Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 88

PRACTICING POSTMILLENNIALISM (5)

[image error]PMT 2017-044 by Jeffery J. Ventrella

This is our final installment in our five-part series on the practical implementation of postmillennialism. In this article I will consider:

Habituating Christian Humility

Thus far I have explored the ethical implications that should flow from consistently holding to theonomic postmillennialism. In doing so the doctrine (orthodoxy) of this eschatological position has been assumed in order to focus on the conduct (orthopraxis) that the teaching implies: Promoting the primacy of the Gospel; demonstrating evangelistic and missiological zeal; cultivating Christendomic consciousness; and practicing courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement.

However, this entire study would be incomplete without including a discussion of another perspective, one that could be called orthopathos—the proper motive and character of a consistent postmillennialist: humility. Theonomic postmillennialism, properly conceived, should habituate humility. To live the Christian life is to embrace change: personally and culturally. (Rom. 12:1, 2). Postmillennialism—at its essence—extols gracious positive change. Change is intrinsic to postmillennial optimism—and so is humility. Postmillennialism demands humility because the change it promotes and advocates stems from God’s grace.

How does change occur? To be sure, doctrinal precision is certainly an agent of change, for the truth sanctifies: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17 (ESV). Correct doctrinal belief (orthodoxy), therefore, is foundational to change. Yet, Scripture also makes it clear that mere mental assent to a set of correct propositions is insufficient for leading a God-glorifying life. As James demands, doctrine must be applied:

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:17-26 ESV).

But, there is more. Nevertheless, because it is written on the hearts of the regenerate (Jer. 31:34; Deut. 6:1, 6-9), God’s Law requires more. The Christian life must be lived from the heart, that is, with the right motive and affections. As Jesus noted with a penetrating comment: “And he said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me”’” (Mark 7:6 ESV).[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

Here Jesus rebukes those known for doctrinal precision (orthodoxy) and rigorous “works of righteousness” (Cf. Matt. 5:20). However, these religious persons lacked a heart for worship. In short, they lacked orthopathos. This crucial perspective [Note 1] is frequently ignored—often in inverse proportion to one’s doctrinal acumen and enthusiasm. Those greatly concerned for correct doctrinal formulation sometimes deem heart issues to be irrelevant. And yet, this orthopathos is critical to a full-orbed Christian ethic, including postmillennial eschatology. Again, what is the essence of postmillennialism? The essence is that the gospel of grace defeats all God’s enemies in history. Postmillennialism’s optimism, properly understood, rests solely on the grace of the covenant Lord:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:6-7 (ESV)

Note well: it is the Lord who accomplishes the unrelenting increase of the Son’s conquering righteous rule. Similarly, it is Christ who builds his Church which shall topple the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18). It is Christ who reigns until he destroys all his enemies and puts them under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25). And he does these things for his own glory, which he shares with no one. This is why Paul could so emphatically direct the Christian’s boasting to the Lord—not man, not even a theonomic postmillennialist (e.g, 1 Cor. 1:31; 3:20; 2 Cor. 10:17; 11:30; 12:5, et al.). Postmillennialism demands humility by the nature of the case.

Put bluntly, God is not impressed that someone has become an “epistemologically self-conscious theonomic postmillennialist.” One is not “doing God a favor” by holding postmillennial convictions.

Rarely are such thoughts so crassly articulated, of course. But in the heart, they do arise, even if they are carefully camouflaged. To live consistently with this eschatology, Christians must stop flattering themselves—they must reject ungodly pride. No Christian possesses anything that he has not first received, by grace, from God— including his optimistic eschatology: “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1 Cor. 4:7 ESV). Humility is not optional; it is inherent to a Spirit-filled life. Christians, especially postmillennialists, must be humble.

As Reformed and postmillennial believers, we reject semi-Pelegianism, and instead cheer and affirm the necessity of monergistic regeneration: “You must be born again” (John 3:7 ESV). And as Reformed and postmillennial believers, we reject the feel good, simplistic worship experience so commonly practiced today. Instead we guard our worship, understanding that those who come to God “must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24 ESV). But, we tend to ignore another, yet critical, “must” from our Savior’s lips: “And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, ‘If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all’” (Mark 9:35 ESV).

Scripture informs us that serving others is a function of humility, as a Pauline directive exhorts:

“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3 ESV). Pride is antithetical to a biblical life, but it is especially noxious to an optimistic eschatology. One cannot with credibility proclaim the Gospel’s gracious transformational power while simultaneously walking in prideful arrogance and contempt. Postmillennialism’s banner could rightly be the Reformation’s Soli Deo Gloria—because the culture’s transformation is solely attributable to the sovereign God and his profiting of the Gospel through his Son by his Spirit. Pride’s slogan, in contrast however, could be Soli ME-o Gloria. [Note 2] Man seeking to be appreciated, taking credit for events and cultural changes. Ironically, it is the prideful postmillennialist, absent repentance, who may be the one “left behind.”

[image error]

Bringing Heaven Down to Earth

(by Nathan Bierma)

A Reformed study of heaven. By taking a new look at the biblical picture of heaven,

Nathan Bierma shows readers how heaven can be a relevant, meaningful,

inspiring engine of Christian faith and kingdom service.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Truly embracing the orthodoxy of theonomic postmillennialism means deeply understanding and freshly marveling at the gracious sovereignty of God whose zeal alone will accomplish these things. This in turn necessarily means apprehending how pride is an enemy and an offense to a Holy God—the antithesis to faithful postmillennial conviction. A postmillennialist should be habituating humility if he truly embraces optimistic eschatology—not congratulating himself for his having adopted brilliant and unimpeachable eschatological formulations. Here is why.

First, God hates pride:

The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. (Prov. 8:13 ESV)

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. (Prov. 11:2 ESV)

Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished. (Prov. 16:5 ESV)

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Prov. 16:18 ESV)

Make no mistake: God is provoked by a man’s pride, which leads to a second point:

Pride is serious:

“But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’” (James 4:6 ESV). “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble’” (1 Pet. 5:5 ESV). “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11 ESV).

Third, pride is deceptive:

“The horror you inspire has deceived you, and the pride of your heart,

you who live in the clefts of the rock, who hold the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as the eagle’s, I will bring you down from there, declares the Lord” (Jer. 49:16 ESV). “All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the spirit” (Prov.16:2 ESV).

In short, pride is serious, deceptive, and the object of God’s hatred. But, unfortunately, it gets worse. Pride is never static; it always produces fruit—very bad fruit. And this fruit often ripens in those possessing a doctrinaire bent—those who seek to honor God by having their lips eloquently articulate the most precise doctrinal formulations, but whose lives, relationships, and hearts, are actually far from Him.

