Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 70

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND REFORMED THEOLOGY?

[image error]PMW 2019-016 by Jared Longshore (Founders Ministries) https://founders.org/

Gentry: We must pray for revival in our nation. More particularly, a Reformed revival wherein Christians not only commit themselves more fully to God, but more fully to studying and applying his word. American churches have become places of entertainment rather than worship and instruction, which has reduced Christianity’s influence in our culture. Social Justice is the latest fad to confuse and afflict us. This is a helpful, brief article that goes right to the hear to the matter.

We might understand how social justice with all of its attendant ideologies could work its way into the evangelical world. But the crowd stands befuddled at the sight of social justice’s presence in the reformed evangelical world. At its core social justice is a worldview of victimized egalitarianism resulting in state redistribution of wealth, privilege, rights, and opportunities. And how exactly does such a worldview harmonize with Calvinism? About like the granny trio on the day, they left their hearing aids at home.

Reformed theology says there is a sovereign and holy God who does not owe man a thing. Man, having spat in this holy God’s face, has fallen into the deep dark pit of depravity. Man is ruthless. When it comes to goodness man finds himself with a zero on the scoreboard. He deserves to be cast into the outer darkness. (Romans 3:10-18; Jeremiah 17:9; Ephesians 2:1-3)

Redeeming Pop Culture[image error]

by T. M. Moore

Why is it important for us not to ignore the culture around us? How can we engage, influence, and advance pop culture, and how can we put popular forms to good use in God’s kingdom? Moore urges us neither to flee from popular culture nor to immerse ourselves in it blindly.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Man is not only depraved, he is totally depraved. Far from being able to identify victim statuses through intersectionality, man has to come to grips with his wickedness. He is manifestly not a victim. Rather he is the recipient of unspeakable undeserved benefits. Think life, oxygen, food and the like.

Where social justice’s hyper-egalitarian mindset demands everyone have the same opportunity and privileges, reformed doctrine says God choses some (and not others) to have eternal life. The others spend eternity suffering His wrath. Why did God not give them the same outcome or even opportunity as the others?

Jesus shed His blood for some, not all, the good old confessions teach. Why would our Lord be so targeted and discriminating in His suffering? Jesus laid down His life particularly for His sheep in a redemptive way that He did not do for those who are not His sheep (John 10).

The doctrines of grace teach that God not only gives grace but He supplies irresistible grace to certain persons who make up a particular group of people. All mankind are in rebellion against the Creator. Even so, God in His great love overcomes the rebellion of some while leaving the others to rage against Him. Why would God distribute this particular blessing only to a few? Does this act of God meet the standard of fairness advocated by Cultural Marxism?

Reformed theology teaches that the saints must and will persevere by God’s grace. He supplies His people with what they need to finish the race. Everyone else goes without this grace from the Lord. The former do not receive God’s help on the basis of their contribution to God’s society but merely because God is love.

[image error]

Predestination Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

A thoroughly biblical, extremely practical, and impressively clear presentation of

the doctrine of absolute predestination.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The entire reformed Christian outlook is predicated upon a perfectly righteous, generous Sovereign and a race made up of fallen human beings who deserve nothing but the whetted sword of an angry God (Psalm 7). What fellowship has light with darkness? What community can there be between the cosmology of sovereign mercy and the Weltanschauung of give me-give me-give me.

How do you get from reformed doctrine to complaining about microaggressions? What’s the connection between this theology and telling people to check their privilege? Why do we think we can take the reformed faith and blend it with critical theory which is happily indebted to radical feminism, postmodern theory, and a godless Hegelian dialectic?

Why are we presently flirting with . . .

To read full article: click

[image error]

THE INFANTICIDE DEBATE

[image error]PMW 2019-015 by Samantha Gobba (World magazine)

Gentry note: Since the Obama Presidency, America has lurched leftward and become destructively fragmented. Our culture is now in the wholesale process of “integration downward into the void.” That is, as unbelief gets its cultural act together, its deadly consequences and ultimate despair become more integrated in society and obvious to even the simplest citizen. Long predicted, infanticide has now become a topic of discussion and even legalization. I am convinced that this horrific practice may be the “bridge too far” that ultimately explodes in secularism’s face. I suspect that this may begin retarding the downward collapse of our culture. Of course, this will require a revival of Christianity in America, which postmillennialism expects. This article shows the horror of unbelief in our culture.

A Virginia bill that would have flung wide open the door to late-term abortions in that state caused a nationwide backlash and accusations that supporters of the measure were promoting infanticide. The bill died in a House of Delegates subcommittee vote last Monday, but the controversy about it has since inspired a push in the U.S. Senate to protect newborn babies from abortionists.

Virginia House Bill 2491, which failed by a 5-3 vote along party lines, would have gotten rid of protections for the unborn through all nine months of a pregnancy. Its provisions would have removed the requirement that facilities performing five or more first trimester abortions per month be classified as hospitals, done away with mandatory ultrasounds and a 24-hour waiting period, reduced the number of physicians required to approve a third trimester abortion from three to one, and allowed for second trimester abortions to take place in facilities other than hospitals. But the most contentious part of the bill was a proposed change to the requirement that the threat to a woman’s health—including her mental health—be “substantial and irremediable” for her to have a third trimester abortion.

[image error]Contemporary Theological Issues

by Ken Gentry (21 mp3 downloadables)

A Christian college course dealing with contemporary theological debates within the church. Covers several important topics of concern to Christians, including abortion, homosexuality, alcoholic beverages, and more

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran, the bill’s sponsor, admitted during testimony to a subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee that the removal of the words “substantial and irremediable” would be “changing the standard” for having an abortion in Virginia. After a national uproar, Tran said she misspoke when she testified that her bill would allow a pregnant woman to request an abortion even if she was moments away from giving birth: “I should have said, clearly, ‘No, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’” The Fairfax County delegate said she received death threats after video of her testimony went viral. She temporarily shut down her social media pages and had police guard her and her four young children.

Fellow Democratic Delegate Dawn Adams, a nurse practitioner who co-sponsored the bill, later apologized to her constituents for supporting it. “I did not read a bill I agreed to co-patron and that wasn’t smart or typical,” she said. “I am sorry that I did not exercise due diligence before this explosion of attention; had I done so, I would not have co-patroned.”

