Yes Single


[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are resuming our study of biblical theology today by continuing to examine the nature of true saving faith. In our last session, Dr. Spencer argued that Christianity is not a self-help program and, in fact, is not primarily focused on improving this life, but instead places its emphasis squarely on eternity—the life to come. He then explained the double imputation, wherein our sins are imputed to Christ and his perfect righteousness is imputed to us. And we then briefly discussed the doctrine of union with Christ.

Dr. Spencer, you finished last session by arguing that a true Christian, that is, someone who is united by faith to Jesus Christ, will live an obedient life. What else should we know about living in union with Christ?

Dr. Spencer: The most important thing we need is a proper understanding of the relationship. The modern church loves to talk about Jesus as my friend, or my big brother, or my helper, or my guide, or my example; all of which are true in some measure. But the one thing the modern church avoids like the plague is the most important thing that must be said about my relationship with Jesus Christ; he is my Lord!

Marc Roby: Many modern Christians have been raised with the idea that I can have Jesus as my Savior, but that submitting to him as Lord is an optional step.

Dr. Spencer: I am well aware of that idea, but it could not possibly be more contrary to what the Bible teaches. As we saw last time with the story about the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, the Bible does say that if we believe in Jesus Christ we will be saved. But, as I endeavored to show last time, you have to flesh out what it means to “believe in Jesus.” You must believe in the true Jesus, not some counterfeit. And the true Jesus is the sovereign Lord of the universe, whether we acknowledge that fact or not. And this is a critical point, our confessing Jesus as Lord does not affect reality one way or the other, he is Lord. So, if you look at Romans 10:9 for example, you get a slightly fuller picture of what it means to believe in Jesus. That verse says, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”[1]

Marc Roby: I find it interesting that this verse doesn’t just say you must believe in the resurrection, it says you must “believe in your heart”.

Dr. Spencer: I think that is an important point. Now when Paul talks about our heart, he doesn’t mean our emotions or something that is somehow opposed to our intellect. Nor does he mean mere intellectual assent to some Bible truths. In the Bible, the word ‘heart’ refers to the totality of the person, that which constitutes the very core of our being. Our heart includes our mind, our will, and our affections. And saving faith, that faith which unites us to Jesus Christ, is only found in a heart that God has made good by the miracle of regeneration. Such a person is the one whom Paul is talking about when he says, “believe in your heart.” And such a faith will produce a changed life.

But, I want to focus on the first part of Paul’s statement. He said “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ … you will be saved.” This gives us a bit more information than we are given in the account of the Philippian jailer.

Marc Roby: Although I’m confident that the Philippian jailer was also told about the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Spencer: Oh, I’m quite certain that you’re right. In fact, going back to Acts 16 for just a moment, right after the jailer was told to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, we read, in verse 32, “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.” We should ask ourselves, what was this “word of the Lord” that Paul and Silas spoke? I’m sure it included that fact that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all and that he demands obedience. Look at the great commission in Matthew 28. In verses 18-20 Christ told his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” So I’m confident this was part of the word of the Lord that was spoken to the jailer’s household.

Marc Roby: Alright, we don’t call other people lord in America, and although the title is still used in England, I think it would good to explain what it means for Jesus to be called Lord.

Dr. Spencer: Let’s go back to Romans 10:9 – where we are told “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ … you will be saved”. The Greek word translated as Lord in that sentence is κύριος (kurios). This word has different meanings. It can, for example, be translated as “sir” or “master” as it is many times in the New Testament. In that sense it is simply a title of honor. But it can also mean far, far more! The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was in use at the time of Jesus, uses the word κύριος to translate the Hebrew name for God, usually pronounced Jehovah, or Yahweh. And there are several places in the New Testament when an Old Testament reference to Jehovah is clearly applied to Jesus Christ.

For example, in the passage we are looking at in Romans Chapter 10, a few verses after being told “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ … you will be saved” we read, in verse 13, that “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” This is a quote from the Old Testament prophet Joel, and if you look at Joel 2:32 you will see that the word Lord is in all capital letters, which means it is the Hebrew word Jehovah as we noted in Session 6. So, this passage in Romans tells us that Jesus Christ is God, he is Lord in the sense of being the Sovereign Lord of all creation.

Marc Roby: And, of course, Romans 10:13 is not the only New Testament reference to equate Jesus Christ with the Old Testament Jehovah. We could also cite Hebrews 1:10, 1 Peter 2:3 and 3:15.

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. We could go on and make a much more lengthy argument to prove that Jesus Christ is God, and we will do that in a later podcast, but right now I want to go back to consider what it means for him to be Lord. And the point I am making is that we need to take the word Lord in the highest possible sense when we use it to refer to Christ.

Marc Roby: It makes me think of the passage in Philippians 2:8-11 where we read, “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Dr. Spencer: Amen. And every knee certainly will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. We can either confess now and be saved, or we can confess later and be damned, but everyone will confess.

Marc Roby: And all of this will redound to the glory of God the Father.

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely. We could also cite Hebrews 1:1-3 where we are told that, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” We see that the universe was made through Jesus Christ and that he sustains it. He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”. In other words, he is God. When the people saw the man Jesus Christ, they were seeing the exact representation of God in human form.

John says the same thing in John 1:18 where we read, “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” Notice that “God the One and Only” is “at the Father’s side”! This is a clear statement that both Jesus and the Father are God, two persons of the Holy Trinity.

Marc Roby: So, when we declare “Jesus is Lord”, we are simply acknowledging the fact that he is God, the Creator and Sustainer of everything.

