Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 86

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AND GOD’S KINGDOM

[image error]PMW 2017-064 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction

Postmillennialism expects a day when “the earth will open up and salvation [will] bear fruit, and righteousness [will] spring up with it” (Isa 45:8). It expects the discipling of the nations to teach all the things Christ taught his disciples (Matt. 28:19), which included the continuing relevance of God’s law (Matt. 5:17–19; cp. Rom. 3:19, 31). This is because the law reflects God’s character which is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). Because of this, postmillennialists would do well to learn God’s law and its practical applications.

Learning Deuteronomy well is a good place to start. And the structure of Deuteronomy is helpful for reinforcing and expanding the application of God’s law. Let me explain.

Deuteronomy 6:4–26:15 appears to be a random collection of laws, a general scholarly consensus discerns its basic organizing principle: these laws follow the order of the ten commandments. In this, the largest section of Deuteronomy, Moses provides the commandments’ broader implications by offering practical applications (cf. Deut. 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy Introduction). Though the outline is not overtly presented by Moses, given Moses’s orderly mind and compositional skills, along with the outline’s general fit, it is strongly suggested. We must understand also that since the law comes from one God and is unified many overlaps and inter-relationships exist between the commandments.

The first commandment (Deut. 5:7) highlights God’s unique and absolute authority. It is developed in Deut. 6:1–11:32. This section exhorts love of God (e.g., 6:5) and obedience to him (e.g., 6:6). For example, it warns against testing him (e.g., 6:16), reminds Israel that God is worthy of respect (e.g., 7:6–8), and proclaims God’s blessings for obeying him (Deut. 11:1–32).

[image error]

God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The second commandment (Deut. 5:8–10) emphasizes God’s dignity, especially in worship. It is expanded on in Deut. 12:1–32. For example, in discouraging the adoption of Canaanite religious altars and worship practices (12:1–3), Israel must follow God’s priestly system and establish a central, unified sanctuary in the land to protect her worship of the one true God (12:4–32).

The third commandment (Deut. 5:11) presses the importance of God’s name, calling on Israel to be serious in her relationship with him. This is covered in Deut. 13:1–14:21. For example, this section condemns false prophets (13:1–18), which are a test of the Israel’s commitment to God alone. It also reminds her to keep his dietary laws in demonstrating her distinctive commitment to him even in the mundane things of life (14:1–21).

The fourth commandment (Deut. 5:12–15) requires observing the sabbath in demonstrating thanks to God for his deliverance (Deut. 5:15) and for his good gift of creation (Exo. 20:11). It is applied in Deut. 14:22–16:17. For example, this section calls for thanking God by faithfully tithing to him (14:22–29) and keeping sabbath years (15:1–18) and the special national feasts of celebration (16:1–17).

The fifth commandment (Deut. 5:16) highlights the proper exercise of human authority, requiring that it conform to God’s will. It is covered in Deut. 16:18–18:22. For example, this section highlights various levels of authority beyond its starting point in parental authority. It discusses judges (17:2–7), kings (17:14–20), priests/Levites (18:1–8), and prophets (18:9–22).

The sixth commandment (Deut. 5:17) calls for the respect of life, especially underscoring the dignity of human life. It is treated in Deut. 19:1–22:4. For example, while defending human life and condemning murder, this material distinguishes accidental deaths, explains legal protections for those who have killed someone (19:1–10), and encourages proper judicial proceedings (19:11–13). It also sets apart just war as an example of when life may be taken with immunity (20:1–20) and demands execution for capital felons (21:22–23).

Lord of the Saved[image error]

(by Ken Gentry)

A critique of easy believism and affirmation of Lordship salvation. Shows the necessity of true, repentant faith to salvation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The seventh commandment (Deut. 5:18) warns against sexual sins and immoral intermixing of things which should not be mixed together. It covers 22:5–23:14. This commandment is the most difficult to discern in its section. But given the relative clarity of the ten commandments outline in the remainder of the Deut. 6:4–26:15, it would seem to be required. For example, various types of sexual sins include transvestism (22:5), sexual charges against a wife (22:13–20), adultery and fornication (22:22–24), rape (22:25–29), and incest (22:30), each of which threatens the unity of the family and the community. This law is illustratively reinforced by discouraging the mixing of seeds, animals, and clothing fibers (22:9–11)

The eighth commandment (Deut. 5:19) explains why stealing is immoral. It is covered in Deut. 23:15–24:7. This section enforces ownership rights and encourages respecting others. For example, it covers the problem of escaped foreign slaves (23:15–16) and implies that offspring forced into prostitution steals their self-respect (23:17–18). It continues by prohibiting charging interest on poor loans which robs the poor of their ability to escape debt (23:19–20), and robbing God by refusing to pay vows (23:21–23).

