The Disturbing and Contradictory Teaching and Doctrine of R.C. Sproul

Is it true that God hates humans so much that He can't even stand to look at them??

“Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. His radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. He was author of more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He was recognized throughout the world for his articulate defense of the inerrancy of Scripture and the need for God’s people to stand with conviction upon His Word.”

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/teachers/rc-sproul

Clearly, Dr. Sproul had a substantial effect on Christianity during his life. But was it a positive, useful effect, or was it more akin to the effect of a prominent Pharisee?

I recently saw the below meme on Facebook. At first glance, it appears to represent a generally accurate concept - that humans sin/have sinned and thus don’t deserve God’s love. That humans ought to be grateful/thankful that God loves them.

Certainly, being thankful/grateful for what one has - including the fact that God loves us - is consistent with scripture. And it is a fact that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

While there is some truth in Sproul’s view, is it consistent with the character of God and His plan to place our constant focus on that view? I’ve previously raised the issue of whether or not that sort of view is the primary way we should be thinking about the situation between humans and God. See here:

Does God Think of Humans as Undeserving of His Favor?

If the quote in the meme was the only thing Sproul had said like that, it wouldn’t be that significant. But from what I’ve seen, the meme is consistent with, and not as extreme as, his related teaching and doctrine.

To be fair, I haven’t sat down and read entire books Sproul has written - frankly, I’m not that interested in delving deeply into the reformed/Calvinist tradition again - I had to read Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” in college - and I’ve spent quite a bit of time reviewing reformed/Calvinist doctrines in general in recent years.

But what I see when I search through Sproul’s video/text sermons and writing is a regular beating of the drum that “humans don’t deserve God’s favor”. It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where God has to tell them to stop groveling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4ax1BRPqo

But I digress…

An example of what seems to be an error in Sproul’s statement is:

“I try to remember that I am UNFAIRLY loved.”

Do children - even ones that have recently disobeyed - think that they don’t deserve the love of their parents? That it’s “UNFAIR” for them to have parents that love them?

If Sproul is truly a child of God - and if God is his Father - then why is Sproul thinking that way?

Is it even “unfair” that God loves us?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of “unfair” is:

“marked by injustice, partiality, or deception”

Is God’s love for the humans He created marked by deception? I don’t know anyone who would try to argue that position.

Is God’s love for the humans He created marked by partiality? Romans 2:11 states:

“For God shows no partiality.”

Is God’s love for the humans He created marked by injustice? Sproul’s website shows us that Sproul advocates for the “Penal Substitution” model of atonement:

“In penal substitution, the penalty that is due to us for our transgression is paid by a substitute, namely, Jesus Christ… In other words, Christ endured the punishment His people deserve in their place. If we trust in Him alone for salvation, we need not fear eternal death, for Jesus bore our sin on the cross so that we will not receive everlasting judgment (v. 10; John 3:16).”

Penal Substitution

Also on Sproul’s website, famous pastor and author John MacArthur notes the connection to “justice” in the Penal Substitution model of atonement:

"All religion is designed to somehow come to terms with the deity. In Christianity, the question is built around holiness, justice, and righteousness: “How can God forgive me and still be holy?” The only thing that answers that question is penal substitution... There has to be a punishment for God to maintain His justice. That punishment falls on His Son."

Why is it important to understand penal substitutionary atonement?

Lots of people believe that substitutionary atonement is the “best” atonement theory and advocate for it. Personally, I don’t think it’s the best atonement theory for a number of reasons (I think several atonement theories - including penal substitution - contribute to an accurate understanding of Jesus’ work).

But let’s take Sproul on his own terms and assume for the sake of argument that substitutionary atonement is the best model of atonement theory.

Based on Sproul’s own preferred atonement theory, his statement that he is “UNFAIRLY loved” doesn’t make any sense.

Again, by definition, unfairness requires that the situation be “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception”. We’ve already addressed the fact that God’s love for the humans he created is not marked by partiality or deception.

And Sproul’s preferred atonement theory posits that Jesus being punished on our behalf allows God to maintain His justice. At the moment one believes upon Jesus for salvation/forgiveness of sins/etc…, then - based on the substitutionary atonement theory - it is JUST for God to forgive. And, of course, it would be JUST for God to love.

