What Is the Standard of Truth?: Hath God Said? with R.C. Sproul
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- The Bible does not simply point us to God. It was breathed out by God and can be trusted as
the absolute standard of truth. Yet the trustworthiness of God’s Word has often come under
attack. How should Christians respond? In this message, R.C. Sproul describes the Protestant
Reformers’ bold defense of Scripture’s authority and encourages us to follow their example
today.
This message is from Dr. Sproul’s 6-part teaching series Hath God Said? Learn more:
www.ligonier.org/learn/series...
This message is from Dr. Sproul’s 6-part teaching series Hath God Said? Watch the entire series:
www.ligonier.org/learn/series/hath-god-said
Such rich, Bible teaching!
JESUS CHRIST IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR,……….. THE ONLY TRUTH,……….THE ONLY WAY,……….AND DEFINITLY THE ONLY TRUE LIFE THERE IS,…………THE ONLY DOOR TO OUR HEAVENLY FATHER,…………. AMEN TO THAT ❤
An Article by Dr John MacArthur, Titled: Abusing the Poor
Speaking of Jesus, the text says, "And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And he said, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them, for they all out of their surplus put into the offering, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.'"
Now, if you are beginning to say to yourself, "Here goes another message on sacrificial giving," you might be right to expect that because that is the universal application of this text. It is always used to tell us we ought to give the way this widow gave.
Universally, commentators tell us that our Lord is giving us a little glimpse of true worship in the middle of the false worship that dominates the temple. They tell us that it's a beautiful little story in the midst of ugliness; a little light in the midst of darkness, an illustration of giving till it hurts, contrasted with the selfishness of the spiritual leaders. This is the traditional...This is the universal explanation of this passage. In fact, scholars agree that this is a lesson on giving, but interestingly enough they can't agree what the lesson is. And if you were to go through say 25, or 30 or 50 or 100 commentators on this passage, they would suggest many lessons. They don't all agree. Here are the options, or some of them.
One, Jesus is teaching that the measure of a gift is not how much you give but how much you have after you give. But that's the measure of the gift. The measure is not the amount of the gift, but the amount left over. And that's the lesson the Lord is trying to teach us and many have waxed eloquent on that lesson.
Another option, a second one is that the true measure is the self-denial involved, the cost to the individual, which is a just another way to say the first one. But that the percentage given is really what the issue is relative to one's expression of self-denial in that percentage. Obviously, the woman gave the highest percentage; everything. So it's about the percentage you give.
Third possibility, also related to the other two, is that the true measure of any gift is the attitude with which you give it. Is it selfless? Humble? Surrender? Expressing love for God, devotion to God and trust in God? The widow, we are told, had the least left behind, gave the highest percentage, and must have had the best attitude.
Fourthly, and this is another option that some have suggested, that the gift that truly pleases God is when you give everything and take a vow of poverty. And all of these and combinations of all of these are defended by virtually all those who write on this text. Teachers have waxed eloquent on all of them.
Now at this point I will confess to you, in spite of the popularity of these views, in spite of the universality of these views, none of these explanations makes any sense to me, none. In fact, all of those interpretations are imposed on the text and you know how I feel about imposing things on the Bible text; not good. You say, "Why do you say they're imposed?" Because Jesus never made any of those points: Jesus never said anything about what's left behind, what percentage, what attitude, or do the same and give everything. He didn't. Jesus never makes any of those points. He does not say the rich gave relatively too little; they had too much left over. He doesn't say the rich gave too low a percent. He doesn't say the widow gave the right amount. He doesn't say the rich had a bad attitude and the widow had a good attitude, or good spirit. He doesn't say that. In fact, He doesn't say anything about their giving except that she gave more than everybody. He doesn't say why or with what attitude, or whether she should have, or shouldn't have, or they should have, or shouldn't have. Her outward action is all that you see. It is no more or less good, bad, indifferent, humble, proud, selfish, unselfish than anybody else's act. There is no judgment made on her act as to its true character. There is nothing said about her attitude or her spirit. She could be acting out of devotion. She could be acting out of love. She could be acting out of guilt. She could be acting out of fear. We don't know because Jesus doesn't say anything. Doesn't say anything about the rich, doesn't say anything about the widow, doesn't draw any conclusions, doesn't develop any principles, doesn't command anything, doesn't define anything. Why? Because none of that matters.
An Article by Dr John MacArthur, Titled: Abusing the Poor
Speaking of Jesus, the text says, "And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And he said, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them, for they all out of their surplus put into the offering, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.'"
