Sproul's Error: "God is non-just"

Sproul’s Error: “God is non-just" 

 

Allow me to begin by affirming Sproul and how much I respect him, his God-given wisdom, and his work. I consider him a man of God and by no means am I throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the same time, I also don’t want to fall into the category of idolizing (or, fanboying) certain anointed Christians and blindly defending someone. One can be a strong believer with flaws, whether that be one’s belief or character. Church history should reveal that to us.  

Think about the high regard people have shown to John Wesley when his marriage was an absolute disaster (and ironically, he talks about Christian perfectionism). I love Moody’s quote: “If a man doesn’t treat his wife right, I don’t want to hear him talk about Christianity.” Well, Wesley wrote to his wife: “you’re better off dead.” (my paraphrase; here’s the link) ) This is why I believe we should regard Calvin higher than Wesley without considering their theology, but their character and marriage.  

Anyhow, while we should strive to be perfect as God is perfect, holy, and righteous (Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:15), we cannot be not perfect in the flesh. So, some people need to be reminded that their favorite pastor or preacher are also fallen people, and fallen people have flaws. Furthermore, I think it is one thing to criticize one’s character (in which we should be a bit more careful about) and another to scrutinize one’s beliefs. There’s an objective component to doctrine, and my criticism does not stem from personal vendetta (I have never met Sproul) or an attempt to defame him but a desire to pursue truth. Shouldn’t all believers do that, in the way of the Bereans who examined Scripture regarding Christ (and by implication, theology)? (Acts 17:10-15) 

 

The Context 

Sproul’s error stems from a teaching series on God’s nature. You’ll find the video and transcript via the link below: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/holiness-of-god/holiness-and-justice  

 

I must affirm that I enjoyed 98% of the lecture. Great stuff overall. But an error is an error. The error is found at the end with the following statement:  

“I’ll close with this: a holy God is both just and merciful—never unjust. There is never an occasion in any page of sacred Scripture where God ever punishes an innocent person. God simply doesn’t know how to be unjust. I thank Him every night that He does know how to be non-just; because mercy is non-justice, but it is not injustice. 

  

So I’ll leave you with this. When you say your prayers, don’t ever ask God to give you justice. He might do it. And if God were to deal with us according to justice, we would perish as swiftly as Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah, and Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. But we live by grace, by His mercy, and let’s never forget it. 

 

Again, the video and transcript are available online. I’m not trying to blindly attack him.  

God is non-just? 

I truly believe Sproul had a good understanding of God’s nature, but this claim is absurd, and lowkey blasphemous. It’s one of those “throw-your-bible-out statements.” I once mentioned this quote to a few of my friends (without telling them Sproul said so) and their response was “If God is non just, He’s not God. What is justice?” Spot on, my friends.  Anyway, let’s look deeper into the claim. 

 

First, can God be “non-just”? Is that biblical? Does Scripture categorize Him in a such a manner? How come Sproul uses Scripture for most of his work but not this part? I would think that a big claim such as this should beg for scriptural evidence. Yet, doesn’t Scripture write,  

“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.” (Rev 16:5 cf. Jer 12:1) 

Umm...unless the angels are wrong, it seems like God is eternally just—not non-just. In fact, Scripture writes, “...true and just are Your judgments!” (Rev 16:7) Isn’t it so simple? God is just and the Bible is clear. Don’t fix something that’s not broken. 

 

Worse off, there are people who take him for his word without examining what he says (and whether it aligns with Scripture) and go out into the world proclaiming: “God is non-just!” or “God is not always just.”  Here’s an example. But seriously, if God is non-just, why bother becoming a Christian?  

 

Second, Sproul contradicted himself. He began the statement affirming that God is just and merciful. He should’ve ended right there. But he didn’t and made a category of “non-justice”. If God is just, how can He be non-just? Justice is justice and justice is not injustice. There’s no in-between, especially when we’re talking about God! If God is good—He is Good eternally as He is the same from eternity past to eternity future. He is eternal in nature (Gen 21:33). He is never non-good. That just makes no sense logically and biblically.  

