Resurrectio et Vita

On Friday I finally finished The Fellowship of the Ring. The first in Tolkien’s excellent trilogy. As soon as the book was concluded, I was eager to see the movie. I once saw the movie a couple of years ago. I was unaware of the joys that come with reading a book and then watching the book come alive on the screen. It certainly adds a great deal to the movie-watching experience. It is remarkable what a director can do in putting together a masterpiece of more than 500 pages into a 3 hour movie. I was struck by the faithfulness of the movie to the book. They seemed to condense the more detailed parts of the book into a 2 minute summary. This, I thought to be extremely helpful since it set the tone for things to come. For instance, right from the start of the Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer receives an excellent background to the origin, source, and fate of the ring. Whereas in the book, we only get these details later on in particular sections where Gandalf is re-telling the story to Frodo. Though I began to read The Two Towers last night, it is doubtful that I will make much progress since seminary starts on Wednesday.

I also finished D.A. Carson’s excellent treatise on the Love of God. It is appropriately entitled: The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. It is based on a series of four lectures delivered by Carson at Dallas Seminary almost a decade ago. The book is unashamedly Calvinistic and faithful to the exegetical task. One of the crucial goals of Carson’s 84-page book was to correct modern misconceptions of the love of God, whether they be exegetical or pop slogans. Carson summarizes the importance of a proper understanding of God’s love when he writes:

I do not think that what the Bible says about the love of God can long survive at the forefront of our thinking if it is abstracted from the sovereignty of God, the holiness of God, the wrath of God, the providence of God, or the personhood of God–not to mention only a few nonnegotiable elements of basic Christianity. ^a

Carson ties the love of God with other necessary attributes, thereby, presenting the God of Scriptures, instead of the God of culture. Evangelicalism seems to focus too much attention on God’s love, and there is a certain validity to that, nevertheless, when God’s love is disassociated from His wrath, then God’s love becomes superfluous and human.

The book also focused on important doctrines such as Limited Atonement, which Carson prefers to call, Definite Atonement, since it conveys the idea better. He focused much of the last chapter on the recipients of God’s love. At one time, he even condemned those zealous Calvinists who abuse the text by imposing a meaning on certain words (i.e. world) that is not meant by the text. One clear example is found in John 3:16. Though Carson does not deny limited atonement, nevertheless, he prefers to see God’s love in Christ actually expressed to the whole world and not just the world of the elect as many Calvinist interpret. This is a fairly appealing interpretation, especially in light of the nature of God’s love. Of course, Carson distinguishes the different ways in which God shows His love. God’s redemptive love is very different than His love for the non-elect.

Saturday was a day filled with activities. Early Saturday morning I awoke to drive to downtown Orlando. I have long been interested in abandoning the side-lines of the pro-life debate and actually be an active member of it. Saturday morning was a first step in that direction. I arrived at the Orlando’s Women Center at about 8:10AM. There was no one there at that point and so I circled around the block a few times and when I returned Scott and Patte Smith were already there. This is a remarkable couple. They have been involved in pro-life work for years. They have been at this particular clinic for over 10 years. Their main job is to do counseling at the site. Scott is a man of great convictions and truly committed to this work. As I arrived Patte was already sharing with two young ladies waiting for their appointment. According to Patte’s blog found here an abortion can be somewhat costly. Here is a chart:

16 weeks $900
17 weeks $1150
18 weeks $1400
19 weeks $1850
20 weeks $2050
21 weeks $2300
22 weeks $2500
23 weeks $2700
24 weeks $2900

As I witnessed young girls from all types of society, I was saddened for them and their families. What led them to make such commitments? What was even more grievous was the contradicting message they sent. Some would reply that they were Christians, others had bumper stickers with a Christian radio station, yet others, I was told, had “Choose Life” signs on their vehicles as they quietly walked up the stairs of death and allowed someone to murder their little babies. Though I did not witness any dramatic rescue, some were willing to talk; others were not even willing to look. Perhaps the embarrassment was too much or perhaps they did not want anyone to recognize them or because their guilt was just too much to bear. They go through all this pain and the consequence of years of guilt to please some idiotic man who cares little about them and to please ultimately the evil one who has succeeded once more.

Late Saturday evening I traveled to Palm Harbor, Fl where on Sunday I would minister one last time at Grace Community Church. The church is located on a beautiful land surrounded by greenery that looks more like Scotland than Sunny Florida. I took this picture from my truck. On the back, you can see the church.

I thoroughly enjoyed the two weeks ministering to that small and friendly congregation. The elders were very kind and the people gracious and encouraging to this young seminarian. I continued my study through Joshua 6. The latter part of Joshua 6 focuses among many things, primarily on the rescuing of Rahab and her household. One of my main points is that God rescued the most unlikely of all people and that through His covenant faithfulness He delivers His own and promised to save you and your children. Rahab is a remarkable testimony of grace and love in the Old Covenant revelation. What a weekend!

1. Page 11, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God  (back)

Many thanks to Scott Horton for this excellent interview with Ron Paul.

The title says it all. Michael Medved, blogger at Townhall.com, argues that Paul is a one-issue candidate. What is that one issue? Isolationalist foreign policy. Of course, the very first thing to point out to Medved is that Paul never uses that word about himself. I have heard him often say that there is nothing isolationist about trading with countries and befriending other countries. On the other hand, neo-cons want to bomb other countries and isolate themselves from other nations by supporting their enemies and then years later by supporting the enemy of the enemy. If you follow thus far, Medved and his group of neo-cons are the true isolationists.

Though in complete disagreement with Medved’s assessment about Paul, let me point out one helpful analysis he makes concerning other candidates in his most recent article. Medved believes that for Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter to continue their respective campaigns is insanity. He argues that their efforts at the Iowa straw poll bore no fruit despite their honorable reputations. So Medved calls Sam and Duncan to say good-bye. He writes:

…that leaves a much more focused campaign where the GOP candidates no longer resemble the seven dwarves (you can draw your own conclusions as to the identities of Grumpy, Sleepy and Dopey). With Brownback and Hunter gone (soon, please!) that leaves the two single-issue candidates (Paul and Tancredo) and five serious contenders: Giuliani, Fred Thompson, McCain, Romney – and Huckabee.

Medved then urges that the Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo campaigns continue since they are one-issue candidates. And of course, Medved has his own selfish reasons to see Paul and Tancredo continue in the race:

Their continued campaigning can actually provide a public service: demonstrating that their angry, alienated (and alienating) fringe perspectives draw scant support within the Republican Party.

We can always expect pure motives from the folks at Townhall. But what Medved forgot was that the comment section was open for readers like you. Further, when you write such a dishonest piece, you can expect corrections. Hence, here are some corrections offered humbly to our kind blogger Michael Medved from a few fanatic and fringe Ron Paul supporters. First there is this excellent analogy with European nations:

Should it be considered isolationist to promote free trade yet remove ourselves from the foreign entanglements of the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?
Do people consider the Norwegians, Swedes, or the Dutch to be isolationist because they don’t have a military presence in 192 of 212 other nations and merely rely upon free trade?
Michael, there is no speculating who’s desktop you take your marching orders from, too bad your loyalties weren’t closer to home as you are a decent writer.

Then, there is this list of 12 items that have been defended and proclaimed by Ron Paul in these last 3 months:

Why don’t you actually research a candidate’s position before you write about it? Or at least use a dictionary before using words that are too big for you like “isolationist”…

First, there is a BIG difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, NOT an isolationist. In Webster’s dictionary, isolationism is “a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries”. Ron Paul is NOT against trade between countries and he is NOT against peaceful negotiations with other countries. He’s also not afraid to go to war … as long as the Congress declares it AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION! He just doesn’t believe that we should police the world, overthrow governments in third world countries, and give OUR TAXPAYER money to every country looking for a handout. Simply put, he believes in putting the interests of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST and the interests of other nations second. It’s about time someone in our government started representing the people!

Second, how exactly did you decide that Ron Paul was a one-issue candidate. Let’s see, aside from bringing our troops home he stands for…

1. Reducing the scope of the federal government
2. Drastically cutting government spending
3. Eliminating the income tax
4. Reduce the national deficit and debt
5. Eliminating wasteful government agencies like the IRS, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, FEMA
6. Using our troops to actually defend and secure our borders
7. Stamping out illegal immigration and amnesty
8. Allow young people to opt out of Social Security
9. Repeal the Patriot Act and give Americans back their rights to privacy
10. Keeping the internet unregulated
11. Stamp out NAU, NAFTA, WTO
12. Fight to reverse Rowe v. Wade

Shall I go on???

Maybe Ron Paul should be a 12-issue candidate?

After many years in the Reformed tradition, I have learned to appreciate history beyond the last one hundred years. History teaches that our dogmatism is easily overruled and once loved traditions can be easily refuted. With this in mind, I have come to admire the Roman Catholic Church, though my admiration has diminished in the last twelve months for various reasons. ^a Nevertheless, my initial appreciation for the Roman church stems from a love of our forefathers. From greater to lesser: Augustine and Aquinas. Augustinian theology has largely shaped my ideas of theology as sacramental, rather than simply abstract pieces of propositions. On the other hand, Aquinas has given the church a powerful apologetic (though deeply flawed in many ways in its Aristotelian foundation) contra the anti-ecclesiastical establishment of his time and in some small way, even today. Further, Aquinas taught us in the Summa that the”object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason.” Even Van Til would concur.

A second reason I have admired the Roman church is its consistency on the issue of life. On an ethical level, it has been largely committed to natural law, but Rome’s view of natural law has led them to defend life. Though I deny the use of natural law as an ethical guide, I still stand beside catholics who defend life no matter what their reason may be. ^b Modern apologists for the Catholic Church are strong supporters, both privately and publicly, of the unborn. ^c Of course, in many ways their natural law theory has also led to the denial of the death penalty. In this case, they are entirely incorrect, though in light of our modern political corruption, the application of the death penalty today would suit the poor more so than the O.J. Simpsons’ of these United States.

A third reason I have admired Rome in my last 6 years of this Reformed pilgrimage, is that Rome is still alive. Regardless of our critiques, Rome is still alive and well…I probably should say “not as well as it used to be.” It is alive and that is my point. While our evangelical church prides in her divisiveness, Rome prides in her unity (though we may disagree with her reasons). While our pitiful evangelical churches claim “me and my Bible,” Rome claims “Ecclesia and the Bible.” ^d Remember, Rome is still creedal; evangelicalism generally still prefers to quibble over Bible translations and pre-lapsarian debates. As Michael Horton once mentioned, evangelicalism prefers to talk about their individual testimony than their history. Remember that Rome is still trinitarian; evangelicalism cares little about Trinitarian theology. ^e

Certainly, some like myself do not even want to carry the label “evangelical” around anymore. But for very pragmatic reasons, it still may be useful. The evangelical world is still, unfortunately or fortunately, according to different perspectives, our tradition. This is why it is reasonable to remind our brethren that we have long strayed from our history and hence to remind them that Rome is not a lost cause; that there is hope for Rome; there is hope for reconciliation and that there is hope for evangelicals; hope to see Rome and acknowledge her good as I have mentioned, as well as properly seeing her bad, and once in while seeing her ugly side too.

1. Among them are Pope Benedict’s radical return to ancient catholic dogma asserting that Rome is the only church; though I respect Benedict’s commitment to the ancient tradition, I hope and pray that Rome’s future is more ecumenical and less exclusive with Trinitarian Christian denominations  (back)
2. Certainly, great progress from the days of the Inquisition  (back)
3. Think of Alan Keyes  (back)
4. Though once again at this point we may disagree with the nature of ecclesiastical authority  (back)
5. See for instance Catholic Hans Kung’s excellent work: Christianity: essence, History, and future  (back)

My friend Daniel Ritchie always writes succinct reviews. He tends to read all the books I have wanted to read in the last few years. In this case, he reviews Kenneth Gentry’s classic: He Shall Have Dominion.

