by R.C. Sproul

Many believe that assurance of eternal salvation is neither possible nor even to be sought. To claim such assurance is considered a mask of supreme arrogance, the nadir of self-conceit.

Yet if God declares that it is possible to have full assurance of salvation and even commands that we seek after it, it would be supremely arrogant for one to deny or neglect it.

In fact, God does command us to seek certainty about our salvation: "Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall" (2 Peter 1:10, NIV).

This command admits of no justifiable neglect. It addresses a crucial matter. The question "Am I saved?" is one of the most important questions I can ever ask myself. I need to know the answer. I must know the answer. This is not a trifle.

Without the assurance of salvation, the Christian life is unstable. It is vulnerable to the debilitating rigors of mood changes and allows the wolf of heresy to camp on the doorstep.

Progress in sanctification requires a firm foundation in faith. Without it, the foundation crumbles.

Coram Deo: Ask God to cement the foundation of your faith with divine assurance of your salvation.

2 Peter 1:10: "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble."

Ephesians 2:4-5: "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)."

1 Peter 1:5: "[We] are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Pastor's Perspective
by David A. Robertson

The door opened and a middle-aged man appeared. "Hi, I'm from the local church and...." "Don't waste your time," he interrupted, "I've no time for religion, I believe in science." "Really? Are you a scientist?" "No." "Have you studied science?" "No." "So why do you have faith in science?" Silence.

The conversation is an all too typical consequence of a modern Western myth that science and religion are polar opposites and that those who have a scientific background and knowledge will de facto avoid faith. In the mid-nineteenth century science was largely dominated by "amateurs," including many clergymen. After the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species some people (though not Darwin himself) saw an opportunity to use "science" as a weapon against religion. From the days of Thomas Huxley until the modern day atheist "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris), the myth has been carefully nurtured that Christianity and science are fundamentally opposed. Sadly, some Christians have bought into this myth and have helped foster the perceived science/religion divide. As a result, there are many people who unthinkingly accept this myth and, in a classic case of what Tim Keller would rightly call a "defeater" belief, they do not even consider the gospel. It is a scenario I come across often in pastoral and outreach work; so, how do we deal with it?

First, at a practical level, I introduce people to the many scientists who are in my congregation. As a city congregation with a substantial student population, we are blessed with many students who study science, and many people whose jobs are science-based. We even have several post-doctoral research scientists who are at the top of their respective fields. If science and religion are opposed, then why are these scientists to be found every Sunday worshiping Jesus? The response that Dawkins and others will give is that they are simply "compartmentalizing." In other words, they know that their science and faith cannot be reconciled and so they just put them in different compartments. Our atheist friends come to this conclusion, not because they ask or have any evidence for this, but because they have to. They start with the conclusion and try to make the facts fit into their predetermined viewpoint. But as good Calvinists we are not allowed to compartmentalize. We affirm with Kuyper that there is not one inch of the universe of which Christ does not say, "It is mine." We do all things for the glory of God -- including science. And that is why we encourage those believers who have the interest and the abilities to be involved in science as a God-given calling.

Second, I point people to the history of science and to the impossibility of there being any modern science without theistic and, indeed, Christian presuppositions. The original founders of the Royal Society in London were basically puritans who believed, along with Newton, that there were two books of the revelation of God -- creation and the Bible. All modern science is based upon the notion that the universe is ordered and can be studied. This is so often assumed that people forget that the assumption itself is a belief that is founded upon a monotheistic view of the universe. The ancient Greeks believed in many gods operating in a chaotic universe. The Christian believes that God brought order out of the chaos and therefore that that order can be studied. This is the philosophical basis of all modern science, without which it could not exist.

Then I look at the current state of science. Recent scientific discoveries have once again demonstrated the glory of God in the heavens. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the discovery of the fine-tuning of the universe. The consequences of this are phenomenal -- either one believes that we are incredibly "lucky" or that someone designed our designed universe, or, if you are really desperate to avoid God, you invent the "multiverse theory," which speculates, without any empirical evidence, that the universe is one of billions of universes that just happens to provide the fine-tuning for life.