Gov. Ralph Northam, also a Democrat, added fuel to the fire Wednesday by describing in a radio interview a hypothetical situation in which an infant who was severely deformed or unable to survive after birth could be left to die: “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Northam called the controversy overblown and said that as a physician he has devoted his life to caring for children. A scandal over racist yearbook photos has since engulfed the governor.

[image error]

Indefensible (by Sam Kastensmidt)

Sub-title: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America. An Important work in our day of cultural collapse and Christian persecution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Virginia proposal was one of several across the nation to attempt to remove virtually all protections for unborn babies. A law signed last month by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, enshrines abortion as a fundamental right in that state. In 2017, Delaware passed a law that allowed abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and removed every protection for unborn children from the state’s legal code. Similar efforts are underway in New Mexico, Nevada, Rhode Island and Vermont.

In an interview with Fox News, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., remarked on how much the pro-abortion narrative has changed since President Bill Clinton called for abortion to be safe and legal but rare.

“And now you’ve got Northam on the radio this week literally saying, if the baby survives an abortion, somebody could keep her warm for a little bit, and then doctors could have a debate about infanticide as this little girl is cold and alone on a table,” Sasse said. “It’s nuts.” Sasse is sponsoring a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that would safeguard infants who survive botched abortions. He plans to call for a unanimous consent vote Monday evening that would fast-track the measure’s approval.

“I’m going to ask all 100 senators to come to the floor and be against infanticide,” Sasse said Thursday on the Senate floor. “This shouldn’t be complicated.”

Across the nation

Wyoming: The state House of Representatives approved a bill Friday that would require women to wait 48 hours after receiving approval for an abortion to carry out the procedure. The bill, which passed 36-22, has an exception if the life of the mother is in danger. It is now headed to the state Senate for a vote.

Florida: Republican state Sen. Joe Gruters introduced a bill last Monday that would protect the unborn from abortion after 20 weeks of gestation. He called late-term abortion “an assault on basic human decency to other humans.”

Tennessee: Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, said last week that he will support a bill that would protect the unborn after they have a detectable heartbeat, which can be as early as six weeks of gestation.

Louisiana: The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday it would need more time to review evidence in a case about a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges. —S.G.

Coming soon

The producers of Unplanned, a film about former Planned Parenthood facility manager Abby Johnson’s conversion to the pro-life movement, released a trailer last week. Johnson, a mother of seven living in Texas, now runs And Then There Were None, a pro-life organization with the mission of helping abortion workers leave the industry. The movie is due out March 29.  . . .

To read the full article: click

ABORTION BY INFANTICIDE

[image error]PMW 2019-013 by Lita Cosner (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

Gentry note: This is an older article (2008), but one that anticipates what we are now experiencing in America: the legal slaughtering of near term and delivered babies. As postmillennialists committed to the spread of righteousness and truth, we stand against such a practice. And the first step in standing against it is to understand what is going on. This article ought to help.

Blurring the line between abortion and infanticide?

When the Roe v. Wade decision was delivered, the reality that a baby was being killed during abortion was less clear to many people—it was common to think that what was being removed was ‘a blob’ or ‘a clump of cells’. But most who would be in favor of abortion would at least draw the line at birth—once the baby is outside the womb, nearly everyone agrees that he or she is entitled to the full protection of the law, regardless of what route the baby took to get there. But some think that there is one time a fully-born baby does not have the right to life—when he or she was born as a result of a botched abortion.

Peter Singer: infanticide-supporting ‘bioethicist’

Peter Singer (1946–) is probably the most well-known bioethicist who, though he is too humane to eat a hamburger and advocates giving rights to great apes, has no qualms about infanticide. To him, an unborn child only acquires ‘moral significance’ at around 20 weeks’ gestation, when the baby is able to feel pain. But ‘[e]ven when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain—probably in the last third of the pregnancy—it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog’, and so he gives greater ‘moral significance’ to the chimpanzee and dog than to the unborn child.1

He readily admits that the unborn child is fully human, but argues that the humanity of the unborn child does not obligate society to preserve that life. In Rethinking Life and Death, Singer takes the view that ‘newborn-infants, especially if unwanted, are not yet full members of the moral community’, and proposes a 28-day period in which the infant might be killed before being granted full human rights.2 In a 2007 column, Singer seems to reverse his position on the acceptability of infanticide in most cases, but makes it clear that it is not because a child acquires a new ‘moral significance’ once it exits the womb, but because ‘the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have.’3 However, he argued in another article that, due to the high rate of disability in very premature infants, doctors should not treat babies born before 26 weeks of gestation if the parents of such a child decide not to treat their infant.4 Singer asserts: ‘killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.’5 Indeed, this sort of thought has been the basis of wrongful birth lawsuits by parents who claim that their disabled children should not have been born.

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Situation ethics

Singer’s bizarre views on human life may belong on the lunatic fringe, but they are fairly mainstream in what passes for ‘bioethics’. Singer’s views stem from a philosophy known as utilitarianism, in which the stated goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the most people possible. So the ‘right’ decision in any given situation is that which results in the most pleasure and the least pain for the greatest number of people. The use of utilitarian ethics was popularized by Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), an apostate Episcopalian minister who became an atheist. He is best known for creating ‘situation ethics’, and was hailed ‘the patriarch of bioethics’ by bioethicist and former Roman Catholic priest Albert R. Johsen (1931–).6 Situation ethics can be summed in the book transcript of a debate between Fletcher and the Christian apologist and lawyer John Warwick Montgomery (1931–):

‘ … Whether we ought to follow a moral principle or not would always depend upon the situation. … In some situations unmarried love could be infinitely more moral than married unlove. Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth … stealing could be better than respecting private property … no action is good or right of itself. It depends on whether it hurts or helps people. … There are no normative moral principles whatsoever which are intrinsically valid or universally obliging. We may not absolutize the norms of human conduct. … Love is the highest good and the first-order value, the primary consideration to which in every act … we should be prepared to sidetrack or subordinate other value considerations of right and wrong.’7

Montgomery scored a powerful point with the audience when he showed that situation ethicists shouldn’t be trusted under their own belief system, because they could happily deceive you if the situation were right.