Now, if you are beginning to say to yourself, "Here goes another message on sacrificial giving," you might be right to expect that because that is the universal application of this text. It is always used to tell us we ought to give the way this widow gave.
Universally, commentators tell us that our Lord is giving us a little glimpse of true worship in the middle of the false worship that dominates the temple. They tell us that it's a beautiful little story in the midst of ugliness; a little light in the midst of darkness, an illustration of giving till it hurts, contrasted with the selfishness of the spiritual leaders. This is the traditional...This is the universal explanation of this passage. In fact, scholars agree that this is a lesson on giving, but interestingly enough they can't agree what the lesson is. And if you were to go through say 25, or 30 or 50 or 100 commentators on this passage, they would suggest many lessons. They don't all agree. Here are the options, or some of them.
One, Jesus is teaching that the measure of a gift is not how much you give but how much you have after you give. But that's the measure of the gift. The measure is not the amount of the gift, but the amount left over. And that's the lesson the Lord is trying to teach us and many have waxed eloquent on that lesson.
Another option, a second one is that the true measure is the self-denial involved, the cost to the individual, which is a just another way to say the first one. But that the percentage given is really what the issue is relative to one's expression of self-denial in that percentage. Obviously, the woman gave the highest percentage; everything. So it's about the percentage you give.
Third possibility, also related to the other two, is that the true measure of any gift is the attitude with which you give it. Is it selfless? Humble? Surrender? Expressing love for God, devotion to God and trust in God? The widow, we are told, had the least left behind, gave the highest percentage, and must have had the best attitude.
Fourthly, and this is another option that some have suggested, that the gift that truly pleases God is when you give everything and take a vow of poverty. And all of these and combinations of all of these are defended by virtually all those who write on this text. Teachers have waxed eloquent on all of them.
Now at this point I will confess to you, in spite of the popularity of these views, in spite of the universality of these views, none of these explanations makes any sense to me, none. In fact, all of those interpretations are imposed on the text and you know how I feel about imposing things on the Bible text; not good. You say, "Why do you say they're imposed?" Because Jesus never made any of those points: Jesus never said anything about what's left behind, what percentage, what attitude, or do the same and give everything. He didn't. Jesus never makes any of those points. He does not say the rich gave relatively too little; they had too much left over. He doesn't say the rich gave too low a percent. He doesn't say the widow gave the right amount. He doesn't say the rich had a bad attitude and the widow had a good attitude, or good spirit. He doesn't say that. In fact, He doesn't say anything about their giving except that she gave more than everybody. He doesn't say why or with what attitude, or whether she should have, or shouldn't have, or they should have, or shouldn't have. Her outward action is all that you see. It is no more or less good, bad, indifferent, humble, proud, selfish, unselfish than anybody else's act. There is no judgment made on her act as to its true character. There is nothing said about her attitude or her spirit. She could be acting out of devotion. She could be acting out of love. She could be acting out of guilt. She could be acting out of fear. We don't know because Jesus doesn't say anything. Doesn't say anything about the rich, doesn't say anything about the widow, doesn't draw any conclusions, doesn't develop any principles, doesn't command anything, doesn't define anything. Why? Because none of that matters.
So, what just exactly is this about? Now one more comment or two before we look at it. It's not obscure. Anybody can read it and read exactly what it says. It's not profound. It's not got some deep, hidden, secret meaning. This is not one of the great spiritual insights in the Bible. This is not one of the great revelations of Scripture. This isn't one of the great brilliant things that Jesus said that has all kinds of deep meaning. It's simple, clear. He saw a widow give more than everybody else. In other words, her involvement in religion cost her more than it cost anybody else because it cost her everything. That's all, just an observation. And the disciples weren't confused about it. They...They didn't ask questions about it. It was patently obvious.
Another thing to think about. The assumption in interpreting this as a model for Christian giving is that Jesus was pleased with what she did. It doesn't say that. Absolutely doesn't say that. It doesn't say that Jesus was pleased with her gift. It doesn't say Jesus was pleased with her attitude. It doesn't say anything about His attitude. In fact...In fact, I think what she did displeased Him immensely. I think it was more than displeasing. I think it angered Him. I think what she did angered Jesus.
Let me put it this way. How would you feel? You're a person that loves the Lord, you're a person that loves your brother and cares about people and cares about their needs. How would you feel if you saw a destitute widow who only had two coins left to buy her food for her next meal give those two coins to a religious system? How would you feel? You would say, "Something is wrong with that system when that system takes the last two coins out of a widow's hand." That's what you would say and you would be right to say that. Giving your last two coins to a false religious system! How would you feel if you saw a destitute, impoverished person give to her religion her last hope for life to go home perhaps and die? You'd be sick. You'd feel terrible. You would be repulsed. Any religion that is built on the back of the poor is a false religion. What a sad, misguided, woeful, poor victimized lady. It's tragic, painful. And I think that's exactly how Jesus saw it, exactly.