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely. And he will be the Judge of everything as well. He came the first time to bring salvation, but we are told in Acts 10:42 that he is also the one who will judge both the living and the dead. Therefore, when we say “Jesus is Lord”, there should be some trembling. I’m afraid the modern church has lost its fear of God, which is to say that it has lost true Christianity. We are told in Proverbs 9:10 that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”, and in Romans Chapter 3, where Paul gives a terrible list of the sins of men, he ends by saying, in verse 18, “There is no fear of God before their eyes”, which is a summary statement that explains all of the sins and is, itself, a horrible sin. It is unbelief.

Right after Moses gave the people the Ten Commandments, they were terrified because of the thunder and lightning and smoke on Mt. Sinai, and Moses said to them, in Exodus 20:20, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

Marc Roby: Fear can be a good thing!

Dr. Spencer: Fear is often a very good thing. Fear of physical harm keeps us from many stupid mistakes in this world, but most importantly, the fear of God will keep us from sinning. As has been said many times, we would live differently if God were visibly standing next to us all of the time.

Marc Roby: And yet, we need to remember that God is with us at all times.

Dr. Spencer: Yes he is, and it is a very good thing to keep in mind. But this all comes back to realizing that he is Lord. I am but a sinful creature, he is my creator. As we said back in Session 2, the Creator/creature distinction is central to the message of the Bible. And yet, this idea of coming into the presence of a holy, omnipotent, omniscient, absolutely just God is completely absent from most modern churches.

When I travel and visit other churches, I’m careful to look online and try to find a church that appears to be faithful to the Bible, but I am often appalled at the casual manner of most of the people who come to church. They don’t act or dress any differently than they might to go out to Starbucks for a cup of coffee on Saturday morning. And yet, here they are supposedly coming into the presence of God Almighty to worship him.

Marc Roby: I’ve had the same sad experience. I’m sure they would dress and act differently if they were going to see some important person here on earth.

Dr. Spencer: I’m sure they would.

Marc Roby: So, we’ve made the point that true Christians must understand that their confession includes the statement “Jesus is Lord”, and they must know how serious that is.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, that is a critical point. It isn’t just that we believe in him as a good moral teacher or example of self-sacrifice, it must be that we come to him as our Lord. And that means that we are his blood-bought slaves.

Marc Roby: Slave is a term loaded with all sorts of negative connotations.

Dr. Spencer: And for good reason given human history. But, it is a term that the Bible uses unashamedly. Paul begins the book of Romans by introducing himself, saying, in the Greek, “Παῦλος, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ” (Paulos, doulos Christou Iasou), which means, Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus. And that same expression is used elsewhere as well.

In fact, Paul argues quite forcefully, and quite clearly, in Romans 6 and elsewhere that everyone is a slave. The only question is, who is your master? In Romans 6:16 he wrote, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?”

Marc Roby: I’m quite confident that many, if not most, of our listeners will object that they are not slaves to anyone or anything.

Dr. Spencer: I’m sure that you’re right. But, what does it mean to be a slave? It means that you have no freedom, you are bound to someone or something as your master. And if someone is outside of Jesus Christ, meaning simply that he has not been born again and has not confessed Jesus as Lord, that person has a sinful nature handed down to him. And we are all slaves to our nature. We cannot choose to do that which we do not in any sense want to do.

We will discuss human free will in a later podcast, but it is important to note that we do not have absolute freedom. There is the obvious fact that we are not free to do things we are not physically capable of, but it is equally true that we are not free – unless we are forced – to choose things that are completely inconsistent with our nature. As a rather silly example, I would never choose a cup of coffee, because I hate coffee. And a sinner hates God, so he will never choose to obey God, which means that everything he does is sin. Even when an external action is in agreement with God’s law, an unbeliever’s motive is wrong and so it is still sin. There is a Latin phrase that theologians use for this condition, it is non posse non peccare, which means not able to not sin. That is the condition of anyone who have not confessed Jesus Christ as Lord, and who is, in other words, outside of Christ. He can only sin, and it is in that sense that we can say he is a slave to sin.

Marc Roby: I dare say that most people have a hard time swallowing that idea.

Dr. Spencer: I know I had a hard time, so I’m sure you’re right. But, part of the problem is our definition of sin. We tend to look at gross external sins against other people; for example, murder, or rape, or stealing, or something along those lines. And most of us can say that we’ve never done these things, so we tend not to think of ourselves as sinners. But, as we said in Session 10, sin is properly defined by Question 14 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism as “any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.” And his law requires, as just one perfectly sufficient example, that I love the Lord God with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength (Dt 6:5, Mrk 12:30, Lk 10:27). So we all stand condemned of not having kept God’s law.

Marc Roby: Alright, but what about a Christian? We still sin, and I don’t think any of us can say that we keep God’s law perfectly at any time – especially when I consider the command you just mentioned to love God with my whole being. So, in what sense can we be considered to be slaves to righteousness as Paul calls us in Romans 6?

Dr. Spencer: I certainly agree that none of us keep God’s law perfectly. He has not chosen to remove sin from us, so we still struggle with the sinful nature. There is a battle going on inside every Christian. There is a desire, and an ability, to obey God; but there is also a sinful nature still resident that wars against us. So, we are slaves of Christ, but we are not yet perfected. God has begun a good work in us, and we can be confident, as Paul writes in Philippians 1:6, that God will complete that work. But, in the meantime, we struggle. There is a Latin phrase for our condition too, it is posse non peccare, meaning simply that it is possible to not sin, and there is another Latin phrase that describes this internal conflict, we are simul justus et peccator, which means simultaneously just and sinner. We are just in God’s sight because we are united to Christ by faith, but we still have a sinful nature within us.