 

Last, justice and righteousness are married on a lexical basis (dikiaosune). Righteousness= justice. Revelation 16:5 is the perfect example. This passage quotes Jeremiah 12:1, “Righteous are you, O LORD..." Why is it translated as “just are you, O Holy One...” in Revelation 16:5? Because the word for righteous/just is the same word (from the LXX)! It’s diakaios.  Here are some examples for your reference.

• “God is a righteous judge” (Ps 7:11)  

• “…righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” (Ps 97:2)

• “Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful.” (Ps 119:5)  

• “Righteous are you, O LORD, and right are your rules.” (Ps 119:137) 

• When Scripture describes God as “the Righteous One” (Prov 21:12; Isa 24:16; Acts 3:14; 7:54; 22:13), it’s same as God being the “Just One”.  

• “Your righteousness is righteous forever” (Ps 119:142)

• "The LORD is righteous in all His ways..." (Ps 145:17)

• “for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that He has done...” (Dan 9:14) 

 

If Scripture affirms God’s righteousness, Scripture affirms God’s justice. Hence, if God is non-just, He is non-righteous. Now that’s purely unbiblical. By the way, I don’t think Sproul believes that God is not righteous, but his rash statement actually implies this.  

 

The Locus (focal point) of the problem 

I hate to say this, but I don’t think Sproul demonstrated an accurate understanding of God’s justice and mercy. In fact, the example he used prior to the quote (about him showing mercy as a professor to students who submitted their papers late) was terrible. The problem lies in a presupposition, that is, God’s justice demands instantaneous action. He believes that (1) since God is just and the standard of good and evil, and (2) we are fallen human beings in sin, (therefore) God’s justice demands instant eradication/punishment. But when God shows mercy and does not wipe us out, God is suppressing His justice in favor of mercy and grace—thus “non-just”. And somehow, we should not pray for God’s justice as He might kill us like how He killed Sapphira. 

 

But wait, aren’t our sins atoned for by Jesus on the Cross? I’m not sure if the same applies to Ananias and Sapphira given how Satan filled their hearts to lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5: 3).  

 

I’m baffled by this because Sproul interprets Scripture brilliantly before the end of his lecture, and somehow, he got to this without any scriptural reference. He conflated justice with “imminent destruction/retribution” but this is how God describes Himself,   

““The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exo 34:6-8) 

 

The fact that God does not clear the guilty means that He is just and righteous. Scripture does not prescribe God as having the obligation to zap anyone immediately in response to His justice. God remains just and righteous while merciful irrespective of instant retribution. (shoutout to Nathan Reyes for pointing this out clearly) 

 

Consider Romans 2:5, “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.” Just because God has not fully revealed His wrath does not mean He is non-just. If Paul (and other biblical authors) had an ounce of belief that God is non-just, that would’ve been clear. No, Scripture unanimously presents God as righteous and just.

 

Think of a court. Just because a judge doesn't instantly condemn a mass murderer does not mean he did not administer justice. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), He is righteous/just eternally. He is the Righteous One eternally. He cannot be righteous and act non-righteous. Hence, He cannot be non-just, or He’s not God. As mentioned above, the fact that there is eternal judgment means that God is just, but that He is also “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” (Exo 34:6) Certainly, believers will not taste that because of Christ’s atonement, but that’s precisely an example of God’s justice and mercy being displayed together! Both the Cross and final judgment attests to God’s mercy and justice working together.  

Donald Macleod states:

“The antithesis between mercy and righteousness is a false one. The true opposite of mercy is not righteousness, but cruelty; and the true opposite of righteousness is not mercy, but unrighteousness or injustice.”

 

Verdict:  

While Sproul may have thanked God for being non just, I thank God every day for His justice! Ultimately, I thank God for His justice through Christ’s propitiation—that He took on my sin in my place, so I am not considered as an enemy of God (cf. Rom 5:10) but as His child and friend, that I am righteous in His sight not by my works but by His grace (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-9). Let’s never forget who God is—that He is righteous and just.  