Where pride exists, God is not only distant, but He becomes the prideful man’s opponent. The Scripture does not teach dispensationalism, but God is not opposed to the humble dispensationalist. (Cf., 2 Tim. 2:24-25). On the other hand, Scripture does teach postmillennialism, but God is opposed to the postmillennialist who is arrogant and haughty. This reality should be sobering and should cause us to flee to the Cross of Grace.

The prideful reader would probably declare a hearty “Amen!” to these conclusions, and that is exactly the trap. Being orthodox—that is, assenting to truthful propositions—in insufficient. Orthodoxy cannot stand alone in the Christian life; real orthodoxy is a perspective on the truth and will be accompanied by right conduct (ethics: orthopraxis) practiced with the proper motivation and passion (heartfelt orthopathos). In some cases, changes must be effected; and this must begin in the heart as repentance from pride. God does not want to hurt your pride; He wants to kill it.

The remaining portion of this study will seek to provoke Cross-centered honest assessment of one’s orthopathos, especially as it relates to pride. Again, theonomic postmillennialism, properly conceived, should draw its adherents to habituate humility. Humility is intrinsic to this eschatological position, and therefore its proponents should increasingly manifest this evidence of grace in their lives.

I call upon the reader to ponder the following descriptions; they are extended because the serious problem of pride runs deep and it is deceptive. Consider whether the root of pride may be producing ungodly fruit in your life. Question whether your life belies your “theologically correct” eschatological confessions. And remember: God stands opposed to the proud, and there is no exemption for the postmillennialist.

As Brent Detweiler notes, the fruits of pride may take the following forms: [Note 3]

1. I tend to be self-sufficient in the way I live. I do not live in a constant awareness that my every breath is dependent upon the will of God. I tend to think that I possess sufficient strength, ability and wisdom to live and manage my life.

2. I am anxious about life and the future. My trust in God vacillates and I rarely experience his abiding and transcendent peace.

3. I am overly self-conscious. I tend to replay how I did, what I did, what I said, how others perceive me, etc. I am concerned about what people think about me.

4. I fear man more than God. I am concerned about how people will react to my words, my conduct and me. I seek the approval of man and not of God.

5. I feel insecure. I tend not to try new things or participate in uncomfortable situations due to a fear of failure or the possibility of looking foolish.

6. I regularly compare myself to others. I am performance oriented, and I feel “more accepted” by God when I do well.

7. I am self-critical. I tend to be a perfectionist. Even when little things go awry, it is difficult to forget them because they reflect poorly on me.

8. I desire to receive credit and recognition for what I do. I like people to see what I do and let me know that they noticed—and I feel offended when they do not. I am overly concerned with my reputation

and hate being misunderstood.

9. I want people to be impressed with me, and to make my accomplishments known.

10. I tend to be deceptive regarding myself. I find myself lying to preserve or enhance my reputation.

11. I am selfishly ambitious. I want to get ahead, and enjoy have a position or title of import and significance.

12. I am overly competitive. I always desire to win and it bothers me when I do not.

13. I enjoy being the center of attention and will conduct myself to draw attention to me.

14. I like to talk, especially about myself. I would rather speak than listen, and find it difficult to be succinct.

15. I am self-serving. When asked to participate or do something, I find myself asking, “How will doing this help me, or will I be inconvenienced?”

16. I am not excited about seeing other successful or making others successful. I tend to be envious, and/or critical towards those who are doing well or being honored.

17. I feel superior because of what I have or do: my house, my job, my physical giftings, my intellectual giftings, my education and intellect, my spiritual or theological prowess.

18. I think highly of myself. In relation to others, I view myself a more mature an more gifted. I have more to offer others than they have to offer me.

[image error]

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 mp3 lectures)

Southern California Center for Christian Studies seminar.

Lecture presentations and some classroom interaction.

Very helpful definition, presentation, and defense of postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

19. I tend to give myself credit for who I am and what I accomplish.

20. I tend to be self-righteous. I think that I have something to offer to God, that He needs me in order to fulfill His plan. I regularly focus on the sins of others, and seldom credit God for any degree of holiness in my life.

21. I feel deserving. I think that I deserve what I have, and often believe that I should have more because of how I have lived and in light of what I have done.

22. I often express ingratitude. I tend to grumble about God’s providence as applied to my life.

23. I find myself wallowing in self-pity. I often lament and complain about how I am being treated by God and others. I tend to feel mistreated and misunderstood.

24. I can be envious of others’ abilities, possessions, positions or accomplishments. I find it difficult to rejoice with others when they are blessed and I am not.

25. I am inattention to others. I find difficulty in expressing compassion to others.

26. I have a know-it-all attitude. I am impressed with my own knowledge. I believe that I cannot learn much from others.

27. I find it difficult to listen to ordinary people. I listen better to those I respect or people with whom I want to leave a good impression

28. I like to reveal my own mind. I have an answer to every conversation and feel that I must provide balance to every context.

29. I interrupt people regularly.

30. I feel compelled to stop people if they begin to share something with me that I already know.

31. I find it hard to admit that I do not know something.

32. I rarely “get much” from public teaching. I tend to evaluate the speaker rather than my own life. I grumble in my heart about hearing something a second (or third) time.

33. I listen to exhortative or corrective teaching with other people in mind. I constantly apply such teaching to others.

34. I am not open to input, let alone correction, in my life. I tend to be unteachable and slow to repent, and I certainly do not pursue correction in my life. I view correction for my life negatively, and tend to resent it when people probe hearts issues or my motivations.

35. I find it difficult to admit error. I tend to cover or excuse my sins, and it is hard for me to confess sin and seek forgiveness.

36. I view correction as an intrusion into my privacy rather than as an instrument of the sovereign God for my welfare.

37. I resent people who try to correct me. I do not respond with gratefulness and appreciation for their concern. I tend to become bitter and withdraw.

38. When corrected, I become contentious and quarrelsome. I explain away their points or their method.

39. I am easily provoked, angered, or offended. I am bother when others disagree with me or disregard my thinking.

40. I have “personality conflicts” with others.

41. I have self-willed and stubborn. Cooperation is difficult and I prefer doing things my own way.

42. I am independent and uncommitted. I am really not persuaded that I need other people and I regularly view meetings as a waste of time.

43. I am unaccountable. I do not ask others to hold me accountable, and I do not believe that should be accountable to others for my word and actions.

