israelites yoked themselves to another God. We have not properly understood this passage until we have seen it as treason. The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. God in his holy and righteous anger pronounces a death sentence through a violent execution.

Thabiti pointed out things in this passage that define cosmic treason:

Sin is moral in nature, transgressing what is right. It is a negation of what is right. What is good and right for Israel is to worship this one, true God apart from whom there is no other. But rather than do what is right, they denied this God. We live in a culture that denies any wrongdoing whatsoever or denies that our sin is objectively wrong. To speak with people about their sin is to hear that it is not sin, it is not wrong. They establish their own moral authority contrary to God’s.

Sin is personal in nature. It is against God himself, provoking his wrath. Sin is apostasy, turning away from God. Our culture teaches that sin is not often against anyone but is just a mistake or a blooper. But this passage makes it clear that our sin does land on something. It lands squarely in the sight of a holy God who will not look upon sin. Our sin is an offense against God, a personal rebellion against him. It not only incites his anger but is also treasonous, rebelling against the rule and love of God. Israel is often called God’s wife. Can you think of a more treasonous act than to declare union with a husband but then to commit adultery with another?

Sin is dangerous in that it provokes the wrath of God. The scariest thing in the world is people living like there is no danger associated with their sin and God’s wrath. They have a kind of false assurance where they think they are okay with God, but have no saving, covenantal relationship with God. There is no situation more dangerous than that.

Sin is so treasonous that God declares a death penalty against it. It brings the danger of God’s judgment.

The Height of Conflict

God has spoken in verses four and five about the judgment of those who will engage in apostasy and in verse six we see the start of it. This is a vivid illustration of the treason we are talking about. God has been correcting, in fiery anger, the sin committed against him. While the people are gathering outside the tent of meeting, an Israelite man sees the people gathered around and does not join in the covenant worship of God. Instead, he walks by, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of God himself. And all this while the people are weeping over his sin. The whores are creeping while the people are weeping. It is a striking display. This is brazen sin. He is thumbing his nose at God.

Phinehas sees this, picks up a spear, follows this man into his tent, and in the very act of sexual immorality he drives it through the both of them. He kills the Israelite man and the Midianite woman. It is his action that stops the plague God has sent on his people, killing 24,000 of his people.

Sin is contempt toward God. Most people believe sin is a mistake, a mess-up. But at the very heart of sin is contempt toward God and toward his holiness and righteousness in particular.

Sin poisons our sympathy so that we side with the sinner in his sin before we side with God in his holiness. What is your reaction when you hear this? What is your reaction to Phinehas and his action along with God and his action in killing 24,000 people? Were you identifying with the sinful man and woman or with Phinehas and his action? Did you have instinctive and impulsive action that caused you to identify with the whore in their whoredom rather than the judge and his javelin?

Sin leads to our ruin as God puts down our rebellion. The face of the Lord is against those who do evil to cut off the memory of them from the earth. The wrath of God is revealed against ungodliness. Our sin leads to our ruin apart from Christ.

Sin should cause weeping before God because it is the offense that it is before God. We ought to be people weeping over sin. The Lord is near to the brokenhearted.

Honorable Commendation

As a priest Phinehas’ job is to represent God and to make sacrifices on their behalf. He understands his calling and this is what God commends in him. Phinehas is jealous with God’s jealousy. And so it ought to be with God’s people, so it ought to be with the men who stand behind the pulpit and teach the children of God. When God is most glorified and honored, his people are most satisfied. What else should a pastor care about than that God should be made known and that he should be loved and glorified? To care most about anything less than the glory of God is treason.

Sin requires discipline. God is dealing with his people as a Father loves his children. He does this so that we may participate in his holiness. God’s love walks hand-in-hand with his holiness. Resolve now that if you stumble into sin that you will receive God’s correction.

Sin requires atonement. God’s wrath must be turned away; there must be reconciliation between the sinner and the holy God. Phinehas the priest points us toward the great High Priest. It is Phinehas who makes the sacrifice that appeases God in Numbers 25 but it is Christ who will make the full and final sacrifice to appease God.

Numbers 25 is about the gospel of our Lord, about the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He does this not for a moment, not for a chapter of the Old Testament, but eternally. It was Christ who was the true priest of God.

Harrowing Condemnation

The only point the names of these people is mentioned is in the final few verses of this chapter. Sometimes you hear names that are forever associated with treason. Verses seventeen and eighteen identify these two as the Benedict Arnold’s of the book of Numbers. God calls them to account for their cosmic treason and calls to account the Midianites as well. He uses the Israelites as the means of punishment against this nation. God exercises his judgment in this time and in this way.

With time running out Thabiti spent just a few moments closing with a powerful call to respond to the gospel.

This morning Alistair Begg preached on “The Breath of the Almighty: The Holy Spirit” and used as his text John 16:5-15. I jotted down some notes…

The nature of this topic, he said, makes it virtually horizonless. Considerations of any doctrine, but particularly this one, that are not grounded within the controls of the Bible itself, may lead to all kinds of flights of fancy. There has been as much confusion within evangelicalism about the person and work of the Spirit as there has been in any other part of the Bible.

There are many places we might have gone to in Scripture but Begg chose this one, John 16. The main dimension that is represented in these words which speak of the necessity of his departure. This news has been a source of consternation and grief.

