I am so blessed to share the following letter with you. It was written by a good friend and co-worker, Ryan Campbell. Ryan is a younger guy (considerably younger than me;), and an outstanding athlete. He even played a couple of years of pro-am football after high school, without having played that sport in school! He very quite and unassuming; but as the letter demonstrates, he’s not afraid to speak the truth! Look forward with me to more from Ryan in the future!
Response to the 3/18 letter, “Abortion is about sparing lives pain.” Homer says, “The decision [to have an abortion] is made to save a child from a painful life.”
It is said that childbirth is the most painful experience a woman can have. If we could compare the pain of childbirth to that an aborted child experiences, there could be something much worse.
Put yourself in the child’s place, then even with a minute chance of being raised by a loving family—I being one whose upbringing was not ideal—whether it’s by the biological parents or not, anyone would have their fingers crossed for a chance at life, even a rough life, considering the alternative, no life at all.
There is no painless abortion method. Burning to death by saline solution, dismemberment by cutting and tearing and worse prevents abortion from being a way of saving a child from pain.
Homer ends with, “The debate is whether or not you want to save a child and mother from a pain-filled life.” The fact is that the debate is really over whether or not one wants to save the child from the excruciatingly pain-filled, intentional death.
Ryan Campbell
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Life of Nero at a Glance
Here is an essay Israel did last year (8th grade) on the life of Nero.
Introduction
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the son of Gnaeus and Agrippina, and was the successor of his great uncle and stepfather, Claudius. Claudius was Agrippina’s second husband after the death of her first, Lucius’ father. Lucius was more commonly known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, or just Nero, an Emperor of Rome and Tyrant of the World and Persecutor of the Christian Church. Lucius was illustrious for many things, such as, the persecution of the Christian Church and the Great Fire of Rome; also for the murders of his mother, Agrippina, his stepbrother, Britanicus, and his wives, Octavia and Poppea. This emperor was not always so fowl, however. He did have the makings of a good ruler until there was no one to restrain him.
Childhood and Background
This young ruler was born on December 15, A.D. 37. After his mother, Agrippina, was exiled by the Emperor Caligula, Lucius went to live with a distant aunt. But following the murder of Caligula and his family, his uncle, Claudius came to power. Claudius then allowed Agrippina to come out of exile, and married her not long after that.
Lucius was officially adopted into the Emperor’s family in A.D. 50. Claudius then renamed him Nero. This young man was quite a bit older than his new stepbrother Britanicus, and consequently became the immediate heir to the throne of his uncle. At the age of 14, he was proclaimed an adult and started to aid the emperor politically, make public appearances with him, and appear on coinage.
Early Years of Reign
Claudius died in A.D. 54, (many assumed that Agrippina poisoned him, but there was no evidence) and Nero became ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. His mother appointed two men to be his tutors. One was a well-known and scholarly Stoic named Seneca, who would instruct Nero in the way Rome wished him to act; and the other was a praetorian prefect named Burrus, who would instruct him in the matters of warfare.
The first five years of Nero’s rule went very well with these two advisers molding Nero’s mind into a proper emperor. Agrippina had always had a lust for power and always used the men in her life to get there; such as, Claudius, Nero, and later through Claudius’ son, Britanicus.
Through this period of time, Agrippina grew exceedingly jealous of the amount of influence Seneca and Burrus had on her son. Seneca had previously warned Nero of his mother’s growing lust for his power. It became evident when she was pushing for Britanicus to assume the throne as the rightful heir, because she knew she could influence him as she once did Nero, and Claudius before that. Although, before Britanicus could make any decisions, he quickly and mysteriously died in A.D. 55. Nero then had Agrippina executed for conspiring against the Emperor of Rome.
The Latter Years: Nero’s Decent into Madness
After the death of the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus, Seneca gradually detected his grip on Nero’s mind loosening. Seneca knew he could no longer influence Nero as he once did with the help of Burrus. Consequently, Seneca requested to be released from his service as Nero’s political advisor. With no one to restrain him, Nero quickly became foolish and reckless. He became infatuated with many types of entertainment. He even possessed his own circus, in which he would put Christians on display as bait for lions and wild dogs. It was said that Nero believed that it was right to eliminate rivals to the throne. He also felt that the Christians were a threat to his life, and therefore deserved death.
The Great Fire of Rome
When the Great Fire of Rome took place in A.D. 64, the Romans believed that Nero might be responsible for the fire, and Nero redirected the blame to the Christians. At this point in time, not many people tried to stop Nero when he did what he thought was just to the people of the Christian community. Many lost their lives at that time, whether it was by gruesome ways of slow demise in Nero’s circus, by crucifixion, or by setting their bodies ablaze to illuminate his garden parties. As historian Tacitus once described the event:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (Tacitus, Annals XV.44).
At this point in Nero’s reign, he began to loose the respect of the Roman citizens, because he no longer valued life and order as he once did. He had become a ruler that believed what was just was what he himself believed was just and the murders that he had once been accused of: Agrippina, Octavia, Brittanicus, and Poppea, were now being added to by the thousands.
The Finality of Nero’s Life
Like any other emperor, Nero received several threats from surrounding countries and from within Rome. Many rebellions took place but only one drove Nero to his end. The revolt of Vindex and Galba, which began when the Vindex rebels sought aid from Galba. They tried to place a new emperor on the throne in opposition to Nero. The people began to abandon their loyalty to Nero and to throw their support toward Galba. Nero sent out messengers in hopes of gathering anyone who supported him to rally behind him; he received no response. He eventually went into hiding. Right before a group of angry rebels closed in on him, he asked his servants to dig him a grave. He exclaimed over and over, “What an artist dies in me!” (Suetonius, Nero, xlix). A messenger from the Senate arrived and told Nero that he had been proclaimed an enemy of the State and that he would be executed by being beat to death. Followed by this, he stuck a dagger through his throat and said, “Too late! This is fidelity!” and then he died (Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49).
Conclusion
Yes, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a tyrant and a major persecutor of the Christian community. Although, he did not behave this way until his lust for autonomous supremacy grew to a level that no one could influence him to do whatever thing that Nero himself thought was unmerited. With the death of Nero, so ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Introduction
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was the son of Gnaeus and Agrippina, and was the successor of his great uncle and stepfather, Claudius. Claudius was Agrippina’s second husband after the death of her first, Lucius’ father. Lucius was more commonly known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, or just Nero, an Emperor of Rome and Tyrant of the World and Persecutor of the Christian Church. Lucius was illustrious for many things, such as, the persecution of the Christian Church and the Great Fire of Rome; also for the murders of his mother, Agrippina, his stepbrother, Britanicus, and his wives, Octavia and Poppea. This emperor was not always so fowl, however. He did have the makings of a good ruler until there was no one to restrain him.
Childhood and Background
This young ruler was born on December 15, A.D. 37. After his mother, Agrippina, was exiled by the Emperor Caligula, Lucius went to live with a distant aunt. But following the murder of Caligula and his family, his uncle, Claudius came to power. Claudius then allowed Agrippina to come out of exile, and married her not long after that.