Frankly, it is silly for Sproul to claim that it’s “unfair” that God loves Sproul. For it to be “unfair”, God’s decision to love Sproul would have to be “marked by injustice, partiality, or deception”. God’s choice to love Sproul is not marked by any of those.

Sproul’s view of God besmirches God’s character.

The substitutionary atonement theory requires that someone be punished for sin, or God’s justice would not be maintained.

Yet the scriptures paint a picture of God loving the humans He created BEFORE sin was punished.

“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

“For God so loved [past tense] the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

"... you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers... with the precious blood of Christ... He was foreknown before the foundation of the world...".

Was God unjust to have - essentially - already loved humans before their sins were punished? Sproul’s view would answer that question, “Yes”.

It’s amazing to me that the view of prominent preachers like Sproul and MacArthur judges God’s love to be unjust. Or as Sproul would put it, “unfair”.

---

But back to my initial point: Sproul and his reformed ilk beat on the negative and make it the focus of their presentation of the “good news”.

Isn’t it a bit bizarre to claim that it’s “good news” that it’s “unfair” (and unjust) for God to love you?

The presentation of the “good news” with a primary focus on the negative by Sproul is contradicted in scripture, as Dr. Matthew Lynch’s recent book, "Flood and Fury, Old Testament Violence and the Shalom of God" points out:

"God's character is wildly imbalanced. The coexistence of wrath and mercy is not that of equals. If we take the language of mercy versus wrath in [the Old Testament] in strictly mathematical terms (love/mercy to thousands of generations versus three to four generations of judgment), God's mercy outweighs by at least five hundred to one!"

Somehow that concept seems to have gotten lost in the typical Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical presentation of God's character. Why so much focus on the negative aspects?

More from Sproul (emphasis added):

"It's implied also that it is God’s nature to forgive. If He doesn't forgive, then there's something wrong with His very deity, because it is the nature of God to forgive. But this is as false as the first assumption; it is not necessary to the essence of deity to forgive. Forgiveness is grace, which is undeserved or unmerited favor....

How is sin to be understood? Is it accidental or essential to our humanity? The term accidental refers to those properties of an object that are not part of its essence; they may exist or not exist without changing what that object truly is.

On the other hand, essential properties are those that are part of the essence of a thing. Remove that property, and it ceases to be that thing. Sin is not essential to humanity, unless someone believes that God made humanity sinful at the beginning. If sin is essential to humanity, then that would mean Jesus was either sinful or not human. So, sin is not essential. Adam had no sin when he was created, yet he was still human. Jesus has no sin, but He is still human. Believers will have no sin when they get to heaven, and they will still be human.

Sin is not essential, but neither is it merely tangential or on the surface of our humanity. Rather, the portrait that we get in the Scriptures of man in his fallen condition is that he is utterly and thoroughly infected by sin in his whole person. In other words, sin is not an external blemish, but something that goes to the very core of our being.”

The Holiness of God and the Sinfulness of Man

“Sin is cosmic treason. Sin is treason against a perfectly pure Sovereign. It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself. Have you ever considered the deeper implications of the slightest sin, of the most minute peccadillo? What are we saying to our Creator when we disobey Him at the slightest point? We are saying no to the righteousness of God. We are saying, “God, Your law is not good. My judgement is better than Yours. Your authority does not apply to me. I am above and beyond Your jurisdiction. I have the right to do what I want to do, not what You command me to do.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/428210-sin-is-cosmic-treason-sin-is-treason-against-a-perfectly

Where to begin..?

---

First, Sproul seems to be saying that it is not part of God’s nature to forgive. I’d hope we wouldn’t have to go here, but…

"... you are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love...".

"Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance?"

"... let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

"To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness..."

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

"O LORD our God, you answered them; you were a forgiving God to them, but an avenger of their wrongdoings."

It sure looks like it is part of God’s nature to forgive, doesn’t it?

---

Second, Sproul appears to misunderstand the meaning of the word “sin”. Like many Christians, he seems to limit it to solely "bad deeds" or "immorality". But it is merely "missing the mark" (when the mark is God Himself - which means humans cannot be without sin because we’re simply not God).