He broke his talk into three parts:

1. The necessity of Christ’s departure
2. The identity of the Helper who is sent
3. The activity of this Helper or Counselor

The Necessity of Christ’s Departure

He tells them that he is leaving and reveals that this is to their advantage. If he does not go away, the Helper will not come to them. The disciples were clearly in need of his help but he told them not to be unduly troubled because help is on the way. We are familiar with all of this but it is perhaps helpful to ponder at what expense this promise was accomplished. Jesus is not just speaking to the pragmatic benefit of another Helper. If you read the gospels you’ll see the intimacy between the Father and the Son and it is meaningful and precious to Christ. Here he says he will ask the Father who will send this Helper on the Son’s behalf.

The nature of this necessity lies not just in the benefit to the disciples but in the entire drama of redemption. That which the Father planned, the Son in his death will procure, and that which the Son procures, the Spirit will apply. By the time the Apostles are writing their letters, that which is introduced in the gospels is being explained.

The Identity of the Helper

This word has a legal dimension of an advocate, but also has dimensions of counsel, guidance and so on. He is also called the Spirit of Truth.

We first need to notice that the Holy Spirit is a unique person and not simply a power or an influence. He is spoken of as “He,” not as “It.” This is a matter of import because many people refer to him in the neuter as an “it.” We have to understand that the third person of the Trinity is personal and as a person he may be grieved, as a power he may be quenched, in terms of the exercise of his will, he may be resisted.

Second, we need to see that he is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. It is the Father who is sending AND the Son who is sending and the Spirit acts for them both. The giving of the Spirit is never done in isolation from the work of Christ and the will of God.

Third, we need to see that the Holy Spirit was the agent of Creation. It is the breath of the Almighty that hovers over the face of the waters. It is the power and energy of the Spirit that is referenced in the act of Creation. It is the Spirit who is the irresistible power by which God accomplishes his will.

Fourth, we need to see that the Holy Spirit is the agent of God’s new creation in Christ—he is the author of the new birth.

Fifth, we need to see that he is the author of the Scriptures.

His identity is as “another” helper, another of the same kind rather than another of a different kind. He comes along side, he is the one whom Jesus says is with you and will be in you. His ministry is personal and permanent. He is the one who will remain with you forever.

The Activity of the Helper

What are the active dimensions to which Jesus introduces us here?

He will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness and judgment. What else would a Holy Spirit do? How could he come into an impure world without confronting the sin within it? We think of Jesus who, out of divine necessity, had to cleanse the temple. And the Holy Spirit also confronts the world by proving the world guilty—guilty of unbelief, of being out of line, of lives that are crooked, of culpability.

The work of the Spirit will be to bring the fact of that guilt home to the lives of individuals. You have a small foretaste of this before Christ dies on the cross. The two criminals are at first jeering at him but then the one thief turns to Jesus in faith. The Spirit of God confronted the thief at the very end of his life with the fact of his unbelief, with the fact that he faced the judgment of God.

In all of this the work of the Spirit is to be understood Christologically—always in the relationship to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The activity of the Spirit is also to glorify Jesus. He takes what is Jesus’ and declare it to the world. He glorifies Christ both to the disciples and in the disciples. He comes and he makes his home with them. And as he does this, they become increasingly like him (because you become like people you spend time with). The communion to which Christ refers does not negate the dimension in each of our lives that we have a right expectation of intimate communion with God. Part of the work of the Spirit is to come to us when Satan rightly convicts us of sin to remind us that we have an advocate with the Father. It was a tremendous thing for Jesus to go away because until that time he was able to be in only one place. But the sending of the Spirit universalizes the person of Jesus. It also internalizes the presence of Jesus; he was with them but now he is in them. What is the ultimate work of the Holy Spirit if it is not to conform the child of God to the image of the Son of God? God’s eternal purpose is to conform us to the image of his Son. And this is what he does right now so that we are now being transformed into that same image. And when he finishes his work he will appear and we shall be like him. Everyone who has this hope within him purifies himself even as he is pure.

The subject of God’s holiness has been a theme at Ligonier Ministries since its infancy and it is good to revisit that theme this year, one year before Sproul’s book The Holiness of God reaches its twenty-fifth anniversary. And who better to introduce the subject and kick of the conference proper than Dr. Sproul? He preached tonight from Isaiah 45:1-8.

This is one of the strangest portions of divine revelation found anywhere in Scripture. At the time of its writing, Israel was in captivity to Babylon. But the message in this text is not addressed to somebody from Babylon. It is addressed to the future king of the Persian empire which would defeat the Babylonians and eventually liberate Israel to return to their homeland.

In verse 45 we read this word: “Thus says the LORD to his anointed (his messiah), to Cyrus.” This verse scandalizes the Jewish people that God would call a future gentile king his anointed. He is saying that he will give power to this king and his armies to lay waste to the dominant power. God is going to do all of this so Cyrus might know that God is the Lord.

Sproul has tried to imagine what would be going through Cyrus’ mind when he hears this prophecy for the first time. He sees Cyrus hearing these words in which this foreign deity announces that he would like to have a word with this king. Cyrus may well think “this is the lord of Israel but I am the lord of Babylon. This other lord must want to get together with me to plan out this military campaign.” But God does not allow him to rush to this conclusion. He adds to his declaration, “…there is no other. Besides me there is no God.”

Tonight we want to focus on this refrain: I am the Lord, there is no other. This declares the uniqueness of God, of the God of the Old Testament. We will consider what it is about the God of the Bible that is unique.

When we talk about the holiness of God, the term “holy” has two references:

• God’s otherness, the sense in which he is different from anything in the created world.


