December 8, 2015

R.C. Sproul Quote Image #6 - Response

R.C. Sproul Quote Image #6

I've always wondered: "How do you know that a passage is one that God intended to be binding on you forever?"

God's always been described as this all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present spirit-entity that's so far above and beyond human understanding, that trying to guess his intentions is simply impossible.

Considering the Tabernacle and the Temple, God spared no detail in it's description or operation. One would have assumed that he planned for it to endure for quite some time. But it didn't. You would think that God would stay in the Temple and protect the
Israelites then, but He allowed the destruction of the temple: twice. And when Joshua lead the Israelites into the Promised Land, God had ordered the total destruction of everyone else; but that didn't last. God decided to call off the genocide and instead allowed the other peoples to be a 'thorn in the side' of the Israelites. If these things weren't binding, what is?

Now take a look at the head covering passage: the first half of 1 Corinthians 11; what indicator is there that this passage is one that God intends to be binding upon us all forever? What indication is there that disobeying this passage is to be guilty of 'doing violence' to his holy law? What makes us so sure that this passage is a part of his holy law (whatever R.C. Sproul means by that) in the first place?

In ancient times, there was no shortage of 'law'; the law of the empire, the law of the land, the Written Law, the oral laws; there was just no escaping it. The thing is, the law never saved anyone, and neither will this one.


Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Romans 3:20)

I never understood why Christians who were set free from the demands of the Law (OT) would jump in head-first to bind themselves to the law (NT.) We have been arguing for centuries about the difference between works and faith and are still no closer to the truth of it than when we began. But it really doesn't help when we take a supposition such as Sproul's and accept it as truth without question as if he were Moses giving us the new law of Christ in place of the old one.


  1. He is only interested in binding laws on women. And it probably has more to do with men wanting some sort of perceived authority over women than any real concern with cloth on someone's head.