By Daniel Ritchie

How many times have you ever heard or read a fair representation of what postmillennialism really teaches? Rarely, if ever, I suspect. Postmillennialists are usually dismissed with unscholarly slogans like: “You believe the world is getting better and better” (this is rhetoric, not genuine Christian scholarly analysis). Thus to properly understand postmillennialism, and Reconstructionist/Theonomic postmillennialism in particular, it is necessary to go to the source. And there is no one better qualified than Ken Gentry to consult on optimistic eschatology: if you want the truth, get it from the horses’ mouth.

In this comprehensive volume, Dr. Gentry begins by highlighting the importance of eschatology in Christian theology, analyses pessimistic eschatologies and introduces the reader to postmillennialism (the view that Christ’s kingdom will be victorious in history). In parts two and three, he lays down the theological, heremenutical and exegetical basis for postmillennialism. The chapter (thirteen) on the expansion of the kingdom is especially helpful, proving that evangelical postmillennialism is not to be confused with Islamic jihad, but that Christian dominion is the effect of regeneration as the gospel advances.

Moreover, Dr. Gentry defends a partial-preterist variant of postmillennialism and provides the reader with a useful section explaining how certain passages (Matt. 24:1-34 etc) are to be understood preteristically. Even if you are not convinced by all of his arguments, Dr. Gentry’s work – in this and other books – shows us that partial preterism cannot be lightly dismissed just because the Reformers and Puritans did not hold to it (this is basically the Steelite argument). Furthermore, the section refuting the pragmatic, theological and allegedly Biblical objections to postmillennialism is very closely reasoned – highlighting the fallacious logic and scare tactics of pessimillennialists of various shades. Useful appendices exposing the cultural antinomianism of the Protestant Reformed Church and the heresy of hyper-preterism have also been included.

Interstingly, Dr. Gentry spends relatively little time dealing with Rev. 20 – which is usally regarded as the be-all-and-end-all of the debate over eschatology; this is a correct approach, as the case for optimistic eschatology is based on an analysis of the whole counsel of God, not one passage. However, he comes to the conclusion that the 1000 years began with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (representing the defeat of the Jewish-Neronic attempt to destroy the church) and ends with a brief period of Satanically inspired rebellion against Christendom (Rev. 20:8-10).

This is a position I came to prior to reading He Shall Have Dominion, I believe it avoids the fallacious exegesis of amillennialism and the postmillennialists like R.J. Rushdoony and others (who try and argue that the 1000 years is the whole New Testament era), while not going to the other extreme of golden-age postmillennialism as held by many of the Puritans (the idea that the 1000 years of Rev. 20:4 represents a ‘golden age’ cannot be reconciled with other Biblical teaching on redemptive history – according to the prophets the ‘golden age’ of the church is the whole New Covenant era Is. 2:2-4; Mic. 4:1-5).

In conclusion, this is the best work on postmillennialism that has ever been written; the Counsel of Chalcedon said in its review: “If this book were a play it would deserve a standing ovation.” Dr. Gentry is the scholar par-excellence of the Christian Reconstructionists; if Greg Bahnsen was the Elijah of the Theonomy movement, then I am becoming increasingly convinced that Ken Gentry is the Elisha – as the spirit of Bahnsen has fallen upon him with double measure. Any serious critique of Reconstructionist postmillennialism will have to interact with He Shall Have Dominion in order to be worth the paper its written on.

Rating: 10/10

• Elvis and Entrepreneurship by Gary North

  North is the most fascinating author I have ever read on the areas of economics and history. Here he shows his skills in an excellent introduction to Elvis and Entrepreneurship.

  (tags: Gary North)

• How Great Thou, Bart by Jim Amrhein

  (tags: Simpsons libertarian)

• BLOG and MABLOG

  Undoubtedly, the top 5 best theological blogs in the country!

  (tags: Doug Wilson Blogs Reformed)

• Life, Eternal life, and Abundant life « Jesus Shall Reign…

  My brother Steve writes a compelling story about his understanding of pleasure in this present world.

  (tags: Pastor Steve Wolters)

I had a slight change of plans for this Sunday. The PCA church in Palm Harbor called me back to preach one more sermon this Sunday the 19th. I look forward doing my second part series on Joshua 6. My second sermon is entitled: The Redemption of Rahab.