Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 80

HOPE AND THE GREAT “I AM”

[image error]PMT 2018-022 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialism goes against the pessimistic expectations of contemporary Christianity. Christians have adopted Woody Allen’s view of life: “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

This is because we take our eyes off of God and his great power. We are like the Israelites who feared entering the land. We declare that “we are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us” (Num. 13:31). We need to gain a renewed sense of the glory and power of God. Exodus 3:14 is a good place to start, for God reveals his nature to Moses when he calls him to deliver Israel:

“God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exo. 3:14)

Perhaps a brief study of the name will be an encouragement for us.

God’s covenant name given

In Hebrew God’s distinctive covenant name appears as four consonants: YHWH (pronounced Yahweh). It appears in English versions in all caps as: LORD (or sometimes GOD when linked with Adonai, which also is translated “Lord”). In Exo. 3:14 God defines himself via his special covenantal name. This name is so significant in redemptive history that the Scriptures can simply mention “the name” (Lev. 24:11, 16). God jealously declares that this is his name “forever” (Exo. 3:15; cp. Psa. 102:12; 135:13

This name first appears, not in Gen. 1 where God’s power is exhibited (therefore, Elohim appears there). Rather it appears first when the LORD lovingly creates then covenants with Adam (see note at Gen. 2:4). Contrary to critics, it does not represent another and competing tradition about who the God of Israel is, but is used in his revelation from the beginning.

This revelation certainly is not of a new name developed here. After all, why would Moses go to a people who are asking who sent him, then give them a name they had never heard before? Rather it is being urged here to establish Moses’ authoritative call to lead them. Besides in vv. 15–16 we see that it is his name “forever” and was used with the God of “your fathers.” In fact, it appears in Genesis 162 times, with thirty-four of those times being spoken by actors in the Genesis drama, not just Moses as the narrator.

[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

Here in Exo. 3:14 he explains his name as meaning “I am that I am.” This self-designation is peculiarly important to our understanding of God’s covenant love. This name-statement is found in the imperfect tense in Hebrew, thereby emphasizing a constantly manifested quality. It is a very active name. Jewish Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto comments: “There is also implicit in this interpretation the thought of implementing the promises: I am who I am always, ever alike, and consequently I am true to My word and fulfill it.”

God’s covenant name explained

The name and its meaning is enormously important for this very moment in Moses’ life and Israel’s history. For he is going to lead Israel out of Egypt by confronting the most powerful ruler in the riches nation on earth. He needs to know God is always with him. As God declares later to Isaiah: “My people shall know [i.e., experience the reality of] my Name” (Isa 52:6).

From this name we may discern certain divine characteristics that great impact redemption. (1) It requires that he is wholly uncreated and self-existent. Nothing accounts for God’s existence other than himself (John 5:26; Acts 17:25; cp. Isa .40:20–25). Thus, Moses’ Pentateuch opens with “in the beginning God” (Gen 1:1a) — for he “created all things” (Eph. 3:9). Yahweh is not like the dependent primeval forces that supposedly gave birth to the Egyptian gods. Moses need not fear those mythological gods.

(2) It speaks of his eternity: He is not constrained or defined by time; he is of eternal duration. The combination of the verb tense (imperfect) and its repetition (“I am” / “I am”) emphasize his uninterrupted, continuous existence. “From everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psa. 90:2; cp. Psa. 93:1–2; Isa. 40:28; 57:15).

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

(3) It relates his absolute sovereignty: He determines all things from within his own being. He can declare absolutely “I am that I am,” without fear of anything challenging or overthrowing him. He has no need of anything outside of himself (Isa. 40:9–31), for “I am God, and there is no one like Me” (Exo. 9:14; cp. Isa. 44:7; Jer. 50:44).

(4) Because of all of this he is unchangeable. He declares “I, the LORD, do not change” (Mal. 3:6). He is forever the same, for in him “there is no variation, or shifting shadow” (Jms. 1:17). Thus, he can be trusted to be the same “yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8; cp. Num. 23:19).

With a God like this, how can we not have hope in history, which is “His Story”? Instead of looking at the world and its problems and asking, “Who am I,” we need to understanding who is I am.

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

CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA IS NOT DYING!

[image error]PMW 2018-021 by Lita Cosner (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

Gentry note: In 1897 Mark Twain was reported to have died, to which he supposedly responded: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” This response can be applied to the claim that Christianity in America is dead. Lita Cosner’s article makes some encouraging observations for us in this regard.

Lita Cosner article:

We’re used to hearing that religion is dying in America, secularization is inevitable, and that young people are leaving the faith in droves. But a new Harvard research study has great news for Christians. Previous research typically focuses on the massive increase in the proportion of people who claim atheism or ‘no religion’. But these reports generally don’t address where the decline is happening. This new research demonstrates that the decline is in ‘moderate’ religion. So it turns out that ‘religion’ isn’t dying, but the differentiation between believer and unbeliever is becoming clearer.