Finally, I would point out that it is the philosophy of scientism rather than the practice of science that is the problem. The philosophy of scientism, that only the material exists, is anti-Christian and, ironically, it is also anti-scientific because it is not an empirically provable scientific theory. The Bible is not a scientific textbook and it would be foolish to look for things to prove in the Bible from science (as though the Bible were subject to our current limited understanding). But the presuppositions and teachings of the Bible are, as we would expect them to be, completely compatible with the practice and knowledge of science. As John Lennox from Oxford University points out in his wonderful God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?: "Far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise is validated by his existence. Inevitably, of course, not only those of us who do science, but all of us, have to choose the presupposition with which we start. There are not many options -- essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second."

*****

Rev. David A. Robertson is minister of St. Peter's Free Church in Dundee, Scotland, and author of The Dawkins' Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths.

Pastor's Perspective is an opportunity each month for a different seasoned pastor to apply the themes discussed in Tabletalk more directly to the life of the layperson and equip the saints for service in the local congregation.

by R.C. Sproul Jr.

No, and yes. The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura. Here the person affirms that all he needs is himself and his Bible. The wisdom of the church in history, the community of believers, are all deemed irrelevant to understanding the things of God. Solo scriptura is reprehensible and ignorant and a-historical.

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house" (Matthew 9:1-8).

I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead. Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them? In like manner, I'd be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

But wait, there's more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same.

Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.

No, the Bible is God's Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.

If you'd like to learn more, I'd encourage you to get and read my friend Keith Mathison's outstanding book The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

Right Now Counts Forever
by R.C. Sproul

Few books I have read have made a lasting impression on my mind and thought. One of them I read over fifty years ago. The title of the book was The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, and it made a lasting impression upon me because it clearly set forth the importance of understanding that all scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises. The philosophical premises that are the underpinning of scientific inquiry are often taken for granted and never given even a cursory exploration. But in a time when fierce debate rages between science and theology, it is important that we step back and ask questions about the pre-scientific theoretical foundations for the whole enterprise of knowledge.

The word science means "knowledge." We tend to have a restricted view of the word as if knowledge only applies to the realm of empirical investigation. Besides material knowledge, we also have to take into account formal truth. In this regard we must consider mathematics as a genuine science, because math in its formal dimension yields real knowledge. In fact, if we look at the history of scientific progress, we see that the engine that has driven new breakthroughs and brought to bear new paradigms has more often than not been the engine of formal mathematics. But it is astonishing to see how frequently people engaged in material scientific research glibly pass over the philosophical presuppositions of their own work.

In Carl Sagan's famous book entitled Cosmos, based on his television series of the same title, he makes the following statement: "Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things." In this seemingly harmless definition of the entire structure of Sagan's work, he assumes that the universe under investigation by science is a cosmos rather than a chaos. He speaks of cosmos "implying a deep interconnectedness of all things." This is the grand presupposition of scientific inquiry, namely, that the universe we are seeking to know is coherent. There is an implied deep and profound interconnectedness of all things. The alternative to cosmos, as Sagan has indicated, is chaos. If the universe is at root chaotic, then the whole scientific enterprise collapses. If the universe is chaotic and disconnected, then no knowledge is possible at all. Even discreet bits of atomic data cannot be understood within the framework of utter chaos, so the presupposition of a coherent, rational order of all things is the screaming presupposition of scientists.

This idea of an assumed coherency has its roots in ancient philosophical inquiry. Ancient Greeks, for example, sought ultimate reality. They sought a foundational principle for unity that would make sense out of diversity. This ultimate unity is what the science of theology provides. The science of theology provides the necessary presupposition for modern science. This is precisely the point that led prominent philosopher Antony Flew to his conversion from atheism to deism -- namely, the essential necessity of a coherent foundation to reality to make any knowledge possible. This ultimate coherency cannot be provided by the contingency of this world. It requires a transcendent order.