44. I am unsubmissive. I do not like being under authority, and I do not view submission as something from God as a good and necessary provision for my life. It is difficulty for me to serve those in authority over me; what is important is that my voice be heard.

45. I lack respect for other people. I do not view other highly and I find it difficult to encourage and honor others.

46. I am a slanderer. I find myself giving or receiving evil reports of others

47. I am divisive. I tend to resist or resent authority. I tend to disregard and disavow people giving me orders or direction.

48. I tend to demean others. It is the “other guy” who needs correction, humility and to be put in place.

49. I tend to be critical of others. I find it far easier to evaluate, rather than encourage, some one else.

50. I view myself as being humble, a perfect mixture of orthodoxy, orthopraxis, and orthopathos.

God’s Word has been given to sanctify, that is, to change the fallen creation. That change begins in the heart of sinful man and then—and only then—does it transform the culture. Certainly, what one believes matters, as well as what one does. But without humility spawned by the Gospel, all the right credenda and all the right agenda will ultimately only serve the flesh—to man’s, not God’s.

To hold an optimistic eschatology, however, should enervate fleshly pride because postmillennialism is not simply about the future; it is about the present. The certainty of God’s future transformation of fallen creation should precipitate a present ethic and a present pathos comporting with that telos.

Theonomic postmillennialism demands, not merely a declaration, but a heartfelt intentional demonstration of the Gospel’s fruit: Promoting the primacy of the Gospel; demonstrating evangelistic and missiological zeal; cultivating Christendomic consciousness; and practicing courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement. And, habituating humility. Only by having pride be left behind will “the earth be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” Postmillennialism and the Gospel demand no less.

Notes

1. In rehearsing these perspectives, one is reminded of Frame’s perspectivalsim: normative (orthodoxy), situational (orthopraxis), and existential (orthopathos). See generally, John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1987), perspectivally dealing with epistemological questions. Compare, Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), perspectivally dealing with ethical questions. Frame and Bahnsen are effectively rehearsing the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith (see: WCF 15:7).

2. Credit is due to Alan E. Sears, President and General Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund for crafting this clever, but effective turn of phrase.

3. This entire list stems from a paper delivered by Brent Detweiler, http://www.pdinet.org. It has been largely quoted and Detweiler’s text has only been slightly altered from the original.

PRACTICING POSTMILLENNIALISM (4)

[image error]PMT 2017-043 by Jeffery J. Ventrella, J.D.

In this series on the practice of postmillennialism we now come to our fourth installment. We will now consider:

Practicing Cultural Engagement

Certainly God works “all things according to the counsel of his will,” but the Lord also “works in you, both to will and to do his good pleasure.” (Eph. 1:11; Phil. 2:13, ESV). The Creator of the universe has ordained that men, and especially redeemed men, should be agents for accomplishing His eschatological purpose. As morally responsible agents, men choose and men make critical (and not-so-critical) decisions. A postmillennial eschatology demands that, when choosing, men consciously practice courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement.

In the year 480 B.C. the Persian Army was advancing to war, one million troops strong. Xerexes purposed next to invade Greece with his war machine. As the foreign threat mounted, choices stood before the Grecians. On the one hand, they could simply acquiesce to foreign rule like so many other nations had done in the face of the overwhelming military odds. On the other hand, they could resist—and perhaps provide hope for future generations. The character of tomorrow’s culture stood in the balance.

The gateway to the Hellenists was Sparta, via Thermopolis, the “Gates of Fire.” Everyone knew it. The Grecian City-States, after counseling together, resolved to resist Xerxes’s Army and to do so at this point of entry. Knowing that death was certain, 300 Spartans prepared for battle in order to defend their homeland from the Persian juggernaut—a million man march. As anticipation grew, Sparta’s advance scouts reported that when the Persian archers launched their volleys, the multitude of their arrows darkened the sky by eclipsing the sun. Faced with this reality, the Spartan Captain, Dienekes commented: “Good; today we shall battle in the shade.”

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

As the initial battle line formed, the Persian emissaries exhorted the overwhelmingly out numbered Spartans to surrender their weapons for resistance would be futile. The emissaries demanded and yet pleaded: “Lay down your weapons.” Sparta’s King Leonidas responded laconically: Molon labe, “come and get them.” And so, the battle raged—300 Spartans against Persian’s million man military machine.

The 300 Spartans fought fiercely for seven days; each of them died as everyone expected; there would be no fairy tail ending, and certainly no rapture. Astonishingly, however, 20,000 Persians died. This battle, and more importantly, Sparta’s decision to resist, proved crucial to the development of Western Civilization because on the very day that the last Spartan died, the Grecian navy soundly defeated the invading Persian navy at the Straits of Salamis, thereby turning back the advancing Byzantium tide. [Note 1] The Spartans strategically counted the cost: enduring short term suffering in order to gain long term cultural victory.

Christians know that all history serves God and His sovereign purposes, and that therefore, much can be gleaned from the past. The Battle of Thermopylae illustrates principles valuable to those engaged in the necessarily antithetical (and spiritually bellicose) cultural battle. Exactly why would 300 obviously outnumbered men leave family and home in order to exert themselves unto a certain death? The Persian army was large precisely because many of its foes simply were “absorbed” by surrendering into the larger organization; these foes apparently received an offer they could not refuse. Why did the Spartans choose otherwise; why did they choose sure death, instead of life as a member of the world’s greatest military machine?

One answer lies in their eschatology: they understood very well that their culture, if it would survive, could not be melded into another, particularly by force. Accordingly, they rejected pragmatism—saving their skin today only to thereby forfeit their children’s tomorrow. Instead, they knew—as a matter of principle—what was ultimately at stake—the telos or eschaton—of the historic moment facing them: the very extinction of their culture. As a result, they confronted the event strategically and courageously. As one man quipped: “Courage is the flower of conviction.” [Note 2]

The courage to stand and battle in the face of certain short-term failure derives from the conviction of long-term success. For the Christian, however, especially the postmillennial Christian, this orientation should be more than psychological: The victory contemplated is not simply probable or highly probable; it is certain. A firm grasp and conviction of God’s certain triumph over all His enemies —progressively in history—will spawn the necessary courage for Christians to resist pragmatic cultural compromise, and instead will motivate Christians—from all callings—to engage the culture strategically.

What does it mean to engage the culture strategically? Postmillennialism holds that God’s advancement of the kingdom is principled, that is, according to his standards (Matt. 6:33). And, it is incremental—not revolutionary (Mark 4:26-29). One must be intentional, and yet patient. Thus, to act strategically is to embrace a willingness and intention to swing a sharp well-placed sword for ten years rather than carelessly wield a dull blunt one for thirty. Action for action’s sake can create more problems (notorious “unintended consequences”) than originally anticipated.