• His perfection in righteousness, his purity.

Only the second of these is a communicable attribute; the first belongs to God alone. It refers to his transcendent divine nature in which he is other than us.

In systematic theology when we try to detail the attributes of God, we struggle with the limitations of human language to do this. Theologians have relied on three distinct methods in which we describe the being and character of God.

The favorite of Augustine is the way of negation. In this way we define something by saying what it isn’t. God, then, is infinite. All this means is that God is not finite. A second way we use this way of negation is with the term “immutable.” All this tells us is that God is not mutable. Nothing defines creaturely existence like the idea of change. We are all constantly changing. That is simply the world in which we live in; but this category cannot be applied to God. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

The second way is taking normal, earthly categories and exalting them to the nth degree. So we say that we, as humans, have the capacity to learn and to increase in knowledge. We may have plenty of knowledge, but we do not have all knowledge. We may have science, but God has omniscience. We all exercise some degree of power, but none of us have all power, omnipotence.

The third way is the way of affirmation. And this begins to take us to the extreme edges of our ability to comprehend God. We say that God alone is eternal and self-existent. Of all the theological attributes of God that are found in the theological tomes of history, the one that most sends chills up Sproul’s spine is the word aseity. If there is any word in the English language that captures the otherness of God, it is this one. It refers to his self-existence, that God and God alone has the power of being in and of himself.

A great quote as he discussed modern science which posits creation without a Creator: “Nothing has no is-ness.”

If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, what could possibly exist now? Nothing! But if something exists now, it tells us that there never was a time when there was nothing. Everything that we know of, including the universe, had a beginning. Everything is contingent, derived from something outside of itself to lend being to it…except for God. He is not created. There was never a time when he was not. Eternally he is. He has that power of being in and of himself. There is nothing more profound to say about God than the way he reveals himself in the name “I Am Who I Am.” I Am the LORD and there is no other.”

Aquinas’ offered two proofs for God’s existence that rose above all others and Sproul discussed each of these quite briefly.

The first proof is that God is the “ends necessary,” that he possesses necessary being. He alone has being that is necessary and this makes him holy. We can define necessary being in two ways, ontologically and logically. When Aquinas said God has necessary being, he was saying that he’s the kind of being who cannot possibly not be. God is who he is from everlasting to everlasting and he cannot be anything other than what he is eternally in and of himself. His being is also logically necessary. There is no reason why Sproul should exist. There was a time when he did not exist. He can claim no logical necessity for his existence. But you need to leave your reason behind when you explore the idea that God does not exist. You have to stop thinking logically to think that the universe came into being by itself without God. Nothing could be more irrational that something comes from nothing. Logic demands that if something exists now, something always existed or you have to choose an irrational alternative.

We also need to consider from this text what this God does. He brings the light and the darkness, he brings well-being and calamity. After 9/11 it was unthinkable to the American people that God could have anything to do with calamity. We are people who believe that God can bless a nation but refuse to believe that he can also judge a nation. We believe this because we do not know who God is. The God of popular religion is not holy. This is not the God of Isaiah 45—the God who brings calamity, the God who brings the bear market and the bull market, who pulls kingdoms up and tears kingdoms down. “I will raise you up Cyrus, but I can also tear you right down.”

The two books Sproul has written that have received more attention than any other, he says, are The Holiness of God and Chosen by God. He so often hears how much people like the first but hate the second. One of two things must then be true: either you didn’t understand The Holiness of God or you didn’t understand Chosen by God. The God who is holy is the God who is sovereign. The God who is transcendent in his majesty is the Lord. He brings good things and he brings bad things. This is the God with whom we have to do.

He closed with these words: “Let me give you some pastoral counseling if you do not like this God: tough!” This God is the only one we have. You may try to make and fashion another one; you might prefer a different one. But there is no other. “I am the LORD your God, there is no other…”

The “John Calvin” Mini-Conference wrapped up with a Q&A session featuring the four men who had delivered addresses. It was moderated by John Duncan. This is roughly how it went…

Why is Calvin still important 500 years later?

Ferguson - because he was really the first great biblical exegete. Other theologians made a mark here and there, but none so great as Calvin. He had a genius for being to capture what the text was saying and what its implications were.

Lawson - Location, location, location. He finds himself in an important historical context in the greatest forward movement of Christianity since the second century. It was a perfect time for Calvin’s ideas to explode in a way that could influence successive generations unlike those that had come before. There was a kind of domino effect from Calvin on down through history.

Mohler - Calvin really was the combination of the systematician and the preacher. As great as Luther may have been, he did not leave behind a systematic theology. In Calvin’s day, to consider what was at stake, the crucial question surrounded what was the true church. We still talk about Calvin today because we face many of the same challenges today that he faced in his day. No one answered these questions with the quintessential clarity of Calvin.

Duncan - Calvin taught the people who in turn taught the successive generation so that people who were influenced by Calvin may not have even know his name. He was training the best of the current generation to train the next generation. It was only centuries later that we began to understand the magnitude of what he had done.

Where should people start to learn about Calvin?

Ferguson - If you are daunted by the Institutes, begin with The Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life. You will probably find that Calvin is not as daunting as it may seem. If he didn’t know that Packer was going to do it, he probably would have called this book Knowing God.

Lawson - Read his sermons. The preaching of the word is the primary ordinary means of grace. Begin with his sermons on Galatians and Ephesians.