In the Middle Ages, a crisis ensued in the realm of philosophy with the revival of what Muslim thinkers called "integral Aristotelianism." In their attempt to achieve a synthesis between Aristotelian philosophy and Muslim theology, these thinkers produced a concept called the "double-truth theory." The double-truth theory argued that what was true in religion could be false in science, and what was true in science could at the same time be false in religion. To translate that into contemporary categories, it would go something like this: As a Christian, one could believe that the universe came into being through the purposive act of a divine Creator while at the same time believing that the universe emerged gratuitously as a cosmic accident. These two truths examined by logic would appear to be contradictory. Nevertheless, the double-truth theory would say that truth is contradictory, and one could hold these contradictory ideas at the same time. This kind of intellectual schizophrenia rules the day in our own time where people think that God had nothing to do with the formation of the cosmos from Monday to Saturday only to become creationists on Sunday, failing to see that the two concepts are utterly irreconcilable.

At this point, the question is raised, "Well, does logic really count in our attempt to understand reality?" Again, if we're going to assume coherency and cosmos, logic has to count not just for something but for everything. Thomas Aquinas responded to the Aristotelianism of the medieval Muslim philosophers by replacing double truths with the concept of mixed articles, distinguishing nature and grace (not dividing them, as many of his critics allege). Aquinas said that there are certain truths that can be known through special revelation that are not discerned from investigation of the natural world, while at the same time there are certain truths learned from the study of nature that are not found, for example, in the Bible. One does not find the circulatory system of the human body clearly set forth in Scripture. What Aquinas was saying was that there are certain truths that are mixed articles, truths that can be known either from the Bible or by a study of nature. Among those mixed articles, he included the knowledge of the existence of a Creator.

The fundamental point, of course, that Aquinas was arguing, in agreement with his famous predecessor, Augustine, was that all truth is God's truth, and that all truth meets at the top. If science contradicts religion, or if religion contradicts science, at least one of them must be wrong. There have been times in history where the scientific community has corrected not the Bible but poor interpretations of the Bible, as we saw in the Galileo scandal. On the other hand, biblical revelation can act as intellectual brakes upon scientific theories that are groundless. In any case, if knowledge is possible, what Sagan assumed must continue to be assumed -- namely, that for truth to be known, for science to be possible, there must be a coherent reality that we are seeking to know.

*****

Dr. R.C. Sproul is founder and president of Ligonier Ministries and senior minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's in Sanford, Florida, and he is author of the book Faith Alone.

For more than thirty years, Dr. R.C. Sproul has thoroughly and concisely analyzed weighty theological, philosophical, and biblical topics in Right Now Counts Forever, drawing out practical applications for the Christian in his own engaging style.

Coram Deo: Living Before the Face of God
by Burk Parsons

In 1998 a dear friend prompted me to get involved working with Dr. Tom Woodward and the C. S. Lewis Society. A few months later I found myself at dinner with Phillip E. Johnson, noted law professor at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial. During my time with Dr. Johnson I learned two very important things. First, if we as Christians are going to enter the debate on Darwinian evolution, we must first understand who and what we're up against---we must know our opponents' arguments better than they do. Second, I learned that our ultimate end is not simply to win the argument but to win our opponents to Christ, and that we must therefore be careful to win both the argument and win the man so that at the end of the debate our opponent has a place to land, a smooth runway, so to speak, where he can come down.

We're familiar with Peter's charge: "In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." However, we too often forget the manner in which we are called to "make a defense" (an apologetic) for the hope within us. Peter continues, "yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:15-16).

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and this month marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. While it would certainly be easy for us to do an issue of Tabletalk that simply reiterated the glaring deficiencies of Darwin's naturalism and evolutionary biology, we decided instead to follow the wisdom of Dr. Johnson. Thus, we have provided you with something that is hard to find anywhere, namely, a fair and honest biographical portrait of Charles Darwin and an overview of responses to Darwinian evolutionary theory from a Christian perspective, so that, at the end of the day, the church might be better equipped to give a defense of her hope with gentleness and respect, pointing all professed Darwinists to the undeniable Creator before whose face we live coram Deo.