The ninth commandment (Deut. 5:20) requires honesty in one’s witness, promoting confidence in the truth. This is briefly covered in Deut. 24:8–16. For example, this section demonstrates the danger of dishonesty in Miriam’s false charge against Moses (24:8–9), warns about a lack of trust in handling pledges (24:10–13), condemns disrespectfully failing to promptly pay workers (24:14–15), and prohibits criminal witness against innocent family members of criminals (24:16).

The tenth commandment (Deut. 5:21) rebukes covetousness, which is a desire for something that belongs to another. Moses applies this matter to situations denying a person’s rights and privileges regarding his own property and life. This material is found in Deut. 24:17–26:15. For example, this section warns that coveting perverts justice for the weakest members by taking all they have as a loan pledge (24:17–18) or denying them access to the overage from one’s crops (24:19–20).

Conclusion

Though most evangelicals demur from even considering the application of God’s law today, the postmillennial hope expects its influence. The apostle to the Gentiles even declares against objectors: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:31).

In fact, Paul noted the law’s intrinsic goodness and practical relevance for restraining sin and protecting righteousness, even including its judicial sanctions: “we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

[image error]

DARWIN’S DEADLY DANGERS

[image error]PMW 2017-063 by John Woodmorappe (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

[Gentry note: Postmillennialism affirms the impact of God’s kingdom on this world. It also recognizes the original creation not only set up this world, but becomes a paradigm for its redemptive renewal through the new creation principle. It also affirms its eschatological hope by means of a confident commitment to of God’s revelation in Scripture. Consequently, the Reformed postmillennialist is committed to Six-day Creation as revealed in Scripture. This article is helpful for reminding us of the dangers of Darwinism.]

Review of The Darwin Effect: Its Influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism, and Sexism

This work covers the effects of the Darwinian revolution on 19th and 20th century thinking. It is striking how pervasive and harmful this effect has been. Because this work is so rich in diverse topics, I focus on only some of them and concentrate on developments in the latter part of the 20th century.

Darwin was not simply a product of his time and culture. To the contrary, he effectively steered his culture. His ideas were aggressively promoted and they transformed societies. Moreover, the interactions of Darwinism with so many different strands of human thought were, and are, much too pervasive to be dismissed as ‘misunderstandings’ or ‘misinterpretations’ of Darwinism.

Bergman also makes it obvious that so-called scientific Darwinism and Social Darwinism cannot be dichotomized. The latter flows seamlessly and effortlessly from the former. In fact, ‘Social Darwinism’ was freely practised, not just by extremists but by mainstream biologists. Nor was it some kind of passing 19th century fad. Bergman comments: “The racist views of early Darwinists were widely supported, not just by a few renegade scientists, but by most of the leading biologists until at least the 1950’s” (p. 61).

[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

Finally, the matters raised are not solely of historical interest. There are, for instance, modern forms of racism, sexism, eugenics, etc., that exist even today and I discuss some of them.

Of course, the author is not claiming that Darwinism was the sole source of ideas such as racism. However, racism became prominent, as never before, because Darwinism gave racism the imprimatur and prestige of scientific support and because racism followed logically from the ‘survival of the fittest’ dictum of evolutionism.

Author Bergman has a sense of humour. He compares those who say that Darwin was a nice, ethical man (not to be held responsible for the implications of his theories) with the fictional Dr Frankenstein, who stated that he was not responsible for the killing spree done by the monster he had created. Touche!

Racism fueled, not merely reflected, by Darwinism

Evolutionary ideas, of course, did not begin with Darwin. The late 18th century enlightenment, for example, had a proto-evolutionary, anti-Christian strand (as exemplified by Voltaire) that rejected monogenism (all humans descended from Adam and Eve) in favour of polygenism (multiple origins of human races). This was an anti-Christian weapon (p. 64). As for Darwinism, his ideas were widely accepted long before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

It is not correct to say that Darwinism merely ‘joined’ the racism that had already existed. Leading Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out “biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (p. 135). Nor was this limited to abstract, academic theories. Darwinism created an explosion of practical racism that had not existed before. Bergman writes: “It was primarily between 1870 and 1900 that educated Americans moved toward a wide acceptance of varying forms of eugenic-based racism” (p. 56).

[image error]

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

by Norman Nevin

Thirteen scientists and theologians offer valuable perspectives on evolution for concerned Christians.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The long-term racist impact of Darwinism on public policy cannot be overstated. Bergman comments:

“Major Leonard Darwin, Charles’s son, was president of the British Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1928. The impact of the eugenics movement on American law was especially profound. In the 1920s, Congress passed numerous laws intended to restrict the influx of ‘inferior races’, including those from southern and eastern Europe, as well as China. Eugenic beliefs were also reflected in everything from school textbooks to social policy. American Blacks especially faced the brunt of these laws… . Interracial marriages were forbidden by law in most states, and discouraged by social pressure in all states” (p. 55).