Lucius was officially adopted into the Emperor’s family in A.D. 50. Claudius then renamed him Nero. This young man was quite a bit older than his new stepbrother Britanicus, and consequently became the immediate heir to the throne of his uncle. At the age of 14, he was proclaimed an adult and started to aid the emperor politically, make public appearances with him, and appear on coinage.
Early Years of Reign
Claudius died in A.D. 54, (many assumed that Agrippina poisoned him, but there was no evidence) and Nero became ruler of the Roman Empire at the age of 16. His mother appointed two men to be his tutors. One was a well-known and scholarly Stoic named Seneca, who would instruct Nero in the way Rome wished him to act; and the other was a praetorian prefect named Burrus, who would instruct him in the matters of warfare.
The first five years of Nero’s rule went very well with these two advisers molding Nero’s mind into a proper emperor. Agrippina had always had a lust for power and always used the men in her life to get there; such as, Claudius, Nero, and later through Claudius’ son, Britanicus.
Through this period of time, Agrippina grew exceedingly jealous of the amount of influence Seneca and Burrus had on her son. Seneca had previously warned Nero of his mother’s growing lust for his power. It became evident when she was pushing for Britanicus to assume the throne as the rightful heir, because she knew she could influence him as she once did Nero, and Claudius before that. Although, before Britanicus could make any decisions, he quickly and mysteriously died in A.D. 55. Nero then had Agrippina executed for conspiring against the Emperor of Rome.
The Latter Years: Nero’s Decent into Madness
After the death of the Praetorian Prefect, Burrus, Seneca gradually detected his grip on Nero’s mind loosening. Seneca knew he could no longer influence Nero as he once did with the help of Burrus. Consequently, Seneca requested to be released from his service as Nero’s political advisor. With no one to restrain him, Nero quickly became foolish and reckless. He became infatuated with many types of entertainment. He even possessed his own circus, in which he would put Christians on display as bait for lions and wild dogs. It was said that Nero believed that it was right to eliminate rivals to the throne. He also felt that the Christians were a threat to his life, and therefore deserved death.
The Great Fire of Rome
When the Great Fire of Rome took place in A.D. 64, the Romans believed that Nero might be responsible for the fire, and Nero redirected the blame to the Christians. At this point in time, not many people tried to stop Nero when he did what he thought was just to the people of the Christian community. Many lost their lives at that time, whether it was by gruesome ways of slow demise in Nero’s circus, by crucifixion, or by setting their bodies ablaze to illuminate his garden parties. As historian Tacitus once described the event:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (Tacitus, Annals XV.44).
At this point in Nero’s reign, he began to loose the respect of the Roman citizens, because he no longer valued life and order as he once did. He had become a ruler that believed what was just was what he himself believed was just and the murders that he had once been accused of: Agrippina, Octavia, Brittanicus, and Poppea, were now being added to by the thousands.
The Finality of Nero’s Life
Like any other emperor, Nero received several threats from surrounding countries and from within Rome. Many rebellions took place but only one drove Nero to his end. The revolt of Vindex and Galba, which began when the Vindex rebels sought aid from Galba. They tried to place a new emperor on the throne in opposition to Nero. The people began to abandon their loyalty to Nero and to throw their support toward Galba. Nero sent out messengers in hopes of gathering anyone who supported him to rally behind him; he received no response. He eventually went into hiding. Right before a group of angry rebels closed in on him, he asked his servants to dig him a grave. He exclaimed over and over, “What an artist dies in me!” (Suetonius, Nero, xlix). A messenger from the Senate arrived and told Nero that he had been proclaimed an enemy of the State and that he would be executed by being beat to death. Followed by this, he stuck a dagger through his throat and said, “Too late! This is fidelity!” and then he died (Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Life of Nero 49).
Conclusion
Yes, Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus was a tyrant and a major persecutor of the Christian community. Although, he did not behave this way until his lust for autonomous supremacy grew to a level that no one could influence him to do whatever thing that Nero himself thought was unmerited. With the death of Nero, so ended the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Friday, March 26, 2010
A New Kind of Stupid!
Here is another letter exchange I had at the Roanoke Times. WARNING: The first letter contains a new kind of stupid; read at your own academic risk!
“We’re not alive until we’re breathing” (03/23/10)
Re: "Christians must put Jesus first" and "Crosses represent murders by abortion," March 18 letters:
Two letters deserve special attention because they relate to one another. Darius McBride says, "Christians do not have the option of deciding which part of the Bible we want to accept."
That relates directly to what Aubrey and Linda Hicks had to say about the abortion issue. They declare, "The baby isn't cells or a mass or just a fetus. It is living, breathing and formed by God."
I have no problem with that last part, but biology says we are indeed a mass of cells. Many seem to confuse growth with living prior to birth.
Genesis says, "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Other biblical passages reinforce the connection between life and breath.
We don't start living until we are born and start breathing. And we stop living when we take our last breath. It's God's plan, according to the Bible. McBride says Christians need to accept it all.
HERB DETWEILER
MY RESPONSE:
Although preborn children enjoy respiration from conception to birth, Herb Detweiler’s letter, “We’re alive once we’re breathing” (3/23), indicated that his oxygen count might be low.
Detweiler said, “Many seem to confuse growth with living...” arguing that living does not occur until “we are born and start breathing.” Biologically preposterous!
If the preborn child is growing, respiration is necessarily occurring. So, the child is living prior to birth. Detweiler’s outlandish argument doesn’t depend on the fact of the preborn’s respiration, but its mode of respiration, which is all that changes at birth. Detweiler is therefore arguing that one’s method of oxygen exchange should determine whether one may be killed.
Detweiler’s appeal to Genesis 2:7 was equally reckless. There is simply no analogy between the historically unique, extraordinary creation of Adam from inanimate material and the nine months of development in the womb under God’s superintending providence. To say otherwise is to neither think clearly nor take the Bible seriously.
I agree we must accept all what the Bible says, including, “For behold...the baby in my womb [John the Baptist] leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44). This verse alone knocks the breath out of Detweiler’s argument.
KEVIN STEVENSON
“We’re not alive until we’re breathing” (03/23/10)
Re: "Christians must put Jesus first" and "Crosses represent murders by abortion," March 18 letters:
Two letters deserve special attention because they relate to one another. Darius McBride says, "Christians do not have the option of deciding which part of the Bible we want to accept."
That relates directly to what Aubrey and Linda Hicks had to say about the abortion issue. They declare, "The baby isn't cells or a mass or just a fetus. It is living, breathing and formed by God."
I have no problem with that last part, but biology says we are indeed a mass of cells. Many seem to confuse growth with living prior to birth.
Genesis says, "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Other biblical passages reinforce the connection between life and breath.
We don't start living until we are born and start breathing. And we stop living when we take our last breath. It's God's plan, according to the Bible. McBride says Christians need to accept it all.
HERB DETWEILER
MY RESPONSE:
Although preborn children enjoy respiration from conception to birth, Herb Detweiler’s letter, “We’re alive once we’re breathing” (3/23), indicated that his oxygen count might be low.
Detweiler said, “Many seem to confuse growth with living...” arguing that living does not occur until “we are born and start breathing.” Biologically preposterous!