 

 

 

What "Charismatic" Means

What “Charismatic” means

The term “charismatic” can oftentimes be negatively associated from traditional or “conservative” Christians circles. Yet, while some of the criticism are valid, such as how some charismatic circles are inadequate with the Bible, I believe there are lots of misunderstanding towards Christians who highly emphasize the 3^rd Person of the Trinity—the Holy Spirit—as well as spiritual gifts. Hence, in this article, I will define what being “Charismatic” means in biblical terms and present why there’s nothing unbiblical about being Charismatic.

Definition & Terminology:

Biblically speaking, “charismatic” comes from the word “charisma” (χάρισμα). “Charisma” is the singular form of “Charismata”, which is the word used for spiritual gifts. However, to be literal, “Charisma(ta)” means “gift(s) of grace”, as “Charisma” comes from the famous Greek word (which everyone should know) “Charis” (χάρις)—which means “grace”.

Charis = Grace

Charisma(ta) = “Gift(s) of grace” (Spiritual gifts)

**please note that “ma” does not mean gifts though**

Thus, a Charismatic Christian is a follower of Christ who believes that the power of the Holy Spirit, oftentimes revealed in charismata, is still present today, and plays an integral part in ministry.

Why Charismatic?

A question you, or one originating from a traditional church might be thinking is, “why are spiritual gifts so important—especially to the point where one needs to describe one’s faith in a way that aligns with them?”

1.  1 Corinthians 12:7 (cf. 7:7) writes: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” Verses 8-10 describes the 9 manifestations of the Spirit (the “spectacular” spiritual gifts), and verse 11 writes: “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit [the Holy Spirit], who apportions to each one individually as He wills.” 1 Corinthians 7:7 writes something similar: “But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” From the emphasized phrases, it is clearly noted that each and every (true) believer is given a spiritual gift.

This does not necessarily mean that all followers of Christ have only one of the nine gifts, as “the working of miracles” (12:10) is vague and can imply many things, and there are other biblical lists that indicate other gifts (Rom 12:6-8; Eph 4:11-12), such as the gift of evangelism (Eph 4:11). Also, Paul himself has a plethora of spiritual gifts as he speaks in tongues (1 Cor 14:18), works miracles such as bringing the dead back to life (Acts 20:7-11), has the gift of healing (Acts 14:8-11), has the gift of prophecy (Eph 4:12-16; 2 Thess 2:6-12 etc.), has the gift of evangelism, and has the gift of teaching. Hence, from the example of Paul as well as other apostles, we can see that one empowered by the Holy Spirit can have multiple spiritual gifts—as grace has been given to each person according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph 4:7).

Nonetheless, since the entire early church was charismatic as they were empowered with spiritual gifts, and it is clearly written that each dedicated minister of Christ has at least one gift, the title “charismatic” is aligned with biblical principles.

2. In the entire New Testament, power accompanied the Gospel. Whenever the Gospel was spread, there was also a demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit—oftentimes through spiritual gifts. Hence, being charismatic does not imply that one cares less about the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20), as some might suggest, but rather, adhering to the Great Commission through the power of the Spirit. Let’s just look at a few examples from Acts:

In Acts 3-4, a lame beggar was healed (3:1-8), reflecting the healing power of the Holy Spirit, which is also the power Christ used to heal during the First Advent. Alongside the demonstration of power came the preaching of the Word (3:11-26), and as a result, many believed (4:4). In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas demonstrated the power of God through healing a man crippled from birth (14:8-10), as well as preached the Word of God (14:15-17). In Acts chapter 28, while Scripture does not explicitly mention the preaching of the Word, the power of God was clearly visible as the healing power of God was performed through Paul (28:8).