Redeeming Pop Culture[image error]

by T. M. Moore

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As a result, merely making the public square “more conservative” or “pluralistic” does not necessarily promote the Kingdom. Again we need confidence in the future, as crafted and ordained by God Almighty, in order to resist the temptation simply to be pragmatic, or conversely, so idealistic so as to be devoid of meaningful cultural tactics. [Note 3] Here are two illustrations:

School Vouchers: Many engaged in the cultural battle hold convictions that the State lacks any justifiable interest in funding education, the obvious exception being the State’s discharge of legitimate military training and related education. [Note 4] Does this conviction necessarily mean, however, that a Christian should categorically oppose all efforts designed to promote the establishment of a voucher system? To answer affirmatively betrays a decontextualized idealism, devoid of strategic and tactical considerations. A more principled approach should consider whether any tactical benefit can occur if vouchers are established. A Christian can, consistent with his convictions, still support a voucher system, if—and this is key—he is also at liberty (and sufficiently disciplined) to refuse to use vouchers once the system is in place. This approach fosters cultural renewal because it (1) breaks the public education monopoly; and (2) promotes parental authority over children. Gracious strategic thinking advances the Kingdom.

The Homosexual Legal Agenda in corporate America: No right thinking Christian can support “gay rights” (as distinct from uniformly applicable civil rights). But, the tactical question centers on how to respond—in action—to corporate America’s rapidly advancing adoption of sexual orientation-based non-discrimination policies, domestic partnership benefits, and “safe zones.” Often, for those Christians who are no longer content with silence, [Note 5] “boycotts” are encouraged. [Note 6] While this may personally placate the consciences of some, the effectiveness of this tactic long term is dubious. In reality, a better strategic approach may well be to infiltrate publicly held companies (by stock purchases) and then tactically exercise voting rights and other ownership privileges, in an effort to bring pressure to bear upon corporate policy and practice.

Many more examples of strategic choices—both positive and negative—could be cited:

• how the failure to oppose in-vitro fertilization experimentation has spawned (no pun intended) today’s stem cell controversy;

• how the uncritical acceptance of contraception as a “privacy right” fostered the removal of reproduction, and thus sexuality from the marital context, furthering the justification for abortion on demand;

• how principled progress, through strategic effort, is occurring in the realm of First Amendment jurisprudence for the public promotion of the gospel: Mergens, [Note 8] Lamb’s Chapel, [Note 8] Rosenberger, [Note 9], Good News Club. [Note 10]

As these decisions evidence, truly strategic choices must reflect the intention to patiently build cultural cathedrals—not “quick fix” tin shacks with stylized fish pasted somewhere on the doorposts in lieu of God’s Law (Deut. 6:9).

If the Spartans possessed eschatological clarity to understand the long term significance of their present actions, how much more should Christians ponder their own courses of action. The ethics of optimistic eschatology demand that Christians live and choose actions that reflect courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement. What we do now indeed will echo in eternity. We must choose today consistently with what God has purposed for tomorrow. We must choose ethically, and therefore, we must choose eschatologically. Any other result would be, in a word, antinomian.

(One final installment in our series remains! See you soon!)

Notes

1. For an engaging, yet historically accurate fictionalization of this great battle, see, Steven Pressfield, Gates of Fire : An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae (Thorndike, Me.: G. K. Hall,1998).

2. Thanks to my long time friend and co-laborer, Alfred J. Poirier, for this aphorism.

3. While postmillennialists rightly note that cultural retreatism often accompanies dispensational eschatology, the sad truth is that some postmillennialists, who glibly proclaim Christ’s historical victory from some rustic enclave often fail to operationally understand that God’s victory only comes through purposeful strategic means to the promised eschatological telos. And thus, these men become the functional equivalent of cultural retreatists themselves, doing nothing more than “huckleberry picking for Jesus” while waiting for the golden age to come—in spite of their rhetoric to the contrary. God ordains both the means as well as the end.

4. See, Machen, Education, Christianity, and the State (Jefferson, Mary.: Trinity Foundation, 1987).

5. See, Tom Minnery, Why You Can’t Stay Silent : A Biblical Mandate to Shape Our Culture (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 2001) for a popular, yet instructive historical account of strategic Christian cultural involvement throughout several illustrative cultural periods.

6. Just how a Christian, in today’s secular society, could consistently support every advocated boycott and yet still live in this world seems never to be explained by the boycott advocates

7. Board of Education v. Mergens, 110 S.Ct. 2356 (1990) (equal access precedent).

8. Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 113 S.Ct. 231 (1993) (equal access to public school facilities by outside organizations).

9. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2515 (1995) (public forum precedent).

10. Good News Club v. Millford Central Sch., 121 S.Ct. 2093 (2001) (equal access principle extended to elementary public schools).

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

PRACTICING POSTMILLENNIALISM (3)

[image error]PMT 2017-042 by Jeffery J. Ventrella, J.D.

This is the third installment in the series. In this issue we will highlight:

Cultivating Christendomic Consciousness

Theonomic postmillennialism also demands that one cultivate Christendomic consciousness. God has promised to redeem “a people”consecrated for His purposes. This coming reality will progress in history (“living stones” fitted together to form a “New Temple”) and will climax as an eschatological collective (the Bride, the New Jerusalem, etc.). Accordingly therefore, to live consistently with these coming eschatological realities requires Christians intentionally to develop an awareness for God’s present Christendomic work in, among, with, and through His people.

While it is true that God elects particular sinners for redemption, it is also true that the promise of the New Covenant is explicitly couched in terms of God’s gathering of a collective people—loved by God and unified in thought and deed. It is this redeemed collective which grows intergenerationally under the Lord’s ruling hand:

They shall be My people, and I will be their God: then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And, I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not run away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in the land, with all My heart and with all My soul. (Jeremiah 32:38-41)(NKJV)

As God in history gathers his eschatological people, postmillennialism (and the Bible) teaches that this gathering will be incrementally yet unmistakably manifested over time—just as Jesus taught parabolically in the leaven and the mustard seed parables (Matt. 13:31-33). Critically, however, this manifestation occurs along the lines of the Antithesis—that judicially instituted hostility and enmity existing between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15). This concept demarcates on the one hand the battle between God’s people and His gathering them together, and on the other hand, the “darkness,” the “tares,” the “goats,” and the “dogs,” i.e. the covenant breakers. [Note 1]

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond[image error]

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This enmity “plays out” in history and does so with communal dimensions as recognized early by the Church Fathers: Jerusalem versus Athens (Tertullian); the City of God versus the City of Man (Augustine). [Note 2] And, this communal expression of antithesis recurs throughout redemptive history as the Lord divides, delivers, and even destroys—all for the sake of expanding his Kingdom to his glory alone. The Garden; Noah and the Flood, Lot and Sodom; the Tower of Babel; the lives of the Patriarchs; the Exodus—in each case, the Lord divides along the line of the antithesis, delivers His people, and then destroys the covenant breakers. The Lord God is an active God whose work continues eschatologically —but does so along antithetical Christendomic lines.