[image error]Postmillennialism Explained, Defended and Applied (6 mp3 lectures)

by Ken Gentry

These five lectures explain the biblical foundations to postmillennialism, while providing practical applications for the modern Christian.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Researchers make the distinction between Christians who attend church regularly, read the Bible multiple times a week, and pray frequently, in comparison to those that would claim the Christian label, but not practice church attendance, Bible reading, and prayer. The latter group has declined, like the ‘mainline’ churches that are hemorrhaging members. But the former group has held steady over time, and is even growing. As the abstract of the paper states, “rather than religion fading into irrelevance as the secularization thesis would suggest, intense religion—strong affiliation, very frequent practice, literalism, and evangelicalism—is persistent and, in fact, only moderate religion is on the decline in the United States.”

It is understandable why professing but not believing ‘Christians’ would leave the church in today’s climate. It’s no longer socially advantageous in many circles to have the label Christian. In today’s culture, Christians are not thought of as intellectually sophisticated or tolerant of other lifestyles. The exclusive claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation is seen as bigoted. So if one doesn’t really believe and practice Christianity, it can be easier to just come out as an atheist or a ‘None’.[image error]

Special Studies in Eschatology (6 mp3 downloads)

by Ken Gentry

In this collection of individual lectures you will find presentations of important eschatological themes, including a lecture given at Criswell College in Dallas, Tex. Click on tile (above) to read more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This study reinforces why some churches and denominations are dying. But a wide variety of denominations are healthy and even growing—and they have one crucial thing in common. They believe and unashamedly teach that Jesus is the only way for salvation, that God has revealed Himself through Scripture, and that the Bible is an inspired, sufficient guide for every area of life.

. . . So as Christians, we should be encouraged by this report, but we should not become complacent! This report should spur us on to be purposefully diligent that the children in our families and churches grow up knowing that the Bible is God’s Word and it is trustworthy and accurate, from the very first verse!

To read the full article complete with footnotes: click

[image error]Lita Cosner is the Information Officer at Creation Ministries, International. She is a prolific writer who contributes articles to the CMI website, Creation magazine, and Journal of Creation. Lita is a specialist in New Testament studies and obtained a B.A. (summa cum laude) in Biblical Studies from Oklahoma Wesleyan University in 2008. She received an M.A. (cum laude) in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 2012. Her thesis is titled Jesus the Honorable Broker: A Social-Scientific Exegesis of Matthew 15:21–28.

GAY MARRIAGE HARMS

[image error]PMW2018-020 by Keaton Halley (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

Gentry note: This is an excellent article on an important culture topic which greatly impacts one’s worldview. Sadly many Christians are succumbing to the liberal agenda for our culture, even in an area historically opposed to biblical norms.

Article by Keaton Halley

Three reasons that abandoning God’s design for marriage is bad for society.

Even now that same-sex marriage has become widely accepted in many countries, Christians cannot surrender. We must continue to lovingly and graciously stand for the truth. Also, if we want to be effective, we must learn to articulate the reasons why gay marriage not only violates God’s moral standard, but actually harms society. Indeed, a faulty view of marriage will create many victims, as we highlight in response to today’s question.

[M]y question is what do you think about gay marriage and adoption?

CMI’s Keaton Halley responds.

Hi G.P.,

We have addressed this topic in a short booklet called Gay Marriage: right or wrong? You might want to pick that up from our webstore to read more details about some of the things that I’ll touch on below. Also, I’ll be drawing on a book called Truth Overruled by Ryan T. Anderson, which I’d recommend if you want another helpful resource.

Evangelical Ethics (3d ed)[image error]

by John Jefferson Davis

One of the best treatments of contemporary ethical problems facing Christians. John Jefferson Davis brings mature biblical thought to issues such as homosexuality, genetics, abortion, euthanasia, war and peace, the environment, divorce and remarriage.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The debate over same sex marriage is not fundamentally a disagreement about who can get married, but about what marriage is. Is marriage an arbitrary custom that people invented, one which they can define however they please? Or is marriage an institution established by God, well-matched to His design of human beings?

The Bible says that marriage is rooted in God’s creation of mankind (Matthew 19:4–8). In Genesis, we read how God made Eve out of Adam’s own flesh as a helper suited to him, and then the text says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

Throughout Scripture, it is clear that marriage is a lifelong, exclusive covenantal union of two people—a husband and a wife—which forms the foundation for the family. That is, marriage is oriented toward producing and raising children, if God so blesses (Genesis 1:28; Malachi 2:15). God created us male and female to complement one another, and the production of children requires both a man and a woman. So there cannot be any such thing as gay marriage, because marriage requires husband and wife.

The reason, then, that the Bible opposes the homosexual lifestyle is that it violates God’s design for marriage and family. Two people of the same gender do not complement one another as husband and wife do. Their union cannot produce children. And homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others. So there are good reasons why the Bible explicitly condemns homosexual relationships. See Does the Bible really forbid homosexual relationships? and What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?

Let me mention just a few of the problems with gay marriage and gay adoption, in particular.