Thus, when evangelism—the preaching of God’s grace—was frequently accompanied by spiritual gifts, being a charismatic Christian implies that one cares about the Word of God as well as the Power of God. In fact, I oftentimes find it ridiculous when many churches care a lot about charis, but not charisma. Do they not know that spiritual gifts derive from grace? Meaning, without grace there would be no spiritual gifts. Hence, since the spreading of the Word was frequently accompanied by the demonstration of power, it is unbiblical for one (whether a Christian or church or organization) to speak of charis but not charisma.

3. A huge reason accounting for why spiritual gifts—especially the “special/supernatural ability ones” (1 Cor 12:7-9) such as healing, prophesy, tongues etc.—are not mentioned in some non-charismatic churches is because they think they have ceased (cessationism). Clearly, this view is unbiblical as Scripture by no means affirm the ceasing of all spiritual gifts in this age but only when the perfect comes (1 Cor 13:12). In fact, the entire Bible is unified on this view in presenting that spiritual gifts will not cease until the Second Advent as 1 Corinthians 1:7 writes: “so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (cf. 1 Cor 13:8-12; Eph 4:11-12).

Joel’s famous prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) serves more than a prophecy, but a timeframe of when spiritual gifts will last. Joel’s prophecy has two parts. The first part takes place from verses 28-29, and the second part, 30-32. When Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32, he emphasized the first part of the prophecy as he changed “and it shall come to pass afterward” to “and in the last days it shall be.” This indicates that the first part of the prophecy marked the beginning of the last days—which is also marked by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts (Acts 2:15-18). Hence, the second part of Joel’s prophecy takes place before the 2^nd Coming of Christ, as Joel 2:30-32 is paralleled with Revelations 6:12-17.

Thus, since the first part of Joel’s prophecy is the beginning of the last days in which there will be spiritual gifts, the end of the last days takes place prior to Christ’s return. This carries massive importance as it shows us that all the spiritual gifts—including the “spectacular” ones such as prophecy—exists until the 2^nd coming of Christ; which perfectly corresponds with 1 Corinthians 1:7, 13:8-12 and Ephesians 4:11-12.

Conclusion:

All in all, when every Christian has a gift, when evangelism was accompanied with the demonstration of power, and when all the spiritual gifts will not cease until the end of this age, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian claiming to be “charismatic” as the early church was definitely charismatic. Oftentimes the reason why many people have a distaste or issue with charismatic circles is not really because of dogmatic issues, rather, their own personal experiences. For instance, one from a more traditional church background may find it very hard to adapt to an expressive, loud, and perhaps, long worship service where the congregation is actively responding. Also, some may have bad experiences with speaking in tongues and the practice of spiritual gifts. I personally know many people who “can’t stand” a charismatic service, which isn’t a problem by any means (just as I dislike services where you need to stand up and sit down and stand up and sit down -_-… I’d rather exercise myself).

Please note that I am not writing this to suggest that everyone should be, or should call themselves, charismatic. I just want to present, purely from a biblical standpoint, what being charismatic means; and that the power of God has always been an integral part of ministry—which some Christians/churches/ministries severely lack. It is massively important that as Christians, we must not downplay or suppress the Holy Spirit and His empowerment (being filled with Him—Ephesians 5:18; it is an imperative, a command). In fact, if you take a look at the early church, revival takes place through both the spreading of the Word AND the demonstration of power.

I’m not suggesting that one denomination is better than others or that there are no problems (there are tons) in Christian circles more open to the Spirit. Sometimes charismatic circles may be inadequate with the Word of God, for they care far too much on “whatever the Spirit leads”. Therefore, let us constantly yearn for both the Word of God alongside the power of the Holy Spirit to be manifested in our lives, so that we may adequately adhere to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20).

-Barnabas Kwok
Biblical and Theological Studies major at Biola University

PS: I consider myself charismatic but I’m not a charismatic as I’m not a part of the charismatic movement. I call myself charismatic because I acknowledge that I am spiritually gifted and I desire to engage in Kingdom work with His Power. Also, Charismatic does not equal with Pentecostal. I am not Pentecostal because I do not think that one who is baptized in the Spirit will speak in tongues (but that is a whole different conversation).