Sadly, however, much of the American church has lost its Christendomic consciousness. That is, the modern Church has lost the confident vision of God’s certain eschatological purpose to save a people, dwell with them, do good to them, and rejoice over them all for His own glory. Instead, God’s people do not really engage the cultural antithetically, but rather spawn conflicts of Light v. Light; Wheat v. Wheat; and Sheep v. Sheep. Christians, including many Reformed Christians, endlessly debate the footnotes in the City of God’s Zoning and Building Codes while the City of Man is quickly and incessantly stealing and/or poisoning the Christians’ water, power, and homesteads. [Note 3] Christ’s living waters have been converted into a stagnant evangelical quagmire. This should not be, and yet this occurs regularly because Christians fail to conduct their affairs in terms of Jeremiah’s eschatological promise: God is gathering one people and He purposes to rejoice in them and do good to them. Christians must therefore recover a Christendomic Consciousness—that is, an eschatological understanding of God’s purpose to sanctify His people—imperfect as they now are. A postmillennial confession supplies the motive and the mandate for doing so.

Recovering a Christendomic consciousness means among other things keeping the main thing, the main thing. The Scripture’s priorities must be recaptured—in both word and deed, faith and works, doctrine and duty. [Note 4] Many obstacles or constraints impair Christendomic Conscriouness, even among those professing an optimistic eschatology. [Note 5] Here are some suggestions for remedying this situation:

Being Long-Suffering with Our Brothers: Second Timothy 2:22-25 requires servants of the Lord to be gentle, patient, and humble. And the reality is that, according to Christ, love is the mark of the visible church (John 13:34, 35). [Note 6] While differences among brothers are important and ought to be resolved, they are differences among brothers, and should be considered accordingly. [Note 7]

Negating the Cult of Personality: The Reformed often (and rightly) critique Rome’s Papacy, and yet splintered Protestantism, including the Reformed, seems nevertheless to function in terms of many Popes or other Pied Pipers. “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, or Calvin, or Augustine, or Machen, or Clark, or Van Til, or whomever—with a bit of reflection, this list could be greatly extended. [Note 8] The reality is, however, that neither Calvin (nor any other great or not-so-great leader) died for anyone’s sins, and though Christians do and ought to learn with gratitude from those whom God has illumined, a divisive party-spirit has no place in the Kingdom. One solution to the party-spirit is to intentionally foster Christendomic consciousness. After all, loyalty is owed exclusively to Christ alone.

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

Pursuing Biblical Peacemaking: Where schism exists, reconciliation in the gospel should be actively pursued. Jesus makes this point with utmost clarity and urgency: worship itself is secondary where brothers are estranged by personal offense (Matthew 5:23, 24). To be conscious of the covenant requires reality in relationships, especially where conflict exists.

Postmillennialism provides a biblically tenable basis for hope in God’s future grace. But we must not forget that God’s decree ordains both the end as well as the means. [Note 9] Christians must “work out their own salvation,” and this means ethical living by God’s holy standard, that is, theonomic living. But note: Paul’s command to do so (Phil. 2:12) is a conclusion he draws after admonishing Christians to embrace a Christendomic consciousness:

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.

(Phil. 2: 3-5) (ESV).

Theonomic postmillennialism demands no less.

To be continued.

Notes

1. There is perhaps no more enduring explication of the Antithesis than Augustine’s The City of God.

2. Modern American evangelicalism, including many in the Reformed community, continue to be negatively impacted by the individualistic semi-Pelegianism of Nineteenth Century revivalism and Scofieldism and its progeny, and thus have lost the robust Christendomic consciousness generated by the Antithesis. Witness the remarkable publishing success of The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind Series.

3.As Professor John Frame once lamented when faced with the seemingly endless presbyterial energy expended upon “perfecting minutes”: “I often wished someone had asked seriously how high a priority God would have us place on the perfection of minutes!” John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1991), 123, n. 11.

4. These dialectics describe what the Scriptures principally teach, as the Shorter Catechism summarizes in Question 3.

5. Paraphrasing Steve Schlissel: “Isn’t it a shame that the first thing two Reformed people do when they first meet is to find out where they disagree?”

6. Why the Reformers omitted “love” as being a mark of the church is baffling. Bahnsen issued an insightful corrective to the traditional Reformed position by arguing that biblical fellowship (as well as evangelistic effort) should be recognized as necessary features of a viable biblical church in addition to the three traditionally articulated marks. See, Ventrella, Ecclesiastic Consequences of Theonomic Presuppositionalism (1996).

7. As Bahnsen once quipped when reflecting upon the often-deplorable state of Christian scholarly debate: “Isn’t it too bad that quarrels interfere with good arguments.”

8. Consider the current evangelical appetite for “left behind” dispensationalism, or the enthusiastic promotion, embracing (and heralding by the secular media) of a self-conscious modalist as being “the next Billy Graham.” Or, more close to home, consider the various band-wagons beginning to circle in Reformed communities, trumpeting educational, marriage or parenting modalities. Indeed, entire congregations are being founded on narrow trendy preferences relating to one version of practical theology for the family, a sort of monotheistic Mormonism, rather than biblical Christendomic consciousness.

9. See, e.g., WCF 3:1 and also LC 18.

 

PRACTICING POSTMILLENNIALISM (2)

[image error]This is the second in a series on the practice of postmillennialism. Too often postmillennialists are theoreticians rather than practitioners. This ought not be! In this article we consider:

Demonstrating Evangelistic Zeal

I have shown how true postmillennial zeal promotes the primacy of the gospel. The cross is foundational to God’s eschatological victory; in fact, the cross guarantees eschatological victory. Correlatively, theonomic postmillennialism also demands that one demonstrate evangelistic and missiological zeal as well. I will now explore this latter ethical implication of optimistic eschatology.

God’s Word confidently describes the Lord’s expanding reign:

His name shall endure forever; His name shall continue as long as the sun. And men shall be blessed in Him; All nations shall call Him blessed. Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who only does wondrous things! And blessed be His glorious name forever! And let the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen. (Psalm 72: 17-19)

Sadly, in Reformed circles many confess evangelism’s necessity, but few practice it. An ethical gap exists between declaration and demonstration. James condemns such hypocrisy: “but be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22).

Reformed Christians must ponder just how the whole earth will “be filled with [God’s] glory” and just how “all nations shall call Him blessed.” Are these phrases just nice sounding shibboleths? If not, then what conduct—here and now—is the Lord pleased to use in order to transform these proclamations into reality?

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

As Calvinists, Reformed Christians certainly know the academic answer to these questions: God uses “secondary causes” for effecting His Decree (WCF 3:1). But again, from an ethical standpoint demonstration must accompany declaration. It is humbling to see just how impoverished Reformed missiology—indeed, evangelical missiology—is today.

On a global scale, consider the following sample data: Surveying the missionary output of Singapore, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, The United States, The United Kingdom, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, and Brazil, we discover that only one of them, Singapore, sends more than one missionary per Christian congregation. The cumulative average ratio of missionaries per congregation for these twelve nations is a deplorable 0.12.

[Note 1] Thousands of congregations exist within these twelve countries and yet a covenantal and tangible commitment by the local churches to support personally-known missionaries is decidedly lacking. Reformed congregations fare no better.

For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church includes scores of congregations, but supports only fifteen foreign missionaries. [Note 2] Money follows ministry. If a congregation’s (or denomination’s) heart promotes missiological zeal, then funding to effectuate that zeal will not be lacking. As someone once quipped: “God’s work, done God’s way, will never lack God’s funding.”

The Reformed faith is “Christianity come into its own,”according to B.B. Warfield. It alone provides the potent doctrinal foundation that both motivates and sustains missiological efforts. On paper, therefore, the Reformed churches should have the “market cornered” in evangelism and missions. Sadly, they do not. Why?

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

One reason the gospel is not promiscuously and zealously proclaimed stems from a heart problem: the fear of man. [Note 3] “We don’t want to be Arminian.” “Door to door knocking is outdated.” “God is sovereign; He will bring people to our [dead, lifeless, rote, unfriendly, inhospitable, clannish] church in His time, but in secret we hope He doesn’t.” [Note 4] As the Scripture makes plain: “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe.” (Proverbs 29:25 (ESV)). Are we more interested in “Reformedness” than being faithful? [Note 5]

The reality is, however, as Calvinist Ernest Reisigner declared: “The church that does not evangelize will fossilize, that is, dry up and become useless to Christ and the world.”[Note 6]

Evangelism and missiological efforts are not somehow antithetical to the robust Calvinism of the Reformed faith. Just the opposite is true. And this is especially the case when Calvinism melds with an optimistic eschatology, as was done by the father of modern missions, William Carey and the Puritans before him. [Note 7]

The vitality of the Reformed faith instills great confidence in missiological efforts. The doctrines of grace ascribe to God the certainty of salvation, for the Calvinist believes that “as many are were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48, ASV). Reformed doctrine teaches—rightly—that evangelistic and missiological efforts cannot not succeed. Enter postmillennial eschatology.

The Bible teaches that not only does God eternally elect, effectively call, sovereignly regenerate individuals whom he has appointed unto life, but also that he has purposed and willed, according to his good pleasure, to call many multitudes into His Kingdom. Indeed, the prophet avers without hesitation or qualification: “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:9). Consequently, the doctrines of grace also provide the certainty of kingdom expansion. Appropriately then, Christ is the “savior [soter] of the world” (1 John 4:14). [Note 8]

This eschatological certainty should fuel evangelistic and missiological zeal. Most self-conscious postmillennialists would “amen” this conclusion, but the ethical questions remain: Is this confession being demonstrated in one’s life? Does one practice what one professes?

Here are a few simple, but effective “fog-clearing” diagnostic questions:

• Do your family devotions contain not only instruction regarding, but also a passion for the lost?

• Do your prayers beckon the Lord to open doors for His Word—among the unconverted, or is “evangelism” directed predominantly to “converting” the non-Reformed? [Note 9]

• Does your mind automatically conceive of “missions” as being an impersonal excursion to African subcontinent while your own neighbors have never heard the gospel from your own lips?

• Does your checkbook reflect not only commitment, but sacrifice for the gospel’s spread?

• Do you routinely disparage the outreach efforts of other members of Christ’s Body merely because their theological acumen fails to meet your own private convictions or preconceived preferences?

• Do your mission efforts embrace the antithesis or do you spend your efforts seeking to convert fellow covenant keepers?

When taken to heart, postmillennial convictions embrace evangelism and discipleship with gusto. If the gospel is not primary and if one does not burn with a passion for converting and disciplining the nations, then his optimistic eschatological confession is suspect. Frankly, such a confession would be nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing.

Eschatology matters, and it matters on a personal ethical level. May God kindle a raging fire for evangelical and missiological zeal in his Church, especially among those who embrace the Scripture’s optimistic eschatology. Anything less would be, in a word, antinomian.

This series will continue. Stay tuned!

Notes

1. John Piper, The Pleasures of God (2d. ed.: Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 2000), 114.

2. To somewhat balance this equation, it should also be noted that in the past decade the OPC’s efforts in supporting church planting “home missionaries” has greatly increased resulting in the establishment of many new congregations. Currently, the OPC supports thirty-four such “Home mission” works, many of which involve my friends and acquaintances. But the central point remains: are these new congregations now expressing missiological and evangelistic zeal?

3. For a trenchant analysis of the idolatry that fuels the fear of man, see, Edward T. Welch, When People Are Big and God Is Small : Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1997).

4. Examples of similar, functional hyper-Calvinism could be multiplied. In fact, one supposedly reformed pastor actually expressed that he did not want the congregation to grow numerically because he (and his relatives) would lose control. The good news is that God frequently removes the candlestick, or to change the metaphor, the shepherd, from such authoritarian churches. (See, Ezek 34: 1-10). For a telling expose of churches that abuse authority, albeit from a non-reformed doctrinal perspective, see, Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures : A Path to Freedom from Abusive Churches (2d. ed.: Chattanooga, Tenn.: Control Techniques, 2000).

5. Certainly, the Reformed faith is biblical faith, but sadly, even good things can become idols for a Christian’s fallen heart, and thus a delight for “being the most Reformed” can replace a zeal for delighting in Christ.

6. Ernest C. Reisinger, Today’s Evangelism—Its Message and Methods (Craig Press, Phillipsburg, N.J. 1982), xv.

7. Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1971).

8. See Warfield’s important article “The Propitiation for the Sins of the Whole World.”

9. This is not to deprecate the importance of “sheep rescuing” as opposed to “sheep stealing.”

[image error]

PRACTICING POSTMILLENNIALISM (1)

[image error]PMT 2017-040 by Jeffery J. Ventrella, J.D.

In this study series, I will addresses a vital, yet often overlooked topic: the ethics of eschatology. Stated simply the pertinent question posed is: If theonomic postmillennialism is true—and it certainly is—then what differences here and now should this conviction make in the lives of Christians and their churches? What should be the character, and what should be the conduct of a professing postmillennialist?

The answer to this question is multi-faceted. At least five ethical implications flow from postmillennial convictions. Theonomic postmillennialism—rightly conceived and practiced—demands our:

Promoting Gospel Primacy;

Demonstrating Evangelistic Zeal;

Cultivating Christendomic Consciousness;

Practicing Cultural Engagement; and

Habituating Christian Humility.

Promoting Gospel Primacy

Paul addressed the church at Corinth with a singularly focused purpose: “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). The foundation for Paul’s instruction, exhortation and admonition to these believers was the Cross, the gospel of Christ. In this context Paul presents a victorious eschatology to these Christians: “For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). Does a connection exist between these pronouncements regarding the Cross and eschatological victory? The postmillennialist believes it does.

[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

Paul expressed eschatological confidence precisely because he held the gospel as primary. This is because he rightly acknowledged that the gospel is transformational in the very nature of the case: Indeed, the gospel of Christ “is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16). Therefore, according to Scripture the cause of societal transformation is the gospel—not political or familial reconstruction.

Unfortunately, theonomic postmillennialism has been maligned and even slandered as

promoting either some form of social gospel or a “Jewish dream.” Nevertheless, the expositors and defenders of this optimistic eschatology have ardently underscored the gospel’s predominance in advancing God’s postmillennial victory. Indeed, the gospel’s priority in postmillennial eschatology has been set forth with utter and unmistakable clarity. Consider the following contemporary proponents of theonomic postmillennialism:

Rousas J. Rushdoonyi:

• “Evil men will not produce a good society. The key to social renewal is individual regeneration.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, 122).

• “Clearly there is no hope for man except in regeneration. . . . The salvation of man includes his restoration into the image of God and the calling implicit in that image, to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion. Hence, the proclamation of the gospel was also the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, according to all the New Testament.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, 449).

• “Without regenerating grace, man cannot keep God’s law and discharge his duties.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, study147).

• “The fall of man has not altered this calling, although it has made its fulfilment impossible apart from Christ’s regenerating work.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, 163).

• “In terms of God’s law, true reform begins with regeneration and then the submission of the believer to the whole law-word of God. The degenerate pretenders to reform want to reform the world by beginning with their opponents, with any and everyone save themselves.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, 627).

• “The source of peace is man’s regeneration in Christ; it is more than the cessation of hostilities : it is the growth of communion and it is personal fulfilment in Christ as well.” (Rushdoony, Institutes, 780).

Greg L. Bahnsen:

•“Postmillennialism maintains that the victorious advance of Christ’s kingdom in this world will take place in terms of the present peaceful and spiritual power of the gospel” (Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus, 42).

•“Postmillennialism believes in the gradual growth and success of the kingdom of God by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Church’s preaching of the gospel” (Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus, 43).

Kenneth L. Gentry. Jr.:

• “That theonomists speak of God’s kingdom as a civilization does not mean that they do not see this civilization as grounded in spiritual regeneration” (Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 224).

•“This era of dominion will produce the worldwide transformation of society through the preaching of the gospel and individuals’ widespread positive response to the message of redemption—a continuity of dominion” Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 232).

•“This is not accomplished by political imposition, but spiritual transformation” (Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 245).

•“Postmillennialists believe that evangelism is the absolute precondition to worldwide, postmillennial, theocratic success . . . . Thus, postmillennialism seeks the Christianization of the world by the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Evangelism has priority in Christianization” (Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 259–60).

As these excerpts demonstrate, holding theonomic postmillennial convictions necessitates that the gospel occupy preeminence. And just as plainly these excerpts illustrate that those who would malign postmillennialism either are uninformed or willfully refuse to accurately characterize the position.

Nevertheless, it is one thing to accurately profess postmillennialism; it is quite another to practice it. That is, to function in terms of its implications. To rightly practice postmillennialism requires that one promote the primacy of the gospel. The gospel is not to be treated as a “spare tire,” simply annexed to the SUV’s of our lives and then hastily grasped only during dire emergencies. Changing the metaphor, the gospel is not simply the “door” to a new home, something quickly left behind as one proceeds into the living quarters of the house. Rather, the gospel is life itself and it is something that needs to be preached to oneself, even (especially) after one “gets saved.” [Note 1]

[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

Far too often, those holding theonomic and postmillennial convictions have expended time and effort on society’s transformation, but have neglected the cause and foundation for that transformation: the gospel. They have focused on the desired effect, rather than cultivating the necessary cause. [Note 2] It is no coincidence that John Owen, the craftsman of the explicitly postmillennial Savoy Declaration, rightly warned: “He who has small thoughts of sin never has had great thoughts of God.” The gospel matters. Only a great God can transform a fallen society, a society overrun with sinful men. Yet the Lord has chosen to do just that—by the gospel. The gospel must therefore be primary, not only in theory but in practice..

The Lord in this day has graciously rekindled the vision and hope of optimistic eschatology. This generation’s postmillennialists must therefore grasp the heart of that eschatology, the transformational gospel of Christ. By the power of God, through means of God’s grace is how the serious theonomic postmillennialist operates, therefore he must promote the primacy of the gospel. Absent that emphasis, priority, and passion, one is not a true postmillennialist; rather, he is simply a vain moralistic pretender.

In the next study in this series we will consider: evangelistic zeal.

Notes

1. Nineteenth century revivalistic philosophy continues to influence American Christianity: this is especially noticeable in two areas: (1) the disregard or even absence of ecclesiastical authority and (2) more pertinent here, the reduction and limitation of “salvation” to personal conversion or “fire insurance,” rather than conceiving of salvation biblically, as involving a comprehensive way of life lived under Christ’s redeeming Kingship. For helpful insight concerning the notion of “preaching the gospel to yourself,” see, Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace : God’s Role and Our Role in the Pursuit of Holiness (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994).