Faith is called by the reformers the instrumental cause of our justification, which is one of the five causes Aristotle listed for any effect. The instrumental cause is the means, or instrument, through which an effect is brought about. The example is often used of a statue, in which case the chisel is the instrumental cause.

So, to answer your question, I think there are two ways in which we can be considered to be righteous. First, and most importantly, we are perfectly righteous in union with Jesus Christ, his righteousness has been imputed to us. But, secondarily, there is also an imperfect, but improving, practical righteousness of our own.

Marc Roby: Alright, I think I can summarize what we’ve said so far by saying that a true Christian acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord both with his mouth, and albeit imperfectly, with his life.

Dr. Spencer: Well said. And, as I said, that is the most important point in living out our lives in union with Christ. He is our Lord. But, there is more, because we are also given the ability to obey. I argued a few minutes ago that an unbeliever is not able to obey God, which is true. But the ability to obey is itself a gift, it isn’t something that we conjure up, it is the result of our being born again and of God’s grace working in our lives.

Marc Roby: Well, that should serve as a good teaser for our next session, because we are out of time for today.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

Play
Yes Single


[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are resuming our study of biblical theology today by continuing to examine the nature of true saving faith. Last time, Dr. Spencer, you made the point that simply saying “I believe in Jesus Christ” is not enough to be saved, we must see our sinful condition and our need for a Savior, and we must believe in the one true Savior, Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the Bible. At the end, you held out that there is even more to be said; what did you have in mind?

Dr. Spencer: I had a number of things in mind, but the first one is that Christianity is not a self-help program, nor is it just a bit of moral reformation. I fear that far too often nowadays that is all people think it is.

Marc Roby: I’ve heard that view as well.

Dr. Spencer: And in the churches that peddle this brand of false Christianity, Jesus is seen as nothing more than a good moral teacher and his sacrifice on the cross, if it is believed at all, is simply seen as an example of personal sacrifice.

So, the first thing I want to make clear is that true Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with this kind of nonsense. The Jesus Christ who is presented in the Bible, and the Jesus Christ who is the Savior of the world, is truly God and truly man, and he gave his life as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of those who will place their trust in him. Christians are, of course, to live differently than unbelievers, but it isn’t just a little bit of moral renovation, it is a deep-seated work of total transformation that continues throughout all of life.

Marc Roby: And, in fact, we don’t primarily work for any kind of reward in this life, do we?

Dr. Spencer: You’re right. As Christians, our ultimate hope is not for anything in this life. No, we are looking forward to what comes after this life! As Paul wrote in Philippians 3:13-14, “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”[1] And, in 2 Timothy 4:7-8, he wrote about his own upcoming death to his young protégé Timothy and said, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.”

Marc Roby: Paul was clearly looking forward to something wonderful when this life is over.

Dr. Spencer: Yes he was. That is why, in Philippians 1:21 and 23 he wrote that “to die is gain” and that to die is to “be with Christ, which is better by far”. The apostle Peter also wrote about this great hope. In 2 Peter 3:13 we read that “in keeping with [God’s] promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.”

Marc Roby: And of course, we have the glorious picture of this new heaven and new earth in Revelation 21where we are told that “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” and that “God himself will be with [us] and be [our] God.”

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. What a glorious picture it paints of our eternal destiny. So, my main point again is that a false Christianity that is focused on this life, as most modern churches are, is a horribly distorted imitation of the real thing. Therefore, our purpose is not to live better so that this life is better, our purpose is to do the will of God for his glory and to be transformed more and more into the image of Christ himself and to look forward to our ultimate home, which is in heaven with God. We should be able to join with the psalmist in Psalm 73, verses 24-25, when he wrote, “You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.”

So, a little bit of moral reformation is not what we are talking about. Christ told his disciples in Matthew 6:19-20, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.” Our main focus is to be on living this life to prepare for what happens after we die.

Marc Roby: All right, what else did you have in mind with regard to the nature of true saving faith?

Dr. Spencer: The second thing I had in mind is a doctrine sometimes called the double imputation, which we briefly introduced near the end of Session 3.

Marc Roby: Now, according to my dictionary, to impute something to me is to say that I now possess it, or that I am guilty of that something, whatever it might be. So, please explain the “double imputation” to which you are referring

Dr. Spencer: I’m referring to the fact that when we truly repent and trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation, our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us. This is also called the double transaction. It is like a financial transaction, my sins are placed in Jesus’ account and his perfect righteousness is placed in mine.

Marc Roby: That’s a very unequal transaction to say the least!

Dr. Spencer: It certainly is. It is the most amazing display of God’s grace and love imaginable. Jesus Christ willingly takes all of my sins, past and future. He takes the whole ugly, smelly lot upon himself and bears the penalty that I deserve to pay, the wrath of God and death itself. And, in addition, he then gives to me his perfect righteousness.

Marc Roby: And, of course, he had to become man in order to die, since God cannot die. But he also had to live a perfect, sinless life in obedience to the will of God the Father.

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely. He had to live a perfect life as a man in order to have this perfect righteousness to give.

In addition, since it was man who sinned against God, a man had to atone for that sin. But no mere mortal is able to atone for his own sin, let alone the sin of someone else. As it says in Psalm 49, verses 7 through 9, “No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough”.