Mohler - Dive into the deep end of the pool by reading the introduction to the Institutes. Even if you need to read them two or three times, read them! It is one of the greatest works of Christian devotional literature ever written.

Duncan - I suggest going through the Institutes with your pastor or with a good teacher who has read through them before. I also some lectures from Rutherford House (?) by Sinclair Ferguson.

What is one thing about Calvin that is unknown or misunderstood that Calvin heir’s should know?

Ferguson - I know what his favorite game was. It was keys - you would throw a set of keys over a table and whoever puts it over the edge of the table wins.

Mohler - People often miss the suffering of the man. He was a man who suffered almost every day of his life with infirmities, sicknesses, pains and had to study and teach under the most difficult of circumstances. Despite this, in his writings you find such joy in his piety.

Duncan - If all you know is that he is the “Tyrant of Geneva” you may need to know that he was not a citizen of Geneva until the last years of his life. The idea that he was in full control of the city is simply fiction. He also a great power in the missionary movement that sent missionaries around the world.

Lawson - Calvin’s personal logo summarizes his life. It is an open hand being offered up to God and a heart in the palm of the hand that was his heart offered to God. His life, his heart, given to God promptly and willingly. When you combine this kind of godliness with this kind of genius, it is a powerful force (much like Jonathan Edwards).

Ferguson - He had an amazing number of friends who very much loved him. This is, in many ways, the measure of a man in contrast to the caricatures we often hear.

Lawson - Many people are unaware of how long and how strenuously he was opposed in his church.

Calvin is often criticized for his role in the execution of Servetus. Summarize what happened and our take on the situation.

Duncan - Servetus was a heretic, viewed by both Catholics and Protestants as a heretic. In any city in Europe there were heresy laws in those days; Geneva was not the only one with such laws. There were certain expectations in terms of public theology and morality that were expected of anyone. He was warned not to come to Geneva and was warned that he would be arrested and tried. He was subsequently condemned by the council to the burned at the stake. Calvin asked for the sentence to be changed to something quicker and less painful but this was denied.

Mohler - It is difficult to think of this from our perspective in a modern democratic republic. The medieval world is really unthinkable to us. In that day every single European state defined heresy as treason. To go against the religious beliefs of the state was to commit treason against it. Heresy was a threat to the entire society. This is true even today; however, government is not the right agent to deal with heresy. One of the big complexities to understand Calvin’s Geneva is to understand the role in Geneva in separating church and state. Servetus was the kind of heretic who would have known that everyone knew of his heresy. He was a needler, liar, etc, etc. The modern world gets it wrong in thinking that heresy is a minor crime while treason is a major one. But we would not call upon the city or state to judge such a person but instead we would rely on the church.

Ferguson - Calvin has become the whipping boy for something that continued for another 100 years.

Lawson - Calvin did not put him to death; he was not even a citizen of Geneva at the time and had no say in political matters. The consistory were his enemies at the time and had no love for Calvin. Servetus was given the option of being sent back to France and he begged to stay in Geneva because he knew that what would happen there would be far more gruesome. Calvin did, indeed, give support to what was taking place, but it was not in his hands to do it.

Mohler - Intellectual honesty is rare in this situation. To single Calvin out in this case is really an ad hominem attack. This civilization understood that heresy was the greatest of all crimes and was judged to protect people from error. They did this in the wrong way, but how much better are we who consider heresy a small threat?

What was Calvin’s relationship with Luther and Luther’s followers?

Ferguson - It was distant. They had almost definitely never met. It is clear in Calvin’s writing that he felt the church owed an enormous debt to Luther; he regarded Luther as almost a new Apostle. There were elements of Luther’s theology that troubled him, but he was as careful as he could be that he corrected this theology without making it clear what theology he was correcting.

Mohler - You have to make a distinction between phases of Calvin’s theology. He always considered Luther like a spiritual father. He had a very warm respect for Luther. His relationship with Melancthon was very interesting; he had good correspondence with him, but there was always a distance. As he saw Melancthon addressing different issues, he became troubled about continued refusal to bring the Reformation to its necessary conclusion. There was lots of indebtedness and affection and a hope for greater unity, but ultimately some disappointment.

Are there aspects of Calvin’s thought that we should not follow?

Mohler - You’ve got two Baptists here. [much laughter] One issue is this: what is Calvinism? When people think Calvinism they are often thinking of just a Dortian summary of theology. I am a Baptist who is indebted to Calvinism (as are all Baptists, whether they know it or not). It is wholesome to look back to that indebtedness and acknowledge our debt to him. When you look at the totality of what Calvin taught, there are many Presbyterians who are not thoroughly Calvinistic. I am going to be very thankful for all I receive, but I think Calvin would be the first to say that he had no desire to create “Calvinists.”

We’re familiar with the five points of Calvinism. What was truly central to his theology?

Ferguson - For Calvin there is such a unity that I don’t know that he would give precedence to any one of them. There seems to be two things that happen as his theology grows from one edition of the Institutes to the next. The first was the impact of Romans on his thought. The second thing that seems to dominate their development is his immense Trinitarianism, both its unity and distinctiveness. In some ways it seems that he’s almost the first Christian writer to get this just right.

Mohler - The knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves is the beginning and end of Calvin’s theology. When they talk about Calvinism and jump straight to the five points, we need to realize that we are reducing Calvin’s great concern and passion for the knowledge of God to this important dimension of how God justifies sinner and how he determined before the world was created that he would save a people through his Son. I would warn against reducing Calvinism to those five points even while affirming and defending those points. You can miss the whole in the parts if you are not careful.

Duncan - We need to remember that Calvin never did write out five points. Those five points stemmed from his work but only fifty years after his death as a response to five points of Arminianism.

How has Calvinism become to be seen as a loyalty that takes precedent over our identity as Christians?

Ferguson - When Calvin’s teaching came under attack and others rushed to his defense, you tend to get -isms. This is one of the reasons people need to go back and read Calvin himself and when they do so they find a world very different from the one they expected to find.

Mohler - [I couldn’t quite catch or nicely summarize this one. Apologies]. I did appreciate his exhortation to read Calvin (whether sermons or books) with an open Bible. Calvin would expect no less!

Duncan - Our non-Calvinistic friends can be hurt by the attitude that Calvinism is Christianity. It is helpful that someone have a high view of God, of Christ, of the Bible, than it is to attach themselves to any label. The good reason that we use label is for theological shorthand, as it allows us to say a lot really quickly. It allows us to affirm and deny certain things in just a word. If people are afraid of Calvinistic terms and analogies, simply go in as a Bible-believing Christian, go to Scripture, and see what God says to you and to them from his Word.

Leave us with something very important you’ve learned from Calvin’s life or writings

Ferguson - He has been the model of what a gospel minister in a local congregation should be.

Lawson - To understand Calvin is to understand Calvin the preacher. He was many things, but primarily a preacher. This is what is so desperately needed in churches today.

Mohler - I am in agreement with the other two so will just add this. Calvin was also a teacher and he understood the necessity of the church to be a school. We want the churches to again be the schools of Christ. I want to die like Calvin died, studying and teaching and preaching to the end. Calvin didn’t retire; he died.

Duncan - Calvin taught me that the fundamental problem we face as human beings is idolatry. There are true worshippers of God and idolaters; that is all. The doctrine of the atonement—Calvin gave the best biblical explanation of the atonement that had been given in 1560 years. There have been great ones since, but none before.

After a rather tasty lunch we gathered again, this time to hear Sinclair Ferguson speak about “The Doctrines of Grace.” He began by reading Ephesians 1 and said that no man has had a greater impact on his thinking than John Calvin.

When we speak of the doctrines of grace, we tend to think about five particular distinctive and controverted doctrines that we find within the realm of Reformed theology. Calvin’s theology and the theology of Scripture has much more to say about the grace of God in salvation than just these five points.

He followed this structure:

1. To say something by way of background about the teaching about grace on which Calvin was reared.
2. The doctrines of grace on which Calvin expounded.
3. The nature of grace which John Calvin sought to extol.

The Grace on which Calvin Was Reared

Some people mistakenly believe that until the time of the Reformation, grace was a foreign concept in Christianity. The Reformers understood, though, that the medieval theologians had misspelled, misunderstood grace. As they spelled out the doctrines of God’s grace, they saw that grace had been adulterated and was no grace at all. It would not bring the delight of joy and assurance of salvation to the soul.

The Roman Catholic Church was dead set against the doctrine of grace because they felt it would give people license to live however they wanted to live. Of course this is a problem the Apostle Paul faced as well. This is why The RCC has always regarded the doctrine of justification (according to Protestantism) as a legal fiction. They cannot see justification as something so simple as a declaration.

The Reformers came to see that it was possible to know that you were justified. The church taught that unless you had some special revelation from God, you could never know that you had done enough to be saved. All you would be left with is endless years in purgatory with maybe a little reduction based on the overflow of merit from the saints. The consequence of all of this was the absence of joy, the impossibility of assurance. The assurance of salvation was considered the greatest of Protestant heresies.

Calvin saw that the righteousness given to us is the very righteousness of Christ, counted to the believer. It is the righteousness of the final judgment, brought forward into the present. Sin, when punished, cannot be punished again. We can stand before the judgment seat of God, fully righteous and all by God’s grace.

The Doctrines of Grace on which Calvin Expounded

When Calvin speaks of the doctrines of grace (in many ways and in many places) his great desire is to point us to salvation in God by Jesus Christ. Here Ferguson spent a few moments covering each of the five points, showing how Calvin may have explained them. As you may know, the five points as we understand them today, though they are based on Calvin’s teaching, are a reaction to later theological developments which sought to deny this theology. So Ferguson reached just a little further back to explain these terms using what might have been Calvin’s words.

The best line from this section of Ferguson’s address were these: “Two words: Institutes! Read!”

The Nature of Grace which John Calvin Sought to Extol

With time running out, he had only a few moments to dedicate to this topic.

Calvin says there is no such thing as grace, only Jesus Christ. There is not something outside of Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit dispenses to you like a lump sum. There is only Jesus Christ which is why one of the most significant and startling things Calvin says is that all that Christ has done for us is of no value to us unless we get, by faith, Jesus Christ himself. And in just a moment you can see how the whole medieval system with priests and sacraments and sacrifices and saints and Mary was immediately exploded and destroyed. What the Spirit is doing and bringing you into is the same as the Lord Jesus himself. There is nothing between—no pope, no bishops, no sacraments, no priests—only the Holy Spirit bringing you to Jesus who is all your righteousness and all the righteousness you will ever need.

From Calvin we learn this: it is all there for you in Christ, so drink from no other fountain than Christ. We are all, even in our evangelical hearts, liable to sink back into errors that make us think there is something in us that qualifies us, something that Jesus Christ could give me without giving himself and me giving myself to him. This is Calvin: it is all of God, it is all in Christ, it all comes through the Holy Spirit.

This is a very, very good introduction to Reformed theology as taught by the greatest of the Reformers. I am often asked what I would recommend to those who are just trying to learn about Calvinism (or who are trying to learn the truth behind Calvinism). This is a great place to begin.

The 2009 Ligonier Ministries National Conference begins today.Though the conference proper does not kick off until after dinner, thePre-Conference, “John Calvin—Celebrating a Legacy” began bright andearly. This mini-conference features messages from Al Mohler, StevenLawson, Sinclair Ferguson and Ligon Duncan. They will each speak onetime and will also participate in a panel discussion.

Al Mohler began with this reflection: the legacy of John Calvin isnow represented by a half millennium of influence. Calvin would nodoubt be shocked to learn that, 500 years after his birth, severalthousand people would gather in a Pre-Conference to talk about hislegacy. That so many are gathered here is a testimony to God’sfaithfulness to his church.

Mohler’s task today was to introduce John Calvin as a preacher and ateacher. And indeed, the focal task of Calvin’s ministry came down tothese two tasks. He excelled in both.

The first portion of Mohler’s address was biographical, a quickoverview of Calvin’s life focusing on his tasks of preacher andteacher. It was too fast to easily summarize, so I will leave it tothose who are interested to watch the webcast.Calvin believed there were four offices within the church: preachers,teachers, elders and deacons. This message revolved around the first two.

Having given this thumbnail sketch of Calvin’s life, Mohler spokeabout Calvin as a teacher. Calvin left behind a significant legacy ofteaching material, even down to his personal correspondence which wasfilled with teaching. Early in his career he desired a quiet life ofreading and writing, but he was compelled to take up the pastorate in Geneva.

He saw two offices that had a distinct teaching function. The taskof the teacher was to prepare those who would have the sacred task ofteaching the Word of God. Before he was a preacher in Geneva, he wasinvolved in this teaching task. The preacher was the key agent to whomGod would speak to his people, but the preacher needed to be taught;hence, Calvin was convinced that there needed to be a learned clergy.His singular aim was that the church be properly taught the Word of Godand be protected from error. Here Mohler looked to the Institutes giving a quick overview of their contents, style and usefulness, even in our day.

The need Calvin perceived is a need that continues today, perhapseven more emphatically. Teaching suffuses all that he does, all that heoffers to the church, all that he was.

In all the world, there is only one office higher than the teacherand that is the preacher. Calvin desired to be first a teacher, butonce he became a preacher, he took up this task with a passion. Histheology of preaching begins with his understanding that God speaksthrough his preachers, through the Word. Calvin did not deny natural orgeneral revelation but saw that God speaks through a human voice in aspecial way in the act of preaching. Preaching is not a human inventionbut a means God had already used to speak to his people of old and ameans he would now use again to instruct his church. It is an act ofGod’s kindness and accommodation that he speaks to us through a humanvoice; if he spoke through his own voice, we would be destroyed.

Calvin understood the majesty of preaching because he understood themajesty of God. Calvin’s mode of preaching was verse-by-verse,book-by-book so he would not selectively avoid things he did not wishto teach. In this way God’s people receive all that they need and notjust what the preacher determines the people need. The preacher isneither to add nor subtract from Scripture.

Calvin believed preaching is the Word of God in at least three ways:

• Preaching is the Word of God because it is the exposition of the Bible
• Preaching is the Word of God because the preacher is sent and commissioned by God and given his authority to speak in his name
• Preaching is the Word of God because it is revelation, revealing the treasures of God’s Word.

Calvin looked to three movements in his day, offering both agreementand disagreement with each of them. From these we can see some of theemphases of his ministry.

The enthusiasts - they were right in that they preached thenecessity of the Holy Spirit but wrong in that they said there was noneed for preachers.

The Church of Rome - they were right in that the church is to listenattentively to the preacher but wrong in that the church taught thatChristians did not need to verify the minister’s words according to Scripture.

The fanatics - they were right in that believers are to read theBible on their own but wrong in that they downplayed the need forguidance from teachers and preachers.

Mohler offered these four hallmarks of John Calvin’s preaching:

• Centrality of Scripture
• Systematic exposition
• Simplicity of expression
• Practical application

And here he recommended Steve Lawson’s The Expository Genius of John Calvin as a useful, accurate summary of John Calvin’s teaching ministry.

Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey

Congregational singing: “I Love to Tell the Story”

The speaker from each of the five points was on the panel. Dr. Patterson had to leave so that his alternate, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell took his place for Total depravity.
Dr. Vines announced that he would like to have at least one Calvinist and one non-Calvinist address each one of the five points.

Panelist #1:
Dr. John Voight (sp?) pastor from Rome, GA and author of The False God of Calvinism: Did I understand Dr. Patterson correctly to say that he affirmed Total depravity to the point that this depravity will not be removed until we are in heaven?

Yarnell: Dr. Patterson’s view, as I understand it, is that we are all effaced by sin.

Dr. Voight: Depravity is that we are moving away from God, are we still moving away from God after we are redeemed?

Yarnell: Our sin nature is dead, but there is a struggle. It’s like a chicken running around with its head cut off. This means that there is a battle, which is sanctification.

Michael Smith from Rome, GA: Dr. Patterson referenced Ephesians 2, which talks about spiritual death, but then he transitioned to physical examples; can we differentiate between spiritual and physical death?