Same-sex marriage debases true marriage, and thereby weakens society

If we abandon the Bible’s teaching on marriage and just make up new definitions as we go, then why couldn’t marriage be redefined in other ways? Why couldn’t it be more than two people, for example? Why couldn’t it be a temporary rather than a lifelong commitment? There’s a logical slippery slope from same sex marriage to polygamy, temporary marriages, and other corrupt practices, because the same wrong thinking underlies these ideas—that people rather than the Creator have the authority to decide what marriage is. Sadly, once the definition of marriage is separated from the Creator’s design, it becomes so flexible that it begins to lose any significant meaning. Indeed, many homosexual activists have admitted that their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage altogether. They realize that championing same-sex marriage works toward undermining the norms of marriage (like monogamy, permanence and exclusivity) and ultimately even the very concept of marriage itself.

Transforming Homosexuality[image error]

What the Bible Says about Sexual Orientation and Change

by Denny Burk and Heath Lambert

Is same-sex attraction sinful, even if it is not acted on? Denny Burk and Heath Lambert challenge misconceptions on all sides as they unpack the concepts of same-sex orientation, temptation, and desire.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But healthy societies are built on healthy families. The more we move away from the biblical teaching on marriage, the more we’ll have broken homes, because other arrangements simply do not work as well as God’s design. Logic indicates that the undermining of marriage will lead to an increase in cohabitation, divorce, single parenting, abortion, etc., and various studies help to confirm this. The weakening of marriage will place a burden on society as a whole, because others will have to step in with time, energy, and money to try to repair the damage. They will have to minister to hurting adults and help to raise the children of broken homes, and those children will be more likely to get into trouble, causing further problems. This leads to my next point.

Same-sex marriage harms children

What’s wrong with same-sex couples producing children through a surrogate or adopting children?

The fact that many children require adoption means they are already in a less-than-ideal situation. The ideal is that children would be raised by their own parents. Children long for and tend to be healthier when raised by their biological mother and father.

The next best thing, though, would be for children to be raised by a married, opposite-sex couple, as opposed to a single parent or a same-sex couple. Adoption by a same-sex couple would give children additional difficulties to overcome instead of giving them the best chance for success. This is because same-sex parenting would deny children the ability to have a parent of each gender (both a mom and a dad). This isn’t good, because men and women parent differently. They bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table, so children learn different lessons from mom than they do from dad, and vice versa. . . .

To continue reading: click

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

MATTHEW 23:39: DISPENSATIONALISM OR PRETERISM?

[image error]PMW 2018-019 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Matt. 23:39 is a favorite statement by Jesus that dispensationalism cling to as evidence of the future conversion of Israel. Read through their lens, it seems to state that Israel will one day be converted, and only then will the great tribulation begin (according to the order of verses following Matt 23:39). They hold that this would confirm dispensationalism and undermine preterism and postmillennialism.

Matthew 23:39 read:

“For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

Unfortunately for dispensationalism, this statement does not suppose a future conversion of Israel that precedes the great tribulation. I do believe Israel will one day be converted to Christ. After all, I am a postmillennialist who believes that we are to “disciple all the nations” (Matt 28:19). And that we are to confidently trust that “if I be lifted up I will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). And Israel is certainly one of the nations. In fact, Rom 11:25 is a powerful NT statement to this end.

So then, is the Lord’s statement in Matt 23:39 teaching that Israel will be converted before the great tribulation? I do not believe this is the case.

[image error]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Show the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In this regard note the following quick observations:

First, the connection made

The word gar connects this statement with the preceding context. The preceding context is one of unrelenting denunciation, ending with judgment. The “for” must introduce something other than a spiritual praise of Christ by the Jews, for such a sudden statement in this passage would be wholly unexpected.

The passage is dominated by the seven woes of Christ against the scribes and Pharisees, who were prominent leaders in Israel. And toward the end of the Lord’s denunciation, and just before Matt 23:39, he declares:

“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (Matt 23:34–35).

And after this he laments:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!” (Matt 23:37–38).

These strong statements do not sound like a lead-in to Israel’s salvation. And especially when we read the judgment upon the temple and Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse that follows.

Second, the possibility presented

The phrase “from now on” (Gk. ap arti) is indefinite, holding out only an uncertain possibility. Thus, it does not declare as a matter of fact: “you will see me.” Jesus is denouncing the Jews, not offering them hope. He is about to be crucified by them amidst Israel’s strong rejection and their affirmation of Caesar: “As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, ‘If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar’” (John 19:12).

In fact, the whole statement says includes an important second clause: “from now on you will certainly not see me until [heos an.]” R. T. France puts the matter well (The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p. 885): “the subjunctive makes this in effect what grammarians call an unreal condition: if you were to do this, you would see me, but whether you will do so remains unknown. . . . It is remarkable that so many interpreters can find a positive prediction in what is in fact an emphatically negative prediction (ou me with subjunctive) with only an indefinite possibilty (ho an) set against it.”

[image error]

Matthew 24 Debate: Past or Future?

(DVD by Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice)

Two hour public debate between Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice on the Olivet Discourse.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, the praise declared

The praise uttered here (“blessed is he who comes”) is not necessarily a voluntary, loving, humble praise. It could well be a constrained praise. The Scripture often speaks of the sinner’s constrained praise of God. We see this, for instance, in:

“For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:10–11).

“For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God’” (Rom 14:11).

Consequently, given the context, the praise to be uttered by the Jews appears to be constrained and with reluctance. He is speaking to those Jews in that day. They will soon see him in chains and then mounted on a cross to die, while they cry out “Crucify! Crucify” (John 19:6) and “His blood shall be on us and our children!” (Matt. 27:25). They will soon strike him and spit upon him. But he is not the feeble man they believe him to be. He will turn the tables on them in AD 70 when he comes against them in clouds of judgment.

IS HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE WORSE?

[image error]PMW 2018-018 by Robert A. J. Gagnon

Gentry note: The postmillennial hope looks primarily to the worldwide dominion of spirituality and morality. Though these will give rise to political stability, judicial justice, and economic prosperity, spiritual and moral issues must always remain at the foundation to our hope. This article by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon speaks to an important issue regarding homosexual practice, which must be distinguished from the more modern idea of homosexuality (i.e., a homosexual “condition.”). Dr. Gagnon is a leading conservative, evangelical voice against homosexual practice as normative.

Gagnon article:

Is Homosexual Practice No Worse Than Any Other Sin?

In my work on the Bible and homosexual practice I often encounter the argument that (1) no sin is any worse than any other sin; therefore (2) homosexual practice is no worse than any other sin. Usually the comparison is then made with sins for which accommodations are often made by Christians (like gluttony or remarriage after divorce), rather than with sins for which no accommodation is made (like incest or murder), as a way of either shutting up Christian opposition to homosexual practice altogether or contending that self-affirming participants in homosexual practice will still “go to heaven.” Even many evangelicals who neither support homosexual practice nor extend a pass from God’s judgment to those who persist unrepentantly in it subscribe to these two views.

Sometimes these claims are buttressed by an analogy, such as when Alan Chambers, former head of Exodus International, declared at the opening night General Session of the 2012 Exodus International Conference: “Jesus didn’t hang on the cross a little longer for people who … have been involved with same-sex attraction or who have been gay or lesbian.” It comes across as a nice sound bite and can be helpful for those who think that homosexual practice is too bad to be forgiven by God. But it doesn’t establish the claim that there is no “hierarchy of sin.” The length of time that Jesus hung on the cross is irrelevant. It is the fact of Jesus’ death that counts for atonement. Nor is anyone arguing that Jesus’ death cannot cover big sins. It covers big and little sins for those who repent and believe in the gospel.

[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

Put simply, Christ’s universal coverage of sin through his death on the cross does not mean that all sins are equal in all respects but only that all sins are equal in one respect: They are all covered. If they were not, no one would enter the kingdom, for God is so holy that any sin would disqualify a person from entry if moral merit were the basis for acceptance. By way of analogy, one may have health coverage for all injuries great and small and pay the same amount for the coverage regardless of the injury; but that doesn’t mean that all injuries are of equal severity. As we shall see, there is a mountain of evidence from Scripture (in addition to reason and experience) that shows (1) sins do differ in significance to God and (2) God regards homosexual practice as a particularly severe sexual sin.

Why an Egalitarian View of Sin?

Why, then, do so many insist on an ‘egalitarian view of sin’? There may be several reasons working together.

First, many Christians are overeager to do whatever they can to soften criticisms from homosexualist advocates. The latter, many of whom are very good at being outraged at anything that disagrees with their agenda, go bonkers when they hear homosexual practice described as a severe sin.

Second, some are pushing an egalitarian view of sin at least in part out of pastoral concerns, so as not to turn off homosexual inquirers with a message that they might find hard to accept. The flipside of this is that they may want a theological basis for criticizing any sense of self-superiority or uncharitable spirit coming from the church. Some believe that the church is responsible for creating an angry and bitter “gay-rights” community by giving a pass to Christians involved in heterosexual sins while using the Bible to beat up on persons who engage in homosexual behavior.

There is some truth in this view. However, the idea that, if the church had just delivered the message on homosexual practice as sin with more love and more balance, there wouldn’t be any expression of anger and bitterness from the gay-rights community is preposterous. Jesus was a loving guy and yet he was crucified for speaking the truth. Sin hates any restraint of its power and those under the controlling influence of same-sex attractions are no different. In addition, expressions of outrage and efforts at intimidation are an integral part of the homosexualist strategy for coercing societal approval of homosexual practice.

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

The homosexual movement is one of the leading challenges to the moral stability of American culture and to our Christian influence in culture. In this sermon series Dr. Gentry tackles the homosexual question head on.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Christians should take care that in their rush to appease homosexualist advocates they don’t end up denying Scripture itself, which does characterize homosexual practice in very negative terms, not as the only sin to be sure but nonetheless as a grave offense. One wonders whether Christians who denounce other Christians for saying that homosexual practice is a severe sin deep down think that the Apostle Paul is a bigot for giving special attention to homosexual practice in Romans 1:18-32 as a particularly self-degrading, shameful, and unnatural practice that is in part its own “payback” for those who engage in it.

While I have some sympathy for a pastoral motivation to stress more the element of universal sin to inquirers who might otherwise have anti-Christian prejudices activated, I cannot accept a blatant falsification of the Bible in claiming that the church, in viewing some sins (like homosexual practice) as worse than other sins, has created a tremendously damaging view that the Bible itself does not substantiate. I shall show below that both the general view that some sin is more heinous to God than others and the specific view that homosexual practice is a particularly severe sexual offense in God’s eyes (in seriousness somewhere between adult-consensual incest and bestiality) are well documented from Scripture. Parenthetically, if people are really serious about the view that no one sin is worse than any other, they shouldn’t be upset by the comparison to consensual incest (since by their own reasoning incest is no worse than any other sin).

What a Hierarchical View of Sins Ought and Ought Not Do

Let it be understood what the biblical view of some sin as worse than others does not entitle anyone to do:

1. Deny one’s own sinfulness apart from God and need for Christ’s atonement.

2. Excuse one’s own sin.

3. Treat others in a hateful manner or wish for them that they not come to repentance (in the manner of Jonah’s initial view toward the Ninevites).

4. View anyone as immoral or spiritually inferior simply for the mere experience of urges to do what God strongly forbids. . . .

Read full article: click

[image error]Robert A. J. Gagnon is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are Pauline theology and sexual issues in the Bible.

AVOID PUBLIC SCHOOLS

[image error]PMW 2018-017 by R. Scott Clark (The Heidelblog)

The world has changed quite a bit since I entered Dundee Elementary in 1965–66. No-fault divorce did not yet exist. Two-parent families were the norm. Abortion had not yet been legalized. The late-modern drug culture had not yet exploded. WWII had been over for more than 20 years and the baby boom had just ended. The suburbs were burgeoning. Top 40 radio was in its heyday and Roger W. Morgan was playing the hits on the Mighty 1290 KOIL. The hippie movement was still a sub-culture. The Vietnam War was intensifying but mostly we got just a moment or two of it on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. The civil rights movement was on the news as Dr King and others led peaceful demonstrations calling Americans to honor the promises enshrined in the constitution. Too often, however, those marches were met by fire hoses and police dogs. The Watts Riots, which were a reaction to decades of unjust treatment of minorities by the LAPD, convulsed Los Angeles in 1965 leaving scars that would last for decades. In those years, however, my school and neighborhood were all white.

So, naturally, I did not see any oppression even if it was not far from my quiet (still remarkably well-preserved) neighborhood near the old money neighborhood in Omaha. Economically, things were stable. The median family income in the USA was about $6,900 (= approx. $53,000 in 2017) and most families lived on a single income. Credit cards were just coming into use. The inflation rate was higher then (about 4%). Perhaps everyone was miserable and repressed but it did not seem so but then what did I know? I turned five years old in 1966.

Public school was among the dominant realities of my life until 1979. When I began school, teachers were not only allowed to use corporal punishment, they were expected to administer it as needed. I certainly gave my teachers plenty of reason to spank me. Schools were expected to act in place of the parents (in loco parentis). Nearly all of my teachers were female and they were expected, during most of my education, to respect the authority of the parents.

[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

The emphasis in school was, until the mid-70s, on the objective. This is what parents meant in the 80s when they complained that they wanted teachers to focus on “reading, writing, and arithmetic.” They could sense that something was shifting but most Americans did not know the history of public schools and were not aware that prospective teachers were being taught in “teachers college” and in universities that education was not “rote memorization,” that it was about “enrichment” and “experience” more grammar, logic, and rhetoric. During my entire primary and secondary education whenever anyone mentioned memorization it was inevitably accompanied with the adjective “rote” and we were given to think that was a bad thing. No teacher explained to me not only the utility of memorizing or the mechanics of it until my logic professor did so in passing, in 1981.

By the late 60s and early 70s the culture and economy were changing and so was education. In 1968 Dr King was assassinated and riots erupted in major cities across the USA. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles. The Tet Offensive changed the American perception of the Vietnam War. Anti-war protests increased as more Baby Boomers were drafted. The hippie and drug cultures were more visible, even in middle America. Movies were becoming more sexually graphic and violent. Abortion on demand became legal in 1973. To date more than 60 million Americans have died under Roe v Wade (and Doe v Bolton). The Beatles were no more and disco ruled in the last days of top-40 radio. The effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were beginning to be felt but to speed up progress school districts began to try to integrate schools by busing children one part of town to another.

In economics, a long-running, large-scale war combined with spending on “Great Society” social programs and attempts to stimulate prosperity through taxing, borrowing, and spending led to “The Great Inflation” for about a decade. That meant that products cost more but salaries and wages could not keep up. Each dollar earned was worth less than it had been. The economy stagnated and what was then called “Women’s Lib” (second wave feminism) saw wives going work outside the home (as they had during WWII). That meant a growing number of “latch-key” kids (of which I was one) and less parental supervision of children.

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though the divorce rate had been climbing through the 20th century, fueled by a large-scale demographic shift from the country to the city (urbanization) and two world wars, 1 the advent of no-fault divorce resulted in a sharp jump in the divorce rate and the number of single-parent families.2 By the 70s the television showed us all in “glorious living color” what “the good life” could be. Families, like the government, increasingly began to pay for things on credit in a frantic attempt to obtain it. In the schools, the emphasis on the subjective was beginning to become more manifest. By the mid to late 1970s, teachers were openly challenging the authority of parents, and advocating to their students a more radical social and economic philosophy.

The video below, published recently on the web, illustrates what is taking place in some public school classrooms. . . .