Waw R C Sproul you are our blessing in Christ.
We hope you finish all the 5 solas like this , if there is part to, we wish so.
Is man in authority or the word? God is the head of Christ. God is the head authority. Christ is the head of the church. Christ himself is the standard measure of the truth of the church. Then his words. Again his words are written through men. So is men with authority or the word? Men are vessels only, but christ speak through then with authority, so his word has more authority than the vessel. If men go wrong no one can correct them if there is no standard measure of truth. But if the word is standard measure of the truth, then men can be corrected. So scripture has more authority than men , or servants of God. It means what God says is important than what men says. Men have to obey to what God says , or the God who speaks through his book, but his book was written through men. Men are vessels, but God is writing his book by them. So the bible is standard measure of the truth. Not man. But man holds authority in handling the truth , that is revealed in the word of God.
What about if the bible is corrupted, who guard it? God through men. So men and the bible watch each other. Does it mean sola scriptures or tradition also? But tradition the that keep right tradition, that is that holds the bibles truth. Roman both? Protestant sola scripture. God keeps his book but through men. So men and the bible in authority. But man holds biblical truth, and the bible holds biblical man, shepherd each other. So both are in authority. But not un biblical truth , unbiblical tradition or unbiblical man. Thanks !
You write that God is the head of Christ (obviously following Paul). But how can this be true in the light of the doctrine of the Trinity?
First of all, there is no God apart from Christ, since Christ is the incarnated second divine person, and the second divine person (the "Son") is included in God.
Second, I assume you believe the Nicene Creed, which says that Jesus is of the same substance of the Father and is coeternal with him, and the same council of Nicea condemned Arius's teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
It seems that Athanasius and all those accepting his teaching at the Council of Nicea have not read Paul, and not even the reformators challenged this view of the Catholic Church.
Nobody knows the truth is more true
12:09 "Sola Scriptura obviously refers to the Bible or the Scriptures. And so this slogan, “Something is by the Scripture alone!” Well, what is “by the Scripture alone?” Luther was saying that the only written source in this world that has the level of authority to actually bind the conscience of a person is the Bible."
It just hit me. We say we believe these things. But how many churches closed in 2020-21? I will never stop being ashamed about that. And now everyone's pretending it never even happened.
The Holy Spirit is the truth. 1 John 5:6
I'm Catholic, and never ever would occur to me to question the Bible. Yes, I read it. Thanks.
Then you know the RCC is in contradiction with the Bible. And you continue to be part of it.
what about church tradition
What is the norm
Who sets the standards
Terms like hyper calvinism!
A very nice lecture (as usual with Sproul), however, it does not address the issue he started the lecture with, i.e. why has the authority of the Bible been questioned in the last two centuries.
My answer is: because now we know that there are many details which are simply wrong in the Bible.
Especially now with the progress made by science the first eleven chapters of Genesis cannot be seen as history, they are myths and fables. So -among other things - the very fundaments of Christian faith (creation, the fall) cannot have happened as described in the Bible.
So you have two choices: you must question the inerrancy of the Bible, and reinterpret the Christian faith (that's what liberal Christianity does), or uphold the infallibility of the Bible and deny fundamental achievements of science, holding on to the literal idea of a 6 day creation, a worldwide flood, a 6000 years old Universe etc.
Science hasn't disproved the Genesis account ?
Hello-If you’re interested in why Christians believe in the Creation account as written in the Bible-I have a book for you. It’s called
“Something From Nothing “ by
Kurt Wise.
Evolution has never made sense to me. The only thing that can come from nothing IS nothing.
Our Creator is the only One capable of creating matter and
breathing life into anyone or anything. Physics backs up that statement. No human being can create matter or life-as we are
created beings-not Creators. Life also can’t CREATE itself.
God gave us the ability to invent new technologies-however, we
didn’t create our own abilities.
They were GIVEN to us.
Anyhow, I hope you check out the Bible and the above mentioned book. Talk to Jesus. He is always listening.
I would LOVE to meet you someday in heaven.
@@lukethedude3902 Yes, it has. Yet people like Sproul, MacArthur and all those believing literally the Genesis account refuse to recognise it.