*****

Burk Parsons is editor of Tabletalk magazine and associate minister at Saint Andrew's in Sanford, Florida, and is editor of the book John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology.

Coram Deo by Burk Parsons introduces the theme of each month's issue of Tabletalk and explains why everything we study should contribute to the living of a holy life before the face of God.

We do not post all of the feature articles or the daily devotionals from the issue, so you'll have to subscribe to get those. But for now, here are links to a few select columns and articles from this month:

Coram Deo (Living Before the Face of God):
"A Man Created in God's Image" by Burk Parsons

Right Now Counts Forever:
"All Truth Is God's Truth" by R.C. Sproul

Pastor's Perspective:
"Science vs. Science" by David A. Robertson

Pro Ecclesia (For the Church):
"Christian Publishing" by Allan Fisher

Generation to Generation
"The Gospel Is for the Broken" by Rod Rosenbladt

Tolle Lege (Take Up and Read):
"Why Is Justification So Important?" by Keith A. Mathison

Seek Ye First:
"Intelligent Design?" by R.C. Sproul Jr.

Truth and Consequences:
"Social Darwinism" by Gene Edward Veith

*****

If you have not subscribed yet, you should. It's only $23 for a year, and $20 to renew. You save even more if you get a 2- or 3-year subscription (as little as $1.36 per issue). Special discounts for churches or businesses are available for those who want multiple copies of each issue. Start receiving Tabletalk by calling one of Ligonier Ministries' resource consultants at 800-435-4343 (8am-8pm ET, Mon-Fri) or subscribe online.

by R.C. Sproul

We are fragile mortals, given to fears of every sort. We have a built-in insecurity that no amount of whistling in the dark can mollify. We seek assurance concerning the things that frighten us the most.

The prohibition uttered more frequently than any other by our Lord is the command "Fear not." He said this so often to His disciples and others He encountered that it almost came to sound like a greeting. Where most people greet others by saying "Hi" or "Hello," the first words of Jesus very often were "Fear not."

Why? Perhaps Jesus' predilection for those words grew out of His acute sense of the fear that grips all who approach the living God. We fear His power; we fear His wrath; and most of all we fear His ultimate rejection.

The assurance we need the most is the assurance of salvation. Though we are loath to think much about it or contemplate it deeply, we know--if only intuitively--that the worst catastrophe that could befall us is to be visited by God's final punitive wrath. Our insecurity is worsened by the certainty that we deserve it.

Coram Deo: Listen to God's Word to you today: Fear not!

Isaiah 41:10: "Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand."

Luke 12:32: "Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

Hebrews 13:6: "So we may boldly say: 'The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?'"

by R.C. Sproul

Charles Colson speaks of a modern "return to the Dark Ages." When I think of the original Dark Ages, I think of a period when culture was in decline and the progress of knowledge was static.

But today we read of the problem of the explosion of knowledge. It is a time when information and communications are big business. We hear the cry from the universities that knowledge in every field of investigation is increasing so rapidly that no one can assimilate it, even in the most narrow of specialties. The age of the "expert" is over. The word expert must now be defined in relative terms.

If knowledge is light and the light is exploding in magnitude, how can we speak of a new Dark Ages? The darkness is in the heart. It is a darkness produced by a shroud covering the face of God.

Thirty years ago, I read a book written by the Jewish philosopher and theologian Martin Buber. Buber's book had an ominous title: The Eclipse of God. That is the eclipse of our age. A shadow has passed over the glory of God. We are a people who will not have God in our thinking. We have returned to Plato's cave, in which we prefer the dancing shadows on the wall of ungrounded opinion over the light of truth.

Coram Deo: Ask God to dispel the darkness in your own mind, soul, and spirit through His marvelous light.

Hosea 4:1: "Hear the word of the Lord, you children of Israel, for the Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land: 'There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land.'"

Luke 11:52: "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

Habakkuk 2:14: "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea."