The Autobiography of God Q&A session

Well, we have a lot of questions to be able to move through here and feel free though for several of you to answer and chime in and augment and color in different aspects of this. Just a quick question here as we start start off, and just asking about books and authors that you are reading, particularly recognizing the place of the Bible in spiritual formation, what books or authors are currently informing your love for Christ and your walk of discipleship. So, Michael, I really enjoy reading a scholar named Desmond Alexander, and he really is doing wonderful work in biblical theology. A lot of what you've heard today tracing through Adam all the way to the New Adam, and all of his work so far really just feed my love for Christ. And I might also add that we have the privilege of hosting him here soon for the Doctor of Ministry program. He'll be teaching the class, and we're just excited for him to give this good theology and the underpinning for its solid biblical preaching. But he is someone who just makes Scripture come alive. So he's an author that I would certainly recommend. For myself. Lately, it's been Graham Goldsworthy, and Dennis Johnson have been very helpful as of for. I offer two names. One, I've been doing some reading on biblical theology and as someone other than me has equipped in that particular area, Voss is boss, so ready Gerhard's boss, and very blessed to be doing so. The other is. Actually, at this point a modern classic. One of my classes at Reformation Bible College, actually our Doctrine of Man class. We're reading together through Desiring God by John Piper. And yeah, we're getting a good shout out there for doctor Piper, and we're all being blessed with his wisdom there. Homer Kelly, Homer Kelly. Could you expand on that a little bit? He wrote the Golfing Machine. He has the most in depth study of the mechanics and physics of the golf swing ever written. Yes, there will be a new Homer Kelly coming soon, I'm sure. And you find your devotional life enhanced on the golf course. I didn't hear him. What do you say? He said you find your devotional life enhanced by this? But I think he's implying that you're devoted to something wrong. Or see. Let me come back to you now with this question it's a question of reflection. If you could restart your ministry over again, is there anything you would do differently? How much time do you have? Probably the thing I'd do most differently was to get in the pulpit a whole lot earlier in my life than I did. I was ordained originally to the teaching ministry, not to the pulpit ministry. That came much later. But that's been the joy of my life, was to be able to be in this pulpit here at Saint Andrew. That's the main thing I'd do differently. Probably I would speak to that. Though I'm not as old as some others. When I look back at the early years and opportunities that I had to teach, there's a. Great deal of. Embarrassment, not over any of the things that I believed. I think that when I first started, like a lot of people, I spent far much too much time talking about and speaking to the errors of those that were farthest away from me. That the things that I was right about were things that I was proud of. And I'm speaking into people who share the same convictions with me about these people that are out there, and that's really a waste of time. You know, I feel like, first what I need to do is be thinking about my sins, not the sins of broader evangelicalism, and in terms of my own spiritual growth. But in the end, I also think that's what we need to be teaching, that we need to be speaking about our weaknesses. And you know, one of those is the very pride that leads us to talking bad about other people. Everriend blackam. Boy, I would I would change much. I would. I would change much of the time that I spent in training and the places that I received that training. I've found that much of the time that I've spent since my training has been an effort to backfill, and I would be a much better steward of that time. As it relates to where and with whom I study. Well, I don't have a lot of the history under my belts and experience, but I pastored for about four years in Northeast Tennessee, and then I've been associate pastor. But I've been really doing a lot of teaching while being associate pastor. But when I look back to those former years, I've one of the things that I've learned is and then I wish I could go back and change is to be in the homes more always, by God's grace, loved the word and ministering the word. But I've come to see now by experience of the way that the Word is applied in the homes. You just there's no escaping the role of the shepherd, and really to be a shepherd and to be there among the flock and with the people even changes the way to receive the word from the pulpit. And so that is something I've learned from great pastors that the Lord has brought my life since then, and that I would certainly strive to do if the Lord brought me back into the. Pastor question that I'm going to put out there, and you'll understand after I ask it why I'm just going to put this out there, And whoever wants to step up to the plate can take a swing. If the state or federal government passed a law requiring you to officiate and recognize same sex marriages, how would you respond no? And perhaps to expand on that, why would you respond that? There's an ancient tradition that is illustrated in the Book of Acts that holds that Christians have an obligation to obey those in authority over them until those in authority over them require them to do what God clearly forbids, or forbid them to do what God clearly commands, and that clearly there is important. You can't not like it, decide it's not wise, and then stand your ground like Martin Luther, and not do it just because it doesn't look like the best choice. It's got to be a clear violation of the Word of God. Where it gets tricky and fuzzy is when the state claims for itself a level of authority where it doesn't belong. That is, I would argue that if the state required that I preach from the book of First Timothy, that I might just have a duty to disobey, not because God requires me not to preach from First Timothy, but that God requires me to recognize the lordship of Christ over that pulprit, and not the lordship of the federal government. I think there's attention, and I talk to people on both sides of the issue. I think that as reformed people, as often Scottish people, we are too ready to draw our swords when we should be humbly going to Caesar and say you tie me to that stake, I'm ready to go. On the other hand, we also are the other way, where we are willing to allow the state to intrude where it doesn't belong. So I think that these kinds of questions involve a great deal of wisdom. The example that you give there makes it easy, I think. But there are other places that are far more likely to happen that we are facing. I will say this in Canada, if I understand the Canadian law correctly, even in the pulpit, if you preach that homosexuality is a sin, you can be charged with a crime if that's true. I don't know for sure if that's exactly how it's been worded, but if that's true, then then I would I don't understand why there isn't weakly national homosexuality is a sin weak in those pulpits. I would expect every evangelical to stand up and preach the text, preach it faithfully, preach the Gospel, and say to the state, you come and get me. Because I'm preaching the work. And voting wants Texas seceeeds. Obviously this won't be an issue, right you know that? Yeah? I want to see. The plan is more complicated than that. We have to get We have to get Governor Perry to be the president of the United States, so that he goes to Washington and then to seek because he already said these things so cold. So I think if that happened, Vode's response would be called the ambulance. This next question involves a family split, but a split over doctrine. What is the best approach of a family that is split in doctrine between the husband and wife, where young children are involved, in order to maintain that cohesive family unit. And they give the example of Roman Catholicism and Reformed theology, what would be your pastoral council to that family that has that tension within it? Wives be subject to your own husbands, so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be one without a word by the behavior of their wives. That would be That would be my admonition. And the rest of that passage goes on to talk about Sarah and how she obeyed Abraham, and I think significantly speaking about her there in Genesis chapter twenty, which is beyond just like I think this might be a bad decision on his part. But the crux of the matter is faith. It just don't have any fear. We have to believe that doing what God says that we're to do in the way that God says that we're to do it puts us in a position where God will vindicate himself and we don't have to vindicate ourselves on his behalf. You mentioned you didn't say who was who here, whether it was the husband was Catholic and the wife wasn't or whatever, because that could get really, really complicated, because Ours has already given us the principle we must obey authorities over us unless they command us to do something God forbids or forbids us from doing something God commands. And if you have a situation there where the husband say, is Roman Catholic and he requires his wife and children to go to the Roman Catholic church, I would say it would be the duty of the wife to disobey him because he was trying to force her to go to an apostate body and the children and I think she can't do that. There's just not allowed to do that, and that would be I would put a severe strain on the marriage. And if she had to disobey. She should still be a loving, kind, generally submissive wife and follow the practical advice that we've already heard. But this is a matter of conscience here. How in the world, I mean, like, I could not in good conscience ever participate in a Roman Catholic mass, even if it was my best friend's wedding and it was a nuptial mass. I couldn't do it. Why because I understand the theology of it. Most people don't, and they go in there they don't even know what's going on. But if you understand the theology of what's going on there and participate in it, gracious, you know, to me, I would be denying the faith. That would be denying the Gospel if I. Went in there so or like a particular act of blasphemy. Yeah, Could you help us to understand how a sinner who is dead in sins and trespasses and wholly incapable of exercising saving faith in Christ is nevertheless held accountable for his unwillingness to repent and believe which faith and repentance he is unable of his own to exercise. Or how can God judge someone as guilty for that which they are inherently incapable of performing. Perhaps Paul's answer is the most fitting, and his response is simply, who are you a man to shake a fist at God? I think that's the first humbling answer. But then we move beyond that, I think, and we can explain that while those of us who are saved it's by the mercy of God, that doesn't mean that those of us who are guilty before we're saved, or if we're not saved at all, that we're not accountable and responsible to God. We are, of course guilty under Adam's sin, but then we also exasperate that guilt multiplying our own sins, and the fact that God doesn't decide to apply the blood of Christ to wash them away doesn't, by any means mean that we are suddenly not accountable. And I think doctor sproy Your's story of I think being a professor and giving grace until grace is expected is probably the classic story to illustrate that well. And there's also the story that God came down. If God would come to me and say I want you to cut the grass this afternoon, and if you don't, I'm going to punish you because you're rob again to do what I commanded to do. And I say yes, Lord, And he said, now you see that big pit over there, and I said yes. He says, we stay out of that pit, because if you go on the pit, you're not gonna be able to get out, and you're not going be able to get the job done. And I gave you to doing. I said, okay, So as soon as the Lord leaves, I went over and jump in the pit. And then he comes back and he says, why didn't you cut the grass? So I said, how do you expect me to cut the grass with him in this pit? I mean. That's a contemporary version of the fall is that we are in a state of moral inability because of our being unified with our father Adam, and we fell in Adam, and that we are therefore responsible for our own moral inability to come so that once we are in sin and dead in sin, God owes us nothing except judgment, and anything we get apart from judgment is sheer grace. I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy. If God came to me and the grass wasn't cut, if he punished me, I would have to say I have every right to be punished. If he said, if he pardoned me, it would be pure grace, but he doesn't know it to me. The minute we think that God owes us grace, we no longer understand what grace is because by definition, it's not owed. It's free and voluntary, unmerited kindness. Before we come to you, doctor Spearl Jr. How many of you have heard or haven't heard doctor Sproll's illustration of the classroom experience and grace and justice? Have not heard? Have not hurt? Okay? Could you tell us I don't know what you're talking. Your patents are doing this day and if you don't get them, oh. Yea from Holiness injustice? About that strung you wanted to go over that real fast. That was when I was teaching. This was back in nineteen sixty six. I was teaching in a college. I was the professor of Bible. I had two hundred and fifty freshman students in the freshman class taking Introduction Old Testament. The first day of class, I went over the syllabus and I said, we're going to have three short papers five to eight pages in the course of the semester. First ones due October first, second, one, November first, third one, December first, and I said, unless you're there's a death of the immediate family or you're confined to the infirmity for illness, if you're not in, if it's none of my desk by twelve o'clock on the first, you get enough for that portion of the grade. Does everybody understand, yes? So October the first came and two hundred and twenty five students came in with their paper and twenty five didn't, and they were ending, they're terrified, and they said, oh, doctors, we failed to make the adjustment to college and we didn't budget our time. Please don't give us an f and I said, okay, I'll give you two more days to get your paper done, but don't ever do this again. Oh no, we won't. November came along and two hundred students came in with their paper and fifty didn't have them. And I said, where's your papers? And they said it was mid it was mid homecoming weekend and we had all these other things due for other classes. We're so sorry, Please please forgive us and let us have another chance. And I said, okay, this is the last time and they started to sing spontaneously, I'll never forget it. We love you, prof sprol Oh, yes we do. And I was mister popularity on the faculty. And that popularity lasted until the first of December, when on the first of December came one hundred and fifty students come with their paper and a hundred don't. And I looked out and I said, said, we are these papers, and this one student I'll never forget he was going to back a book and he said, oh, don't worry about it, prof I'll have it for you in a couple of days. I said, Johnson, you don't have your paper, and he said no, And I took out the black book and I wrote f and never says you and cry immediately, and they shouted with one voice, that's not fair. I said, what did you say? He said, I said that's not fair. I said, oh, Johnson, it's justice that you want. He said yes. I said, okay, don't I recall that you were not on time in November. November first was your paper and he said that's right. I said, okay, I'm going to give you justice. I'm going to go back and change your grade there to an f I said, okay, now who else wants justice? And nobody volunteered. See what happens is when we first received grace, we're overwhelmed with appreciation. We are amazed by grace. The second time we tend to take it for granted, by the third time we demand it. And the moment we think that God owes us grace, as I said a moment ago, that should be a bell going off in our head to saying I'm not thinking about grace anymore because God never owes me grace. He never owes you grace either. But that was a real event that wasn't just an illustration. Going back to. Michael's answer on the question, I want to give a little bit more of the actual text here because it's a fascinating thing. I love when I get that question, because it's one of very few questions that I receive that are directly asked by in scripture. Take that question and is that not a precise paraphrase of what Paul says? He says, what shall we say? Then? Is there unrighteousness in God? This is after Jacob, I have loved, Esau, I have hated. Is there unrighteousness in God? Certainly not. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whomover I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomover I have compassion, so that it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, for this very purpose, I've raised you up that I may show my power in you, and that my name may be declared in all the earth. Therefore, he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens. That's what raises the question. So Paul gives us the question. You will say to me, then, why does he still find fault? Isn't that what you asked? Why does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will? He is the lord of space, in time, He controls all things. We hadn't have a chance at the beginning. Who can resist his will? The fascinating thing about God's answer, is, Michael pointed out, is it's really not an answer. God's answer is I'm God, Okay, you belong to me. I can do with you what I will your clay. I'm a potter, and my goal my desire is to manifest my glory. I will share it with no other again. And this is what I was trying to say this morning as well. If this is something you cannot swallow, then you do not know the living God. This is who he is now doesn't make it easy to swallow. Don't get me wrong. And God is gracious and slow to anger, but you've got to face the fact that this is what it says now. I don't want to ever encourage people to do what I call dueling verses with our Minian friends, where we say what about this text? And they say what about that text? And we see who builds the bigger pile fastest. But I will say, if you're ever going to deal with your Armenian friend, take them here to this text Romans chapter nine and ask them, please please help me understand how any of this makes any sense in the way you understand things. Stay with this text and explain it to me from your perspective. I had friends who transferred into our church in Virginia. After they went to their church was commit to expositional preaching. Their pastor preached in the Book of Romans. They started in Romans one. They went to Romans two. They went all the way through to Romans seven. And they showed up the next week and the pastor said, turned to your bible is a Romans chapter twelve. You can't do it. At least he knew that. Why does sinners suffer for eternity while Christ and his substitutional and atonement did not suffer for eternity? If Christ is of infinite value, if he suffers the wrath of God for one second, his suffering is of infinite value. And here's the down part about hell is that if a sinner suffers eternity in hell and eternity never ends, there's no way that if eternity keeps going and going and going and going and going and going, that that sinner can ever suffer infinitely. He can never fully satisfy the debt he owes God, even with an eternity in hell. Does that make sense? I mean, because but we don't. Really. We always, as human beings, stand on the side of our fellow human beings. If they're impenitent sinners and we're penitent sinners. At least we're both sinners. We have that in common. We can understand our brother or our fellow person who's not our spiritual brother and say they're but for the grace of God, go I. But until we're glorified in heaven, we're never going to fully identify with the glory of God. We're always going to be inclined to have our sympathy with our fellow suffering human beings rather than have any real delight in the vindication of God's holiness. See, the most sanctified person in this world is still much closer to Adolf Hitler than he is to Jesus in terms of his morality. That's what we don't get, that vast gap in holiness between who God is and who I am. And we don't understand the gravity of our sin. And if the Spirit of God were to reveal the full gravity of my sin to me tonight, I would die. I couldn't handle it. Fortunately, he's gracious and slowly brings me to conformity to the image of Christ. And in the meantime, I'm still in sin. And so the one thing I don't want to I can't stand the thought of anybody being in hell forever except for one person. Me. I know that if I heard that verdict and God said to me you go to Hell forever. I would be crushed. I would be very unhappy. But I could not say that's not fair. I know that couldn't do it. And that's why nothing less than the perfect sacrifice of one who's person, who's an infinite value, availed for me. Without it, I've got nothing. And this is why I can't stand it with my friends that aren't Christians, and I know their destiny is hell if they don't come to Christ, and I've never been able to get over that, get to ask that it's a horrible thought. A couple of weeks ago in my Great Works class, we were talking as I mentioned about Promenides and heraclitis, and my son, who's the freshman at RBC, asked this deeply and profoundly astute question that just gave me this unbelievable thrill, and I wanted to share it with him, and I was trying to communicate to him saying, son, that question was just perfect. It was just wonderful. It was so awesome. I went to his grandfather and said, you want to believe what Campbell asked me today class. It was so great. I was so excited about and that I wanted him to have the experience that I had when I asked him that question when I was a younger man. I remember asking my father that question, and I remember how highly he praised me for asking that question. So let me pass that on to whoever asked that question. It's a wonderful question, wonderful answer. I only want to add one potential addition and maybe one reiteration of the principle that the suffering of Jesus is of infinite value because of the incarnation, because this is God and man together. And if you want to, if you want to turn the whole thing into math, that's how you get your equal over equal, which equals one. Okay, I mean infinite over infinite, which equals one. Absolutely true. That said, One of the great horrors about Hell that we don't often think about is this. When a person goes to Hell, they go to Hell as a person, And when they go to hell's a person, they go to hell's a person without the grace of God. They don't go saying to God, well that's fair. They go weeping, gnashing their teeth, grumbling company. They continue to offend the Holy and Righteous God forever. They continue to sin and store up wrath forever. So there's no one in hell still trying to pay off the first cookie out of the cookie jar alone. They are still trying to do that, because that's infinitely wrong. But ever since then they've been stealing cookies from the cookie jar and every other vile and heinous and imaginable to man. A question of definition, the word orthodoxy is mentioned in different contexts. Some confusion perhaps over the word orthodoxy. What is the basic meaning of that word? Come on, pro well, orthodoxy refers to historic Christianity. We have creeds, as was mentioned this morning in Deuteronomy, the Lord our God, the Lord is won, and we hear the apostle speaking of the faith, and so doctrine was always embodied as a system of theology, and that found expression through the apostles, Creed, Nicene creed, and Christian Orthodoxy was basically the true Church that embraced these biblical doctrines, and primarily to distinguish themselves all of the heretics that were running around saying we're part of the Church. But you know, Christ isn't truly God, or he wasn't truly man the setics, he only appeared as a man, and so the Church was always quick to establish its confessions, its creeds, and this is what is orthodox, this is what is the right way and biblical teaching. How should we deal biblically with separation from a professing Christian who is outwardly involved in sin and part of the covenant community. How should we deal biblically with separating from a profession professing Christian who is outwardly involved in sin and yet part of the covenant community. Is this a how should the church deal? Because I think we go to Matthew eighteen, and that's what church discipline is about. A person who's part of the covenant community involved in outward known sin is confronted personally and then confronted with witnesses, and then confronted by the church and then excluded from the church. And that's a person with whom we don't even eat, and so there is a shunning and an exclusion. I mean that that's part of what sets the church apart. But if I, as an individual, know about somebody that's in grossanus and in the church, and I don't go through those steps, and I become a vigilante disciplinarian, no no, no, no no, I don't say I'm not gonna have dinner with you. I'm not gonna have any felloship, but I'm not going to carry out the penalties of excommunication before that person has been excommunicating. Doctor Stroll. Is there a great gulf or a small stream between Wesley and Calvin? Between Wesley and in what regard theologically theologically? Probably reflecting earlier on our discussion of romance, Listen. Wesley, in my opinion, was a true Christian person, a regenerate man. He believed in the essentials of the Christian faith in terms of Christology, in terms of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and so they he had more more in common with Calvin than he had differences. However, the doctrines of grace for those who affirm them and those that deny them, are not the minor principles. We're talking about the character of God, the doctrine of grace, how a person is saved, and now you're talking about theological differences that are extremely wide and extremely important. I don't think that they are essential for Christian belief for salvation. I don't think you have to believe in the doctrine of reformation doctrine of Biblical doctrine of election to be saved. And I don't think a church has to believe in the biblical doctrine of election to be a true church. This is not a doctrine, and we would say that is of theessy, the essence, but it is a doctrine of the bene esse the well being of the church and the well being of the Christian. And a Christian who's trying to work out his sanctification who distances himself from the sweetness of the doctrines of grace is in a perilous, perilous journey. And some who are persistent in their repudiation of the doctrine of grace do so if they're everlasting peril. I mean, it may be in the final analysis that what we have here is a heart that is simply hostile towards the majesty of God and towards His sovereignty. And that could be, you know, like when people ask me, can Armenians be saved? I say, oh, yes, barely if they're true Armenians. But you know, they may not even hold to what Armenian is, and the necessary truth that Armenians do hold really in their heart of hearts because they're so hostile to these doctrines. I mean, when I hear Armenian preachers saying that the doctrine of election is a doctrine from Hell and that's the doctrine of demons. Who you know, I'm here in the Pharisees charging Jesus with casting out Satan by Satan, and he say, watch yourself, Royce. You know you're coming awfully close. And when I hear guys like talk like that, like Jimmy Swagger, you know who calls it the doctrine of demons and everything, I worry about him about the state of his soul when he talks like that, when this hostility reaches such greatful portions. But I think most true Christians who are not reformed in their doctrine are not reformed because they really have struggled. Honestly. They're afraid that the doctrine of election casts a shadow on the justice and righteousness of God. They're afraid that somehow the true humanity of people is denied. You know, they're working with false premises, and we understand that. But you don't have to be perfect in your theology to get into the Kingdom of God. You've got to believe in the A's interests. But it's an attitude that we have to watch out for here. I think, Chris, there's a temptation in the church for us to just be binary on these kind of questions, and we can err on either side. We can say, well, this is not in the Apostles Creed and therefore, not only does it not matter, we should never talk about it, we should only talk about the essentials. Then there are those who are binary on the other side, saying any error is Daniel herrisy and if you're wrong, you're out. What's interesting about the question is it contrasts across time, and we actually have a powerful historical illustration of what doctor Sproll was saying. If we connect with one of those guys Wesley and Whitfield had in their own lives, the outworking of I think a Tersham quid an appropriate response to this issue. If you know, the two of them worked very closely together in the whole Methodist movement. They work together very well in the Great Revival, but eventually Wesley ended up preaching a sermon that was not quite as bad as Jimmy Swaggert but it was rather strongly condemnatory of the biblical doctrine of election. Whitfield responded with one of the actual best historical arguments against the Armenian position. It's short, it's well written, I mean, it's easy to read, and it's just really powerful. Wesley's response. Ecuse me, Whodfield's response to Wesley was just magnificent and gracious, but it was strong, and in that strength many of Wesley's or Whitfield's followers pushed even harder, such that when Wesley died, they came to him and they said, doctor Woodfield, do you think you will see Wesley in heaven? And Woodfield, who knew these guys and knew these these these young thunder puppies, fire breathing little dragons, said no, I don't think I will, And they got their hopes up and they're ready to give each other high fives, and until he said, I don't think i'll see. Him in heaven. I think he'll be far too close to the Throne of Glory from where I'll be for me to be able to see him. And you know, I think we need to affirm that these errors are exceedingly serious errors, just like our weaknesses and our errors are exceedingly serious weaknesses and errors voting. You've spoken and written about Christian education. You're committed home educating family in the circles that you have ministered in. What would you say to parents who are trying to decide between the choice of homeschooling versus bringing their believing students into the public school system and thereby, with the Christian faith being a witness and influence in the public education world. I think they're making a categorical error. And what I mean by that is, on the one side, well, all of a sudden, we went from a discussion about education, which is discipleship, to a discussion about evangelism in spite of negative discipleship, And so we've got two completely separate categories there. The question is, should I, on the one hand, give my child an education that acknowledges Christ's lordship, that seeks to point them toward Christ, that seeks to form in them truths that bring glory and honor and worship to Christ. You see, now we have a discussion about one category and then you completely jump to another categ and say, or should I have my child who is a believer go have influence on other people who are who whoa whoa whoa. Over here, we were talking about education discipleship. I mean, you completely move to a different category. So what we got to do is we got to talk about those things properly. So on the one hand, let's talk about education and discipleship over here, and then education and discipleship over there. Ask me if one of those is appropriate and the other is not. That becomes a very easy question to answer, which is why I think people ask it that way, because we know that if we ask the question about the same categories, should I give my child an education that acknowledges Christ's lordship, points them to Christ's lordship seeks to form these truths in their life, or should I give them something other than that? That is so easy to answer. When somebody asked me that question that way, they're telling me that they don't want to answer the most important question, and they created a false, a false argument between two separate categories that are being held out in competition against one another when they are absolutely not. Because if they asked me, should I give my child a christ honoring education or should I have my child be an influence on people who are unbelievers. Yes, Why do we assume that the only way a child can have an impact and influence on unbelievers is if they give up on a christ Christ centered education. So I think there's a categorical error in the question. One of the great problems we face here is the economic issue, where you have to pay for tuition in a Christian school or you can go the government school for free. The biggest illusion there is sending your kids the government school is free. It's the most costly thing you could ever do, you know, I mean the first question you have to ask is how important are my children to me and to the Kingdom of God. And also the other thing that people don't understand is the public schools are not today what they were fifty years ago, twenty years ago. I mean, it used to be that the local community had a lot to say about it, and there wasn't this build in hostility to the truths of the Christian faith. But the government schools today are manifestly opposed to all things Christian. I mean, if you're not reading the paper and see what happens if you try to bear witness to Christ in the public spatsy, then you're just you know, I don't know where you're living or what you're reading, But how in the world you would turn your children over to a pagan establishment for their instruction if you really value the faith and your children's soul at all is just amazing to me. And I know that that really gets people fired up and angry when I say that. But else, what else can you say? I mean, the choice is so simple. If you really care about discipleship and training of your children, I might have. To have there, and that's all good. Many times Jesus says, if you love me, you will obey me. Two questions really asking similar things here, what does obey really mean in our lives as Christians? And then, if we trust in Christ as our savior, how do you avoid feeling guilty or doubting our own salvation? And then just question mark, but presumably meaning when we disobey, how do we deal with those feelings of guilt or doubt about our own salvation? If Christ indeed tells us, if you love me, you will obey me, the. Simple answer is faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. If you're struggling with doubt, get in the book and get in it, and get in it, and get in it, because it's there through the Word that the spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And I don't know any shortcuts to assurance of salvation apart from getting in the word of God. I'll give one that I learned from you. I think it's very helpful to people have been helpful to me. You understand that, on the one hand, this warning can be very helpful. One of the things that we jump to when we're facing with a problem of assurance is we think that the solution is to make sure everybody's assured, when there may be people that need to not be assured. There may be people that need to be called to embrace the work of Christ. That's all. The people do need to be called to embrace the work of Christ, whether they're saved or not. So we need to start with the gospel. Now. Then we need to understand that the that the strategy of the devil, his his his wheelhouse, if you will, is accusation. So even when you do open up your Bible and you even come to this text and the devil says, see, see you don't obey, you don't obey, you think you obey? Have you seen you lately? And one of the ironies is at some level the Holy Spirit is doing the same thing. Because when we are in Christ, when we are growing in grace, when the Holy Spirit isn't working us, what do we see more of. But our own sin. It is our sinfulness that makes us blind to how sinful we are. It is sanctification which makes us understand how sinful we are. That's why it isn't there a sense in which from a pastoral perspective, the person you worry about is not the one who feels guilt, but the one who doesn't right, the one who thinks that they are obeying and thinks that they are just fine because of how wonderfully obedient they're being. See, that's the one as a pastor that you know, it's going to keep me on my face. The other person who's seeing their own sin and continuing to come back to the cross again and again, they've got that right focus. But the person who thinks, you know, they've got their checklist of the stuff that they're doing and not worried. First of all, the checklist is too small, and and and secondly, their standard is too low. So the shortcut I wanted to get to was this, doctor Sproul, we'll ask a person in this in this situation, now, do you love God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your strength, with all your soul. And even even the most checklisty person out there is gonna ask to me one. No, I don't think that's deed. Okay, okay, Well, the next question is do you love him enough? Love them as much as you want to? What's that? Do you love them as much as you want to? Do you love them as much as you ought to? Well? No, I don't guess I do love them as much as I ought to. And now they're starting to get thinking. You know, they've met doctor Gerster instead of doctor Sprowl. The assurance is shrinking faster than they would like. And the last question is do you love him at all? One of the blessings of a of a robust understanding of our own depravity is that it allows you to see the work of God in you, Because without the spirit at work in my life, I would have no love for him at all. So if I have some love for him, that's evidence that the spirit is at work. In me. That's the Spirit speaking to me. And in that love I do as the question goes back to, I do cling to His provision and rest in that and not my obedience. And from that, out of that indicative of God saying who I am, comes the imperative of how I to live my life in obedience to His law. Thank you all so much this afternoon. Let's think our panelists today