[image error]

Indefensible (by Sam Kastensmidt)

Sub-title: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America. An Important work in our day of cultural collapse and Christian persecution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Christian viewpoint is that moral absolutes are real (see the articles under Are there such things as moral absolutes?). Where there is a conflict, the resolution is not situational but depends on the biblical hierarchy of absolutes: duty to God > duty to man > duty to property; obeying God’s laws > obeying the government. This system is called graded absolutism, where there are exemptions rather than exceptions to moral absolutes, i.e. the duty to obey the higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.8

Personhood

Fletcher also popularized the distinction between ‘human being’ and ‘person’ that is central to Singer’s ethics.9 He proposed a formula to determine whether an individual qualified as a ‘person’, with requirements such as ‘minimum intelligence’, ‘self awareness’, ‘memory’, and ‘communication’.10 Singer’s denial of the unborn child’s personhood is central to his justification for abortion, as he freely admits that the unborn child is alive and human.11 Tom Beauchamp goes as far as to say, ‘Many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they are thereby rendered equal or inferior in moral standing to some nonhumans . . . .

To finish the article and see the footnotes: click

[image error]

EVOLUTION: A MESSAGE OF HOPE?

[image error]PMW 2019-014 by Philip Bell (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

The hope of the Christian faith is inextricably linked with a belief in purpose. The Apostle Paul famously waxed lyrical with the words, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). By virtue of His incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, the Universe’s Creator and Sustainer (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17) became the Saviour. Having a personal relationship with God—through repentance and faith (e.g. Mark 1:14–15)—guarantees us a place in heaven. We have a confident, certain hope of eternal glory. But can this message be sustained if, as a consistent belief in evolution requires, humankind’s special creation by God is overturned?

“We are the one creature to whom natural selection has bequeathed a brain complex enough to comprehend the laws that govern the universe. And we should be proud that we are the only species that has figured out how we came to be.”1 So concludes evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne in his book Why Evolution is True. In other words, enlightened people know better these days than to rely on old-fashioned notions of their purposeful creation:

“Darwinism tells us that, like all species, human beings arose from the working of blind, purposeless forces over eons of time. … [S]upernatural explanations … are simply never needed: we manage to understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism” (emphasis added).

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This humanistic autonomy, insists Coyne, need not be as bleak as some people fear. For sure, unguided natural processes brought men and women into being. And yes, there’s a lot of immorality, injustice and mayhem in society, but our evolutionary heritage has also produced altruistic human beings: many people support charitable causes, work to alleviate suffering, risk their lives to rescue others and so on. Based on his belief in human evolution Coyne claims that, “whatever genetic heritage we have, it is not a straitjacket that traps us forever in the ‘beastly’ ways of our forebears. … And although evolution operates in a purposeless, materialistic way, that doesn’t mean that our lives have no purpose.”3

Are moral values and meaning illusory?

British scientist Brian Cox concurs with Jerry Coyne. A TV personality and professor in particle physics at the University of Manchester, Cox concluded his best-selling book Human Universe (based on the BBC programme of the same name) with this confession:

“I want to be honest. We didn’t set out to make a love letter to the human race when we started filming Human Universe. We set out to make a cosmology series, documenting our ascent into insignificance. Things changed rapidly as we chatted, debated, experienced, photographed and argued our way around the world… It is surely true that there is no absolute meaning or value to our existence when set against the limitless stars. We are allowed to exist by the laws of nature and in that sense we have no more value than the stars themselves. And yet there is self-evidently meaning in the universe because my own existence, the existence of those I love, and the existence of the entire human race means something to me” (bold emphases added)

Let us be clear about what Coyne and Cox (and many others) are claiming here: the stark conclusion of both secular cosmology and evolutionary biology is that human existence is happenchance and insignificant. But, they argue, we are sufficiently advanced in evolutionary terms to be in a position to create our own meaning. You really can ‘have your cake and eat it’, so they claim.

Cox claims that our capacity to love and imbue things with meaning is simply because evolution granted us complex brains and minds. Evolutionists will argue that this is a healthy state of affairs, that humans have been wired with a propensity to create what essentially are false views of the world. Such things as ‘love’ and ‘meaning’ help stifle the painful, nihilistic reality that man came from nothing and is headed for oblivion. No wonder, then, that such a useful tendency was fixed in the human psyche through natural selection! But, they chide, the reality is that meaning and value, good and evil, right and wrong, do not really exist—except as social constructs which ensure stable society (although sometimes, lying may be a better survival strategy). So, whatever hand you have been dealt in the ‘Lottery of Life’, keep your chin up and look on the bright side! Infamous Darwinist and atheist Richard Dawkins is insistent on this point:

“We’re extremely lucky to be here. The odds against your being here are far greater than the odds of your winning the lottery, so be thankful and spend your time—your brief time—under the sun, looking around and rejoicing and wondering and being fascinated and trying to understand everything about the universe in which you’re so fortunate to be born”

[image error]Consider the Lilies

A Plea for Creational Theology

by T. M. Moore

Moore calls us to examine the biblical doctrine of general revelation from the perspective of what he calls creational theology. In this artful introduction to creational theology, Moore helps us develop the skills and disciplines for doing theology as we look upon and interact with the world around us.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

What are we to make of these claims? If believed and acted upon, they are certainly a potent hope-destroyer. You exist for no reason, for no purpose. It’s just that your ‘lucky number’ popped up in the great casino of the universe. After your brief foray on this planet, you’ll likely be quickly forgotten. But while you’re alive, you might as well make the best of it: love and be loved, be nice, be kind, try to do some good in the world for the benefit of humanity. Although your existence is, quite frankly, utterly pointless, consider yourself the lucky one—be thankful. ‘Thankful to whom?’ you ask? Well, not God, since He doesn’t exist. ‘Who, then?’ Well, your lucky stars of course! But don’t trouble yourself with delving too deeply into those questions.