Darwinian racism in action

The Darwinism-based racism of the 19th century had many different manifestations. White explorers saw non-white natives as self-evidently inferior in an evolutionary sense (figure 1). Western imperialism seemed to follow naturally from the struggle for existence, and the dominance of more evolved races over less evolved races seemed to be self-evidently justified by nature. That blacks should serve as slaves of whites seemed common sense. Pygmies were brought in to Western countries, and displayed in circuses and freak shows, as examples of ‘missing links’ or evolutionary atavisms. They helped convince the general public to believe in evolution….

To read full article: click

[image error]

THE “BONDAGE” OF THE CIVIL LAW?

[image error]PMW 2017-062 by Chris Hume (Reformed Hope)

[Gentry note: Postmillennialism is committed to a God-defined righteousness as characterizing the advance of God-established kingdom in a God-created world. Thus, we are interested in how God’s law impacts ethics. Chris provides us with a helpful article in this regard.]

A common view is that the civil law of Moses was a bondage to Old Testament saints. This understanding leads people to view passages which speak of freedom from the law as meaning that saints are now “free” from the “bondage” of the civil laws of the Old Testament. In my opinion, this view is erroneous. Whatever you may believe about the civil laws of the Old Testament, you cannot biblically defend the view that the civil laws were a burden. You may attempt to make arguments against applying the general equity of the civil laws to societies today, but you cannot cogently use any argument that implies said laws were a form of bondage to Old Testament saints. Please allow me to explain.

One of the arguments against applying the general equity of the civil law in the Bible is that Mosaic obligations, with their inherent “bondage,” have passed away in the New Covenant. Since Jesus came and clearly fulfilled and ended the ceremonial system, it is argued that he must have abrogated the application of the general equity of the Mosaic case laws as well.

Passages that are sometimes quoted in support of the view that the New Testament teaches the abrogation of the general equity of the civil laws in conjunction with them being a form of bondage include Romans 6:14 and 7:6.

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

“But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” (Romans 7:6)

However, a closer look at these passages (and the Bible as a whole) paint a different picture. Romans 6:14 speaks of the the glorious truth that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ leads to victory over sin in the believer’s life (Romans 6:5-6). In fact, in Romans 6:13 (the verse immediately preceding the verse in view) the Apostle Paul says that we are to present our members to God as “instruments for righteousness.” Righteousness cannot be defined apart from the law of God. This is why the writers of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith clearly communicated that one of the greatest blessings of the gospel is obedience to the law of God. Whatever they understood from the statement that we are “not under law but under grace,” they certainly did not understand it to mean that we are not to obey the law.

[image error]

God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

“[We believe] that the Moral Law of God [ten commandments] is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government; that it is holy, just and good; that the inability which the Scriptures ascribe to fallen men to fulfill its precepts, arises entirely from their love of sin; to deliver them from which, and to restore them through a Mediator to unfeigned obedience to the holy law, is one great end of the gospel….” (New Hampshire Confession of Faith)

Now, one may say, “Yes, of course, we are not freed from keeping the moral law even though Romans 6:14 says we are ‘not under law.’” Well and good. But you cannot then use the same verse to say that we ought not to apply the general equity of the civil laws—after all, the civil laws are clearly applications of the moral law (laws concerning honoring parents, murder, theft, adultery, false witness, etc). In fact, in Romans 6, Paul clearly teaches that we must oppose lawlessness (v. 15 and v. 19), and rather seek to be obedient (v. 17), presumably to God’s law (after all, Paul elsewhere clearly upholds the law as good). Rather than teaching that Christians are no longer in “bondage” to the civil laws, Paul is teaching that Christians are not “under law” as a means of attaining righteousness or favor with God.

Furthermore, Christians are not enslaved to sin because Jesus paid the debt for sin on their behalf. The problem was never with the laws of God in the Old Testament, but rather with the hearts of man. We have been freed from the power of sin and given new hearts, and with those new hearts the ability to obey God’s laws (cf. Titus 2:11-12; Hebrews 8:8-13).

Romans 7:6 is used in a similar manner, suggesting that the coming of Christ has set the world free from the “bondage” of the civil laws of the Old Testament. However, in the book of Deuteronomy, God clearly says that when other nations see Israel’s laws, they will be amazed at the wisdom and justice of her laws.

“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:6-8)

The other (pagan) nations could only say that Israel’s laws were “righteous” if they were reflections of God’s moral law which was written on their hearts. Remember, God’s moral law was (and is) written on the heart of every person in every pagan nation. The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 explains it in this way: “God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart…The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai” (Chapter 19, portions of sections 1 and 2). Forget about the people of God for a moment: the civil laws of God were not even viewed as a form of bondage by pagan nations.[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

Interestingly, the London Baptist Confession also has something to say about the “bondage” of the law. In Chapter 21 (Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience), the confession speaks of the liberty (i.e. freedom) that Christ has purchased for believers. Included in this liberty is the freedom from the “rigor and curse of the law.” However, this does not mean that believers are not required to obey God’s law. In fact, earlier in the confession it states that the law of God “binds” believers and requires obedience. Furthermore, it is made clear that “neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation” (Chapter 19, Section 5). Therefore, the freedom from the “rigor and curse of the law” is to be understood as freedom from having to justify oneself by obeying the law (cf. Galatians 3:10-14).

We are not justified by obeying God’s law, but we are still required to obey it. After listing numerous other aspects of the freedom believers have in Christ, the confession states that such freedoms were common to saints in the Old Testament, but that “under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected” (Chapter 21, Section 1). Note well: the civil laws (or the “judicial law”) are strikingly absent from this discussion of what aspect of the law may be viewed as a “yoke” or bondage. (What is presented, however, is what is clearly taught in the New Testament: the ceremonial laws have been “abrogated and taken away.”) . . . .

To continue reading: click

[image error]Chris Hume is a conservative and Reformed Christian, writer, and preacher who lives in Delaware. He runs the Reformed Hope blog which hosts many excellent articles from a Reformed and postmillennial perspective. I highly recommend his site.

INCLUSIVITY, MORALITY, AND CREATIONISM

[image error]PMW -2017-061 by Gary Bates (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

(Originally featured in a CMI newsletter, July 2010)

[Gentry note: Postmillennialism expects and promotes a biblically-based worldview. A biblical worldview requires a biblical understanding of creation and morality. This article by Gary Bates is helpful for understanding the impact of biblical creation on moral standards.]

Unfortunately, many within the church unwittingly fall for an oft used tactic by atheists, because they are scared that the God of a Christian faith would be caricatured as an unloving, judgmental Creator. To portray God as irrelevant and out of touch in a politically correct world we hear statements like “If God is a God of love why doesn’t he love homosexuals?” Or pro-abortionists might say “If God is all-knowing He would understand why some need to have abortions.”

Of course these are straw man arguments—that is, they are fallacies presented in a way to divert from the core issue. And the core issue always goes back to Genesis because it really cuts to the chase. That is, if God is Creator, He has the perfect right to say what happens with His Creation. He made it; He owns it; He sets the rules! (And yes He does love us—see later). This highlights why the creation issue is the key cultural battleground today.

Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview[image error]

Ed. by David Hall

No other Christian teachings in the past five hundred years have affected our Western culture as deeply as the worldview of John Calvin. It extends far beyond the theological disciplines.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The skeptics hope that the church will avoid dealing with the creation issue by getting them to see it as non-essential and divisive. They readily recognize that the weak underbelly of the church—the all embracing liberal sections of it—are so eager not to cause offence that they unwittingly actually buy into this antigod agenda (See Foxes crying foul in the henhouse! for some examples of this), or capitulate completely by embracing evolution.

Who is being divisive really?

For example, many leaders in the modern Emergent and Seeker Sensitive church phenomenon, if asked a straight forward question like “Is homosexuality wrong?”, will wriggle about and often proffer an explanation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 from the ‘New Standard, Non-Inspired, Double Speak’ translation of the Bible to avoid the plain obvious meaning of such passages (lest we cause offence). The motive might be well-meaning by trying to avoid being divisive.

But I wonder how many realize, that those who do not accept the Scriptures in the plainest, straightforward way that the authors intended are actually the ones that are being divisive—particularly when it comes to the book of Genesis. If we retreat from a plain understanding of the foundational meaning for the entrance of sin, death and our need for salvation, then the Bible is up for grabs for any interpretation that one desires. After all, if the truth does not begin in the first book, where does is begin?

[image error]Consider the Lilies

A Plea for Creational Theology

by T. M. Moore

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The liberal all-inclusive notion that God ‘loves’ all sinners (as in, will not judge gays and indeed all sinners who are outside of Christ) actually has the opposite effect of what those well-meaning churches and leaders desire. If God has no problems with sin then why even bother becoming a Christian? The evolutionary, humanistic worldview says evolution is ‘real’ science, therefore Genesis is wrong, there is no creator, so there is no need for a savior and thus, one can make up your own rules about life. For most, if evolution is true then what’s the point of going to church? The caricature is actually founded if the church does not believe what it is supposed to believe!

To find the origin of sin and define what it means one has to go back to Genesis—the New Testament points back there (Romans 5:12). Sin is rebellion from the Creator (the way that the majority of the world lives its life today—justified somewhat by evolution), and subsequent to the events in the Garden of Eden the law was given that we might realize our offences and more importantly who we are offending. If inclusivity is at the expense of not pointing out that sin offends the Creator, then how will people ever understand that they are sinners and that they need to be saved?

It’s not complicated

The Gospel is not hard to understand. We live in a sin-cursed, fallen world, we are all going to die and there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. Is God a God of love? Absolutely! . . .

To read full article: click

[image error]

HOW GAY MARRIAGE HARMS

[image error]PMW 2017-060 by Keaton Halley (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

[Gentry note: Postmillennialism anticipates a time in contemporary history — before Christ’s return — during which God’s righteousness will prevail. We are currently witnessing the collapse of Western culture’s  moral values. We believe, of course, that this is temporary and will be overcome by the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. We need to understand the wide-ranging negative implications of today’s secular humanism and its abandonment of our historic Western, Christian culture. This is a helpful article in this regard.]

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.

G.P. from the U.S. asked:

My question is what do you think about gay marriage and adoption with the. Same sex parents?

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.

Openness Unhindered (by Rosaria Butterfield)[image error]

Dr. Butterfield goes to great lengths to clarify some of today’s key controversies. She also traces their history and defines the terms that have become second nature today-even going back to God’s original design for marriage and sexuality as found in the Bible. She cuts to the heart of the problems and points the way to the solution.

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?

[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

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.

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 read full article: click

ATHEISM, MORALITY AND REASON

[image error]PMW 2017-059 by Keaton Halley (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

C.O. from the US wrote to Creation Ministries, International:

[Gentry note: Postmillennialism entails a holistic worldview, in that all areas of life are to be overwhelmed by Christ’s kingdom as it grows to dominance in the world. Humanistic naturalism is contrary to Christian supernaturalism at every point. We need to understand the implications of our worldview in the debate over morality. The postmillennial hope will prevail over all opposition (2 Cor. 10:4-5). But God uses our labors to accomplish his end (cp. Gen. 50:20). This is an important and helpful article in the debate.]

Hello CMI team,

Thank you so much for your ministry. I have a quick question — is it *possible* in an atheistic worldview for morality, reliability of our mind, etc to exist, thus making our argument (as a Christian) on which makes the more sense? Because as I’ve researched, I often hear them saying that evolution could account for morality, reliability of our minds, etc. And though I think that Christianity provides a more plausible answer, I’m confused as to whether or not the naturalistic worldview can offer any explanation.

Can you help me understand this? Thank you!

In Christ,

C.O.

CMI’s Keaton Halley responds:

Hi C.O.,

I do not think it is possible to account for true (objective) morality or reliable minds apart from God, but that doesn’t stop atheists from trying. In other words, atheists do sometimes offer explanations; it’s just that those ‘explanations’ aren’t any good.

Regarding morality, some atheists have argued that natural selection has hard wired us to act in certain ways that are conducive to human flourishing. Okay, but even if we grant that claim, it would only explain what is, not what ought to be. Indeed, evolutionists admit that some of the predispositions natural selection has supposedly ingrained in us would be immoral to act upon, and we are free to resist those impulses. See Rape and evolution. This shows that evolution would not provide a transcendent standard by which to judge our behavior; at best it would only give us subjective morality—which is really no morality at all. What real morality requires, by contrast, is a proper eternal and immutable authority. See What is ‘good’?

[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

Now, sometimes atheists beg the question by taking human flourishing to be the highest good and then working out a moral system based on that premise. But then the question remains—on atheism, what makes human flourishing good? There’s no reason to single out humans as special, and no reason to treat flourishing as an objective good, unless you’ve already smuggled in a moral standard. But that is the very thing we asked the atheist to explain.

Often, atheists misunderstand the challenge, so they respond by saying that they clearly can recognize what is moral without belief in God. This is irrelevant. Yes, atheists can correctly identify many things that are right and wrong. But our argument is not that you need belief in God to acknowledge morality, or even to act morally. It is that God must exist in order for morality to exist. This is a question of ontology (being), not epistemology (knowing). Atheists can know what is moral, but only because atheism is wrong. See Can we be good without God?

Other atheists claim that objective morality is a brute fact, or something that exists necessarily but does not need to be grounded in God—a Platonic ideal. But this seems incoherent, since such things as love and mercy are properties of persons, not things that can exist independently as abstract objects. Also, even if goodness were a Platonic ideal, it’s still hard to see why human beings would have any obligation toward it. On this view, evil would also exist as a Platonic ideal, so why would we have a duty to be good, but no corresponding duty to be evil? It seems arbitrary without the personal authority of the biblical Creator, whose nature is the standard for goodness, and who deserves our allegiance in virtue of who He is.

[image error]

Pushing the Antithesis (by Ken Gentry)

Sub-title: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore, since atheists deny that there is genuine teleology (goals or purposes) in the world, this should logically lead them to deny free will. But without free will, how could humans even make the choice to be moral or immoral? If we are just ‘moist robots’, as some evolutionists claim, and free will is an illusion, then real morality is impossible. . . .

To read whole article: click

FROM ATHEISM TO JESUS

[image error]PMW 2017-058 by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker (The Veritas Forum)

I grew up in Australia, in a loving, secular home, and arrived at Sydney University as a critic of “religion.” I didn’t need faith to ground my identity or my values. I knew from the age of eight that I wanted to study history at Cambridge and become a historian. My identity lay in academic achievement, and my secular humanism was based on self-evident truths. As an undergrad, I won the University Medal and a Commonwealth Scholarship to undertake my Ph.D. in History at King’s College, Cambridge. King’s is known for its secular ideology and my perception of Christianity fitted well with the views of my fellow students: Christians were anti-intellectual and self-righteous.

After Cambridge, I was elected to a Junior Research Fellowship at Oxford. There, I attended three guest lectures by world-class philosopher and atheist public intellectual, Peter Singer. Singer recognised that philosophy faces a vexing problem in relation to the issue of human worth. The natural world yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities. What about the child whose disabilities or illness compromises her abilities to reason? Yet, without reference to some set of capacities as the basis of human worth, the intrinsic value of all human beings becomes an ungrounded assertion; a premise which needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can take place. [image error]

Pushing the Antithesis (by Ken Gentry)

Sub-title: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

I remember leaving Singer’s lectures with a strange intellectual vertigo; I was committed to believing that universal human value was more than just a well-meaning conceit of liberalism. But I knew from my own research in the history of European empires and their encounters with indigenous cultures, that societies have always had different conceptions of human worth, or lack thereof. The premise of human equality is not a self-evident truth: it is profoundly historically contingent. I began to realise that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear.

One afternoon, I noticed that my usual desk in the college library was in front of the Theology section. With an awkward but humble reluctance, I opened a book of sermons by philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich. As I read, I was struck at how intellectually compelling, complex, and profound the gospel was. I was attracted, but I wasn’t convinced.

[image error]

Getting the Message

(by Daniel Doriani)

Presents solid principles and clear examples of biblical interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A few months later, near the end of my time at Oxford, I was invited to a dinner for the International Society for the Study of Science and Religion. I sat next to Professor Andrew Briggs, a Professor of Nanomaterials, who happened to be a Christian. During dinner, Briggs asked me whether I believed in God. I fumbled. Perhaps I was an agnostic? He responded, “Do you really want to sit on the fence forever?” That question made me realise that if issues about human value and ethics mattered to me, the response that perhaps there was a God, or perhaps there wasn’t, was unsatisfactory.

In the Summer of 2008, I began a new job as Assistant Professor at Florida State University, where I continued my research examining the relationship between the history of science, Christianity, and political thought. With the freedom of being an outsider to American culture, I was able to see an active Christianity in people who lived their lives guided by the gospel: feeding the homeless every week, running community centres, and housing and advocating for migrant farm laborers.

One Sunday, shortly before my 28th birthday, I walked into a church for the first time as someone earnestly seeking God. Before long I found myself overwhelmed. At last I was fully known and seen and, I realised, unconditionally loved – perhaps I had a sense of relief from no longer running from God. A friend gave me C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and one night, after a couple months of attending church, I knelt in my closet in my apartment and asked Jesus to save me, and to become the Lord of my life.

From there, I started a rigorous diet of theology, reading the Bible and exploring theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Ramsey, and F.D. Maurice. Christianity, it turned out, looked nothing like the caricature I once held. I found the story of Jacob wrestling with God especially compelling: God wants anything but the unthinking faith I had once assumed characterized Christianity. God wants us to wrestle with Him; to struggle through doubt and faith, sorrow and hope. Moreover, God wants broken people, not self-righteous ones. And salvation is not about us earning our way to some place in the clouds through good works. On the contrary; there is nothing we can do to reconcile ourselves to God. As a historian, this made profound sense to me. I was too aware of the cycles of poverty, violence and injustice in human history to think that some utopian design of our own, scientific or otherwise, might save us.

Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense. . . .

To continue reading full article: click

MUSLIMS MOVED BY COPTIC RESPONSE

[image error]PMW 2017-057 by Jason Casper (Christianity Today)

[Gentry note: Postmillennialists do not believe Christ’s kingdom comes by “swords’ loud clashing” (cp. John 18:36). The example of these Coptic Christians shows us a powerful tool in evangelism: a steady, Christian witness.]

Twelve seconds of silence is an awkward eternity on television. Amr Adeeb, perhaps the most prominent talk show host in Egypt, leaned forward as he searched for a response.

“The Copts of Egypt … are made of … steel!” he finally uttered.

Moments earlier, Adeeb was watching a colleague in a simple home in Alexandria speak with the widow of Naseem Faheem, the guard at St. Mark’s Cathedral in the seaside Mediterranean city.

On Palm Sunday, the guard had redirected a suicide bomber through the perimeter metal detector, where the terrorist detonated. Likely the first to die in the blast, Faheem saved the lives of dozens inside the church.

“I’m not angry at the one who did this,” said his wife, children by her side. “I’m telling him, ‘May God forgive you, and we also forgive you. Believe me, we forgive you.’

“‘You put my husband in a place I couldn’t have dreamed of.’”

Stunned, Adeeb stammered about Copts bearing atrocities over hundreds of years, but couldn’t escape the central scandal.

“How great is this forgiveness you have!” his voice cracked. “If it were my father, I could never say this. But this is their faith and religious conviction.”

Millions marveled with him across the airwaves of Egypt.

[image error]

Christianity and the World Religions:

By Derek CooperCooper. Examines the rival worldviews found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, Judaism, Islam, and irreligion. He engages these worldviews from a Christian perspective.

See more study materials: www.KennethGentry.com

So also did millions of Copts, recently rediscovering their ancient heritage, according to Ramez Atallah, president of the Bible Society of Egypt which subtitled and recirculated the satellite TV clip.

“In the history and culture of the Copts, there is much taught about martyrdom,” he told CT. “But until Libya, it was only in the textbooks—though deeply ingrained.”

The Islamic State in Libya kidnapped and beheaded 21 mostly Coptic Christians in February 2015. CT previously reported the message of forgiveness issued by their families and the witness it provided.

“Since then, there has been a paradigm shift,” said Atallah. “Our ancestors lived and believed this message, but we never had to.”

Copts date their liturgical calendar from 284 AD, the beginning of the Roman persecution under Diocletian. Troubles with pagan and Muslim rulers have ebbed and flowed over time, but in his Easter message Pope Tawadros lauded the Coptic Orthodox as a “church of the martyrs.”

This history returned with a vengeance in 2010, when the Two Saints Church in Alexandria was bombed on New Year’s Eve. Copts poured out into the streets in anger, presaging the Arab Spring. In the months that followed, Muslims rallied around them and defended their churches.

Nearly seven years later, the nation has grown weary. The Palm Sunday twin suicide bombings killed more than 45 people and are the second ISIS attack on Christian sanctuaries in five months. Twenty-nine people were killed in a suicide bombing at the papal cathedral in Cairo in December. This week, ISIS attacked the famous St. Catherine’s monastery on the southern Sinai peninsula.

[image error]

World Religions and Cults (Bodie Hodge, ed.)

This work is helpful for understanding and combating false religions and cults. It deals with the leading false religious beliefs in the world today. Chapter on apologetics by Ken Gentry.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

All three Christian denominations canceled Easter Sunday festivities, and the Orthodox postponed the reception of condolences. The state declared a three-day period of mourning and held an Easter service for the injured in a military hospital. Muslims reacted in shock and sympathy.

But while signs flutter in public squares about national unity, the visible outpouring of solidarity appears far less.

The atmosphere has changed, said Amro Ali, a Muslim assistant professor of sociology at the American University in Cairo (AUC).

“Among everyone there is now a sense of melancholy,” he said. “The bombings are part of a larger trend where things are just crumbling.”

Following the bombings, the government reimposed a state of emergency (in effect almost every year since the 1980s), expanding police and military powers. Ali connected the mood to the crackdown on activists and the deteriorating economy, but said the Coptic state of depression was more acute.

Many Christians supported current …..

To read whole article: click

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

WOULD CHRIST CREATE THROUGH EVOLUTION?

[image error]PMW 2017-056 by Lita Cosner (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

[Gentry: Modern Christianity has fallen into compromise with secular humanism in many respects today. One of those areas of compromise is in the area of origins, the very first issue raised in the Bible. We believe in the relentless progress of the kingdom against and over all opposition. We do so not because of what we see in the world, but because of what we read in Scripture. God’s word is true, though every man a liar. This is a helpful article exposing the error of adopting the evolutionary worldview as a Christian.]