Yarnell: We should be shooting for a Monist position- I find it difficult to separate our spirit from our body, and to talk about the spirit being dead within a live spiritual body. Adam and Eve did immediately die spiritually, and their bodies died later. I don’t think that in Ephesians 2 when Paul talked about people being spiritually dead and yet doing things, he was trying to explain a distinction between the spirit and the body… If we believe that a human being is inactive in his sinful state, then we do not have to talk about his will, the will does not exist. Dr. Patterson and I do not believe that Scripture talks about people in this way.

Panelist #2:
[Did not catch name]: If a person believes that they’re saved by Jesus, but believes that there might be other paths to heaven, could that person be saved?

Land: I don’t know what that has to do with election, but I’ll try to answer it. We have in our minds, even as saved people, departmentalized attitude structures. The idea that there may be salvation apart from Christ is a very serious departure from Scripture, but my default position is Romans 10:9, and if someone has confessed Jesus as Lord and believes in their heart concerning the resurrection- and we do need to talk about what these things mean- I believe that they are saved even if wrong on other important issues.

Jason Sturkey (sp?) pastor from South Carolina: Romans 9 speaks of vessels of wrath and nations are comprised of individuals, how can you say that no-one is
Land: Eternal salvation is not in play in Romans 9-11. Objections of the Jews are anticipated, and nations are in view. What has helped me is the distinction between Abrahamic election, which is a corporate election to covenant people status, rather than salvific election.

David Hagan, a non-Calvinist from Rehobath Baptist Church: Are we saved by faith?
Land: We are not saved by our faith, [I hate to admit that I missed the rest of this response- Andrew].

Panelist #3:
[Did not catch name] from Oakwood Baptist Church: Can we say that Christ did not die for Hitler?
Allen: Christ died for all, including Adolf Hitler. Christ’s death is extrensically (sp?) sufficient for the sins of the whole world. The Limited atonement position is that there is nothing salvific in Christ’s death for the non-elect.

Brian Jolly, layman from Baptist church in Gainesville, GA: Could you give a brief response to the double payment argument?
Allen: Neither Calvin nor Scripture uses the double payment argument. The double payment argument fails to differentiate between commercial payment and penal debt (Dabney, A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge and others note this). In a commercial debt, such is a payment at a restaurant, accepting double-payment is unjust. In a legal debt a moral element is involved. Say there were six men in prison and a king says, ‘My son will pay your debt, and you will be released on the condition that you join the army.’ The son pays the penal debt, but there may be some unwilling to join the army, and the king is not unjust for not releasing those prisoners. Many other Calvinists
[Keathley added that this objection is legal and not Scriptural and that the objection has been answered by the Supreme Court in a case where President Andrew Jackson pardoned a man sentenced for death, but this man refused the pardon, and the Court ruled that a pardon refused is no pardon at all.]

Thomas Dickerson from Atlanta, a former PCA memeber and former Reformed Baptist who feels that there was no power in his experience in Reformed circles, and that he was not saved when he was Reformed: What will the Southern Baptist Convention do about Calvinism?
Allen: The Southern Baptist Convention by virtue of our ecclesiology cannot dictate from the top down what to do about Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. What we can do is what we’re doing here and what Building Bridges did, which was a good thing. It would be a mistake for the SBC to tell all Calvinists to “get out of dodge,” it would also be wrong to have Calvinism as a Convention cause. The last thing that we need is for the Convention to become a Calvinist Convention, or to get rid of all Calvinists. This issue is not going away

Panelist #4
Al Andrews, layman from Macon, GA: What are your thoughts about a church staff with both Calvinists and non-Calvinists where there is tension?
Lemke: We probably need to do a lot better job in viewing potential staff members to make sure they are a good fit for our congregation. One thing that some have experienced is where someone is dishonest in direct questions about there beliefs. We need to be more careful

Panelist #5:
Todd Burroughs, a “Calvinist”: A comment and a question: a) I do not think that it has been clearly stated that Calvinists do not believe in determinism. b) How do we know that we believe?
Keathley: a) Read Jonathan Edwards, Bruce Ware, Frame and others- Calvinists do teach determinism. b) I know when I put my faith in this chair. Faith is something very basic and simple. I do believe that faith is a gift.
Burroughs: Why don’t you have confidence in a person who joins a church and then does not live like a Christian for 40 years before he dies?
Keathley: There is a volitional aspect to trust, that’s why I said “trust” and not simply believe. James does warn us about faith as a mere mental assent, but works in James are not the basis of assurance, they are from an assured faith.

Final question:
Mike Chambers, pastor from North Carolina: At what point are we not iron sharpening iron, but caught in the mire that keeps us from evangelism?

Yarnell: I want you to notice how Dr. Vines structures this Conference. We had five of the finest Southern Baptist theologians; we started and ended with gospel preachers. We need to focus on preaching the Word.

Dr. Emir Caner was announced.

Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey

Dr. Vines announced that he asked Dr. Stanley to share how he has proclaimed the gospel throughout the world through In Touch Ministries.

Dr. Charles Stanley:

“I’m just called to do one thing, and that’s to preach the gospel as far and as wide as God lets me.”

The church has one mission. Great Commission texts quoted from the gospels and Acts.

In many preaching magazines the emphasis is “making great leaders” rather than prayer and the Holy Spirit.

It is our job to preach the gospel, and God will grow the church as He wishes.

[Dr. Stanley related his personal testimony of being saved as a young child.]

“The message that the world is looking for is a message of assurance that our God is a God of love.”