For your own sanity, keep up the illusion that, in spite of your meaningless, insignificant existence, you’re unique—even special if you like—just as long as you keep firmly fixed in your mind that materialism is the name of the game. (In our materialistic world, there are no gods, nothing supernatural, no purpose or goals.) To survive and thrive, you’re going to need coping mechanisms. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. It’s the result of millions of years of ‘survival of the fittest’, at the expense of the weak. The unfit are life’s losers. But rejoice, you’re one of the survivors after all! So try to have an appetite for wonder,6 to see how fascinating the universe really is. Ponder your good fortune in being born at all. Make the most of it. There’s probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life. Take a leaf out of Richard Feynman’s book (eminent theoretical physicist, 1918–1988): . . .

To continue reading and see footnotes: click

https://creation.com/evolution-message-of-hope

[image error]The Beast of Revelation (246pp); Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (409pp); Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues (211pp).

In the Logos edition, these volumes by Ken Gentry are enhanced by amazing functionality. Important terms link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. Perform powerful searches to find exactly what you’re looking for. Take the discussion with you using tablet and mobile apps. With Logos Bible Software, the most efficient and comprehensive research tools are in one place, so you get the most out of your study.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

ORTHODOX PRETERIST DANIEL COMMENTARY

[image error]PMW 2019-012 by Various Authors

For all those interested in eschatology, three biblical texts stand out as essential for our study: Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation. I have written a commentary on Revelation (which should be available this Spring, 2019). I am writing a commentary on the Olivet Discourse in context, covering Matthew 21–25 (which should be available in early 2019). But regarding Daniel, I have only written a brief commentary on Daniel 9 (which is available in my book Perilous Times).

Thus, I am pleased to announce the publication of Jay Rogers’, In the Days of These Kings: The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective (740 pages). Rogers’ work is a fully-orthodox preterist analysis of Daniel. I highly recommend this book to my readership. Thus, in this blog article, I will list the endorsements to In the Days of These Kings, which I hope will whet your appetite.

Martin Selbrede, Vice-President, The Chalcedon Foundation

In respect to preterist studies of the Book of Daniel, I count it a very good thing that we finally have a strong, contemporary alternative to James B. Jordan’s 2007 volume with the 2018 appearance of Jay Rogers’ In the Days of These Kings.

In the nature of the case, preterist analyses are tethered to history. Whereas futurists can fantasize and speculate (and thereby tickle many ears), preterists must observe a stronger discipline that respects what God has already fixed in time, in the historic record. A preterist must not only deal with Scripture coherently, he is also on the carpet to tie the Scriptures to that historic record. Those correlations must move from being merely plausible to being formidable. A huge investment in historic research is thus required to steer the reader’s confidence in that direction. This work by Rogers is not slack in regard to meeting these challenges as it makes the preterist case. The historic research he presents is voluminous, well-organized, and easy to follow, making the volume a very strong asset that materially advances the ongoing eschatological debate.

[image error]

In the Days of These Kings: The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective

by Jay Rogers

This orthodox preterist analysis of Daniel is not a book, but a library. Extremely helpful for the postmillennial orthodox preterist.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com/

My views don’t readily fit into the commonly-received categories that Rogers puts forward, but this is hardly a flaw of the book. Going off into the weeds to cover every doctrinal variant out there is a sure path to diminishing returns, and Rogers avoids such distractions by staying on message. Even readers like myself who differ with the author about, say, the time frame for Revelation (to take just one example) will still find tremendous benefit in his discussion of Daniel’s prophecies. The light that Rogers shines on some passages of Daniel (both in respect to cross-referencing to other scriptures and to historic events) is often decisive.

Further, it is incumbent on all students of Scripture to know all the salient positions, as put forward by their best proponents, so long as eschatology remains a matter yet to be settled once for all. For that purpose, In the Days of These Kings would be a valuable book for both advocates and opponents of preterism. It puts forward a perspective with a long and august history in the Church of Jesus Christ, a perspective that must be respected even when disagreeing with it.

I’m on record as a sympathetic critic of preterism, but I am able to commend this book whole-heartedly. I do not need to agree with every single historic correlation or scriptural parallel that Rogers makes to know that I’m holding a valuable new book in my hand, one that the Church very much needs in a day and age when men no longer endure sound doctrine. By pointing us back to the strong discipline of the past, Rogers puts our feet on firmer ground, and gives subsequent generations a stronger foundation for further advancing our understanding of this key book of the Bible.

Brian Godawa, Best-selling author, Chronicles of the Apocalypse

In The Days of These Kings is a fascinating explanation of the prophecy passages of Daniel. Jay Rogers’ explanation verse-by-verse of the detailed historical fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies is a helpful corrective to the speculative sci-fi fantasy scenarios of modern-day prophecy pundits. He reveals Daniel’s context in relation to the other prophets of the Old Testament as well as Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and Revelation. He shows how it all fits perfectly together. This is exactly what I have been longing for in my own research. I’m telling all my readers to get this book.

[image error]

Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation, Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Phillip Kayser, BiblicalBlueprints.org

I am delighted to recommend a new commentary on the book of Daniel by my friend, Jay Rogers. While I take issue with some of the conclusions he has arrived at in this difficult book, I can honestly say that it is near the top of my list of recommendations. R.J. Rushdoony once said that there are four things liberals hate about Daniel: 1) Daniel displays a sovereign God who cannot be manipulated and who destroys all who rebel against His Law-Word, including civic rulers; 2) it showcases predictive prophecy that is infallible and sure; 3) it illustrates a comprehensive Providence that governs even the tiniest details of life and history; 4) and it unapologetically presents the reality of miracles. You can judge an author by their attitude towards those four things in Daniel.

Based on that criteria, Jay Rogers stands head and shoulders above a crowd of commentaries that I possess on this book. He takes the inerrancy of Scripture seriously, takes hermeneutics seriously, submits to the New Testament’s interpretation of Daniel in a way that few evangelical commentaries do, illustrates his interpretations quite well with history, and shows how Daniel dovetails with the rest of Scripture. The reader will especially appreciate the historical background to passages that Jay provides. May this commentary receive a wide readership.

Nathan Chilton

I was blown away! My father [David Chilton] covered the book of Revelation quite thoroughly and I have been wanting to read an exposition of the book of Daniel which was also written from a preterist perspective.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Jay Rogers has not provided us with a book on the preterist understanding of Daniel. He has provided us with a library on the topic! This meticulously researched and thorough treatment of Daniel from a preterist perspective includes over 700 pages of commentary on Daniel, its historical background and setting, New Testament allusions, and much more. It is enhanced with charts, tables, maps, and illustrations, and topped off with helpful, thorough indexes. A valuable work for anyone interested in Daniel. Don’t wait for the movie: get this book today!

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

I am currently researching a commentary on Matthew 21–25, the literary context of the Olivet Discourse from Matthew’s perspective. My research will demonstrate that Matthew’s presentation demands that the Olivet Discourse refer to AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–35) as an event that anticipates the Final Judgment at the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46). This will explode the myth that Jesus was a Jewish sage focusing only on Israel. The commentary will be about 250 pages in length.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!

SIX DAY CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION

[image error]PMW 2019-011 by Gabriel Rench (CrossPolitic Studios)

Gentry Note:

Postmillennialism is one feature of a Christian worldview. Another feature is the doctrine of Creation. In our modern world the doctrine of Six-day Creation is as hard to accept as is the postmillennial hope. But it is just as important. The world for which the postmillennial hope is designed is the world created by God — in the space of six, literal days. This article by Rench is largely a review of my book As It Is Written, but which is put in our current anti-God environment.

Most of us have been pulled over by a cop. Imagine for a moment that this happens to you. The cop flashes his lights, you dutifully pull over, hand over your license and registration. He informs you that he pulled you over because you didn’t stop at the stop sign. You respond with, “But officer, I interpreted the stop sign to mean, ‘Stop pressing the brake,’ so of course I drove faster!”

Pretty absurd right? Everyone knows the cop would slap you with a ticket. We all recognize shenanigans when people behave this way with mundane activities. But this behavior isn’t any cuter when theologians do it. And we see this sort of thing when it comes to the meaning of the creation week.

USA Today published an article entitled “Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.” The article notes that, “New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the ‘Young Earth’ creationist view.” The article states, “According to a Gallup poll [All Rise! – SB] conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys.”

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

What is the reason for our “hope,” according to the article? “As the poll reveals, the biggest factor in the shift is a jump in the number of Christians who are reconciling faith and evolution. They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.”

This really shouldn’t encourage anyone. We must clearly distinguish between what a document says and whether we accept that proclamation. The stop sign is a clear indication that a car must come to a full stop. You can accept this or reject it, but no one can reasonably interpret a stop sign to mean something else.

We must keep this distinction in mind when it comes to the creation week. So what does the Bible say about the age of the earth? Kenneth Gentry notes in his book As It Is Written that the Bible very clearly says that the earth was created in six literal twenty-four hour days. There is simply no way getting around this. He adduces several lines of evidence concerning this.

First, the lexical meaning of the Hebrew word yom simply means a literal, twenty-four hour day. He cites nine biblical scholars who all agree that that is the meaning of the term (p. 31). Further, he states, “The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament notes that there are two primary meanings of yom: (1) ‘The basic meaning of yom is “day (from sunrise to sundown)”’ and (2) ‘in the sense of the astronomical or calendrical unit’ (TLOT 2:537 538)” (p. 94).

Second, although yom can be used metaphorically, such as with the phrase “the day of the Lord,” the grammatical construction used in Genesis 1 always means day. Each day in Genesis 1 is bracketed with the phrase “evening and morning.” This clearly points to yom being a literal day.

[image error]Understanding the Creation Account

DVD set by Ken Gentry

Formal conference lectures presenting important information for properly approaching the Creation Account in Genesis. Presents and defends Six-day Creation exegesis, while presenting and rebutting the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, other passages in Scripture refer to the days as being literal days. Ex. 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Fourth, there are also a number of passages that, without argument or explanation, refer to other passages in Genesis as literal. This is bolstered by the fact that Genesis is not poetry, but prose. “Indeed, Hasel (1984, 11) argues that ‘from a purely comparative approach of the literature structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account, Genesis 1 is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis or the Pentateuch for that matter.’” If Genesis 1 is not historical, then the rest of the Pentateuch isn’t. And numerous other passages interpret Genesis 1 as historical. Hos. 6:7 says, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant.” 1 Cor. 15:21-22, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Not to mention the genealogies of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matthew 1. See also Psalms 78 and 105.

Keeping in mind the distinction made earlier, this means that regardless of the linguistic shenanigans someone may want to engage in, regardless of whether anyone accepts what it says, the text of Scripture clearly declares a literal six-day Creation. This comes from the style, lexical meaning of the words, and the fact that Scripture itself interprets it that way.

What this means is that the reason people are willing to accept evolution is because they are rejecting what the text of Scripture clearly says. This strikes at the very heart of Christianity. . . .

To read full article: click

[image error]

A NONSECTARIAN PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT

[image error]PMW 2019-010 by Douglas Groothius (Constructive Curmudgeon)

Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus by chemical and/or surgical means. It should not be confused with miscarriage (which involves no human intention) or contraception (which uses various technologies to prohibit sperm and egg from producing a fertilized ovum after sexual intercourse). Miscarriages are natural (if sad) occurrences, which raise no deep moral issues regarding human conduct-unless the woman was careless in her pregnancy. Contraception is officially opposed by Roman Catholics and some other Christians, but I take it to be in a moral category entirely separate from abortion (since it does not involve the killing of a fetus); therefore, it will not be addressed here.[1]

Rather than taking up the legal reasoning and history of abortion in America (especially concerning Roe vs. Wade), this essay makes a simple, straightforward moral argument against abortion. Sadly, real arguments (reasoned defenses of a thesis or claim) are too rarely made on this issue. Instead, propaganda is exchanged. Given that the Obama administration is the most pro-abortion administration in the history of the United States, some clear moral reasoning is called for at this time.

The first premise of the argument is that human beings have unique and incomparable value in the world. Christians and Jews believe this is the case because we are made in God’s image and likeness. But anyone who holds that humans are special and worthy of unique moral consideration can grant this thesis (even if their worldview does not ultimately support it). Of course, those like Peter Singer who do not grant humans any special status will not be moved by this.[2] We cannot help that. Many true and justified beliefs (concerning human beings and other matters) are denied by otherwise intelligent people.

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including “lesser-of-evils” voting.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, the burden of proof should always be on the one taking a human life and the benefit of doubt should always be given to the human life. This is not to say that human life should never be taken. In an often cruel and unfair world, sometimes life-taking is necessary, as many people will grant. Cases include self-defense, the prosecution of a just war, and capital punishment. Yet all unnecessary and intentional life-taking is murder, a deeply evil and repugnant offense against human beings. (This would also be acknowledged by those, such as absolute pacifists, who believe that it is never justifiable to take a human life.)

Third, abortion nearly always takes a human life intentionally and gratuitously and is, therefore, morally unjustified, deeply evil, and repugnant-given what we have said about human beings. The fetus is, without question, a human being. Biologically, an entity joins its parents’ species at conception. Like produces like: apes procreate apes, rabbits procreate rabbits, and humans procreate humans. If the fetus is not human, what else could it possibly be? Could it be an ape or a rabbit? Of course not.

Some philosophers, such as Mary Anne Warren, have tried to drive a wedge between personhood and humanity. That is, there may be persons who are not human (such as God, angels, ETs-if they exist), and there may be humans that are not persons (fetuses or those who lose certain functions after having possessed them). While it is true that there may be persons who are not humans, it does not logically follow that there are humans who are not persons. The fetus is best regarded as a person with potential, not a potential person or nonperson.[3]

[image error]

Indefensible (by Sam Kastensmidt)

Sub-title: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America. An Important work in our day of cultural collapse and Christian persecution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

When we separate personhood from humanity, we make personhood an achievement based on the possession of certain qualities. But what are these person-constituting qualities? Some say a basic level of consciousness; others assert viability outside the womb; still others say a sense of self-interest (which probably does not obtain until after birth). All of these criteria would take away humanity from those in comas or other physically compromised situations.[4] Humans can lose levels of consciousness through injuries, and even infants are not viable without intense and sustained human support. Moreover, who are we to say just what qualities make for membership in the moral community of persons?[5] The stakes are very high in this question. If we are wrong in our identification of what qualities are sufficient for personhood and we allow a person to be killed, we have allowed the wrongful killing of nothing less than a person. Therefore . . . .

To read full article with footnotes: click

[image error]

GODAWA’S “CHRONICLES OF THE APOCALYPSE”

[image error]PMW 2019-009 by various writers

Brian Godawa has written a four-volume Chronicles of the Apocalypse novel series as a dramatic means of getting across to the modern Christian what occurred in the events around AD 70. These novels are not only compelling, but also instructive. For Godawa uniquely offers copious exegetical, historical, and theological end-notes on Revelation at the end of each book. He has successfully wedded entertainment with instruction.

I highly recommend your reading this set. You might find this novelized approach to the preterist understanding of Revelation a helpful tool for recommending preterism to family and friends. Perhaps these Reviews and Endorsements might encourage you to get this set!

Amazon reviewer #1:

I have been a Christian for 40 years. My end times theology started with The Late Great Planet Earth. From that book until know I have always been an adherent to the futurist view of Revelation. However over the years I have started to doubt some of the teaching. When nothing happened in 1988 (88 Reasons Why Jesus will Return in 1988), then subsequent date setting and failures, I began to wonder.

Along comes Tyrant by Brian Godawa and my view of the end times is starting to change. Reading any portion of the Bible through the lens of the people at the time is a new concept for me. Books like The Unseen Realm by Dr M Heiser and the Nephilim Chronicles by Brian have opened my eyes to a different world of Biblical understanding, My 20th century filters are being shed and I am beginning to see the Bible through the eyes of the people of the day.

To purchase the set: click

Tyrant is an excellent read. Brian interweaves Biblical fact with a fictional narrative that keeps you engaged from beginning to end. What really struck me was the level of decadence of the Roman elite. You do not get that viewpoint from just reading Scripture. Filling out the story with actual historical occurrences and facts made the book come alive. It gave me a new appreciation for what the Christians of the day had to go through to live out their faith. In the back of my mind, I knew it was a tough life, Tyrant brings their lives into vivid detail. Our brothers and sisters suffered greatly for their faith.

The other strength of the book is the footnotes. All of Brian’s books are heavily footnoted, Tyrant is no exception. As a student of the Word, I appreciate documented sources. It helps me verify for myself the things that are being stated.

When I started this book I was a futurist. After reading the book, I sensed a turn towards preterism for at least some parts of the book of Revelation.

We should all set aside our pretense and read a book like this with an open mind. Challenges to what we believe are a good thing It is about time that someone took a different view of the end times than the common Protestant view.

Congratulations Mr Godawa on a job well done.

Amazon reviewer #2:

It is highly likely that this book is one of Mr. Godawa’s finest. You can never underestimate the power that a screenwriter can bring to what is otherwise dry, historical accounts and turn the thing into an exceptionally compelling work.

However, from the get go, I would actually rate this novel at least a PG-13. Mr. Godawa confronts a number of issues in the book — most of which are sociologically controversial — all in an attempt to show us, the reader, that ancient Rome and surrounding areas were dealing with the same types of issues that we deal with today.

Don’t believe that? It’s really interesting — I’d estimate that a good third of the book is taken up with historical notes that are meticulously tied back to where they’re used in each chapter. In other words, as you’re reading through the book, at the moment you’d think that Mr. Godawa is making something up, he links to a historical fact.

Regarding theology and eschatology, there really is nothing threatening here — unless you’re so tied down to a particular end-times interpretation that you refuse to see any other interpretations. And if that’s you, I have more news for you. Any intellectually honest theologian is going to tell you that *all* such futuristic prophecies begin falling apart at some point.

Why is this? Think about this: if what is fictionalized in this work — and the previous Chronicles books — is based on reality, and the supernatural is arguably more real than the natural, then wouldn’t it make sense that if you were given the wisdom and heavenly knowledge to know how precisely how things are going to end, there would also be evil forces who would know the same? Ever think about that?

God doesn’t work that way. Instead, I’ve learned to respect that the Lord shows us what we need to know about a given situation when we need to know it, and typically only enough to make the next step forward. After all, to know too much about the definite future risks control freaks like me wanting to hurry up and speed to the conclusion while completely missing all the divine opportunities between point A and Z.

There’s a lot to get out of this book. It’s pretty hard-hitting in issue-dealing, but that’s reality. It all simply makes me look forward to Mr. Godawa’s future books!

Endorsements:

“Left Behind was a highly successful novelization of the dispensational understanding of Revelation. Godawa’s fictional portrayal of the actual history behind Revelation deserves to enjoy the same level of success. He has done his historical research and exegetical spadework in providing us with a fictional but historically faithful story of the drama of the Book of Revelation. From Nero’s first imperial persecution of the early church to John’s writing of Revelation about the destruction of Jerusalem shortly thereafter, Tyrant weaves a fascinating tale of the last days of the Old Covenant in the first century with compelling, gritty, biblical reality.”

Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Th.D.

Author, The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation

“One of the best ways to teach history is to develop a fictional story around actual events. The most famous example is Lew Wallace’s Ben-Hur. The redemptive core of the story was enveloped by the tragedy and redemption of Judah Ben-Hur and his family as they encountered the crucified Christ. Brian Godawa has done something similar with his novel Tyrant. The story of the tyrannical reign of Nero Caesar is told against the background of people who would have been impacted by the bloody decrees and excesses of this madman. If you’re looking for some great history with compelling storytelling, you need to read Tyrant. You’ll also learn the role of this beast of a ruler plays in God’s prophetic timetable.”

–Gary DeMar

Author, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church

“I used to wonder why the Lord hadn’t returned yet, especially growing up with the constant date setting of 1988, ’89, ’94, ’96, Y2K, and ’12 that were all supposed to see the Rapture. Then, several years ago, I discovered a completely different interpretation that no one had told me even existed. That’s why I was so thrilled to see Brian’s Tyrant: Rise of the Beast, which continues his historical fiction thrill-ride begun in the Nephilim Chronicles, now focusing on the end of the New Testament era and the prophecies Christ makes about return in judgment upon that generation. Though he and I both confess Christ is still going to return bodily in our own future, I can only wish I had this series of books to give to people years ago.”

–Douglas Van Dorn

Pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado

Author of Giants: Sons of the Gods and The Unseen Realm: Q & A Companion

“Brian Godawa is not only a successful Hollywood screenwriter. He is an accomplished movie critic, author (both nonfiction and fiction), and astute student of the Bible and theology. Tyrant: Rise of the Beast is a page-turner set in the first century A.D. when Satan and his minions were actively assaulting the fledgling church. The theology underlying this novel is not the pop End Times theology to which we’ve grown tiresomely accustomed. Rather, it is based on the pervasive supernatural worldview that we encounter on every page of the Bible. It’s not that Godawa doesn’t write about the End Times. It’s simply that he knows when the End Times really occurred and how and why they really ended. Understanding that sequence is what makes this novel sizzle with suspense and anticipation.”

–P. Andrew Sandlin

Founder & President, Center for Cultural Leadership

“A breathless and gritty tale crafted with skill and tension.”

Doug Overmyer

“Brilliantly brings to life the supernatural worldview inherent in the Scriptures.”

Marc D. Wilson

“Entertaining, gut-wrenching, gritty, enlightening, and fun. I highly recommend it.”

Bryan Byars

“Godawa has managed to weave imagination, scholarship and theology into an enjoyable and fast moving tale that delights, challenges, and informs.”

S.L. Love

“The author wrote the character of God so amazingly, it made me fall in love with God even more.”

Johanna Chan

“Godawa’s first century is rooted in the depravity of Rome, the steadfastness of the Christians trying to survive, and the unseen demonic forces orchestrating the demise of God’s Children.”

Jonathan R. Mills

“I recommend this book, no matter your eschatological view.”

Con, Amazon Reviewer

“What do you get when you combine Hollywood screenwriting talent with biblical and historical literacy? Brian Godawa’s Chronicles of the Apocalypse.

Michael K. Beidler

“This man knows how to write and keep you hooked! Adventure, love, evil, and selfless heroism. Excellent, excellent, excellent!!!!”

Joshua B. Haines

“Tyrant clarified a lot of things about the Book of Revelation for me that used to be pretty confusing.”

Zoriana, Amazon Reviewer

“As a Bible scholar I highly recommend this as a source for understanding Revelation; written in the genre of historical fiction.”

Douglas R. Krump

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

POSTMILLENNIAL PRAYER

[image error]POSTMILLENNIAL PRAYER

PMW 2019-008 by Chalcedon Foundation (Editorial)

If prayer is talking with God, then our prayer life is most vital when it is most frequent, when our hearts and minds readily and constantly call upon God in every kind of situation.[1]

There’s an old saying that goes, “Pray like it all depends upon God but work like it all depends upon you.” As Reformed Christians seeking to fulfill the mission of godly reconstruction, this is precisely how we should live, because prayer is not opposed to work, and work is not opposed to prayer. As Rushdoony once wrote, “Prayer is not a substitute for action but its accompaniment.”[2]

This is what sets us apart from pietists who emphasize the devotional and contemplative life to the degree that Christian work in the social order is diminished. Again, prayer and work should work together, and as Rushdoony notes, “To put the contemplative life against the active life is abstractionism and alien to Scripture.”[3]

But how do prayer and action work together? Very simple. We pray while we’re in action!

Thine Is the Kingdom[image error]

(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Praying is like breathing; it is a part of the Christian’s life and basic to it. It is more than formal prayer, important as that is. It is a continual openness to God in all our being. Instead of talking to ourselves as we go through the day, we talk to God, sentence prayers, momentary calls for help, grace, or strength, quick words of thanks, or expressions of need, all this and more. Such constant sentence praying gives us the greatest freedom and advantage in prayer, because it is the practice of the presence of God, of our awareness of it. Its greatest reward is the growing awareness that God is closer to us than we are to ourselves.[4]

The Practice of the Presence of God

If you are familiar with devotional classics, you may recognize Rushdoony’s nod to the seventeenth-century Frenchman, Brother Lawrence, whose short volume The Practice of the Presence of God still sells well today. The difference between Rushdoony and Lawrence is that Rushdoony saw prayer and devotion as a means to better engage the world whereas monks and mystics saw prayer as a means of surviving the world. Rushdoony’s postmillennialism always infused his practice of prayer:

The habit of continual sentence prayers will take a man out of these evil times and give him grace and power to triumph over the spirit of the age and more.[5]

In Psalm 16:8, David wrote, “I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” This is a simple but remarkable confession and one that communicates tremendous faith on the part of David. He saw the Lord as at his right hand, and this was something David did intentionally. He said he always set the Lord before him, and because of the confidence that vision provided, David was not moved by what he saw physically.

Since Rushdoony lived similarly it helps to explain his extraordinary faith in the victory of God in history as well as his unwavering commitment to his calling at Chalcedon. Rushdoony included God in every situation, and this relationship with his Lord enabled the scholar to labor relentlessly until the day he passed.

[image error]The Lord’s Prayer (8 mp3 sermons)

Eight part expository sermon series covering each element in the Lord’s Prayer. Very practical; very theological. Shows the glory of God, in his sovereignty as prayer underscores the victory of his kingdom and the rule of his law in history. Excellent postmillennial resource from this beloved prayer.

See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

Prayer Is Future Oriented

Is this not our example to follow? Do we only pray before meals, with family, or at church? Or do we demonstrate a focused dependency upon our ever-present Lord by taking all of our concerns to Him while thanking Him for all that He provides?

Our Lord said we should pray for God’s Kingdom to come and for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10), but this prayer is predominantly prayed liturgically and is not a prayer of holy desperation on the part of God’s people. Maybe this is due to the eschatology held by most Christians. If their gospel is not one of victory in history, then why pray fervently for the Kingdom to come and God’s will to be done on earth?

Since we are postmillennialists with a calling to dominion, then such praying must be central to our every moment. We are to continually call upon God who never gets weary of hearing from His children who are focused on His coming Kingdom. As Rushdoony said, “Prayer is future oriented. If we are prayerless, we are either indifferent to the future, or we feel God is irrelevant to it.”[6]

We must go about clothed in the armor of God (Eph. 6:13) and prepared to do battle against the kingdom of darkness and its city of man. Although the times may be difficult, they are filled with opportunities to exercise godly dominion beginning with our ceaseless prayer. Let us ask of God for great things. Let us call upon Him to defeat the spirit of the age and let us cry out for dominion to be granted to the righteous.

To read full article with footnotes: click

To support The Chalcedon Foundation: click

[image error]Righteous Writing Correspondence Course

This course is designed for theological research and writing. It covers principles for reading a book, using the library, determining a topic, formulating a thesis, outline, researching, library use, writing clearly and effectively, getting published, marketing, and more!

For more Christian educational materials see: KennethGentry.com

THE MORALITY OF A BORDER WALL

[image error]PMW 2019-007 by Wesley Smith (ACLJ)

In a recent interview, Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive incoming Speaker of the House, called the concept of a border wall immoral. Calling the wall expensive and ineffective, she doubled down on the subject, elevating opposition to the proposed wall to the level of existential right and wrong, a moral absolute. Of course, she co-opts this important topic for blatant political purposes. Her loathing of President Trump obviously outweighs her sense of obligation to secure the country and provide safety for its citizens.

However, she is quite correct that the wall is a moral issue. In fact, it is unconscionable and immoral to NOT have a strong border wall.

Building the wall, to an open-minded, fair-thinking person, should be the most compassionate, sensible and moral thing our nation could do in addressing concerns over our southern border. Here are five reasons why:

1. Building a strong border boundary would allow more people from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to staff the designated ports of entry, so as to process more quickly and efficiently those seeking asylum, as well as those hoping to find jobs in America. As it is today, thousands of personnel from CBP and the Department of Homeland Security have to patrol our very long, open and porous border with Mexico. Democrats, Republicans and others rightly bemoan the plight of desperate people seeking freedom and safety in America. Why would one not want to enable more of these people to have their cases resolved expeditiously?

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including “lesser-of-evils” voting.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

2. By having an effective, permanent wall, the government could actual increase the number and locations of designated ports of entry, again allowing more people to be processed in a timely manner. By stopping illegal entry into the country where there is no barrier, those with nefarious reasons to enter would more likely forego an attempted entry, allowing for those with legitimate and understandable reasons to come here and to be granted entrance more quickly.

3. The flow of illegal drugs across the border is both a moral issue and a matter of life and death. Millions of people in the United States are victims of drug addiction and death due to the relative ease with which drug cartels move drugs and cash back and forth over the border. While some drug smugglers are caught trying to enter at a port of entry, many simply walk or drive across where there is no barrier.

4. Human traffickers routinely transport people across the border. Many of their victims end up in the sex trade or in forced-labor situations. Most of them are minors. Desperate and trusting parents in Mexico and Central America often pay thousands of dollars to these traffickers, hoping to secure a better life for their children in America—only to have this happen. Traffickers also take advantage of runaway or orphaned children. This is a blight on our nation’s soul and a human tragedy that is repeated virtually every day. What kind of misguided thinking would not see this as an enormous moral issue? Based on this alone, a border wall to stop this victimization of innocent people is a moral imperative. As serious as the matter of drug-smuggling is, human smuggling is even more stark and gut-wrenching. Even if this were the only reason to have a strong border—it would be sufficient to justify such an undertaking.

5. Finally, if one believes our government has a moral obligation to protect its citizens, the national security implications for border security are indicative of the need for a border wall. Hundreds of illegal immigrants apprehended at our southern border each year are not from Central or South America, but rather are from the Middle East and Africa. After the events of 9/11, one of the findings of the investigation following the attacks was that the United States had a “failure of imagination.” We simply did not imagine the lengths our enemies . . . .

To finish reading: CLICK

Click on the following images for more information on these studies: