Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 83

WHY DOES A GOOD GOD PERMIT EVIL?

[image error]PMT 2017-095 by Dr. Jay Sklar (byFaith Magazine)

David Hume, the famous 18th-century philosopher, framed the issue as succinctly as anyone: “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

Much closer to our time, philosopher H.J. McCloskey, in his 1962 article “The Problem of Evil,” describes the situation as follows: “The problem of evil is a very simple one to state. There is evil in the world; yet the world is said to be the creation of a good and omnipotent God. How is this possible? Surely a good, omnipotent God would have made a world free of evil of any kind.”

You don’t have to be a philosopher to feel this tension. All of us experience various types of evil, whether great or small, on a regular basis. Why would a good and all-powerful God allow this? Satisfying answers do not spring readily to mind.

It is therefore no surprise that the presence of evil drives many people to conclude that such a God does not exist. The logic is straightforward: “A God who is good and all-powerful cannot allow evil to exist, but evil does exist, therefore there is no good and all-powerful God.”

Obviously, many others come to a different conclusion. Despite the presence of evil, millions today do believe that God is both good and all-powerful. For some, the reality of evil causes pain but no tension; it is a sad fact of life in a fallen world. For others, however, the tension persists. They don’t give up their faith, but feel at times like their faith is shaky, or even that they’re somehow being dishonest, like those refusing to acknowledge a bad diagnosis.

[image error]

Nourishment from the Word

(by Ken Gentry)

Reformed studies covering baptism, creation, creeds, tongues, God’s law, apologetics, and Revelation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

So what can we say about the problem of evil? To answer this question we must ask five more.

Question 1: What do we mean by “evil”?

It’s important to begin here because we use the word “evil” in at least three different ways.

To begin, we sometimes use the term loosely to refer to things we don’t like, such as fruitcake or the DMV office (or the New York Yankees). That’s not the type of evil we’re discussing here.

Second, we sometimes use the word to refer to some sort of harm, misfortune, or negative circumstance we choose to bring upon ourselves. For example, I love to run. In fact, I love to run so much that I began training for a marathon. Now when training for a marathon, they say to build up your pace gradually, otherwise you will end up with an injury. But I went out for a long run at a pace that was way too fast for my poorly-trained body. The resulting injury meant I had to completely give up running for a time.

Interestingly, even though I knew this was entirely my fault, I still found myself saying, “Lord, why me?” And even though the answer was obvious, I wanted to blame someone else. Since God could have prevented this, he happened to be my first choice.

Here’s another example: What happens if a man is unfaithful to his wife and she leaves him? The suffering will be real, but it’s suffering he has brought upon himself. The responsibility is his, not God’s. These types of evil—the ones we choose to bring upon ourselves—are not what we’re talking about either.

Today we’re talking about evil in a third sense: the suffering we cannot control. Sometimes it is due to the moral choices of others: a parent abuses us; a drunk driver kills a beloved friend; our parents divorce. Other times the suffering comes from natural events: a hurricane destroys a city; a tsunami wipes out 250,000 people; a child is stricken with leukemia. It is this type of evil—the suffering we can’t control or prevent—that leads to the “problem of evil.” It is in the face of this type of suffering that we sometimes conclude, “Surely a good and all-powerful God does not exist.” And this leads to our second question.

Question 2: Does the problem of evil prove that there is no good and all-powerful God?

For many, the answer to this question is a slam-dunk: “Of course it does.”

[image error]

Standard Bearer: Festschrift for Greg Bahnsen (ed. by Steve Schlissel)

Includes two chapters by Gentry on Revelation and theonomy. Also chapters on apologetics, politics, ecclesiology, covenant, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But how so? What does the argument look like? It’s not enough simply to declare this. We have to explain why the presence of evil leads us to this conclusion. For example, consider the following sentence: “All single men are bachelors; therefore, Abraham is not a bachelor.” As it stands, this is not an argument; the first statement does not necessarily lead to the second. In order for this to be an argument, we need to add another statement: “All single men are bachelors; Abraham is not a single man; therefore, Abraham is not a bachelor.” Now we have an argument.

Similarly, if we say, “Evil exists; therefore there is no good and all-powerful God,” we have not made an argument. The first statement does not necessarily lead to the second. We need other statements in between. Perhaps the most common approach goes as follows: “Evil exists; a good and all-powerful God would not permit evil unless there was a justifiable reason; if there were a justifiable reason, it would be apparent to us; there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for evil; therefore such a God does not exist.” Now we have an argument. The argument only works, of course, if we know that each of the additional statements is true. Are they?

Many have pointed out there is a huge assumption here, namely, that if a good and all-powerful God has reasons for allowing evil, then we as finite human beings would be able to figure them out . But why should we assume this to be true? As finite beings we’re limited in ways that an infinite being is not. He may have reasons we cannot begin to comprehend.

Philosopher William Alston gets at it this way: Suppose that some of the very best scientists in the world come up with a new theory about quantum physics. Suppose I, as a non-physicist, look at their theory and say, “Because I cannot figure it out, they must be wrong.” It’s possible they might be wrong, but I have no real basis for knowing.

Alston’s point is simply this: We are not in a position to assume that if an infinite God has reasons for allowing evil, then we as finite and fallible beings should be able to figure them out. And because we cannot assume this, any argument which does—such as the approach identified above—has not proved anything at all.

Naturally, some of us hear this and say, “I don’t care how the philosophical arguments go. I still feel in my heart of hearts that there are types of suffering that are so bad—so unjust—that it is impossible that a good and all-powerful God exists.” This leads to the next question.

Question 3: How is evil a problem for atheism?

As soon as we use the term “evil”, we are making a judgment; we’re saying that something is wrong, that injustice exists in the world. We feel that . . .

To read full article: click

PROVIDENCE

[image error]PMT 2017-094 by R. J. Rushdoony (Chalcedon Foundation)

Every now and then somebody tries to tell me that everything is useless, because all life is determined by the politicians, or by heredity, environment, capitalists, labor unions, or somebody else. Naturally, a minister has to be polite, so I can’t always say exactly how I feel about such opinions, although I do assert human responsibility as against this excuse-making.

This morning, I’d like to try to answer that question: Who runs things, anyhow? Who or what is it that ultimately pulls the strings and makes things work? Most ideas on the subject are as old as man, and can be summed up in two philosophies of ancient Greece, Epicureanism and Stoicism. The Epicureans said that the universe is ruled by chance, not purpose. There is for them no real meaning to life, and man is too little to give any purpose to it. The Stoics said that fate ruled all things, and man was utterly helpless against his fate. Most of our ideas today can be summed up under either one of these philosophies: chance and fate are believed to rule all.

Against this is the Christian doctrine of providence. Faith in providence is an assertion of belief that there is purpose in all things, that God operates in and through all things to bring them to their appointed end. Providence involves the preservation of all things in terms of the divine plan, the concurrence or cooperation of God in every event, so that at no point is He ever absent or not in rule, and, finally, His government in and through every event and thing.

Can we believe in providence? Well, if we can’t believe in providence, we can’t believe in anything. There is creative purpose at work in all things, the will of God for that creature or creation. When I got into my car this morning, I did so with a purpose, a specific purpose. When God created, He created with purpose, not aimlessly, and all things reveal that purpose.[image error]

This article was taken from:

“Good Morning, Friends” by R. J. Rushdoony.

Spanning subjects from the Reformed faith to the Trinity, life, suffering, prayer, the Bible, church, wisdom, and much more.

Now let’s turn our minds to something else for a few minutes, before we continue our discussion of providence. Two Saturday nights ago, when I should have been working on the last touches for my Sunday sermons, I got involved in a book on spiders and spent considerable time browsing through it. This one item especially appealed to me. A census of spiders was made in a field of rough grass in Sussex, England, and it showed the amazing spider population of over 2 1/4 million to the acre. On this basis, it was estimated that the spider population of England and Wales is 2 1/5 billions, which, at the very least, eat annually an insect population whose weight is greater than the entire human population of England and Wales. If the spiders did not destroy these insects, men could not survive.

This is interesting enough, but something further occurs to me, and I consider it even more tremendous a fact. The insects these spiders eat each have their appointed purpose, and they fulfill it, only to be kept within the bounds and within usefulness by the spiders. In turn, the spiders are kept down by other creatures, birds, for example. So each does its appointed work, and has some natural check placed upon it to preserve the balance of nature.

All of this speaks, not of fate or chance, but of design, purpose, and providence, and that design and purpose reaches to the smallest details of creation. Scripture tells us that the very hairs of our head are all numbered. Our Lord declares that not a sparrow falls, but our Father in heaven knows it; and the Lord told Job of His delight in all His creation.

There is a vast and magnificent purpose in all creation, and any notion of chance in the face of it seems utter stupidity. Scripture asserts that God’s providential control is over the universe at large, over the physical world and brute creation, over the affairs of nations, over man’s birth, life, and death, and his outward success and failure, over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, in the protection of the righteous, in supplying the wants of God’s people and in answering prayer, and in the exposure and punishment of the wicked.

[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

Thus the answer to the question, who runs things? is, “God in His providence does.” To the claim that everything is useless, and there is no point in life, the answer is that everything is purposive, and there is a point to everything, but nothing is understandable, neither the spider nor man, unless we begin with God. He it is who gives meaning to all of life. Take away faith in Him, and you have nothing, and everything very definitely does become useless. This applies not only to life around us, but to ourselves. Our lives have meaning only in terms of Him and His purpose for us: if we forsake Him and His purpose for us, we forsake the sanity of life with meaning. To believe in God is to believe in providence, and to believe in providence is to believe that our life has purpose and direction even in spite of ourselves and our shortcomings, and that God works concurrently in us to that determined and glorious end.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith declares it:

God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even unto the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness and mercy. (Chap. 5:1)

As our Lord stated it (Matt. 10:29–31): “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

ENGAGING THE TRANSGENDER DEBATE

[image error]PMW 2017-093 by Lita Cosner (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

 

Introductory note by Ken Gentry

Postmillennialism is deeply interested in moral and cultural issues. This is because postmillennialism expects Christ’s victory in history, which necessarily involves righteousness and cultural stability. Yet we are witnessing the apparent collapse of Western Civilization. How does this comport with the postmillennial hope?

I will make only two brief comments in answer to this question. In a later article I will flesh this out more fully.

First, we must remember that postmillennialism does not claim either that historical progress will be witnessed relentlessly day-by-day. It is like our own personal sanctification: kingdom progress has ups-and-downs. We have come a long way since Nero’s persecution. Postmillennialism cannot be disproved until the Last Day, if its expectations do not appear by then.

Second, the current radical decline in common sense and morality could well lead to people turning to God in desperation. The absurd direction of contemporary culture cannot continue. Perhaps God is allowing this in order to demonstrate our need of him for personal morality and cultural stability. God often chastened Israel to bring her back to him. On a larger scale, he appears to be chastening the world by allowing the implications of absurdity to dominate the unbelieving worldview and its ridiculous culture.

A review of God and the Transgender Debate by Andrew T. Walker

Christians in Western culture today have to deal with subjects that even 20 years ago would have been almost unthinkable to most. And the issues of gender and sexuality are among the toughest that confront Christians today—recently, the Nashville statement was released as one attempt to define the Christian view of sex and gender. How do we maintain a biblical worldview when simply believing that there are two biological sexes, readily identifiable in humans and determined by genetics, is now considered by many to be hate speech?

Andrew T. Walker’s book God and the Transgender Debate seeks to help Christians walk through some of the complicated issues surrounding the discussion of transgender individuals. Transgender people are individuals who, though usually biologically healthy males or females, feel that they are actually the opposite sex from what their biology would indicate. So for instance, a ‘trans man’ would be a biological female who nonetheless maintains that she is male, and who seeks to alter her identity to fit that designation. Some adopt this identity very early in life, and some doctors even prescribe puberty-blocking hormones to prevent gender-confused youth from developing as normal boys and girls, making it easier to ‘transition’ to the opposite sex later.

[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.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

One of the most helpful aspects of Walker’s book is that before he addresses the facts, he addresses the attitude with which we as Christians should come to the debate. He points to the compassion that Jesus showed to hurting people, even when he was correcting their unbiblical practices and ideas:

Jesus loved people. That’s important for me to remember as I write a book with the word “debate” in its title. And it’s good for you to remember as you read a book with the word “transgender” in its title. Because at its heart, this debate isn’t about a debate. It’s about people: precious people made in the image of God who are hurting, who are confused, who are angry, who are scared, who may have been told by their family that they are unwelcome. It’s about some people who are delighted with how culture has shifted when it comes to gender identity, and other people who are concerned about how culture has shifted (p. 14).

However, the grace he calls for in responding to transgender individuals does not exclude the truth taught in Scripture regarding what it means to be a man or a woman.

How we got here

To properly respond to the transgender issue, we have to understand how culture got to the place where we can be confused about such foundational truths regarding human identity. He points to various elements including the loss of Christianity’s influence in key areas of the culture and the rise of radical individualism.

The Christian’s foundation

In a context where fundamental definitions of human identity seem up for grabs, it’s necessary to return to the foundations of where the Christian worldview comes from. Walker identifies God, the Creator, as the authority. Furthermore, the Gospel shows that God is good and wants what is best for us. “A crucified Creator is a God who has the authority to tell us what to do, who has the wisdom to know what is best for us, and who has proved that he can be trusted to tell us what is best for us” (p. 44).

Furthermore, God has designed mankind as male and female. . . .

To continue reading full article: click

GAY UNIONS ADULTERATE MARRIAGE

[image error]PMT 2017-092 by Peter Smith (Quadrant On-line)

On the Road to Fashionable Ruin

Why should society care what people do if they are not affecting other people in ways which are harmful? John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty explores the question in detail but this sums up his position:

“…when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no person besides himself, or needs to affect them unless they like… there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.”

Classical liberals and libertarians concur with Mill. As collectivists, socialists demur. Though they might pretend otherwise as an exercise in the Marxist equivalent of taqiyya.

Socialists put society first and the individual last. Hence their disdain for free speech.

So where do conservatives stand? I can speak for only me. Mill has the default position right.

But notice I say it is the default position. In individual circumstances a lot turns how ‘affecting other people’ is measured. Take a narrow view of SSM and assume that it will not result in adverse consequences for religious freedom, for freedom of speech or for the inappropriate sexual conditioning of children. Highly unlikely assumptions all, but bear with me.

I intend joining a club which insists I meet a retinue of demanding requirements. I satisfy the requirements and join. Soon the club drops these requirements. Am I affected? I think I am. Though possibly, based on Mill’s injunction, if no-one joining my club affects me personally, what’s the problem? The problem is that my membership has been devalued, adulterated and sullied.

[image error]

Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

(by Rosaria Butterfield)

Remarkable testimony of a lesbian professor who was a leading spokesperson for

the feminist movement, but whom Christ saved.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Equally, same sex couples marrying devalues, adulterates and sullies the institution of marriage. This is not because homosexual couples are not as worthy as heterosexual couples. They surely are. But the people in homosexual couples are not complementary. Complementarity is the essence of marriage. Children can arise from complementarity. They can’t arise otherwise.

That’s all well and good but the horse has bolted; pretty well, anyway. SSM has come about in numbers of countries and will come about here. What to do? Rename heterosexual marriage? Clearly that wouldn’t work. Gays and lesbians would soon want to appropriate it for their own unions. It is sad but they appear to be uncomfortable in their own skins and desperate for societal ratification of their lifestyle.

If they believed their own spiel they would have been confident enough to get their own exclusive union. Alas, as it is, we are stuck with the absurdity of gay unions bearing the same description as heterosexual unions as though they are equivalent. It is yet another marker of the parlous state of our society. It is not a question of declining moral precepts, though that is generally evident. It is a question of declining common sense.

Two men or two women marrying each other would confound the common sense of yesteryear as much as would two horses marrying. It would be seen as ridiculous, which it is. Why is it not seen as ridiculous now? Take away common sense and fads and fetishes flourish.

[image error]Christian Theistic Ethics

Lectures by Ken Gentry

Formal Christ College course on Christian Theistic Ethics. Demonstrates theonomic underpinnings of Christian ethics. Helpful for learning the theonomic system of ethical thought.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Why has common sense declined? We have broken into tribes where the things that bind us together have becomes weaker than those driving us apart. This isn’t just about ethnicity or religion or skin colour. I meet two groups of friends each week for coffee and chat. All of us, older than we would like to be, are white and male. Nevertheless, each group occupies its own distinct planetary bubble. Call them A and B. My home bubble is A. When in bubble B I am aware always of my alien status.

We have different premises. So, it doesn’t matter how logical the steps we end up in different places. For example, Christianity has played the defining role in who we are. . . .

To continue reading full article: click

NEW HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR PRETERISM

[image error]PMT 2017-091 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Evangelical preterism is virtually the opposite of dispensational futurism. Because of this, dispensationalists are alarmed at the spread of orthodox preterism among some of its claimants. One means by which they try to dissuade their followers from adopting preterism is by charging that it was a late creation by a Jesuit priest named Luis Alcázar around 1600.

This is simply not the case, as I have argued elsewhere in several places (e.g., He Shall Have Dominion). It is true that, as far as we know today, Alcázar presented the first formal, full-scale preterist approach to the whole Book of Revelation. But to warn of preterism’s supposed Roman Catholic origins is grossly mistaken. Not only so, but such an argument is a clear example of what hermeneutics scholars call the “genetic fallacy.” This fallacy discounts a view because of its early use by an unpopular group.

[image error]

He Shall Have Dominion

(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

One of the finest preterist scholars today is classicist Latin scholar Dr. Francis Gumerlock. He has published a number of helpful works on the historical question regarding preterism. Two of these are:

• Early Latin Commentaries on the Apocalypse

• Revelation and the First Century

These would be great additions to the evangelical preterist’s library. I highly commend them.

A recent, brief paper by Dr. Gumerlock is titled: “More Preterist Interpretations of the Book of Revelation before Alcázar.” This paper opens by noting complaints that Alcázar originated the preterist approach to Revelation. Gumerlock has ably rebutted such complaints in his Revelation and the First Century, but now he is guilty of “piling on” by offering several more historical evidences for pre-Alcázar preterism in Revelation commentaries. He may be charged with a fifteen yard penalty, if he is not careful.

[image error]

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In this paper he lists the following pre-Alcázar evidences for interpreting Revelation along preterist lines. I will simply list his basic references and a provide a brief note about their significance. His paper can be consulted for fuller information.

Quick Summary of Evidence

An Ethiopian commentary dating from the late 1500s, titled Tergwame Qälämsis was not translated into English until 1983. Gumerlock points out that it has preterist interpretations of Rev. 1:9; 3:10; 6:3–4; and Rev. 17 and 18. These are crucial passages for understanding Revelation. The work even recognizes several Babylon passages as speaking of Jerusalem and its destruction in AD 70.

Furthermore, the passages offer external evidence for the early dating of Revelation, which is an important element in the preterist argument. Gumerlock summarizes the argument from each of these passages.

A commentary by Theodulf of Orleans also interprets several passages as being fulfilled in the events leading up to AD 70. The commentary is called “Exposition of the Apocalypse” and was published in the ninth century. For instance, Gumerlock notes that the five months of Rev. 9:10 are explained as indicating “the years in which there was a persecution in the time of John.”

Gumerlock is also able to point to two pre-Alcázar artistic representations of Revelation that involve Nero Caesar. One of these (probably thirteenth century) has Nero as the rider on the red horse in a facsimile published in a commentary.

Conclusion

Gumerlock concludes:

These texts demonstrate that before Luis del Alcázar’s Vestigio in 1614, many Christians had been interpreting visions in Revelation as having been fulfilled in the first century, particularly in the persecution brought on by Nero and the political upheaval brought on by his death, and the Roman-Judean War of 68-70 AD that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem.

I am anxious for this paper to be expanded upon and included in another book by Gumerlock.

“FIRST THE BLADE”

[image error]PMW-2017-090 by R. J. Rushdoony (Chalcedon Foundation)

One of the very important and much neglected verses of Scripture is Mark 4:28: “For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself: first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.” Our Lord tells us (Mark 4:26-29) that the Kingdom of God, as it develops in history, has a necessary growth and development. No more than we can plant grain and then expect the harvest at once, can we expect quick or immediate results in the growth of God’s Kingdom. If we plant grain, we must cultivate it, often water it, tend to the field, and, only after much labor, reap a harvest. To expect otherwise is stupidity and foolishness, whether in farming or in the work of the Kingdom. In fact, our Lord describes quick growth as false (Matt. 13:5-6, 20-21).

The expectations of most people nowadays run contrary to our Lord’s words. They demand immediate results, and then wonder why their harvests never come.

Immediate results?

Within the church, this demand for immediate and spectacular results is commonplace. We need to remember that in church history sometimes the most successful preachers over the centuries have been heretics and compromisers. Carl E. Braaten has rightly observed, “John Tetzel was surely a popular preacher. He told people what they wanted to hear and sold people what they wanted to get. He was a preacher of indulgences, and lots of peoples swarmed to hear him and bought what he had to offer.” (Currents in Theology and Missions, vol. 14, no. 2, April 1987, p.111f.) Today, even the Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of Tetzel’s “unwarranted theological views.”

[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

However, we need not go back to Telzel. Today preachers of all sorts, and laymen too, believe in and demand of God instant results: sow the seed and stand back while the harvest pops up at once! As a result, such men often do better at growing weeds than grain.

This mentality is common in all circles, modernist and fundamentalist, socialist and conservative. During the 1930s, I recall spending a futile dinner hour trying to persuade a fellow student out of quitting his university training. A passionate and devout leftist, he was convinced that, very shortly, the forces of international fascism would conquer the world. It was therefore necessary to go underground with the party of world revolution and work for world liberation. He was totally convinced that, once the forces of world fascism were broken, peace and plenty would flourish from pole to pole and sea to shining sea. I believe that on that occasion I first made serious use of Mark 4:28, but it was futile.

In the 1960s, great numbers of students all over the world fell victim to the same wild delusion. They believed that, with a little action, the full ear of corn could be reaped at once. One group held that only the reactionaries prevented the immediate dawn of an automated, work-free, and war-free world. When a reporter asked one girl in the group how a work free world could produce food, she answered with haughty contempt, “Food IS!” The student movement commanded superior minds academically, but it lacked any sense of historical development and growth. God can produce instantaneous results; He created all things out of nothing. But the Kingdom of God in history moves, our Lord tells us, in a different way, even as “the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself: first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear” (Mark 4:28).

In the past ten years, I have been involved in many court trials defending the freedom of the church, the Christian School, home schools and families. It regularly amazes and appalls me that so many Christians, before they have fought a court case or voted (so many still do not vote), are ready to give up hope or to think of extreme measures and flight. (In this, they resemble the students of the 1960s.) Only yesterday I talked with a fine veteran of Viet Nam whose pastor sees no alternative to total obedience to the state except revolution; since he opposes revolution, he insists on total obedience as the Christian duty. He overlooks the vast realm in between, i.e., voting, pressure on legislatures, the education of Bible believers (of whom 50% do not vote), and so on.

Necessary growth

It is important to recognize that this inability to see the necessity of growth is a modern failing, and also to see its source. The church fathers by and large tended to neglect Mark4:28; but Calvin noted that the parable has as its purpose to make us diligent and patient “because the fruit of… labour does not immediately appear.”

[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

It was the Enlightenment and Romanticism which produced the new mentality. According to Scripture, man’s problem is himself: he is a sinner. His original sin is his desire for autonomy, to be his own god and law, determining good and evil for himself (Gen. 3:5). However, there is nothing man wants less to face than the fact that, whatever other problems he has, he, his own nature, is his main problem. In fact, man rejects radically and totally the idea that God’s indictment of him is correct. He may approve of the motto, “In God we trust,” but he lives in terms of the premise, “In myself I trust.”

The more man develops in his sin, in his evil will-to-be-god, the more he believes that his own fiat word can make reality. If statist man says, Let there be prosperity, there should be prosperity. If he says, Let poverty, hatred, and oppression be abolished, these things should disappear.

But, the more he pursues this course as god and creator, the more the evils around him increase. As James tells us, “From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” (James 4:1). Men create evils and then blame God, their environment, and other men for them.

How many politicians are ready to say, “We, the people, are responsible for the mess we are in. We want something for nothing. We want to eat our cake and have it too. We have despised God’s laws concerning debt, and much, much more, and we deserve the judgment God is bringing upon us.”

Man himself is the primary problem, and man insists that the blame must be laid on someone or something else. As a result, his problem is compounded.

Christianity v. Romanticism

The Enlightenment and Romanticism deny the Biblical answer. According to the Enlightenment, man’s Reason is the solution to the problem, whereas Romanticism locates the answer in man’s will. In either case, man is the answer, not the problem.

Such thinking placed the modern age (in Europe, after c.1660 especially) in radical disagreement with orthodox Christianity. The modern era exalts man and his needs, and it is at total war against the faith that declares man to be a sinner. The epitome of a God-centered faith is the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s opening statement, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.”

The logic of such man-centered thinking in the Enlightenment and Romanticism led to Revolution. John Locke, after Aristotle, insisted that man’s mind and being is a moral blank, neutral to good and evil. The premise of modern education is Locke’s assumption: education then becomes the conditioning of the morally blank child.

But what about adults who are no longer morally blank but have been conditioned into an evil outlook by Christianity, family and capitalism? (This, for modern thinkers, is the great trinity of evil, Christianity, the family, and capitalism.) How are these peoples and cultures who have been conditioned by evil going to be changed? How can they be dealt with?

Revolution is held to provide the answer. Revolution is seen as personal and cultural shock therapy. We should not be surprised that psychiatrists turned for a time to electro-shock therapy: it is a form of psychological revolution. All old patterns are supposedly destroyed in order to clear the mind of past beliefs and habits; then the new, revolutionary changes can be instilled. Such a “therapy” has proven to be a dramatic failure; the moral nature of the man remains. It is not that which comes from outside which pollutes and warps a man but that which comes from within.

Political revolutions rest on the simple-minded belief in shock therapy. The French and Russian revolutions, and the Spanish and other revolutions, have all believed that destruction will free man from the chains of bondage, but all these revolutions have only enslaved man alt the more. The more modern the revolution, the more destructive and vicious it becomes. The Russian Revolution murdered priests wholesale, worked to destroy the family, and confiscated property. The murder of priests became even more savage and intense in the Spanish Revolution.

The belief has been that the murder of man’s past is his liberation into a glorious future. The results have been hell on earth, but the revolutionists never blame themselves for it. It is rather the lingering mentality of the past which is to blame. Gorbachev, to “reform” the Soviet Union, has intensified the war against Christianity.

Man’s earth-bound nature

Modern man refuses to be earth-bound. The proud American boast after the first space flight showed an astronaut as a newly born baby, and his umbilical cord tying him to earth being cut. Man now was supposedly transcending the earth to enter into a “space age” of freedom. With this new, god-like status, man, some held, would guide his own evolution, clone himself, and overcome space, time, and death.

Is it any wonder that evil churchmen have neglected Mark 4:28? Our Lord is very clear: the pattern of the Kingdom of God is like that of the earth which bringeth forth fruit of itself. There is an order and a progression from the seed, to the first green shoot to emerge, to the cultivated growth, and finally the harvest. Both time and work are essential.

I still recall my pity and revulsion for a prominent American pastor who, after World War II, wanted people to spend their time praying for a speedy Second Coming of Christ. He was arrogantly contemptuous of all Kingdom building as wasteful of time and money. He agreed with another prominent preacher who dismissed all efforts at Christian Kingdom action as “polishing brass on a sinking ship.” Such men do not preach on Mark 4:28.

I recall also, sadly, a very fine man, a very wealthy man, who called me to see him not too long before his death. His family and the firm’s director were now fully in charge of all his wealth. About seven years earlier, I had suggested to him that, if he had as his intention turning America around to a better direction, starting Christian Schools across the country would do it. He rejected my answer sharply. Now, near death, he called me in to say that if he had spent the millions he did seeking a “quick victory” on Christian Schools instead, the country would indeed be different.

That man was the antithesis of everything revolutionary. He had funded generously a number of anti-Communist causes. He loved deeply the more simple America he had known in his youth. He loved the one-room schoolhouse of his midwestern youth, and the country church with its kindly, neighborly believers in the old-time religion. He was a simple, honest, hard-working, old-fashioned American Christian.

At the same time, although he did not know it, and would have been outraged at the suggestion, he was a revolutionist. However much old fashioned, he had something in common with all revolutionaries, namely, the hunger for and the belief in a “quick victory.”

Millions of American conservatives demonstrated, shortly after Reagan’s election in 1980 that they too were believers in the myth of victory by revolution. They acted as though the millennium had arrived with Reagan’s victory! Conservative political action groups saw an alarming decline in monetary contributions. Reagan was elected, the war was over, the troops were leaving to resume life as usual in their now peaceable kingdom.

The mentality of instant results is all around us. . . .

To read the whole article: click

HOW DO YOU SEE THE FUTURE?

[image error]PMT 2017-089 by Mark R. Rushdoony (Chalcedon Foundation)

A very brief encounter with a pastor nearly forty years ago is still vivid. We were hurrying in opposite directions, so our encounter was very brief, and we both just slowed as he realized who I was, greeted me, and expressed his admiration for my father’s writing. “I really like what he has to say,” he commented as he passed by. Then he turned back and added, “Except the postmillennialism. I just don’t see that happening in today’s world.”

He was already past me and looking back, and I never saw him again, but his words surprised me. His frankness betrayed the error in this pastor’s thinking—that his personal perception of what was possible was relevant to what God says about the progress of His Kingdom.

Had that pastor said, “I don’t see that in the Bible” I would have forgotten the brief encounter long ago. Perhaps he misspoke in his haste and that is what he meant, but, in reality, I believe we all have a tendency to walk by sight rather than by faith and view our times and the future of the Kingdom of God in terms of our perception of what is logically possible. In doing so, we are limiting the power of God to our human conception. If we say we cannot “see that happening in today’s world” we are positing a Kingdom of God limited to one of our own understanding.

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

Our Perspectives or God’s?

We are Scripturally justified in being pessimistic about man and his culture. Left to himself, man only shows the degeneration Paul described in Romans 1. To look at man’s future in terms of sin alone, however, misses not only the transforming power of the gospel by the Holy Spirit, but also the context of the developing Kingdom of God that was the basis for Paul writing to the Roman church.

If we focus on the depravity of man that may be all we see, but that is no more valid a perception than the humanist emphasis on man’s goodness. The gospel balances the sin of man with the regenerating power of His Spirit and the growth of the Kingdom of God, Who makes all things new. Our perspective of the times in which we live or the direction of all history must not be based on what we see and perceive but on the certain Word of God’s specific command to seek that Kingdom and its righteousness. It is a similar error to see that evil in our culture or the modern church and predict only judgment. Judgment will come, but we do not know when or how it will be balanced by God’s mercy and longsuffering, or how the growth of the church and the Kingdom might balance aspects of judgment. Even if judgment is imminent, our duty to positively promote the Kingdom still remains. It is no great piety to predict judgment if we do not proclaim and promote righteousness.

About the same time as I had that encounter with the pastor my wife and I socialized with another young married childless couple. The husband believed in an imminent (in 1978) economic and social collapse. As a result, he expressed the opinion, to the consternation of his wife, that having children was unwise. His opinion about the immediate future was so wrong that what he saw as prudent planning we can now see as tragically foolish. Now and then my wife and I recall that couple and wonder if they had children.

Even when we truly believe in the power of God to advance His Kingdom to cover the earth we can fall into another error, one that assumes some process of events over time must happen for the Kingdom to grow to any great extent. We temper our confidence in the eventual growth of the Kingdom with cynicism that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon, because we assume the progress of the Kingdom involves a necessary process.

As humans, such thinking is almost inevitable because everything we do is based on our work and a process of capitalization. When we are dealing with God’s Kingdom, however, we must remember that it moves not in tune with our efforts but with the purpose and power of God.

Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism Debate[image error]

(DVD by Gentry and Gaffin)

Formal, public debate between Dr. Richard Gaffin (Westminster Theological Seminary)

and Kenneth Gentry at the Van Til Conference in Maryland.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Fields Are White Already to Harvest

Jesus once showed His disciples that their view of the progress of the Kingdom was flawed. While stopping at the Samaritan city of Sychar, the disciples left Jesus at Jacob’s well while they went into town to buy food. They likely thought Sychar was just a stopping place for the night before continuing on toward their destination, which was Galilee.

The exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is usually the focus of lessons on this passage (John 4:1–42). There is another exchange in that passage, however, between Jesus and the returned disciples that pertains to the Kingdom of God, which Jesus had begun to preach after John’s recent arrest (Mark 1:14). Jesus told the disciples, in verse 35:

Say not ye, There are yet four months and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest.

The first statement was a transparently true observation. Jesus was giving a timestamp; it was either January or February, depending on whether the crop was barley or wheat.

My father grew up on a farm, and loved driving through California’s Central Valley, with its unique climate that allows for a tremendous variety of row, fruit, and nut crops. It was natural for him to note the different crops he saw along the way. It was a part of his life and thinking to make such observations.

It was even more natural to those who walked through farmland as did the disciples. Every one of the disciples knew what sequence of work needed to be done and how long it would be before harvest. They had seen the process repeated their whole lives. So, Jesus stated the obvious: “You are assuming the grain harvest cannot take place for four months.”

The Harvest Starts Now

Sychar was to be more than a place to buy food and sleep before moving on. The disciples likely knew their destination was Galilee (v.3) and even that they were headed for Cana, Nathaniel’s home (John 21:2). They were not expecting Jesus to minister there on His way, but Jesus said, “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.”

The ready fields to which Jesus refers are no longer either barley or wheat, but the elect of God then in Sychar in Samaria. That harvest was about to begin. The relationship of the Samaritans to the Jews had long been a strained one, for centuries. There was a real animosity and social separation, and like our assumption regarding compromised churches, the disciples likely believed any conversion of the Samaritans would be a difficult one that was likely some time yet in the future.

Our Lord announced that the harvest in Samaria was not a future event. The “fields” were ready for harvest; it would start immediately. Indeed, “many” of the Samaritans believed and begged Jesus to stay, which He did for two days resulting in “many more” believing and testifying “that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (v. 39–43). The harvest was not in the future as the disciples assumed, but then and there because that was when the Spirit moved.

“One Soweth, and Another Reapeth”

Jesus continued His agricultural metaphor of a harvest. Not only was the assumption of time and process wrong, but even of the necessity of their labors.

When I was in college I read an account of the Great Awakening. It was by one of its preachers who noted his surprise at the sudden overwhelming response to his message that had previously fallen on deaf ears. If we believe in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, we must believe that such a response to the gospel is not only possible but certain when the Spirit so moves.

Whenever we assume the Kingdom of God must grow (as it sometimes does) imperceptibly like yeast, we may focus so much on the smaller matters of Kingdom duty that we become cold to the possibility that big things can happen. If we have only seen slow Kingdom growth or some defeats, we risk projecting this as a necessary long-term progression, but the one certainty we have is that the Kingdom of God will not fail. We must not act or think in terms of what we “see” happening based on our experience, but rather in terms of what God says is certain.

Jesus told His disciples, just before these two days with the Samaritans, that “One soweth, and another reapeth” (John 4:37). Here in Samaria, the disciples would see a harvest where they had bestowed no labor. “Other men labored,” He said, “and ye are entered into their labors” (John 4:38). Sometimes the people of God will see a growth of His Kingdom completely disproportionate to, or even entirely lacking, their own labor.

What Prospect for the Future?

Adoniram Judson was a pioneering missionary to Burma early in the nineteenth century. He and his wife Ann labored for years under deplorable conditions, often near to death. Recently released from prison, Judson received a letter from his American mission board which noted with concern the lack of any progress in the mission work, which then had not a single convert. Asked for a report on the future prospects of his mission work, Judson wrote, “The prospects are as bright as the promises of God.” His was a proper view of the Kingdom.

It is common to hear Americans deplore the state of the world in the most pessimistic of terms….

To continue reading: click

NEW CREATIONIST APOLOGETICS MINISTRY

[image error]PMT 2017-088 by Jason Lisle (Biblical Science Institute)

[Gentry introductory note: As one who is committed to the biblical worldview, I am not only a postmillennialist but a Six-day Creationist. Both of these positions flow directly from Scripture. Creationism is not only an important issue in itself, but also an excellent apologetics tool. Dr. Jason Lisle has begun a new ministry called “Biblical Science Institute.” Dr. Lisle is a Van Til presuppositionalist and an excellent scientist, being an astrophysicist. I highly recommend it to those interested not only in Six-day Creation but also apologetics.]

Friends of the Biblical Science Institute, thank you for your interest in defending the Christian Faith. In our second month of operation, we have a number of exciting new faith-affirming resources. We were able to document the August 21 Solar Eclipse; this was the first transcontinental eclipse over North America in 99 years. We traveled to the path of totality to experience this amazing event first hand, and have compiled an online video to share this experience with you. We hope you enjoy it! We are so grateful that the Lord granted us traveling mercies, and clear skies. We also posted a new web article describing eclipses and their relevance to creation.

Recently, we at the Biblical Science Institute joined with some friends to do street evangelism in Denton, Texas. I had several really great conversations with unbelievers, including a Muslim and a professing atheist. Not surprisingly, almost all of their objections to the Christian worldview centered on origins and science. I was able to share with them how science confirms Genesis, and how biblical creation makes science possible. I could tell they were getting it. What a blessing that God uses our apologetics efforts as part of the means by which He opens the eyes of unbelievers, and draws them to Himself!

[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.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We also had a microphone set up where people could ask questions, and I agreed to answer some of these. We were able to record some of this on video. One of these dialogues we shared on Youtube, and some other conversations we posted on our Facebook page. These experiences show that apologetics is not merely an academic game. It has real world application and is an important part of sharing the Gospel.