Marc Roby: That verse puts the lie to the commonly held belief that in the Day of Judgment God will put my good deeds and bad deeds on a balance and see which are greater.

Dr. Spencer: It certainly does. And, as I briefly mentioned near the end of Session  2, we have no good deeds anyway. Everything we do is tainted by sin. God is perfect and he demands perfection. Which means that not only must my external actions be perfect, but so must my motives and desires be perfect. And nothing I ever do in this life satisfies that standard.

Marc Roby: But, as you said, Jesus Christ did satisfy that standard.

Dr. Spencer: Yes he did, and he is the only one who ever has. He himself said in John 8:29 that he always did was pleased the Father. But, his perfect obedience is not the only reason we need Jesus as our Savior. We also need the infinite value of his atoning sacrifice.

Marc Roby: Why is that?

Dr. Spencer: Because, as Jonathan Edwards correctly argued in his famous sermon “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners”,[2] the heinousness of our sins is proportional to the dignity of the one against whom we sin. We see this principle at work in the laws of our country. For example, it is a more serious crime if you murder the president than it is if you murder me. And so, Edwards argues, since God is infinite in his greatness, majesty and glory, he is infinitely honorable and sin against him deserves infinite punishment. And since sin is the transgression of God’s law, all sin is, first and foremost, against God.

Marc Roby: And, of course, no mere man can pay an infinite price, except by being punished infinitely long; hence the fact that hell is eternal.

Dr. Spencer: Right. But, because Jesus Christ is infinite God incarnate, his sacrifice has infinite worth. He fully paid the infinite penalty for sin by bearing the wrath of God for a finite period of time—those horrible hours on the cross when he cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” In addition, the Father has agreed to accept his sacrifice on behalf of those who will place their trust in him.

Marc Roby: Very well, that covers the first half of the double transaction, it explains why we need Christ’s atoning sacrifice. But we still need to explain the second half of the transaction, in other words, why we need his perfect righteousness.

Dr. Spencer: We need his perfect righteousness because we are told in Matthew 5:48 to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We need nothing less than a perfect righteousness to come into God’s holy presence. So, in the double transaction, Jesus takes away the guilt of my sins by his atoning sacrifice, and he grants to me his perfect righteousness.

Marc Roby: That is an amazing thought. And this is not a new idea in the New Testament, we also see this transaction spoken of in the Old Testament, don’t we?

Dr. Spencer: We certainly do. In Zechariah Chapter 3 we see a wonderful portrayal of this transaction, using the example of Joshua, who was the high priest at the time the Jews were rebuilding the temple after the Babylonian captivity. And he is used not just as an example, but also as the representative for the people. In verses 1 through 5 the prophet tells us of a vision he was given by an angel, and he says; “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?’ Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Take off his filthy clothes.’ Then he said to Joshua, ‘See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.’ Then I said, ‘Put a clean turban on his head.’ So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the LORD stood by.”

Marc Roby: That is a beautiful picture of God’s grace.

Dr. Spencer: It certainly is. The scene, of course, is a courtroom in heaven, and Satan is the prosecuting attorney. The idea here is that if the high priest Joshua is a sinner – represented by his filthy clothes, what hope is there for the people? How can a sinful high priest offer sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people? He himself needs a sacrifice. And notice that no one denies that Joshua is sinful. Even though Satan is the father of lies, he does not have to lie to accuse us, he can tell the truth. But the angel of the LORD, who many would say is Jesus Christ himself, tells them to take off Joshua’s filthy clothes and to put clean, rich, garments on him instead. This represents salvation; it is the gospel. We need to have the perfect righteousness of Christ to be able to come into heaven, and we are granted that perfect righteousness in the double transaction.

Marc Roby: I remember in Session 3 you noted that Paul wrote about this in 2 Corinthians 5:21. We read, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Dr. Spencer: I quoted that verse because it is the very best one I know of for supporting this doctrine. And the wording in that verse is important, it says “in him” we become the righteousness of God. Throughout the New Testament it speaks of Christians as being “in Christ”, in fact that construction is used 89 times in the Bible we are using.

Marc Roby: And, of course, this expression is sort of a shorthand way of speaking about our union with Christ.

Dr. Spencer: Yes. And our union with Christ is what the theologian John Murray has called “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.”[3] All that can be said of a Christian is true only because we are united to Christ by faith.

Marc Roby: I’m sure we will have to spend more time in a later session, or two, talking about union with Christ, but let’s get back to the topic at hand and see how this applies to our preliminary discussion of the nature of true saving faith.

Dr. Spencer: Alright, well union with Christ is fundamental to our discussion. You are certainly correct that we will come back at a later date and spend more time on the topic, but now I want to point out three things. First, it is in union with Christ that he takes our sins upon himself and pays the penalty we owe. Second, it is in union with Christ that we receive his perfect righteousness, which we need to enter heaven. And, third, it is in union with Christ that we live in this life.

Marc Roby: OK. We’ve covered those first two points in terms of the double transaction, how is the third one important in a basic discussion on the nature of true, saving faith?

Dr. Spencer: Oh, it’s critically important because it speaks to how a Christian should live. We are united to Christ by faith, and so it is proper to say that we are saved by faith alone. But, that union involves a radical change in our being, which occurs when we are born again, and which always results in a life of obedience. We discussed this topic at some length in Session 3, but it is critically important to bring this up again in the context of true, saving faith, because most modern churches are antinomian, at least to some degree.

Marc Roby: And that word antinomian means against the law.