In an April 2017 contribution to the BioLogos website, NT Wright argued that “If creation is through Christ, evolution is what you would expect”. However, the argumentation is fatally flawed by the assumption of evolution imported onto the text of Scripture.

Wright asserts, “We must somehow start with what we know of Jesus’ own vision of truth and the kingdom and power and ask what that might mean for creation itself.” One consequence, he suggests, is that “if creation comes through the kingdom bringing Jesus, we ought to expect it to be like a seed growing secretly.” He argues that even though most evolutionist scientists are motivated by a non-Christian worldview, they “nonetheless come up with a picture of Origins that looks remarkably like Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom: some seeds go to waste, others bear remarkable fruit; some projects start tiny and take forever, but ultimately produce a great crop; some false starts are wonderfully rescued, others are forgotten. Chaos is astonishingly overcome.”

[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

However, Wright makes an elementary error when he goes to soteriological texts to inform his doctrine of creation, and uses those soteriological texts to override the plain meaning of the cosmological texts! I agree with Wright that our doctrine of Christ is important for our doctrine of creation—the key Christian contribution to the doctrine of creation is the assertion that Jesus is the agent of creation. However, understanding Christ as the Creator did not lead anyone in the church to suddenly take the timescale and mode of creation outlined in Genesis non-literally until after uniformitarian geologists and Darwinian biologists began to challenge the biblical view.

Further, not only does the New Testament assert that Christ is the agent of creation, but also the agent of restoration—that is, when Christ returns and His rule over creation is fully manifest, He will restore creation from the effects of the Curse. This will not take place via a gradual process over billions of years—it will happen instantaneously.

n fact, it is ironic to use Christ’s teaching to try to support an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis, because Jesus’ own use of Genesis shows that He took it plainly. For instance, He clearly believed that Adam and Eve were the first historical people, created ‘at the beginning of creation’.

Wright argues that the wasteful aspect of evolution is in line with the parables Jesus used to teach about the coming of the Kingdom. However, . . .

To continue reading: click

[image error]

For writing course, click: Righteous Writing.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE COST OF DISCIPLESHIP

[image error]PMW 2017-054 by John Stott (1921-2011)

This moving story of one woman’s struggle to remain faithful to the Bible’s teaching is one example of the many thousands in our churches…

Alice was everything I had ever wanted in a partner. After two previous long-term relationships and a few dalliances, I just knew that she was “it”. We were destined to grow old together.

And then randomly, as a non-believer, I started reading the Bible.

When I wasn’t at work, I had my head stuck in this book, and was devouring every word in front of me. During the subsequent months, although I don’t recall reading any of the specific passages, I came to realise that my gay life and behaviour were simply not compatible with this holy and all-powerful God. I just knew that I couldn’t become a Christian and continue with life as I knew it.

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

This left me in a dilemma, for I had only been attracted to my own gender since childhood. The sense of feeling different began around the age of three and only ever deepened and clarified as I entered puberty. While my friends at school started to drool over pictures of pop stars and became giddy at the sight of certain lads from the boys’ school, I longed to be the recipient of their affection. I longed to love and be loved. In the 1970s, however, these were not the kind of feelings to which one could admit. I entered university at 18, finally finding other like-minded women, and soon engaged in my first physical relationship.

Over time, being gay not only felt completely natural to me, but it also became central to who I was as a person; and besides, at this particular stage in my life, I loved and was committed to Alice. The ideal scenario would be for me to become a Christian and continue actively living my life as a gay woman.

I didn’t speak to anyone about my conflict, and in those days, there was precious little to read on the subject. As much as I wanted to absorb Christianity into my life, the more I read God’s word, the less I was convinced that this was possible. This God, if he was who he said he was, demanded so much more than mere integration; he demanded sole rights.

And yet, I was smitten. I was being been wooed by someone who offered everything—everlasting life and love, protection and vision, peace and unfailing commitment. In return, however, this someone demanded that I lay aside all that I had ever known and commit fully to a person I hardly knew.

Openness Unhindered (by Rosaria Butterfield)[image error]

Dr. Butterfield goes to great lengths to clarify some of today’s key controversies. She also traces their history and defines the terms that have become second nature today-even going back to God’s original design for marriage and sexuality as found in the Bible. She cuts to the heart of the problems and points the way to the solution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The angels may well have been rejoicing in heaven at the moment of my conversion, but joy was far from me. I knew that what I was doing was right, but I cried tears of sorrow knowing, at least in part, the immediate cost of taking up the cross of obedient discipleship. I walked away from Alice, the love of my life, a keenly anticipated future, and a mindset that had been fashioned over a 25-year period. My conversion to Christ happened at 2:30 am on January 23 1985.

It would be a lie to say that these past 32 years have been ones of unremitting joy….

To read full article: click