If the preborn child is growing, respiration is necessarily occurring. So, the child is living prior to birth. Detweiler’s outlandish argument doesn’t depend on the fact of the preborn’s respiration, but its mode of respiration, which is all that changes at birth. Detweiler is therefore arguing that one’s method of oxygen exchange should determine whether one may be killed.
Detweiler’s appeal to Genesis 2:7 was equally reckless. There is simply no analogy between the historically unique, extraordinary creation of Adam from inanimate material and the nine months of development in the womb under God’s superintending providence. To say otherwise is to neither think clearly nor take the Bible seriously.
I agree we must accept all what the Bible says, including, “For behold...the baby in my womb [John the Baptist] leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44). This verse alone knocks the breath out of Detweiler’s argument.
KEVIN STEVENSON
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Normative Ethical Relativism
Israel (Beaner) has just finished this essay on Normative Ethical Relativism or Conventional Ethics. In her philosophy class, before getting into the history of philosophy, I had her to do a fairly extensive survey of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. This task was broken into two separate sections: first examining these foundational categories from within the Christian worldview, then, secondly, a brief overview of the dominate views that secular philosophy has devised. Secular ethics was her final section in this part of the class, and she chose for her essay Conventional Ethics. Enjoy.
Normative Ethical Relativism, also known as Conventionalism, is the system of belief that morals “ought” to be designated by individual societies. It teaches that whatever a certain society says to do, their citizens are morally obligated to follow these ethical constructs. Francis Beckwith, in his book with Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air, defines it in this way. “[N]ormative ethical relativism teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements that all individuals are obligated to honor...Morality, then, is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, and expressed through laws, customs and mores” (p. 49).
There are some obvious flaws facing this perspective on human attitudes and behavior.
First, no one society can accuse any other society of do that which is morally wrong. Assuming this axiological idea, we in America were wrong in telling Nazi Germany, during World War II, that is was morally wrong to kill Jews and others on a whim. So also, during the War of Southern Independence (the so-called Civil War), the North could not have told those in the South that it was immoral to keep slaves, as the North and the South represented two very distinct societies or cultures.
A second flaw is that no law or behavioral code is wrong if appointed by the society’s majority. In this way, it confuses morals with mores. Beckwith has a good example illustrating this point. Again from Relativism:
“An attorney once called a radio talk show with a challenge. ‘When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land?’ She asked. ‘You may not like it, but it’s the law.’ Her point was simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, so there is nothing left to discuss. Since there is no higher law, there are no further grounds for rebuttal. This lawyer’s tacit acceptance of conventionalism suffers because it confuses what is right with what is legal” (pp. 51—52).
Third, and finally, if a particular society legalizes or allows something that an individual citizen sees as morally wrong, they themselves become immoral outcasts for transgressing the status quo. This is known as the Reformer’s Dilemma.
If conventionalism is correct, no moral reformation would be possible without the reformer(s) becoming an iconoclast of sorts. Martin Luther’s struggle against the abuses and oppression of the Roman Catholic organization; Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s efforts to hide Jews during the Holocaust; William Wilberforce, with the ending of the slave trade in England and Europe, and many other men and women who spent themselves seeking to liberate souls and setting free the truth would have to be deemed as immoral persons, and their causes as wrong. However, today, we hold these people in high esteem for what they stood for and did.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Normative Ethical Relativism is correct. If so, we can do nothing but rebuke the above men and women for their choices, because they are by definition immoral for going against what their societies said was morally right. So, was it all in vain? Was that they did pointless, because it was not what their societies would have had them to do?Conventionalism does nothing but give to us a number of counterintuitive results. With this theory of morality, virtue becomes vice and heroes become hellions.
Men and women may say that they believe that ethical truth is relative to society, but in their heart of hearts they know there is an ultimate, universal standard of moral truth that is to govern their lives, to which they must give an account (Rom 1:32). This ultimate standard of moral truth is revealed to us by God in three ways: 1) the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, 2) in nature, and most explicitly 3) in his Son, Christ Jesus our Lord. He has written his moral law on our hearts (Rom 2:15) and stated in clearly in the Ten Commandments. Even so, the conventionalist seeks to suppress God’s truth and ultimately trades it for a lie (Rom 1:18, 25).
Christians must resist conventionalism wherever it is found. Conventionalism renders the gospel of Jesus Christ meaningless. For biblical salvation presupposes repentance, and repentance an absolute moral law. Conventionalism seeks to do away with any absolute moral law, trivializing repentance, undermining biblical salvation, thus making nonsensical the cross of Christ. But, since it contradicts the God of the Scriptures, it is impossible to live according to conventionalism consistently. Therefore , it cannot in anyway possible be morally right. Conventionalism is just one of many ways humanity has tried to throw off God’s rule over us.
One reason people reject God’s standard and accept others, such as conventionalism, is because God’s law is perfect (Ps 19:7) and demands perfection from us. But no one can live up to this standard. Only in Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father, and came to earth in the form of a man (Phil 2:6f) is there hope. He lived in perfect obedience under the law of God; he died the death that no other man past, present or future could ever endure; he bore the sins of all those who would believe. The third day he arose again from the dead, and showed himself to his disciples. He ascended into heaven and is sitting on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Trusting Jesus Christ is the only hope for humanity’s moral problem. God alone is our ultimate standard for morality; not society, not ourselves, only him.
Normative Ethical Relativism, also known as Conventionalism, is the system of belief that morals “ought” to be designated by individual societies. It teaches that whatever a certain society says to do, their citizens are morally obligated to follow these ethical constructs. Francis Beckwith, in his book with Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air, defines it in this way. “[N]ormative ethical relativism teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements that all individuals are obligated to honor...Morality, then, is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, and expressed through laws, customs and mores” (p. 49).
There are some obvious flaws facing this perspective on human attitudes and behavior.
First, no one society can accuse any other society of do that which is morally wrong. Assuming this axiological idea, we in America were wrong in telling Nazi Germany, during World War II, that is was morally wrong to kill Jews and others on a whim. So also, during the War of Southern Independence (the so-called Civil War), the North could not have told those in the South that it was immoral to keep slaves, as the North and the South represented two very distinct societies or cultures.
A second flaw is that no law or behavioral code is wrong if appointed by the society’s majority. In this way, it confuses morals with mores. Beckwith has a good example illustrating this point. Again from Relativism:
“An attorney once called a radio talk show with a challenge. ‘When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land?’ She asked. ‘You may not like it, but it’s the law.’ Her point was simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, so there is nothing left to discuss. Since there is no higher law, there are no further grounds for rebuttal. This lawyer’s tacit acceptance of conventionalism suffers because it confuses what is right with what is legal” (pp. 51—52).
Third, and finally, if a particular society legalizes or allows something that an individual citizen sees as morally wrong, they themselves become immoral outcasts for transgressing the status quo. This is known as the Reformer’s Dilemma.
If conventionalism is correct, no moral reformation would be possible without the reformer(s) becoming an iconoclast of sorts. Martin Luther’s struggle against the abuses and oppression of the Roman Catholic organization; Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s efforts to hide Jews during the Holocaust; William Wilberforce, with the ending of the slave trade in England and Europe, and many other men and women who spent themselves seeking to liberate souls and setting free the truth would have to be deemed as immoral persons, and their causes as wrong. However, today, we hold these people in high esteem for what they stood for and did.