The Earth is much much younger (by 9,2 billion years) than the "Heaven" i.e. the Universe, so it cannot have been created "in the beginning". The Sun was only created on day 4, but God separated the daylight from the night on day 1. This is also wrong as the alternation of day and night is the result of the Earth's rotation on its axis turning always its (always changing) half towards the Sun.
Of course there are no "waters below" and "waters above" and a firm wall (the firmament) separating them. Then the Flood is also entirely impossible.
I might continue.
@@brncllhn The Christians believe in the Creation account found in the Bible because they believe the Bible is the inerrant revelation from God.
This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, since Christians had always believed this well before Darwin.
By the way many Christians (even in the USA) accept the theory of evolution to explain the vast diversity of life, and the changes in the realm of plants and animals during the Earth's long (almost million times longer than 6000 years') history.
I see that the theory of evolution (and its wide acceptance among the scientifically literate) is a major thorn in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists, but it is not the only scientific theory which refutes the Bible. E.g. the account of the Flood is entirely untenable, and it is not refuted by the theory of evolution.
The Bible is not “anti-science” but pre-science. It is not meant to be read with just the perspective of the “how” when it comes to creation alone, but it is the divine book on the “Who” of creation. Science has not done anything to disprove scripture. Science however has done nothing but disprove itself as time has passed due to man learning more and more about creation. Like a child trying to figure out a puzzle that only their Parent knows how to do. This Parent watches their child over time move pieces around, thinking they got it all figured out! Only to learn more about the pieces, moving pieces to different places - all while the Parent waits for the child to realize the puzzle is about the Parent.
John 3:16 Acts 2:38 Jesus also being born the most important of all the Bible that you guys won't follow those directions nope cuz you want to make people happy and bring who you want in church only you should bring everybody in church and do the right things have a good day
Lol. What?
LOL! What?
Which statement in this video did you disagree with, and upon what biblical basis? Give the time stamp.
Blasphemy to err is human to forgive is Divine. Catholicism is the Church of Coonstaintine is truly established for the state for man’s purposes and not God’s . The widow’s mite she gave more than anyone else in the Temple by FAITH because that’s all she had,! Saved by grace threw FAITH . Which is evidence of things unseen things that are hoped for blessed are those who believe without seeing Amen
An Article by Dr John MacArthur, titled: Abusing the Poor
Speaking of Jesus, the text says, "And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And he said, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them, for they all out of their surplus put into the offering, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.'"
Now, if you are beginning to say to yourself, "Here goes another message on sacrificial giving," you might be right to expect that because that is the universal application of this text. It is always used to tell us we ought to give the way this widow gave.
Universally, commentators tell us that our Lord is giving us a little glimpse of true worship in the middle of the false worship that dominates the temple. They tell us that it's a beautiful little story in the midst of ugliness; a little light in the midst of darkness, an illustration of giving till it hurts, contrasted with the selfishness of the spiritual leaders. This is the traditional...This is the universal explanation of this passage. In fact, scholars agree that this is a lesson on giving, but interestingly enough they can't agree what the lesson is. And if you were to go through say 25, or 30 or 50 or 100 commentators on this passage, they would suggest many lessons. They don't all agree. Here are the options, or some of them.
One, Jesus is teaching that the measure of a gift is not how much you give but how much you have after you give. But that's the measure of the gift. The measure is not the amount of the gift, but the amount left over. And that's the lesson the Lord is trying to teach us, and many have waxed eloquent on that lesson.
Another option, a second one is that the true measure is the self-denial involved, the cost to the individual, which is a just another way to say the first one. But that the percentage given is really what the issue is relative to one's expression of self-denial in that percentage. Obviously, the woman gave the highest percentage; everything. So, it's about the percentage you give.
Third possibility, also related to the other two, is that the true measure of any gift is the attitude with which you give it. Is it selfless? Humble? Surrender? Expressing love for God, devotion to God and trust in God? The widow, we are told, had the least left behind, gave the highest percentage, and must have had the best attitude.
Fourthly, and this is another option that some have suggested, that the gift that truly pleases God is when you give everything and take a vow of poverty. And all of these and combinations of all of these are defended by virtually all those who write on this text. Teachers have waxed eloquent on all of them.