The Old Testament is FILLED with examples of sins that were accidental or unintentional and often had nothing to do with immorality or bad deeds. In fact, the sacrificial system in the Old Testament was primarily there to deal with UNINTENTIONAL SINS, not intentional sins.

Let's look at some examples:

-----

"If anyone commits a breach of faith and SINS UNINTENTIONALLY in any of the holy things of the LORD, he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation...".

"... if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean wild animal or a carcass of unclean livestock or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM and he has become unclean, and HE REALIZES HIS GUILT; or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort the uncleanness may be with which one becomes unclean, and IT IS HIDDEN FROM HIM, when he comes to know it, and REALIZES HIS GUILT... when he realizes his guilt in any of these and confesses the sin he has committed, he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation for the SIN that he has committed...".

"... If anyone SINS, doing any of the things that by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW IT, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity. He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish out of the flock...".

"If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days... And when the days of her purifying are completed… if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

"When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean... And when the one with a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes... And on the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. And the priest shall use them, one for a SIN offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make ATONEMENT for him before the LORD FOR HIS DISCHARGE."

-----

I could go on. In fact, I will go on with a New Testament example of a sin offering being given under such circumstances - and it involves the birth of Jesus:

“And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, [Mary and Joseph] brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord… and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

So, in order to comply with the Old Testament law, Mary had to make a SIN OFFERING because she had given birth to Jesus.

How can it be immoral or a bad deed for a woman to give birth to a child? Yet the mother has to make a sin offering.

How can it be immoral or a bad deed for a man to have a discharge that he cannot help having? Yet the man has to make a sin offering, and the priest has to make atonement for him.

How can it be immoral or a bad deed for a person to not even be aware that they touched an unclean animal or human? Yet it was considered a sin and the man had to bring compensation.

How can it be immoral or a bad deed for a person to not even know they had violated a commandment?

Those are examples of things that Sproul would appear to not consider “sin”. Yet God’s law considered them to be sin. What are we to do with that? I assume Sproul is familiar with the Old Testament passages I quoted above (and with Mary’s need to make a sin offering after giving birth to Jesus). Yet Sproul limits his discussion of sin to intentional bad/immoral acts and intentional disobedience to God.

---

Third, Sproul claims on the one hand that:

“… essential properties are those that are part of the essence of a thing…”.

And on the other hand that:

“… sin is not an external blemish, but something that goes to the very core of our being.”

Come on. If something goes to the very core of a thing, then it is an essential property and/or essence of the thing.

“Core” and “Essence” are, in fact, synonyms.

“Core is a synonym for essence in heart topic. You can use "Core" instead [of]"Essence", if it concerns topics such as principle, position, quintessence, basic nature.”

https://thesaurus.plus/related/core/essence

Sproul is spouting nonsense. If sin goes to the very core of our being, then sin is, in fact, part of the essence of our being. I don’t believe that is taught in scripture.

It is certainly true that none of us is without sin (as I noted above - we’re not God and anything that misses the mark of God is sin). John was quite clear about that in I John 1:8-9:

“If we say we have [present tense] no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

But that does not mean that humans have a sinful nature (as Sproul teaches in other places, and which he implied with the claim that “sin… goes to the very core of our being.”). I’ve already addressed that issue in one or more other blog posts and won’t do so here.

---

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Sproul doesn't appear to understand what “grace” means. He said:

“Forgiveness is grace, which is undeserved or unmerited favor…”.

Sproul added something there to the basic meaning. Do you know what it is? Let’s take a look at the Strong’s entry for the Greek word translated to English as “grace”:

Do you now see the problem with Sproul’s definition? Look at it again:

“Forgiveness is grace, which is undeserved or unmerited favor…”.

Do you see the words “undeserved” or “unmerited” anywhere in the Strong’s entry for “grace”? Is there even any implication of the concept of “grace” being “unmerited” or “undeserved” in the Strong’s entry?

No, there is not. So where did Sproul get that?

The God I serve is better than the God Sproul presents. My God is “always leaning towards” people. My God is “disposed” and “inclined” to be “favorable towards” people. My God “freely extends Himself reaching to people because He is disposed to bless them.” No mention of whether or not the grace or favor is deserved or not.

My God LIKES the humans He created. He WANTS them to be in relationship with Him. He LOVED them while they were yet sinners.