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Normative Ethical Relativism is correct. If so, we can do nothing but rebuke the above men and women for their choices, because they are by definition immoral for going against what their societies said was morally right. So, was it all in vain? Was that they did pointless, because it was not what their societies would have had them to do?Conventionalism does nothing but give to us a number of counterintuitive results. With this theory of morality, virtue becomes vice and heroes become hellions.
Men and women may say that they believe that ethical truth is relative to society, but in their heart of hearts they know there is an ultimate, universal standard of moral truth that is to govern their lives, to which they must give an account (Rom 1:32). This ultimate standard of moral truth is revealed to us by God in three ways: 1) the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, 2) in nature, and most explicitly 3) in his Son, Christ Jesus our Lord. He has written his moral law on our hearts (Rom 2:15) and stated in clearly in the Ten Commandments. Even so, the conventionalist seeks to suppress God’s truth and ultimately trades it for a lie (Rom 1:18, 25).
Christians must resist conventionalism wherever it is found. Conventionalism renders the gospel of Jesus Christ meaningless. For biblical salvation presupposes repentance, and repentance an absolute moral law. Conventionalism seeks to do away with any absolute moral law, trivializing repentance, undermining biblical salvation, thus making nonsensical the cross of Christ. But, since it contradicts the God of the Scriptures, it is impossible to live according to conventionalism consistently. Therefore , it cannot in anyway possible be morally right. Conventionalism is just one of many ways humanity has tried to throw off God’s rule over us.
One reason people reject God’s standard and accept others, such as conventionalism, is because God’s law is perfect (Ps 19:7) and demands perfection from us. But no one can live up to this standard. Only in Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father, and came to earth in the form of a man (Phil 2:6f) is there hope. He lived in perfect obedience under the law of God; he died the death that no other man past, present or future could ever endure; he bore the sins of all those who would believe. The third day he arose again from the dead, and showed himself to his disciples. He ascended into heaven and is sitting on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Trusting Jesus Christ is the only hope for humanity’s moral problem. God alone is our ultimate standard for morality; not society, not ourselves, only him.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
What Are The Contours of Calvinism?
Here’s a bit more from Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (to view this fine work at Amazon, see linked title in the post below).
In the earlier sections of the book, Boettner labors to demonstrate the necessary foundation required for the weight of the subsequent arguments he develops in defense of the doctrine of Predestination. This foundation is first the superlative vision of God, indicative of Calvin’s systematic exposition of the biblical religion; and secondly, the foundation is the structure—Predestination is merely one part of a system of utter coherence, a “unity of truth," as Van Til would say, which the Westminster Standards maturely summarize.
The question that arises from the conversation is this: Does subscription to the “Five Points” of the Canons of Dort warrant the name “Calvinist” or “Reformed”? Or, to put it otherwise, How many other “points” of the traditional Reformed system and symbols may one dismiss before they must also dismiss the titles “Calvinist” or “Reformed” as badges of honor?
Boettner quotes Kuyper, urging that, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure—foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it sprouted” (p. 6).
Boettner then adds, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calninism and the “Five Points”...While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (p. 7).
If you don’t have Boettner’s book (then I’d recommend getting it!), Kim Riddlebarger has posted Dr. Richard Muller’s article, “How Many Points?”, originally published the Calvin Theological Journal. Boettner only scratches the surface of this question. Muller’s article addresses it head-on. What Boettner can only allude to because of the constraints of his immediate purpose, Muller argues explicitly. Here is an excerpt.
“Calvinism or, better. Reformed teaching, as defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith, whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error — both historically and doctrinally — if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.”
In the earlier sections of the book, Boettner labors to demonstrate the necessary foundation required for the weight of the subsequent arguments he develops in defense of the doctrine of Predestination. This foundation is first the superlative vision of God, indicative of Calvin’s systematic exposition of the biblical religion; and secondly, the foundation is the structure—Predestination is merely one part of a system of utter coherence, a “unity of truth," as Van Til would say, which the Westminster Standards maturely summarize.
The question that arises from the conversation is this: Does subscription to the “Five Points” of the Canons of Dort warrant the name “Calvinist” or “Reformed”? Or, to put it otherwise, How many other “points” of the traditional Reformed system and symbols may one dismiss before they must also dismiss the titles “Calvinist” or “Reformed” as badges of honor?
Boettner quotes Kuyper, urging that, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure—foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it sprouted” (p. 6).
Boettner then adds, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calninism and the “Five Points”...While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (p. 7).
If you don’t have Boettner’s book (then I’d recommend getting it!), Kim Riddlebarger has posted Dr. Richard Muller’s article, “How Many Points?”, originally published the Calvin Theological Journal. Boettner only scratches the surface of this question. Muller’s article addresses it head-on. What Boettner can only allude to because of the constraints of his immediate purpose, Muller argues explicitly. Here is an excerpt.
“Calvinism or, better. Reformed teaching, as defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith, whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error — both historically and doctrinally — if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.”
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Why Nothing that Unbelievers Do Can Be Good
Loraine Boettner, in his classic, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (pp. 69—70), borrows a genius illustration from W. D. Smith’s What Is Calvinism?, explaining why we must say that unregenerate persons can do nothing good. Boettner writes:
“This distinction [between Christian virtues and man’s common “virtues”] is very plainly illustrated in an example given by W. D. Smith. Says he: ‘In a gang of pirates we may find many things that are good in themselves. Though that are in wicked rebellion against the laws of the government, they have their own laws and regulations, which they obey strictly. We find among them courage and fidelity, with many other things that will recommend them as pirates. That may so many things, too, which the laws of the government require, but they are not done because the government has so required, but in obedience to their own regulations. For instance, the government requires honesty and they may be strictly honest, one with another, in their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. Yet, as respects the government, and the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that while they continue in their rebellion they can do nothing to recommend them to the government as citizens. The first step must be to give up their rebellion, acknowledge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God; and though they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and His law. Instead, the regulations of society, respect for public opinion, self-interest, their own character in the sight of the world, or some other worldly or wicked motive, reigns supremely; and God, to whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten; or, if thought of at all, His claims are wickedly rejected, His counsels spurned, and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedience. Now it is plain that while the heart continues in this state the man is a rebel against God, and can do nothing to recommend him to His favor. The first step is to give up his rebellion, repent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and reconciliation through the Savior. This he is unwilling to do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to love them, until his heart is changed.’
The good actions of unregenerate men, Smith continues, ‘are not positively sinful in themselves, but sinful by defect. The lack the principle which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In the case of the pirates it is easy to see that all their actions are sin against the government. While they continue pirates, their sailing, mending, or rigging the vessel, and even their eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many expedients to enable them to continue in their piratical career, and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sinners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates everything in the sight of God, even the most ordinary occupations; for the plain, unequivocal language of God is, ‘Even the lamp of the wicked, is sin,’ Prov. 21:4.’”
“This distinction [between Christian virtues and man’s common “virtues”] is very plainly illustrated in an example given by W. D. Smith. Says he: ‘In a gang of pirates we may find many things that are good in themselves. Though that are in wicked rebellion against the laws of the government, they have their own laws and regulations, which they obey strictly. We find among them courage and fidelity, with many other things that will recommend them as pirates. That may so many things, too, which the laws of the government require, but they are not done because the government has so required, but in obedience to their own regulations. For instance, the government requires honesty and they may be strictly honest, one with another, in their transactions, and the division of all their spoil. Yet, as respects the government, and the general principle, their whole life is one of the most wicked dishonesty. Now, it is plain, that while they continue in their rebellion they can do nothing to recommend them to the government as citizens. The first step must be to give up their rebellion, acknowledge their allegiance to the government, and sue for mercy. So all men, in their natural state, are rebels against God; and though they may do many things which the law of God requires, and which will recommend them as men, yet nothing is done with reference to God and His law. Instead, the regulations of society, respect for public opinion, self-interest, their own character in the sight of the world, or some other worldly or wicked motive, reigns supremely; and God, to whom they owe their heart and lives, is forgotten; or, if thought of at all, His claims are wickedly rejected, His counsels spurned, and the heart, in obstinate rebellion, refuses obedience. Now it is plain that while the heart continues in this state the man is a rebel against God, and can do nothing to recommend him to His favor. The first step is to give up his rebellion, repent of his sins, turn to God, and sue for pardon and reconciliation through the Savior. This he is unwilling to do, until he is made willing. He loves his sins, and will continue to love them, until his heart is changed.’
The good actions of unregenerate men, Smith continues, ‘are not positively sinful in themselves, but sinful by defect. The lack the principle which alone can make them righteous in the sight of God. In the case of the pirates it is easy to see that all their actions are sin against the government. While they continue pirates, their sailing, mending, or rigging the vessel, and even their eating and drinking, are all sins in the eyes of the government, as they are only so many expedients to enable them to continue in their piratical career, and are parts of their life of rebellion. So with sinners. While the heart is wrong, it vitiates everything in the sight of God, even the most ordinary occupations; for the plain, unequivocal language of God is, ‘Even the lamp of the wicked, is sin,’ Prov. 21:4.’”
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
R. L. Dabney on our Federal Headship in Adam
“The explanation presented by the doctrine of imputation is demanded by all except Pelagians and Socinians. Man’s is a spiritually dead and condemned race. See Eph. 2:1-5, et passim. He is obviously under a curse for something, from the beginning of life. Witness the native depravity of infants, and their inheritance of woe and death. Now, either man was tried and fell in Adam, or he has be condemned without trial. He is either under the curse (as it rests on him at the beginning of his existence) for Adam’s guilt, or for no guilt at all. Judge which is most honorable to God, a doctrine which, although profoundly mysterious, represents Him as giving man an equitable and most favorable probation in his federal head; or that which makes God condemn him untried, and even before he exists.”
Robert Lewis Dabney, Theology.
Robert Lewis Dabney, Theology.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Truth and Love
All of Scripture—especially John’s Gospel and epistles—exhorts Christians, individually and corporately, to conjoin and maintain the perfect balance of the two chief virtues of the faith, truth and love. Truth without love is dead cold intellectualism; it’s “ugliness,” as Schaeffer put it. Likewise, love without truth is mere sentimentalism and compromise, which is also ugly.
In my perusal today, I came across a most interesting expression of this perennial dilemma. In a sermon delivered to the House of Commons, the controversialist English Puritan, Richard Baxter, put it like this.
“Men that differ about bishops, ceremonies, and forms of prayer, may be all true Christians, and dear to one another and to Christ, if they be practically agreed in the life of godliness, and join in a holy, heavenly conversation. But if you agree in all your opinions and formalities, and yet were never sanctified by the truth, you do but agree to delude your souls, and neither of you will be saved for all your agreement” (Baxter’s Works, Vol. XVII. P. 80).
In my perusal today, I came across a most interesting expression of this perennial dilemma. In a sermon delivered to the House of Commons, the controversialist English Puritan, Richard Baxter, put it like this.
“Men that differ about bishops, ceremonies, and forms of prayer, may be all true Christians, and dear to one another and to Christ, if they be practically agreed in the life of godliness, and join in a holy, heavenly conversation. But if you agree in all your opinions and formalities, and yet were never sanctified by the truth, you do but agree to delude your souls, and neither of you will be saved for all your agreement” (Baxter’s Works, Vol. XVII. P. 80).
Saturday, March 13, 2010
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DOMINATE VIEWS OF LAST THINGS
I. ESTABLISHING SOME TERMS:
A. Method of Interpretation: the controlling methodological assumptions each position brings to the prophetic material.
B. Its Heritage: is simply seeking to point to the point in history when each perspective began to develop into a systematic framework for interpreting the “last things” in scripture and history.
C. The Millennium: refers to a period of time, mentioned explicitly in Rev 20:1—6.
D. The Kingdom of God: in the broadest sense is God’s reign through Jesus Christ (the NT never defines the kingdom, only describes it. See: Mt. 13, Mk 4, Lk 8).
E. Israel and the Church: this is specifically addressing the relationship (or lack thereof) between the ethnic, historical nation of Israel and the church of the NT era. Mostly concerning OT promises, prophecies, etc.
F. The Rapture: This term comes from the Latin word rapio in the Latin version of the Bible, called the Vulgate. It is referring to the saints being “caught up,” most explicitly mentioned in I Thess 4: 13—18.
G. After the Millennium: This category is obviously relative to how a particular position will define the millennium itself, and will be defined within the context of each respective position.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: The brief list of names at the end of each summary is to expose you to some of the more notable scholars that write for and from each perspective; to provide a place to begin, if you were to become interested in studying further, on your own, the options available.
I. The Tribulation: Mt 24:15—21. Amillennialism views this as already (pre-70 A.D.) and not yet, when it will be fully realized at the end of the age, just prior to Christ’s second coming. Generally speaking, Postmillennialists view this as purely a historical event that occurred in 66—70 A.D., although there will be a mixture of kingdom victory and persecution throughout the church age. Premillennialism is split. Generally, the Historical/Classical view takes a Post-Tribulation position of the Christ’s return (seeing the Rapture and the Second coming as two sides of the same event). The usual rule within Dispensational Premillennialism is that Christ will privately return for his church prior to a 7 year period of “great tribulation,” thus, they are Pre-Tribulation. However, there are those in both Premillennial camps that would maintain that the Rapture will occur mid-way through the Tribulation period; hence this is a Mid-Tribulation view.
I. HISTORICAL/CLASSICAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Grammatical—Historical
B. Its Heritage: This position has its roots in the first century, being taught by early church fathers: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others (1st—4th centuries). Although eclipsed by Amillennialism for a largest part of church history following the 4th century, it has maintained a following and is still popular among many scholars today.
C. The Millennium: After an intense period of persecution and tribulation, Christ will return to institute an earthly 1000 year kingdom (some take this number to be literal; others as an indefinitely long period of time).