To finish reading: click

[image error]Robert Scott Clark is an American Reformed pastor and seminary professor. He is the author of several books, including his most recent work, Recovering the Reformed Confession.

POLITICS AND TWO-KINGDOM THEOLOGY

[image error]PMW 2018-016 by Larry E. Ball

Gentry introduction:

This is an excellent, short article on the dangers of Two-kingdom Theology. TKT is very much opposed to postmillennialism and to theonomic ethics. In this quick insight into TKT we can see the very obvious negative implications of this theology.

When I recently read the post about Andrew White, a PCA elder and a democratic candidate for the Governor of Texas (The Aquila Report, January 26), I was disheartened, to say the least. What bothered me most is that he seemed to imply that since both abortion and homosexual marriage are the law of the land, they must be right and good in a democratic society.

[image error]

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

I know most leaders in the PCA are rather disturbed by his position, but then I finally concluded that this seems rather inconsistent on their part. His presuppositions about the personal nature of religion and the public nature of civil law explain his views very clearly. He is just consistent with his presuppositions.

His approach is deduced from what is called two-kingdom theology. There are two kingdoms in this world (and here I am not referring to the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan). Two-kingdom theology is a view that divides the world into two separate spheres – one is the church (or the Kingdom of God), and the other is the state or the realm of the civil government. The Bible gives us guidelines pertaining to the arena of the church, but not for the civil magistrate. The civil magistrate must determine right and wrong from either natural law or the democratic process.

Natural law in history has been described as the rules that come from general revelation (creation and conscience), however today it a reference to the principles discovered independent of the Bible by men who use the scientific method. If it works for mathematics and chemistry, modern man has concluded that it must also work for social and political science too. If modern man concludes that abortion is the right of every woman to choose what is best for her own body, and that same-sex attraction is as natural as opposite-sex attraction, then this must be reflected in the law of the body-politic.

[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

A second complement of this natural law approach is the democratic process. If natural law struggles to define right and wrong, then in a Democracy there is always the final authority of the voice of the people. The only problem here is . . . .

To continue reading: click

[image error]Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He is the author of “Blessed Is He Who Reads,” an orthodox preterist primer on Revelation. He lives in Kingsport, Tennessee.

SPIRITUAL SOLUTION TO OPIOID CRISIS

[image error]PMW 2018-015 by John Horvat

In times of crisis, we are forced to reexamine our ways and ponder our future. It is in this framework that we need to consider our present economic plight and the charting of our path forward.

In his penetrating analysis of contemporary society, author John Horvat focuses on the present crisis with great insight and clarity. He claims modern economy has become cold, impersonal, and out of balance. Gone are the human elements of honor and trust so essential to our daily lives. Society has discarded the natural restraining influence of the human institutions and values that should temper our economic activities.

Return to Order is a clarion call that invites us to reconnect with those institutions and values by applying the timeless principles of an organic Christian order.

An opioid crisis is devastating America. Every day, more than ninety Americans die by overdosing on these new killers. The crisis involves the misuse of and addiction to opioids such as prescription pain relievers, fentanyl and heroin. New powerful synthetic opioids have become especially deadly.

Too many people mistakenly reduce the problem to materialistic causes. They think that people abuse opioids because they are only looking for ways to manage pain. Others tie the abuse to being depressed by the sad state of their finances. Still others blame the big pharmaceutical companies for making prescription drugs that can be abused. Above all, they insist government must get involved with money and massive programs.

Such a perspective may address symptoms of the crisis but not the causes. The abuse of opioids, like other addictions, stems from a profound spiritual problem deep inside the souls of countless Americans. Opioids are only different by their frenetic nature, which makes them extremely self-destructive.

Return to Order

Return to Order is a clarion call that invites us to reconnect with those institutions and values by applying the timeless principles of an organic Christian order. Opioid use can quickly degenerate into substance abuse that comes from a spiritual void inside the soul. A spiritual solution is then needed.

[image error]

Return to Order

By John Horvat

Return to Order is a clarion call that invites us to reconnect with those institutions and values by applying the timeless principles of an organic Christian order.

Available at Amazon.com

Understanding Spiritual Problems

Finding such solutions is very difficult because it goes against the conventional wisdom of the times. Most people work from a mindset that holds that people only have material needs. They do not recognize the fact that everyone has another side that is spiritual and superior.

This side has strong needs that must be satisfied as part of the experience of being human. This spiritual side is what makes every individual unique. It is the basis for human dignity. The interplay of this spiritual side in society is the foundation of political, culture, and religious activities that satisfy these spiritual needs.

Spiritual needs include the need for beauty, transcendence, and meaning, often addressed by the culture and faith. They can also be found in the human need to live in society as expressed in social order, contingency, and profound relationships like those of the family. Above all, spiritual needs are satisfied by the practice of religion by which people know, love, and serve God, Who is their final end.

[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

Modern society does much to frustrate these spiritual needs. Individualism, for example, tends to isolate and turn people inward toward self. Materialism denies the spiritual and only concentrates on material comforts that can never satisfy. Secularism diminishes the spiritual appetites for God by dethroning Him from His central place in creation and society. When people cannot find spiritual fulfillment in modern society, they will often look for chemical substitutes or other ways to escape.

Processes of Decay

There are natural social mechanisms that help a person satisfy spiritual needs and face misfortune. The institutions of family, community, and faith, for example, help address these needs in the face of modern evils.

However, when these institutions break down, as they are now, people can suffer processes of decay that lead to self-destructive behaviors, which eventually result in the deaths of the tens of thousands who abuse opioids. When people’s lives fall apart, they can easily become self-absorbed and depressed. They lose the spiritual support of those who might help them.

When a man, for example, loses touch with his spiritual needs, he projects his spiritual desires upon material things. He becomes intensely attached to all things turned inward, to himself. He may still respect parts of the general order, but he gradually becomes incapable of admiring a higher order of things outside of self, especially those related to the good, true, and beautiful.

When this happens, the vice of intemperance takes hold in him because he only wants what feeds his ever-growing desires. Temperance is the virtue whereby man governs and moderates his natural appetites and passions in accordance with the norms prescribed by reason. In the case of this particular man, he gradually becomes incapable of loving the greater picture of all that is ordered by the norms of reason.

The Self-Destructive Appetites Against Order

This process creates a great imbalance in the soul. The intemperate man will thirst for risks, excitement, and adventures in an attempt to satisfy voracious appetites. However, he will find no tranquility since he seeks things outside what is reasonable. He alternates between exhilaration and breakdown in his futile quest for fulfillment. From a distaste for some aspects of order, he soon he develops a dislike for all order since it restrains him, and even a dislike for the idea of being since it defines him.

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

From desiring everything intensely, he comes to desire the destruction of the very habits and things that both stimulate and enslave him. From this, he plunges into chaos, sensuality, pride, despair, and addictions. It is not hard to see how the opioid crisis feeds into this self-destructive process since it often manifests itself in the breakdown of order around the person.

Why a Return to Order Is Needed

That is why order is so necessary to society. . . .

To finish reading: click

[image error]

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, internationally recognized speaker, and author. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he heads the Tradition, Family Property Commission on American Studies.

 

THE GLORY TO BE REVEALED

[image error]PMW 2018-014 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader recently wrote to me, asking the following question:

“I would like to know if the Greek word mellousan in Romans 8:18 would indicate that “the glory that will be revealed to us” would be “about to happen” in the early church days, as preterism in its entirety teaches.”

My reply:

This was a good question so I thought it deserving of an answer. Especially since it is the type of lexical error that is often made by Hyper-preterists. Here is my brief response. I hope it is helpful.

The word mello is a broad term that has a variety of meanings. For instance, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1:325) defines mello as meaning: “to be about to, to be on the point of, be destined to, intend, propose, have in mind.” In the participle form (as in Rom. 8:18) it is “used in the sense of to come, future” (p. 326). Clearly these definitions cover a variety of meanings. However, the term generally speaks of something that is future, whether near or far.

But there is more. On p. 326 of NIDNTT we read that “mello means, must, to have to, be certain to, in the context of events which happen according to the will and decree of God and which are thus necessary, certain and inevitable.” Thus, one under-girding significance of the term that often appears is that of certainty, inevitability.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:[image error]

A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error

by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Though mello can in certain circumstances mean “about to” (i.e., near in time), its context will determine its meaning in the communication act, rather than leaving us with a one-dimensional dictionary meaning. And here in Rom. 8 the context is quite clear. Paul is comparing and contrasting the “sufferings” of the “present time” as paling in comparison to “the glory that is to be [mello] revealed [apokalupto] to us.” The suffering is that which came through the fall of Adam: suffering, death, futility, and groaning (Rom. 8:20, 22). Paul has been dealing with the consequences of the fall for some time (cf., Romp. 5:12ff).

It is true that we already have the “first fruits of the Spirit” in us (v. 23a). But even we continue to “groan” as we wait for “the redemption of our body” (v. 23b). Christians suffer and die, just as do unbelievers. But the unbeliever has no future glory toward which to look in hope (vv. 24–25). Thus, this mello expresses a futurity which will certainly come to pass at the resurrection of the body, a key element in the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15).

[image error]

When Shall These Things Be?

(ed. by Keith Mathison)

A reformed response to the aberrant HyperPreterist theolgy.

Gentry’s chapter critiques HyperPreterism from an historical and creedal perspective.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In Gal. 3:23 this same language is used for those who lived in the Old Testament under Mosaic ritual law: “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.” Thus, all during that time the Old Testament saints were “shut up to the faith which was later [mello] to be revealed [apokalupto].” That period lasted from the days of Moses in 1450 BC until the coming of Christ in the first century, i.e., about fifteen centuries.

Thus, mello does not mean “near” in either Rom. 8:18 or Gal. 3:23.

MOLINISM V. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY

[image error]PMW 2018-013 by Paul Helm (Ligonier Ministries)

I am a postmillennialist. I am a biblical worldview advocate. And I am also a free-grace, absolute sovereignty-of-God Calvinist. My postmillennialism derives from and is secured by the biblical worldview which is anchored in the absolute sovereignty of God. It is easy to be a postmillennialist if you are a Calvinist.

But there is another view of God’s sovereignty as it relates to free moral agency that has arisen once again on the scene. It is called “Molinism,” after one of its creators, a Jesuit priest named Luis de Molina (1535-1600). This view has become popular among those Christians who recoil at the implications of God’s absolute sovereignty. Thus, I thought a re-posting of this article by Paul Helm might be helpful to my readers.

Paul Helm’s article

In recent months and years, an old controversy about the nature of God’s knowledge has been re-ignited in certain Christian circles. The doctrine at the center of this controversy is called “middle knowledge” (also known as Molinism). In an effort to help our readers better understand the issues at stake, we have invited Dr. Paul Helm to write an introduction to this important subject.

God’s Knowledge

In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could [image error]lead, and the whole range of possible worlds. These are known to God immediately and intuitively.

The Providence of God (Paul Helm)

Helm focuses on the underlying metaphysical and moral aspects of God’s providence, paying particular attention to the ideas of divine control, providence and evil, and the role of prayer in relationship to providence.

To buy this book: click

God’s free knowledge, on the other hand, is His knowledge of His decree (of that which, in His wisdom, God freely and unchangeably ordained to come to pass). That which God decrees is obviously a subset of all the possibilities that are known to Him. His decree also has its source solely in His mind and will.

Middle Knowledge

In the late 1500’s a new kind of knowledge was proposed by two Iberian Jesuit thinkers, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) and Pedro da Fonseca (1528-1599). Middle knowledge (or ‘Molinism’ as it came to be called), was their contribution to a controversy within the Roman Catholic church over grace, free will and predestination. In our own time Molinism has been proposed by Alvin Plantinga and others in connection with God’s relation to evil. I think it is fair to say that while Roman Catholic theologians have long discussed middle knowledge in their textbooks, recent interest in it has been due to Plantinga and his discussion of the topic in his book God, Freedom and Evil.

What is middle knowledge? At the center of this recent interest has been God’s knowledge of possibilities involving human choice (the ‘counterfactuals of freedom’ as they have been called). Why this innovation? Its proponents are concerned to preserve what they consider to be two vital beliefs. The first is God’s providence and total foreknowledge. The second is the idea that human beings are ineradicably free in an indeterministic sense. When we speak of indeterministic freedom, we mean that any human being, in a given set of circumstances, has the power to choose A or to choose not-A. The problem is obvious. How can this be consistent with God’s universal providential rule and his purposes of redemption?

The Molinists’ way of attempting to keep all this together was to suggest that there existed, besides God’s natural knowledge and his free knowledge, a third kind of knowledge. They argued that God also has “middle knowledge” (between the other two). What this means can be briefly explained. Given a whole array of possible worlds (that God knows), given worlds in which men and women were free in the relevant indeterministic sense, God knows what they would freely choose in every possible circumstance. God has knowledge of all such possible outcomes. If placed in one set of circumstances, God knows what Jones would freely choose. If placed in another set of circumstances, God knows what Jones would freely choose. This is true for all possible people and all possible circumstances. God has this middle knowledge by inspection of all the possibilities that the free will of each person might choose.

[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

In His power and wisdom, He chooses that possible world, that total combination of individuals and circumstances, whose expressions of free will best serve His purposes. Thus, God’s omniscience is preserved, and human free will is preserved. The moral evil that occurs in the chosen world is not the direct responsibility of God but of those creatures who exercise their choices in a malevolent fashion.

What Are The Implications of Molinism?

We need to emphasize that the view of free will held by Molinists both ancient and modern is what is often called “libertarianism” or “indeterminism.” By contrast their opponents, in the Roman Catholic Church and in the churches of the Reformation, have held views of human freedom that are deliberately consistent with God’s decree of all that comes to pass and the irresistibility of His grace.

What About Biblical Arguments for Molinism?

Insofar as its proponents sought direct biblical support for middle knowledge, they used the example of David at Keilah recorded in 1 Samuel 23. At this point in the biblical narrative, the Philistines were attacking Keilah. David asked the Lord if he should go to Keilah to fight the Philistines, and the Lord said that he should. David’s companions were fearful and so David enquired a second time. At Keilah, fearing that Saul would attack him there, David asked the Lord whether Saul would come to Keilah. At this point, we read the following conversation: “And the Lord said ‘He will come down.’ Then he said ‘Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go” (1 Samuel 23:11–13).

[image error]

Sovereignty of God

(7 mp3 Gentry downloadable sermons)

In these seven sermons will be found a practical demonstration of God?s absolute sovereignty.

This series serves as an excellent introduction to this difficult doctrine.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

To the minds of the Molinists, this incident showed middle knowledge at work, for it showed that the Lord knew what would happen if a certain free action occurred (they assumed that David and the other participants were acting with free will in the libertarian sense). God knew that if David freely stayed at Keilah, then the Keilahites would freely surrender him. So David freely took evasive action, and Saul freely gave up the expedition against David when he learned of what David had done. God knew all of this (and much more besides) by His foreknowledge.

What is Wrong with Molinism?

Since the Reformed held that all that occurs is unconditionally decreed by God and that men and women are responsible for their actions, they saw no need for a third kind of divine knowledge, a middle knowledge, which depended upon God foreseeing what possible people would freely do in certain circumstances. . . .

To finish the article: click

[image error]