Sproul’s God, on the other hand, hates humans (emphasis added):

"We always say the Cliché, ‘God Hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.’ That's nonsense! The Bible speaks of Him abhorring us, and that we're loathsome in His sight, and He can't stand to even look at us."

Sproul says that about a God who - when the first two humans sinned and brought death to all humanity - couldn't even stand to look at them, right?

Right?

WRONG. God called out for them, trying to find them (what we might call LOOKING FOR THEM), and made garments for them.

"... they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the coolc of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”... And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them."

Were there consequences related to their sin? Absolutely. The primary consequence was that their contingent immortality was lost due to God sending them out of the garden of Eden, thereby preventing their access to eat from the tree of life:

“Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden…”

Consequences for sin? Again, absolutely. But there’s not even any evidence in the text that God was angry with Adam and Eve. Again, God looked for them, and made them garments to wear. Reading the text, it feels more like the disappointment of a father whose child has been harmed by bad choices than the anger of a deity whose honor has been offended. The negative consequences for Adam and Eve that God announces (I didn’t say curses for a reason - the passage says the ground is cursed and the serpent is cursed, but it doesn’t say the humans are cursed) seem to be announced matter of factly rather than in anger. It’s like, “Well, unfortunately, you screwed up bad. I wish you hadn’t. But there are consequences for bad choices and here they are.”

Which shouldn’t really be surprising - God is described as a Father over and over and over in the Bible. He’s described as being a better father than any human being could be.

If you doubt what I’m saying and think that God was angry with Adam and Eve, then consider the Flood narrative. Surely it was anger and God’s wrath that caused Him to flood the earth, right? Let’s see:

“The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD REGRETTED that he had made man on the earth, and it GRIEVED him to his heart.”

I looked up the Hebrew words for “regretted” and “grieved”. Here they are:

Does that look like wrath and anger to you? It doesn’t to me.

But back to Sproul. I’ll make a bold claim: Sproul is preaching heresy when He says God can't even stand to look at humans because they're sinful. Sproul is clearly misrepresenting the character of God.

After all, God Himself came to earth as a man to live with, be with, minister to, and save humans. He certainly looked at humans.

"Jesus looked at him, loved him...".

"... when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.”

Jesus is God. Hence, Sproul is in error when He claims that God cannot even stand to look at us. Jesus looked at us. He spent time with us. He cared for us. He loved us. Even when we were the worst of sinners.

Unfortunately, there appears to be little understanding of grace in Sproul’s Reformed/Calvinistic sect of the church. They seem to harp on the favor being "unmerited, undeserved" part over and over. But the Greek word translated "grace" does not include the concept of the favor being "unmerited" or "undeserved". It's just favor or kindness.

Parts of the church added the "unmerited, undeserved" part to the concept. And that addition to the concept has given many people the impression that God is thinking about people in a completely negative way all the time.

The view of Sproul and the others like him gives a perception of God to people that's has God saying something like:

"Ugh... those evil people down there... I ABHOR them and they’re LOATHESOME to Me… I CAN’T EVEN STAND TO LOOK AT THEM… they REALLY don't deserve or merit my favor... but I guess since I'm [allegedly] a MERCIFUL GOD I'll go ahead and show them some favor. I mean I don't really want to because they don't deserve it, but... I guess I need to or people won't think I'm merciful."

That is NOT God's character.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

“God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

To Abram/Abraham - all the way back in Genesis 12:

"And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

To Isaac - all the way back in Genesis 26:

“I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring [Jesus] all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

Does that sound like a God who finds people LOATHESOME and ABHORS them and can’t stand to even LOOK AT THEM? He was planning to bless all families/nations of the earth by sending His son to redeem them.

I’ll close with a quote from Dr. Ronn Johnson’s Blog Series, “What is the Bible’s Big Story?”:

"[Some teach that] God’s holiness demands that he cannot be in the presence of moral sinfulness:

This cliché has certainly been around for a while. Even as a kid I knew it was not true, since God and Satan talked to each other in Job 1. Plus, I had a mom who seemed to show up every time I was bad, and I knew that God was in the same business.

Sin does not make God hide his eyes, nor make him go away, which is what I wanted him to do.

So if children understand this, what could this idea possibly mean, and where did it come from?...

What is the Bible's Big Story - Part 4