D. The Kingdom of God: The kingdom of God is already a spiritual reality in the church since Pentecost, yet will become a visible earthly reality during the millennium after Christ’s return.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: Will be a public event were all believers, living and dead, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air immediately prior to the millennium. These will immediately return with Christ to judge the world and establish the millennial kingdom.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, Theodore Zahn, Robert Gundry.
II. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Strict—literal.
B. Its Heritage: Is a relatively new system, having its inception in the 1830’s, pioneered by J. N. Darby and further developed by C. I. Scofield (e.g., The Scofield Reference Bible). Due to the volatile climate of the Middle East; namely in the Holy Land, and the outstanding popularity of the Left Behind book and movie series this position is hands down the most widely held in America today, especially at the popular level.
C. The Millennium: At the end of the 7 years of great tribulation Christ will return to earth to establish a literal 1000 year, earthly reign from geographic Jerusalem. This period is to fulfill the OT promises to the nation Israel; including an earthly temple, the Levitical priesthood and much of the sacrificial system.
D. The Kingdom of God: Is the literal physical kingdom prophesied in the OT during which God will fulfill his promises to ethnic Israel. Because the religious leaders of Israel rejected their King (Christ) at his first coming, the kingdom was postponed until his second coming, after Israel has undergone a period of intense suffering (i.e., the great tribulation). The believers who come out of the tribulation shall enter and populate the earthly millennial kingdom.
E. Israel and the Church: Israel and the church are two very distinct entities, with two individual redemptive plans. The church age is a parenthetical time in God’s plans for Israel—largely unknown to the OT prophets.
F. The Rapture: Is a “secret” event which proceeds the 7 year period of great tribulation. Here, all believers from Pentecost until the tribulation will be “caught up,” taken to heaven, at which time the marriage of the Lamb will occur. Simultaneously, on earth, the Anti-Christ will rule. In the last three and a half years God will pour his wrath upon the earth in judgment.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, Lewis Chafer, Norman Geisler, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey (i.e., The Late Great Planet Earth), Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (i.e., the “Left Behind” series).
III. AMILLENNIALISM (or Inaugurated Millennialism)
A. Method of Interpretation: Redemptive—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Beginning with St. Augustine (4th—5th century A.D.), this position became the dominant view of most of the church, being slightly modified and taught by the Protestant Reformers. With the rise in biblical theological interpretive methods today, many scholars are finding this position to be the simplest, yet most comprehensive view for accounting for the flow and progressive nature of God realizing his redemptive purposes for his creation.
C. The Millennium: Was inaugurated at the time Christ’s resurrection. The millennium is now, in the sense that Christ is ruling over his growing kingdom through the church while Satan is bound and restrained in a great degree. The kingdom is already a spiritual reality now, but not yet fully realized. It will be visible and physical after Christ’s second coming, in the new creation.
D. The Kingdom of God: A present spiritual reality, being participated in through faith in Christ. The kingdom will be visible, wholly pervasive and fully realized at the consummation.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel. The church is the realization of the OT hopes for Israel, redefining the people of God to include Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
F. The Rapture: At the end of the millennium (i.e., church age) believers will be “caught up” with Christ in the air to immediately accompany him in a royal procession, return to earth to judge the wicked and establish the new creation.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium (church age) Satan will be release from his restrained capacity and allowed to make war with the saints. Christ returns, defeats Satan and the rest of his enemies; ushers in the consummation (New Creation).
H. Popular Modern Proponents: John Murray, William Hendrikson, Anthony Hoekema, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith Kline.
IV. POSTMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Covenantal—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Building off a theology of history taught by Joachim (12th cent.), some Protestant Reformers began to identify the recovery and expansion of the Gospel in 16th century Europe with the millennium mentioned in Rev 20. More contemporarily, the Industrial Revolution with all its promises of human possibility led to a revival in postmillennial thought. Human progress seemed unstoppable at the dawn of the 20th century; however, two world wars and the bloodiest century of human history has led many to abandon the notion of a “golden age” before Christ’s return.
C. The Millennium: Is understood to be a time in which the majority of the world would be Christian, thus, inaugurating a “golden age” where Christ would virtually rule the entire earth from heaven through Spirit filled preaching of the Gospel, after which Christ will return, the dead would be resurrected, judged and the eternal state ushered in.
D. The Kingdom of God: A spiritual reality experienced on earth through the expansion of the Gospel, and the conversion and Christianization of over half the world.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: The rapture is simultaneous with the Second Coming of Christ; in most cases it is synonymous with the resurrection of believers.
G. After the Millennium: Christ returns; the dead are raised and judged, and the eternal state is ushered in.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Gary North, Kenneth Gentry Jr., R. C. Sproul, Rousas J. Rushdoony, Greg L. Bahnsen.
A. Method of Interpretation: the controlling methodological assumptions each position brings to the prophetic material.
B. Its Heritage: is simply seeking to point to the point in history when each perspective began to develop into a systematic framework for interpreting the “last things” in scripture and history.
C. The Millennium: refers to a period of time, mentioned explicitly in Rev 20:1—6.
D. The Kingdom of God: in the broadest sense is God’s reign through Jesus Christ (the NT never defines the kingdom, only describes it. See: Mt. 13, Mk 4, Lk 8).
E. Israel and the Church: this is specifically addressing the relationship (or lack thereof) between the ethnic, historical nation of Israel and the church of the NT era. Mostly concerning OT promises, prophecies, etc.
F. The Rapture: This term comes from the Latin word rapio in the Latin version of the Bible, called the Vulgate. It is referring to the saints being “caught up,” most explicitly mentioned in I Thess 4: 13—18.
G. After the Millennium: This category is obviously relative to how a particular position will define the millennium itself, and will be defined within the context of each respective position.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: The brief list of names at the end of each summary is to expose you to some of the more notable scholars that write for and from each perspective; to provide a place to begin, if you were to become interested in studying further, on your own, the options available.
I. The Tribulation: Mt 24:15—21. Amillennialism views this as already (pre-70 A.D.) and not yet, when it will be fully realized at the end of the age, just prior to Christ’s second coming. Generally speaking, Postmillennialists view this as purely a historical event that occurred in 66—70 A.D., although there will be a mixture of kingdom victory and persecution throughout the church age. Premillennialism is split. Generally, the Historical/Classical view takes a Post-Tribulation position of the Christ’s return (seeing the Rapture and the Second coming as two sides of the same event). The usual rule within Dispensational Premillennialism is that Christ will privately return for his church prior to a 7 year period of “great tribulation,” thus, they are Pre-Tribulation. However, there are those in both Premillennial camps that would maintain that the Rapture will occur mid-way through the Tribulation period; hence this is a Mid-Tribulation view.
I. HISTORICAL/CLASSICAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Grammatical—Historical
B. Its Heritage: This position has its roots in the first century, being taught by early church fathers: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others (1st—4th centuries). Although eclipsed by Amillennialism for a largest part of church history following the 4th century, it has maintained a following and is still popular among many scholars today.
C. The Millennium: After an intense period of persecution and tribulation, Christ will return to institute an earthly 1000 year kingdom (some take this number to be literal; others as an indefinitely long period of time).
D. The Kingdom of God: The kingdom of God is already a spiritual reality in the church since Pentecost, yet will become a visible earthly reality during the millennium after Christ’s return.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: Will be a public event were all believers, living and dead, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air immediately prior to the millennium. These will immediately return with Christ to judge the world and establish the millennial kingdom.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, Theodore Zahn, Robert Gundry.
II. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Strict—literal.
B. Its Heritage: Is a relatively new system, having its inception in the 1830’s, pioneered by J. N. Darby and further developed by C. I. Scofield (e.g., The Scofield Reference Bible). Due to the volatile climate of the Middle East; namely in the Holy Land, and the outstanding popularity of the Left Behind book and movie series this position is hands down the most widely held in America today, especially at the popular level.
C. The Millennium: At the end of the 7 years of great tribulation Christ will return to earth to establish a literal 1000 year, earthly reign from geographic Jerusalem. This period is to fulfill the OT promises to the nation Israel; including an earthly temple, the Levitical priesthood and much of the sacrificial system.
D. The Kingdom of God: Is the literal physical kingdom prophesied in the OT during which God will fulfill his promises to ethnic Israel. Because the religious leaders of Israel rejected their King (Christ) at his first coming, the kingdom was postponed until his second coming, after Israel has undergone a period of intense suffering (i.e., the great tribulation). The believers who come out of the tribulation shall enter and populate the earthly millennial kingdom.
E. Israel and the Church: Israel and the church are two very distinct entities, with two individual redemptive plans. The church age is a parenthetical time in God’s plans for Israel—largely unknown to the OT prophets.
F. The Rapture: Is a “secret” event which proceeds the 7 year period of great tribulation. Here, all believers from Pentecost until the tribulation will be “caught up,” taken to heaven, at which time the marriage of the Lamb will occur. Simultaneously, on earth, the Anti-Christ will rule. In the last three and a half years God will pour his wrath upon the earth in judgment.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, Lewis Chafer, Norman Geisler, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey (i.e., The Late Great Planet Earth), Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (i.e., the “Left Behind” series).
III. AMILLENNIALISM (or Inaugurated Millennialism)
A. Method of Interpretation: Redemptive—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Beginning with St. Augustine (4th—5th century A.D.), this position became the dominant view of most of the church, being slightly modified and taught by the Protestant Reformers. With the rise in biblical theological interpretive methods today, many scholars are finding this position to be the simplest, yet most comprehensive view for accounting for the flow and progressive nature of God realizing his redemptive purposes for his creation.
C. The Millennium: Was inaugurated at the time Christ’s resurrection. The millennium is now, in the sense that Christ is ruling over his growing kingdom through the church while Satan is bound and restrained in a great degree. The kingdom is already a spiritual reality now, but not yet fully realized. It will be visible and physical after Christ’s second coming, in the new creation.
D. The Kingdom of God: A present spiritual reality, being participated in through faith in Christ. The kingdom will be visible, wholly pervasive and fully realized at the consummation.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel. The church is the realization of the OT hopes for Israel, redefining the people of God to include Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
F. The Rapture: At the end of the millennium (i.e., church age) believers will be “caught up” with Christ in the air to immediately accompany him in a royal procession, return to earth to judge the wicked and establish the new creation.
G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium (church age) Satan will be release from his restrained capacity and allowed to make war with the saints. Christ returns, defeats Satan and the rest of his enemies; ushers in the consummation (New Creation).
H. Popular Modern Proponents: John Murray, William Hendrikson, Anthony Hoekema, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith Kline.
IV. POSTMILLENNIALISM
A. Method of Interpretation: Covenantal—Historical
B. Its Heritage: Building off a theology of history taught by Joachim (12th cent.), some Protestant Reformers began to identify the recovery and expansion of the Gospel in 16th century Europe with the millennium mentioned in Rev 20. More contemporarily, the Industrial Revolution with all its promises of human possibility led to a revival in postmillennial thought. Human progress seemed unstoppable at the dawn of the 20th century; however, two world wars and the bloodiest century of human history has led many to abandon the notion of a “golden age” before Christ’s return.
C. The Millennium: Is understood to be a time in which the majority of the world would be Christian, thus, inaugurating a “golden age” where Christ would virtually rule the entire earth from heaven through Spirit filled preaching of the Gospel, after which Christ will return, the dead would be resurrected, judged and the eternal state ushered in.
D. The Kingdom of God: A spiritual reality experienced on earth through the expansion of the Gospel, and the conversion and Christianization of over half the world.
E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.
F. The Rapture: The rapture is simultaneous with the Second Coming of Christ; in most cases it is synonymous with the resurrection of believers.
G. After the Millennium: Christ returns; the dead are raised and judged, and the eternal state is ushered in.
H. Popular Modern Proponents: Gary North, Kenneth Gentry Jr., R. C. Sproul, Rousas J. Rushdoony, Greg L. Bahnsen.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
If they are right, they are wrong...
I have an apologetic maxim that I have tried to instill into both my girls. That is, “If they are right, then they are wrong”—the “they” being unbelievers. One of the most (ironically) consistent entailments of every non-Christian outlook is self-contradiction. This problem haunts the reasoning of everyone who will not evaluate things in light of God’s redemptive-providential plan and rule in Christ. If they are correct in their premises, they will draw contradictory conclusions, and vise versa. This is the folly of those who will not build their house of knowledge on the sure rock of Christ's enduring word.
The following editorial exchange is an explicit example of this problem. For a little background, the Daniel Esau reference is to a letter Mr. Esau wrote seeking to vindicate religion in general and Christianity is particular from secularist’s letters attacking the sam
I’m not particularly interested in standing with Mr. Esau in his attempt to defend the abstraction “religion.” I only know of particular religions, and only one that is defensible, namely Christianity. Ms. Hawkins had a similar interest, narrowing her focus to Christianity, so I felt obliged to answer.
'True religion' depends on one's beliefs
I read with interest the commentary by Daniel Esau, "Religion has accomplished much good" (Oct. 30), on his defense of religion. I certainly wouldn't argue with his list of good deeds done in the name of Christianity, though good-hearted people with or without religion contribute to the same causes. But I take exception to his use of the words "true religion" and "false religion." When it comes to spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.
Muslims believe theirs is the true religion. That some have chosen the path of terror does not negate its peaceful side any more than our criminals define all Americans. And we all know that within the Christian religion there are many deviations of what each considers the truth.
Major violence throughout history began when one religion decided to spread its beliefs to the entire world by force, a concept that Jesus never taught. History has shown that Christianity and Islam are the two main culprits of this phenomenon.
Many historians believe that the seeds of Islamic terror began with the first Crusade in 1095 when Christians invaded Jerusalem and massacred the entire Muslim population. People tend to remember things like that.
ROSEMARY HAWKINS
My response...
Letter writer’s belief depends on opinion
“True religion depends on one’s beliefs” (Rosemary Hawkins’ letter, Nov. 4) and regarding “spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.”
Strangely, Hawkins perceives herself to be free from the slough of religious irrationalism that she imposes on others. One can only conclude with Hawkins that religious truth is merely opinion and thus autobiographical, without objective meaning; or that Hawkins believes to possess that privileged place of objectivity that allows her to pass universal judgment on religious truth claims.
If it’s the former, then her letter was just one more person’s “spiritual belief” expressing a distaste for other religious perspectives, which isn’t very remarkable. However, if it’s the latter, then she believes her letter conveyed objective truth about religion and her point is self-contradictory.
Hawkins’ view has the pretense of even-handedness. But the fact is that it’s just one more perspective that claims to have religious truth cornered.
Because the Christian Scriptures teach that Christ is the Truth and the exclusive Way, all contrary claims are false by definition, including Islam. Therefore, Hawkins’ denial of such claims is just another way of saying that Christianity is a “false religion,” the very thing she wants to “take exception” with.
KEVIN STEVENSON
The following editorial exchange is an explicit example of this problem. For a little background, the Daniel Esau reference is to a letter Mr. Esau wrote seeking to vindicate religion in general and Christianity is particular from secularist’s letters attacking the sam
I’m not particularly interested in standing with Mr. Esau in his attempt to defend the abstraction “religion.” I only know of particular religions, and only one that is defensible, namely Christianity. Ms. Hawkins had a similar interest, narrowing her focus to Christianity, so I felt obliged to answer.
'True religion' depends on one's beliefs
I read with interest the commentary by Daniel Esau, "Religion has accomplished much good" (Oct. 30), on his defense of religion. I certainly wouldn't argue with his list of good deeds done in the name of Christianity, though good-hearted people with or without religion contribute to the same causes. But I take exception to his use of the words "true religion" and "false religion." When it comes to spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.
Muslims believe theirs is the true religion. That some have chosen the path of terror does not negate its peaceful side any more than our criminals define all Americans. And we all know that within the Christian religion there are many deviations of what each considers the truth.
Major violence throughout history began when one religion decided to spread its beliefs to the entire world by force, a concept that Jesus never taught. History has shown that Christianity and Islam are the two main culprits of this phenomenon.
Many historians believe that the seeds of Islamic terror began with the first Crusade in 1095 when Christians invaded Jerusalem and massacred the entire Muslim population. People tend to remember things like that.
ROSEMARY HAWKINS
My response...
Letter writer’s belief depends on opinion
“True religion depends on one’s beliefs” (Rosemary Hawkins’ letter, Nov. 4) and regarding “spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.”
Strangely, Hawkins perceives herself to be free from the slough of religious irrationalism that she imposes on others. One can only conclude with Hawkins that religious truth is merely opinion and thus autobiographical, without objective meaning; or that Hawkins believes to possess that privileged place of objectivity that allows her to pass universal judgment on religious truth claims.
If it’s the former, then her letter was just one more person’s “spiritual belief” expressing a distaste for other religious perspectives, which isn’t very remarkable. However, if it’s the latter, then she believes her letter conveyed objective truth about religion and her point is self-contradictory.
Hawkins’ view has the pretense of even-handedness. But the fact is that it’s just one more perspective that claims to have religious truth cornered.
Because the Christian Scriptures teach that Christ is the Truth and the exclusive Way, all contrary claims are false by definition, including Islam. Therefore, Hawkins’ denial of such claims is just another way of saying that Christianity is a “false religion,” the very thing she wants to “take exception” with.
KEVIN STEVENSON
Monday, March 8, 2010
Persecution in the Early Church
I can’t keep this one to myself. Here is a great primer on early Church persecution by D. P. Brooks. Brooks brings the historical context of Roman persecution in contact with the text of 1 Peter, and also touches on Hebrews. If nothing else, it will enlighten many on what the early Church endured and how that background should shape our reading of the latter New Testament.
Blessings.
Blessings.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Making Disciples of All Peoples, Including Your Own
The other evening, I was talking with Steve on the phone, or should I say trying to talk, while his sweet one year old daughter, Hannah, was offering her unintelligible commentary in the background. But don’t get me wrong, Hannah is rapidly mastering that muscle between her teeth. Nearly every time Steve and I talk, Hannah has added to her reservoir of gibberish more and more comprehensible verbiage. Fanny and I are fourteen years removed from the joy that Steve and Stacy are experiencing with teaching Hannah her first words and concepts.
As much as I love sharing in the wonder of all this with Steve, nothing has struck me like what I heard the other night. Hannah is not only learning words for their own sake and practicability; Hannah is doing catechesis!
Steve held the phone between himself and Hannah and asked her, “Who made you?”
Hannah immediately shot back, “God.”
“What else did God make?”
“Aw tings!” (trans. “All things!”), she responded.
This caused me to think of the words of the Master, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise” (Matt 21:16). How wonderful for Hannah to be blessed with parents who labor to nurture her in a gospel-centered life!
Our daughter Israel has a journal wherein she is transcribing the ecumenical creeds, Reformed confessions and catechisms. She just finished the Westminster Shorter Catechism and will be starting the Heidelberg tomorrow. She plans to hand this on to her own children and, Lord willing, their children.
Catechesis is a tether cord that binds us today to the elect throughout the ages, back to the apostolic patriarchs who died to hand down the faith once for all.
Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, has a fine article on Why We Memorize the Catechism.
As much as I love sharing in the wonder of all this with Steve, nothing has struck me like what I heard the other night. Hannah is not only learning words for their own sake and practicability; Hannah is doing catechesis!
Steve held the phone between himself and Hannah and asked her, “Who made you?”
Hannah immediately shot back, “God.”
“What else did God make?”
“Aw tings!” (trans. “All things!”), she responded.
This caused me to think of the words of the Master, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise” (Matt 21:16). How wonderful for Hannah to be blessed with parents who labor to nurture her in a gospel-centered life!
Our daughter Israel has a journal wherein she is transcribing the ecumenical creeds, Reformed confessions and catechisms. She just finished the Westminster Shorter Catechism and will be starting the Heidelberg tomorrow. She plans to hand this on to her own children and, Lord willing, their children.
Catechesis is a tether cord that binds us today to the elect throughout the ages, back to the apostolic patriarchs who died to hand down the faith once for all.
Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, has a fine article on Why We Memorize the Catechism.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM IS NOT NEW
These quotes are not from YE creationists Ken Ham or Dr. Morris but Patristic Church apologetes Origen (c. A.D. 248) and Methodius (c. A.D. 290).
“After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand yours old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated!...And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.”
Origen, Against Celsus, chapter 19.
“For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition.”
Methodius, The Banquet or the Ten Virgins, chapter 2.
“After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand yours old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated!...And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.”
Origen, Against Celsus, chapter 19.
“For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition.”
Methodius, The Banquet or the Ten Virgins, chapter 2.
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Philippian Creed (from Phil 2:6—11)
We believe in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the very nature of God,
Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
But made Himself nothing,
Taking the very nature of a servant,
Being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—
Even death on a cross!
Therefore God highly exalted Him
And given Him the name that is above every name;
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
In heaven and on earth and under the earth,
And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
To the glory of God the Father.
Amen.
Who, being in the very nature of God,
Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
But made Himself nothing,
Taking the very nature of a servant,
Being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—
Even death on a cross!
Therefore God highly exalted Him
And given Him the name that is above every name;
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
In heaven and on earth and under the earth,
And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
To the glory of God the Father.
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)