We have several new faith-affirming articles on our website this month, including a dialogue with someone who asked how the first three days of creation could be ordinary days if the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day. This is a fairly common objection, but is easy to answer. We have continued our Creation 101 series with an introduction to genetics: the study of heredity. And we have begun a series on logic: the principles of correct reasoning. Knowledge of the basics of logic is wonderfully helpful in apologetics, and can even improve other areas of our lives.

Our latest book, Keeping the Faith in an Age of Reason, is at the printers and should be available very shortly. Check our web store frequently, because we will make this book available as soon as it arrives. The Einstein book is near completion, with only the final chapter and a few illustrations remaining.

We currently have about half the monthly funding needed to do the weekly podcast. We are so grateful for your financial support. You can continue to help us by spreading the word; please tell your friends and family about the Biblical Science Institute. And you can help us by praying. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much (James 5:16).

Thank you for your support!

– Jason Lisle

For more information: click

Introducing Dr. Lisle

Dr. Jason Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist who researches issues pertaining to science and the Christian Faith. A popular speaker and author, Dr. Lisle presents a rational defense of a literal Genesis, showing how science confirms the history recorded in the Bible. Brought up in a Christian family, at a young age he received Christ as Lord. Since then Lisle has always desired to serve the Lord out of love and gratitude for salvation, and to spread the Gospel message to all people.

Dr. Lisle double-majored in physics and astronomy with a minor in mathematics at Ohio Wesleyan University. He then went on to obtain a Master’s degree and Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. There, he used the SOHO spacecraft to analyze the surface of the sun, and made a number of interesting discoveries, including the detection of giant cell boundaries. Since then, Lisle has worked in full-time apologetics ministry. He wrote a number of planetarium shows for the Creation Museum, including the popular “Created Cosmos.” Dr. Lisle has authored a number of best-selling books on the topic of creation, including: Taking Back Astronomy, Stargazer’s Guide to the Night Sky, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Discerning Truth, and Understanding Genesis.

For educational materials by Dr. Lisle: click

HOMOSEXUALITY AND GOD’S LAW (4)

[image error]PMW 2017-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the final installment of a four-part series in outline form on this important moral and cultural question. For the full presentation, begin with PMW 2017-084.

F. The question of ceremonial Law

1. God’s Law is two-fold: moral and restorative.

Ceremonial law was never an end in itself: always typified salvation in Christ.

“Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law” (Heb. 7:11, 12).

2. Christ’s coming confirmed the essential meaning of the ceremonies.

Christ did not destroy their meaning, He made their way of being kept irrelevant. He is our sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; John 1:29).

[image error]

Standard Bearer: Festschrift for Greg Bahnsen (ed. by Steve Schlissel)

Includes two chapters by Gentry on Revelation and theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

G. The World-scope of God’s Law

1. Moral commandments and covenantal form.

Moral commands are distinguishable from the covenantal system in which they are found.

“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6).

“Then Samuel said: Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

“Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, The God of my salvation, And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, And my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart; These, O God, You will not despise” (Psa. 51:14-17).

2. God’s law is a model for the nations.

Deut. 4:6-8: “Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?” (Dt 4:6-8).

Isa. 51:4: “Pay attention to Me, O My people, And give ear to Me, O My nation; For a law will go forth from Me, And I will set My justice for a light of the peoples.

This is indicated elsewhere: 1 Kings 10:1, 8-9; Isaiah 24:5; 51:4; Psalm 2:9ff; 47:1-2; 94:10-12; 97:1-2; 119:46, 118-119; Proverbs 16:12; Ecclesiastes 12:13. God does not have a double standard of justice (cf. Dt 25:13-16; Lev. 19:35-37).

4. The nations around Israel were judged by God’s law.

They were judged for for breaching moral standards, though never its typological elements.

Isa 24:5: “The earth is also polluted by its inhabitants, for they transgressed laws, violated statutes, broke the everlasting covenant.”

See also: Lev. 18:24-27; Dt 7:5-6, 16, 25; 12:1-4; 19:29-32; Amos 1:6 (Exo. 21:16; Dt 24:7); Nah. 3:4 (Exo. 22:18; Lev. 19:21); Hab. 2:6 (Exo. 22:25-27; Dt 24:6, 10-13); Hab. 2:12 (cp. Mic. 3:10)).

The same truth may be seen earlier in Abraham’s day in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:15; cp. 2 Pet. 2:9).

[image error]

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

5. Church and State were separate in OT.

There was a distinction between the civil ruler, Moses, and the priestly head, Aaron; between the offices of priest and king; between the temple and palace (1 Sam. 13:11; 2 Chr. 19:5-11; 26:16-21).

6. All people subject today.

“Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom 1:32).

Rom. 3:19: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (cf. 12:19-13:10; 1 Tim. 1:8).

“For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)” (Rom. 2:12-15).

HOMOSEXUALITY AND GOD’S LAW (3)

[image error]PMW 2017-086 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third installment in outline form on this topic. For the full presentation, please begin at installment one (PMW 2017-084).

D. God’s Law continues today

1. Christ and God’s Law.

Matt 5:16–20: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

[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

2. God’s law defines basic moral obligation (e.g., the golden rule)

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12).

3. God’s law defines love.

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40).

Love is not feeling or non-descript action. It is obedient action defined by the strictures of God-ordained Law.

4. Paul affirms God’s law.

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31).

“Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good…. For we know that the law is spiritual” (Rom. 7:12, 14).

“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust” (1 Tim 1:8-11; cp. Psa. 119:11).

[image error]

Nourishment from the Word

(by Ken Gentry)

Reformed studies covering baptism, creation, creeds, tongues, God’s law, apologetics, and Revelation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

5. God’s law has just penal sanctions

Heb. 2:2: “For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense….”

Rom. 7:12: “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

To be continued.