Dr. Spencer: Right. I encourage our listeners to go back and listen to Session 3 if they don’t remember it or haven’t heard it, but the idea that a Christian is not bound by God’s law is not biblical. The law of God is our guide to living a life of grateful obedience to God for saving us. Our law-keeping is not the basis of our salvation, but it is the evidence that we have, in fact, been saved.

I won’t go back over the same Scriptures I adduced in Session 3, but I have time to give just one more today that makes the same point. In Hebrews 5:8-9 we read about Jesus and are told that “Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him”. Notice the limiting clause in this statement; he became the source of eternal salvation not for everyone, and not for those who simply claim to believe in him, but for all who obey him!

Marc Roby: This is clearly an important topic, and I look forward to continuing our discussion next time, but we are out of time for today.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[2] “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, 2005, pg. 669

[3] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955, pg. 170

Play
Yes Single


[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are resuming our study of theology by examining a new topic today—the nature of true saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Dr. Spencer, our listeners might be surprised by the fact that we are not continuing our examination of extra-biblical evidence to corroborate the Bible, why are we stopping that series?

Dr. Spencer: We aren’t stopping, only pausing for a bit. I want to shift gears for a short time to restore some balance. I do want to present a reasonable summary of the evidence to corroborate the Bible, and the engineer in me would like to complete that topic before moving on, but we have already done five podcasts in a row on it and there is a danger of over-emphasizing its importance.

Marc Roby: But, of course, it is important.

Dr. Spencer: Oh, of course it is, and we will return it. But, evidence that supports the Christian faith can be over-emphasized. Christians can get caught up in presenting evidence and neglect the heart of the gospel. As I noted in Session 1, this kind of evidence has, I think, two uses: first, it bolsters the faith of believers, and second, it challenges unbelievers by showing them flaws in their own worldview, which helps them see that they are, as the apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1 verse 20, suppressing the truth they know, which is that God exists and created this universe, including you, me and everyone else.

Marc Roby: Very well, so you want to discuss the nature of true saving faith today. I suspect a lot of people, who identify as Christians, would say that it is very simple; believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. What needs to be added to that?

Dr. Spencer: A great deal needs to be added to that statement. That statement, of course, is a quotation from the answer the apostle Paul gave to the Philippian jailer in Acts, Chapter 16. But, we need to look at that account in context to know how to understand it. True, saving faith has content, and that content matters very much. If someone says that he has put his faith in Jesus Christ, he may be saved, but he also may not be. There are many different so-called gospels out there, and many different ideas of who Jesus Christ is.

Marc Roby: And, of course, this is not a new phenomenon. The apostle Paul had to deal with this in his letter to the church in Galatia, didn’t he?

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely, In Galatians 1:6-7 he wrote that “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all.”[1] Remember that the word gospel simply means good news, and the good news is that God has provided us with a way of being redeemed from our sin. A way of having the guilt of our sin done away with, the punishment due to us for our sins taken away, and even of having the pollution and presence of sin removed.

But, as Paul wrote, not every message that claims to be the gospel is true; some of them are “no gospel at all”, they are not good news, but very bad news. In fact, they can damn people to eternal hell. In Matthew 7:21-23 we read what I think are the most terrifying words our Lord ever spoke. He said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Marc Roby: That is a frightening passage.

Dr. Spencer: And it’s meant to be. These people thought they were Christians, and not just run-of-the-mill ordinary Christians, they had driven out demons and performed miracles. And yet, Christ tells them to go away. And you have to stop and ask yourself, “go where?” The answer is, to hell. Christ was telling them that their so-called faith was useless, that he would not own them as his, and that they were going to eternal hell.

Marc Roby: But, many people who call themselves Christian today do not believe in an eternal hell.

Dr. Spencer: I know that’s true, and I don’t like the idea any more than anyone else does; although I can intellectually see the need for hell. But, whether we like it or not, the Bible clearly teaches there is an eternal hell. Jesus Christ himself spoke about hell more than anyone else.

In Matthew 25 Jesus tells us about the final judgment and, in verse 41 he says that the king, who is Jesus himself, “will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” And, just in case people think this isn’t really speaking about eternal punishment, look at verse 46, where Christ speaks about those who are not saved and says, “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” The Greek word translated as eternal in that verse is the same in both places. So, if the punishment is not eternal, then neither is the eternal life referred to, which is heaven. We can deal with the doctrine of hell at greater length in the future, but for now I’d like to return to discussing the true gospel.

Marc Roby: Alright, you have so far made the point that there are different gospels, and that false gospels cannot save. So, what is the true gospel?

Dr. Spencer: The true gospel is the one presented to us in the Bible. So, anyone who takes exception to anything I say here can look in the Bible and see whether or not what I say is consistent with the Bible. But, I must warn people to not be deceived! You have to be careful how you read the Bible. For example, people are tempted to look at 1 John 4:8, which tells us that “God is love”, and then declare that a loving God would not send anyone to hell and think that they have settled the matter.

Marc Roby: I’ve definitely heard that view expressed.

Dr. Spencer: So have I. But, there is a serious problem with the view. It is taking one three-word phrase out of context, importing a non-biblical definition of the word “love” into it, and then making it into an absolute statement that is used to overrule the rest of the Word of God completely, so that wherever the Word of God opposes this wrong idea of love, the Word of God is ignored.

Marc Roby: OK, you’ve made the point that we need to interpret the Word of God carefully. Now let’s get back to the question at hand, “what is the nature of true, saving faith?”

Dr. Spencer: Let’s go back to the Philippian jailer to find the answer to this question. In Acts Chapter 16 we are told that a crowd of people in Philippi were opposed to the gospel message and made false charges against Paul and Silas. As a result, they were severely beaten and put into stocks in the prison. Let me read a passage from Acts about what happened next.

Starting in verse 25 of Chapter 16 we read, “About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted, ‘Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!’ The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’”

Marc Roby: That is an amazing story. It also shows how different the times were; the jailer knew that if all the prisoners had escaped on his watch, he would be killed. It didn’t make any difference how it happened. So, he was ready to kill himself to avoid a more unpleasant death.

Dr. Spencer: It is an amazing story, but it is also true. And I want to draw our attention to a few things. First, it is obvious that the Philippian jailer had heard about Paul and Silas, and knew something of the message they had been preaching, otherwise it makes no sense for him to fall trembling at their feet and ask, “What must I do to be saved?” The question implies that he had heard there was a judgment coming, and that he knew he was a sinner and needed to be saved. And, because the prisoners were all still present, in spite of having been miraculously freed by the earthquake, he realized that the message Paul and Silas were preaching was, in fact, true. Perhaps some of the prisoners were converted that night also, but, whatever the case, they were so fascinated by Paul and Silas that they did not take the opportunity to escape. Therefore, the jailer had every good reason to believe that Paul and Silas could tell him what he needed to do. His actions clearly indicate that he knew he had something to fear and that he wanted to be saved.

Marc Roby: So, when the context is considered, the message spoken to this jailer was not quite as simple as just “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved”.

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. A.W. Pink wrote about the need to be careful in our understanding of this passage in terms of evangelism, he wrote, “It was no giddy, careless, unconcerned person, who was exhorted to ‘simply’ believe; but instead, one who gave clear evidence that a mighty work of God had already been wrought within him. He was an awakened soul. In his case there was no need to press upon him his lost condition, for obviously he felt it; nor were the apostles required to urge upon him the duty of repentance, for his entire demeanor betokened his contrition. But to apply the words spoken to him unto those who are totally blind to their depraved state and completely dead toward God, would be more foolish than placing a bottle of smelling-salts to the nose of one who had just been dragged unconscious out of the water.”[2]

Marc Roby: Now that’s a vivid image of futility, to try and use smelling salts to resuscitate a drowned man!

Dr. Spencer: Yes, I like his illustration a lot. But, the main point he is making, which I am trying to make as well, is that the true gospel message is not simply “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”

Marc Roby: How then would you summarize the gospel message?

Dr. Spencer: I would say, as many have said before me, that there must be bad news before there is good news. No one is going to ask, “What must I do to be saved?” if he doesn’t think he is in any danger. So, the first thing we must do is tell people that there is a holy and just God, who is absolutely sovereign over the entire universe. And that we have all rebelled against this God and are under his just judgment. We should all fall to our knees trembling and cry out “What must I do to be saved?”

Marc Roby: That is not a pleasant message to deliver to people.

Dr. Spencer: No, it isn’t, but it is what we all need to hear. People don’t like being told that they have cancer either, but if it is the truth, it would be cruel to not tell them. They can only seek treatment if they know they have the disease.

Marc Roby: And the gospel is the treatment for the deadly disease of sin.

Dr. Spencer: And it is the only treatment possible. As Peter tells us in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” The Christian faith is unashamedly exclusive. There is only one God who created this universe and he has made one, and only one, way of salvation. And that way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. No man is able to save himself. We must humble ourselves, acknowledge that we are sinners, rebels against our Creator, and cry out for mercy.

Marc Roby: But, I’m sure some will ask, why is Jesus Christ and his death on the cross necessary? Why doesn’t God simply pardon all those who humble themselves and ask for mercy?

Dr. Spencer: That is a great question, and the Bible gives us a clear answer. In Romans 3:22-26 the apostle Paul tells us that, “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Marc Roby: There is a lot in that passage.

Dr. Spencer: There is too much for us to go into all of it in the time we have left, but I want us to notice four things: First, all have sinned. We all need a Savior. There is no exception. Second, God redeemed us through his Son, Jesus Christ, whom he sent as an atonement for our sin. In other words, Christ paid the penalty that we owed, and God the Father has agreed to accept that payment on our behalf. Third, God did this to demonstrate his justice. You see, God is absolutely just, so he must punish sin. It is simply not possible for him to wink at sin and say, “Oh, don’t worry about it. I see that you are sorry for it, so I forgive.” No, his justice must be satisfied. But, because he is also loving and merciful and wants to save his people, God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty for us. The fourth point is that in this way, God’s justice is satisfied and his people are saved. That is why Paul writes that God can “be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” He is just, in other words completely righteous and holy, and yet, he can justify those who have faith in Jesus, which means he can declare them just, in spite of their sin, because Jesus Christ has paid the demands of God’s holy law.

Marc Roby: Now, that truly is good news! And it makes me think of perhaps the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Dr. Spencer: Amen. That is the most amazing truth. In spite of my sin and rebellion, I will spend eternity with God in heaven. But, there is still more to be said.

Marc Roby: I’m looking forward to hearing what that is, but we are out of time for today.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[2] A.W. Pink, Signs of the Times, Studies in the Scriptures, December, 1937, No. 12, pp 20-25 (http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/sis/sis-37-12.pdf)

Play
Yes Single


[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are resuming our study of biblical theology today by continuing to look at external evidence that corroborates the Bible. Last time we finished examining evidence to corroborate the Genesis account of creation and you made the important point, Dr. Spencer, that the Bible is not the result of an evolutionary development of religion, starting with myths to explain nature and ending in a monotheistic religion.

Dr. Spencer: Right. And, in fact, people often go further than that picture with regard to Christianity in particular. I’m sure you’ve heard someone say that the God of the New Testament is a kindler gentler version of the wrathful God of the Old Testament.

Marc Roby: Unfortunately, I have heard that.

Dr. Spencer: And, of course, their point is that the evolution of religion continued and God, as a result got nicer. But, this view is completely wrong for at least two major reasons. First, as you just reminded us, we saw last time that the Bible, and more particularly, the Old Testament is not the result of an evolutionary process that begin with primitive myths and moved on to the monotheism of the Bible. And, secondly, the God presented in the Bible is absolutely the same throughout; he did not change. So, this view that the God of the New Testament is a kinder, gentler more evolved version of the God of the Old Testament is nonsense if you actually read the Bible carefully.

We will see later in our series of podcasts that, in addition to speaking of God’s just wrath, the Old Testament is gracious from beginning to end. And, we will see, that in addition to speaking of God’s grace, the New Testament speaks of his just wrath continuously. So, such a view is simply not consistent with the facts.

Marc Roby: Very well. So, we have concluded our brief look at the Genesis account of creation, and we presented some extra-biblical evidence for the flood and the Table of Nations. Is it safe to assume that we are now going to move on to the next major section of Genesis?

Dr. Spencer: Yes, we are ready to move on. Remember that we are discussing the major divisions in Genesis as determined by the Hebrew phrase “These are the generations …”, which our listeners may remember was introduced last session and comes from the Old Testament Scholar E.J. Young’s book Thy Word is Truth.[1]

Our previous discussion actually covered several of the headings, although I didn’t say that at the time, so the next heading we come to now is in Genesis 11:27, where we read “This is the account of Terah. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot.”[2] Now I suspect most of our listeners recognize the names Abram and Lot, although some may wonder why it says Abram and not Abraham.

Marc Roby: Of course, the name Abraham is the name that God gave to Abram when he established the covenant of circumcision with him as we read in Genesis Chapter 17.

Dr. Spencer: Right. This is the place in the Bible where God first calls out a special group of people, who will later become the nation of Israel. The name Abram means exalted father and the name Abraham means father of a multitude, so the name change is a reminder of God’s promise to him, that his descendants will be like the stars in the night sky or the sand on the seashore (Gen 22:17).

Marc Roby: Alright. So, returning to the account of Terah that begins in Genesis 11:27, we have the biblical history of what are usually called the patriarchs, simply meaning the fathers of the faith. So, what external evidence do we have to corroborate this account?

Dr. Spencer: There is one possible extra-biblical reference to Abraham in the topographical list of the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I, which many believe refers to “The Enclosure of Abram”.[3] But, that is not agreed upon by all and we have no other direct evidence in the form of inscriptions or artifacts that can be clearly traced to individuals noted in the accounts of the Patriarchs, nor should we expect any from events so long ago.

Nevertheless, we have a great deal of important indirect evidence as we already briefly mentioned in Session 7. There we mentioned that the price of a slave listed in Genesis 37:28, for example, is consistent with the price known at that time from the code of Hammurabi. We also noted that in Genesis Chapters 21 and 26, we read about Abraham and his Son Isaac both making separate treaties with Abimelech, and the forms of these treaties agree with the form for early 2nd millennium B.C. treaties known from extra-biblical sources. This evidence may not sound astounding at first blush, but I encourage the interested listener to consult the excellent book I’ve mentioned before, by Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament.[4] We have several extrabiblical documents from that period and both the process of enactment and the form of these treaties is consistent with the extra-biblical examples, and they are not consistent with examples from other periods of history. I must also emphasize yet again that because archaeology is a relatively new science, and people in the ancient world did not have access to historical documents like we do now, this information simply would not have been available to someone trying to write this history significantly after Abraham’s time. So, there would not have been any way for a later writer to get such details right.

Marc Roby: It is amazing to see that we have so much information available now about human history from 4,000 years ago. What other evidence do you want to cite?

Dr. Spencer: Well, for one thing, the general social, geographic and political histories presented all fit the period and place too well to have been concocted by some later author. For example, the types of arranged marriage, the travel routes and times and so on all match.

One particularly interesting example mentioned by Kitchen has to do with the eastern alliance of Kings who attacked Sodom and Gomorrah and three other small kingdoms, defeated them, and carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his family. We read about this in Genesis 14. Kitchen points out that the names for the eastern Kings are all known names for the regions they ruled and also, very interestingly, this was the only period in history when an alliance of kings like this could have existed in that region. Not only that, but this is the only period in history in which peoples in that eastern region got involved with the politics of Mesopotamia. Kitchen concludes, “in terms of geopolitics, the eastern alliance in Gen. 14 must be interpreted seriously as an archaic memory preserved in the existing book of Genesis.”[5]

Marc Roby: Very interesting. While we are dealing with this account in Genesis 14, let me ask you a question. We are told, in verse 14 of that chapter, that Abraham pursued these eastern kings “as far as Dan”, which some people have pointed out is an anachronism since the name of the town was Laish at the time of Abraham, and wasn’t renamed Dan until the time of the Judges, hundreds of years later. Do you think that is a problem?

Dr. Spencer: Not at all. Clearly Abraham himself didn’t write anything with the name Dan, nor did Moses since the name was changed after his time. But a later copyist could easily, and reasonably, have changed the name to make it understandable to readers at a later date. We do the same sort of thing now. For example, if you were writing a story about the Apollo 1 fire on the launchpad, no one would accuse you of being anachronistic if you said that the launch pad was at Cape Canaveral, even though the Apollo 1 fire occurred during the ten-year period when Cape Canaveral was known as Cape Kennedy. Or, as another example, I’ve heard people refer to movies made by President Reagan, but he was most definitely not president when he made movies.

Marc Roby: I see your point, it does look like a non-issue.

Dr. Spencer: As are most of the so-called errors in the Bible. As just one more example to bring up here – since it also comes from the Book of Genesis, some people have also accused Genesis of being anachronistic because it refers to Philistines in Genesis 21 & 26, even though the name Philistines was not used until hundreds of years later. But, this is again the case of a later copyist changing the reference to fit then-current usage. I think Kitchen gives a great modern example here. He notes that “we would say ‘the Dutch founded New York’ although they did so as New Amsterdam, the present name replacing the former under their British successors.”[6] We may get into more of these supposed errors in the Bible in later podcasts.

Marc Roby: OK, that gives us something to look forward to. What else do we have in the way of evidence to corroborate the patriarchal times?

Dr. Spencer: Well, since you’ve mentioned this reference to Dan, or Laish, it might be good to point out that Laish was clearly a prominent town at the time of Abraham. The archaeological evidence from there is extensive and includes a well-preserved arched gate into the city that is sometimes called Abraham’s gate, although it may not be quite old enough to have been there at the time of Abraham.

Marc Roby: Very well, what else do you want to mention from this period?

Dr. Spencer: Well, returning to the social customs, it is interesting to note that the story of Abraham and his heirs fits into this historical period quite nicely, even though such social norms have changed through time. Before Abraham had any children, for example, we read in Genesis 15:2 that he complained to God, saying “O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” In other words, he was intending to adopt this member of his household and make him his heir, which was a common practice in that time and place.

Then, further, when Sarah remained childless, she gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham in order to produce an heir. This practice was also common at the time. Finally, when Sarah herself had Isaac thirteen years later, the Code of Hammurabi did not give her the right to send Hagar and her child away,[7] which explains, in part, Abraham’s reluctance to do so. He only did so when God told him it would be alright and he would make Ishmael into a nation as well (Gen 21:12-13).

Marc Roby: I’m amazed that we can say so much, even in terms of indirect evidence, for the life of someone who lived roughly 4,000 years ago.

Dr. Spencer: I share your amazement. And, we have to remember that most, if not all, of this information was not available to somone who live anywhere from a few hundred years after Abraham all the way up to about 150 or 200 years ago.

Marc Roby: That is astounding, and certainly puts the lie to the idea that the biblical accounts were created much later. How about Abraham’s descendants, do we have any more evidence for Isaac and his sons, Esau and Jacob?

Dr. Spencer: We already mentioned in Session 7 that the price paid for Joseph, when his brothers sold him into slavery in Genesis 37, is accurate for that time. In addition, we have more evidence of the same sort that we’ve gone over for Abraham in the sense that the travels, marriages, names of towns and people and so on are all historically accurate as far as we know.

Marc Roby: Alright, what about the use of camels? I’ve heard some claim that the use of camels, as described in the patriarchal narratives, is anachronistic. How do you respond to that?

Dr. Spencer: I’ve heard the same thing, but I would respond that they are simply in error. First of all, the biblical accounts of the patriarchs mention camels, but not as a common means of travel. Second, we do have evidence that camels were in use at this time. Kitchen lists a number of pieces of evidence.[8] For example, some bones from excavations for that time, a figurine of a kneeling camel from that time period, a cylinder seal from this time period with a picture of deities on a camel, mentions of camels in a Sumerian lexical work of the period, a figure of a kneeling camel loaded with jars and so on. His conclusion is worth quoting. He wrote that “the examples just given should suffice to indicate the true situation: the camel was for long a marginal beast in most of the historic ancient Near East (including Egypt), but it was not wholly unknown or anachronistic before or during 2000-1100. And there the matter should, on the tangible evidence, rest.”

Marc Roby: Do you have anything that you want to add about this period?

Dr. Spencer: We could say more, but I think we’ve said enough. The point is clear that even though we do not have a great deal of direct evidence for the Genesis history, we do have some direct evidence and a great deal of indirect evidence.

I find the indirect evidence conclusive that the Genesis account had to have been written at the time of the events. It is inconceivable that anyone writing at a much later time could have gotten all these details right. So, at a bare minimum, what we have, as I claimed back in Session 7, is significant evidence that the Bible itself is the best archaeological treasure we have. We can learn a great deal about the people of the ancient Near East. But, far more importantly, we see that it is a reliable document and should be listened to when it tells us about the God who created the heavens and the earth and before whom we will all, one day, have to give an account. The silly notions about the Bible being the end of some evolution process of human-contrived religion is simply nonsense that should not be accepted by anybody.

Marc Roby: I think that wraps up our time for today.

 

[1] E.J. Young, Thy Word is Truth, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957, reprinted by Banner of Truth Trust, 2012, pg. 121

[2] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[3] K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, see pg 313

[4] Ibid, pp 323-324

[5] Ibid, pg. 321

[6] Ibid, pg. 340

[7] The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Zondervan, 1976, Vol. 1, pg. 24

[8] Op. cit., pp 338-339

Play