Now at this point I will confess to you, in spite of the popularity of these views, in spite of the universality of these views, none of these explanations makes any sense to me, none. In fact, all of those interpretations are imposed on the text, and you know how I feel about imposing things on the Bible text; not good. You say, "Why do you say they're imposed?" Because Jesus never made any of those points: Jesus never said anything about what's left behind, what percentage, what attitude, or do the same and give everything. He didn't. Jesus never makes any of those points. He does not say the rich gave relatively too little; they had too much left over. He doesn't say the rich gave too low a percent. He doesn't say the widow gave the right amount. He doesn't say the rich had a bad attitude and the widow had a good attitude, or good spirit. He doesn't say that. In fact, He doesn't say anything about their giving except that she gave more than everybody. He doesn't say why or with what attitude, or whether she should have, or shouldn't have, or they should have, or shouldn't have. Her outward action is all that you see. It is no more or less good, bad, indifferent, humble, proud, selfish, unselfish than anybody else's act. There is no judgment made on her act as to its true character. There is nothing said about her attitude or her spirit. She could be acting out of devotion. She could be acting out of love. She could be acting out of guilt. She could be acting out of fear. We don't know because Jesus doesn't say anything. Doesn't say anything about the rich, doesn't say anything about the widow, doesn't draw any conclusions, doesn't develop any principles, doesn't command anything, doesn't define anything. Why? Because none of that matters.
Here's the rest of the article: So, what just exactly is this about? Now one more comment or two before we look at it. It's not obscure. Anybody can read it and read exactly what it says. It's not profound. It's not got some deep, hidden, secret meaning. This is not one of the great spiritual insights in the Bible. This is not one of the great revelations of Scripture. This isn't one of the great brilliant things that Jesus said that has all kinds of deep meaning. It's simple, clear. He saw a widow give more than everybody else. In other words, her involvement in religion cost her more than it cost anybody else because it cost her everything. That's all, just an observation. And the disciples weren't confused about it. They...They didn't ask questions about it. It was patently obvious.
Another thing to think about. The assumption in interpreting this as a model for Christian giving is that Jesus was pleased with what she did. It doesn't say that. Absolutely doesn't say that. It doesn't say that Jesus was pleased with her gift. It doesn't say Jesus was pleased with her attitude. It doesn't say anything about His attitude. In fact...In fact, I think what she did displeased Him immensely. I think it was more than displeasing. I think it angered Him. I think what she did angered Jesus.
Let me put it this way. How would you feel? You're a person that loves the Lord, you're a person that loves your brother and cares about people and cares about their needs. How would you feel if you saw a destitute widow who only had two coins left to buy her food for her next meal give those two coins to a religious system? How would you feel? You would say, "Something is wrong with that system when that system takes the last two coins out of a widow's hand." That's what you would say and you would be right to say that. Giving your last two coins to a false religious system! How would you feel if you saw a destitute, impoverished person give to her religion her last hope for life to go home perhaps and die? You'd be sick. You'd feel terrible. You would be repulsed. Any religion that is built on the back of the poor is a false religion. What a sad, misguided, woeful, poor victimized lady. It's tragic, painful. And I think that's exactly how Jesus saw it, exactly.
Even the Reformed Calvinist, Dr John MacArthur clearly teaches the biblical truth that Christians (born-again believers), today, are not required to tithe. The idea of the tithe is still present in the New Testament (Matthew 23:23), but it is never explicitly applied to believers. Instead, almost all Christians are called to more extravagant freewill giving in response to the gospel of the Lord Jesus, based on faith in God as Provider (2 Corinthians 9:6-10).
The Roman Catholic Cult has nothing to do with the body of Christ
Yeah, Christian based mysticisms.
Ancient book of mythology 🙄
You've never read it.
@@Yesica1993
Exposed to it in Sunday school and religious instruction classes at school. Starting reading it from Genesis to Revelations, out of curiosity, but gave up in the Old Testament when a book said it was a retelling of the last one. An omnipotent omniscient omnipresent and all other superlatives to infinity deity should be eminently capable of telepathically writing it's instruction manual in a clear concise unambiguous manner.
Have you read The Qur'an in English translation? How do you know that reading the Qur'an won't convince you that Islam is the true religion?
Rhetorical questions 🙄
Sure, because every book of ancient mythology helped start and finish the search for archaeological finds. The very school of biblical archaeology was started by leads given by the Bible. You sure you're not just working on assumptions because you'd rather those be true than the Bible?
@@erikturkelson9500
And the legend of Troy turned out to have a factual basis leading to archeological investigation. Many stories have elements of historicity and physicality. None of this proves the mythology.
I certainly hope none of the Abrahamic stories are true.
But there is no God
Seeking attention doesn’t prove your comment. Repent and believe, friend.
@@PeteJab Believe in what?
He is a good teacher, but his amillennial theology is wrong. Along with other reformed leaders who hold to that theology.