Example of a letter from a woman in Iran who sent a letter requesting information about our God in love, rather than her God who terrified her.

The world needs Jesus.

We have a war coming a worldwide enemy in Islam, there are 80 thousand Muslims in Atlanta alone, and they hate the message that salvation is in Jesus alone.

The world is listening and the world is watching ministries in America.

[Dr. Stanley spoke of a time when God spoke to his spirit through the text of the Great Commission, which led him to a vision of taking the gospel to the world using means such as short-wave radio.]

[Dr. Stanley related the history of In Touch Ministries. This story was fascinating, but the narrative did not lend itself to taking many notes. The In Touch story can be found HERE.]

A few things that were said:
“There’s no way to lose obeying God… whatever God tells you to do, just do it, and then trust Him.”
“Today, as of yesterday’s figures, one billion four hundred million people” around the world can watch In Touch on television. “God did that.” Dr. Stanley related several remarkable ways that God gave access and funding for In Touch to be broadcast around the world.
“I’m always looking for another way to get the gospel to somebody.”
This is the first generation that has the capacity to reach everybody on the face of this earth with the gospel.
“All these theological things we’ve heard of are a vital part of our belief system and God equips us with these things not to keep, but to share.”
God wants us “with a sense of righteous inadequacy” so He can do through us things we never dreamed of.
“One of my favorite phrases is ‘obey God, watch Him work,’ because He’s going to.”
“God doesn’t give us beliefs to be happy with, he gives us beliefs to serve Him.”

Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey

Prayer by Phil Roberts.

Dr. Ken Keathley:

2 Timothy 1:12.

2 components of assurance:
1. Certainty that one is saved.
2. Certainty that one in a state of grace will remain in this state.

What is the basis of assurance?
3 components:
1. Present certainty
a. Denied by Council of Trent, Canon 15, which says present certainty only comes through special revelation. (John Calvin pointed to the Bible as special revelation granting assurance.)
b. The Reformers taught that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. All who come to faith have assurance in the moment of their salvation, even if there are subsequent doubts.
c. However, certain doctrines of the Reformers undermine this assurance
i. The distinction between the revealed and hidden will in God.
ii. The doctrine of Limited atonement.
iii. The doctrine of temporary faith given to the non-elect.
d. The Puritans believed that assurance was logically deduced:
i. Whether the Puritans followed or deviated from Calvin is debatable
ii. The Puritans based assurance on sanctification
iii. The Puritans had great anxiety concerning their assurance
iv. The Puritans had a strong doctrine of temporary faith
- Conference-goers were shown on PowerPoint William Perkins’ detailed chart from The Golden Chain, in which the reprobate are given false faith, only discernible from genuine faith after life.
-Perkins almost drove his congregants “nuts”- to the point of near-suicide- with questioning their own salvation; Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners is a miserable book, with Bunyan struggling for years on the question of his salvation.

The use of logical syllogisms:
1. The practical syllogism: If effectual grace is manifested in me, then I am one of the elect.
2. The mystical syllogism: If I experience inward confirmation in the spirit, then I am saved.

The Puritans based assurance on sanctification, rather than on justification.

Augustine and the Arminians taught that apostasy is possible; one may be saved and later lost.

Karl Barth taught that apostasy is impossible through an implicit universalism.

Calvinist and Dispensationalist view is once saved, always saved:
1. Grace Evangelical Society
a. Ignores or explains away warning passages
b. Encourages laxity in Christian commitment
c. Gives false comfort to false believers
2. Demarest teaches that good works are a test of genuineness
a. Example of Peter and Judas
b. Warning passages given to discern between true and false believers

Mediating views: Apostacy is genuinely threatened but not possible.
Dr. Tom Schreiner and A.B. Canneday teach that perseverance is the means by which we are saved. These warnings do not merely threaten believers with loss of rewards, but threaten Hell. The warning passages, however, only speak of conceivable, but not actual consequences. The threats of damnation produce assurance and confidence: they are signposts along the way as the believer runs the marathon of faith. Schreiner and Canneday say that perseverance is the basis of justification.
Critique of this view:
1. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, was Paul concerned he may go to Hell? (If so, this does undermine our assurance.)
2. Just how conceivable is the believer’s apostasy?
3. In their model, what happens to those who don’t persevere?
4. Are they not setting up the same problem that the Puritans dealt with?
5. How is this view not works-based salvation?
Quote from Schreiner:
“Yes, works are necessary to be saved. No this is not works righteousness, for the works are hardly meritorious.”
This is not close to Trent, this is Trent.

A modest proposal:
1. The only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ.
a. Any model that begins with Christ but ends with man is doomed to failure.
b. Christ and Him alone is the basis for assurance.
2. Assurance is the essence of saving faith.
a. Works provide warrant, but not a basis for assurance. Works are the buttress, but Christ and His work are the foundation.
c. Assurance is analogous to how a Christian knows that God loves him even in times of suffering; the Christian may not feel loved, but the Bible reveals that God does love.
3. Saving faith perseveres or remains until the day when it gives way to sight.
a. Perseverance should be viewed more as a promise than a requirement
b. Faith necessarily leads to good works
c. Indifference concerning godliness is more of a “red flag” than weakness in godliness
d. The indwelling Holy Spirit assures that there is no such thing as a happy backslider
4. There are rewards to gain or lose subsequent to faith
5. Assurance comes from Christ alone.

Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey

Mark Lamprecht is also live-blogging this Conference, and is catching some statements that I miss. Read his posts HERE.