2. Query whether the Reformed have simply aped evangelicalism’s “how to” mentality by issuing paperback after paperback trumpeting the family, family government, courtship, child rearing, particular educational paradigms, “traditional” or “medieval” liturgical preferences, etc. Certainly these issues comprise important topics, but when does one’s infatuation and “band-wagoning” with them transmogrify Christianity into nothing more than a form of idolatrous monotheistic Mormonism? In short, where’s the gospel in the Christian life? (Cf., Gal. 3:3). The gospel must receive primary.

CONSERVATIVE CHURCHES ARE GROWING

[image error]PMT 2017-039 by Kate Shellnutt (Christianity Today)

Amid the decades-long decline in mainline Protestantism in North America, researchers in Canada recently found an “elusive sample” of congregations whose growth has bucked the trend.

The key characteristic these exceptional Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and United churches had in common? Evangelical theology.

With fewer evangelicals and more secular surroundings than their brethren in the United States, Canada’s mainline denominations collectively lost half of their members over the past 50 years. Last year, a team of sociologists suggested that conservative theological beliefs-including emphasis on Scripture as the “actual word of God” and belief in the power of prayer-may be the saving grace keeping attendance up at 9 of 22 Ontario churches studied.

“Most people, especially academics, are hesitant to say one type of belief system is better than another,” said David Millard Haskell, the study’s lead author. “But if we are talking solely about which belief system is more likely to lead to numerical growth among Protestant churches, the evidence suggests conservative Protestant theology is the clear winner.”

The mainline congregations that kept growing by at least 2 percent a year emphasized markers typically associated with evangelical beliefs. For example, such churches described evangelism as the main mission of their church, were more committed to personal spiritual disciplines such as Bible reading, and saw Scripture as a singular authority.

[image error]

Finding a Vision

(by Michael Milton)

Presents a biblical vision of church ministry and involvement.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Haskell’s study was one of the most popular papers published in the Review of Religious Research last year. His findings among Canadian churches echo trends that researchers in the US have been tracking for decades.

“Clearer theology leads to clearer practice. You know what you’re hanging on to,” said Jennifer McKinney, a Seattle Pacific University sociologist who studied mainline renewal. “Conservative churches are the ones that grow, and that’s still happening in the US.”

The new research, conducted by a team out of Wilfrid Laurier University and Redeemer University College in Ontario, indicated that among growing mainline churches, 93 percent of pastors and 83 percent of attendees agreed that “Jesus rose from the dead with a real flesh-and-blood body, leaving behind an empty tomb,” compared with only 56 percent of pastors and 67 percent of attendees in struggling ones.

The thriving congregations were also more likely to affirm that “God performs miracles in answer to prayers” than were congregations in decline (pastors: 100% vs. 44%; attendees: 90% vs. 80%). Across survey measures, pastors of churches with declining attendance were the least conservative.

Rodney Stark, codirector of Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, noted similar findings in the US. His data shows that “there are pastors who are conservative, and their congregations are growing while their denominations decline,” the sociologist said.

[image error]

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Conservative theology fosters greater commitment, which leads to a greater sense of personal happiness and stronger bonds between church members, the Canadian researchers concluded. Christians at Ontario’s thriving mainline churches—on average, significantly younger than attendees in their denominations as a whole, with two-thirds under age 60—proved to be more evangelical in belief and in practice than fellow mainline attendees.

To continue reading full article: click

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

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY AND ALCOHOL ADDICTION

[image error]PMT 2017-038 By Mischelle Sandowich (Reformed Health)

Note from Ken Gentry:

When I have posted articles on the Christian and alcoholic beverages (as an aspect of the Christian worldview), I have received a good number of email inquiries. Apparently there is an interest in the question, so once again I will post an article on the topic by my friend Mischelle Sandowich.

As Christians with liberty, we are free to drink alcohol under three conditions:

• Abstain from drunkenness

• Avoid alcohol addiction

• Do not harm a weaker brother

We’ve addressed Christian Liberty and Drunkenness here and now we will consider Christian Liberty and Alcohol Addiction.

What Does the Bible Say About Alcohol Addiction?

I Timothy 3:8 warns: “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain.”

While this admonition is directed specifically to deacons, the “likewise” points also to overseers, who are instructed in I Timothy 3:3 to “not be addicted to wine” in general. This later passage leaves out the word “much,” as does Titus 1:7, which also instructs overseers to “not be addicted to wine.”

[image error]

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

One Greek word makes up the phrase “addicted to wine” in I Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7: paroinos. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines it as “one who sits long over wine,” “drunken,” or “quarrelsome over wine.”

The implication clearly relates to drunkenness — a topic we have written about in a previous post. The same implication exists in I Timothy 3:8 when it refers to “much wine.” The phrase “addicted to much wine,” however, is built from three Greek words prosecheō (addicted) polus (much) oinos (wine). Strong’s Concordance could translate the phrase “apply oneself to abundant wine.”

Here the deacons are to abstain from the action of “applying” themselves to much wine. And still these passages are interchangeable because Paul says “likewise” the deacons are not to be addicted (applying themselves) to much wine, just as the overseers are not to be addicted to wine (drunken).

What About Other Christians?

Do these passages, which add to the discussion of Christian liberty and alcohol addiction, relate only to deacons and overseers?

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible takes the position that these qualities are not just for deacons and elders, but “to believers in general, directing them to `look diligently, lest anyone should fail of the grace of God,’ Hebrews 12:15.”

And I Timothy 3:11 strengthens this position by adding that women “likewise” are to be “temperate.” According to Strong’s, temperate means “sober” — either literally or figuratively. And Thayer says it can mean abstaining from wine entirely, “or at least from its immoderate use.”

Titus 2:3 adds to the discussion by instructing older women to not be “addicted to much wine.” But this passage uses the Greek word douloō) for the word “addicted” — which has the implication of slavery. It could be said like this: Do not be enslaved to much wine.

Debate on Wine[image error]

Downloadable mp3

In this radio broadcast debate Gentry engages the president of the National Templar’s Society on the question of whether it is ever acceptable for a Christian to drink alcohol. Provides helpful insights into both sides of the issue.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The same conditions that apply to overseers and deacons, also apply to women. We’d be foolish to assume it doesn’t apply to the entire church at large. In fact, the very reason Paul spells out the qualifications for elders and deacons is to be sure they are “above reproach” as Christians. They must be following the commands of Christ to be eligible to lead the church.

More Than Drunkenness Involved

But the admonition for women to not be “enslaved” to much wine, shows there is more involved in this than just “drunkenness.” Slavery to wine (i.e., much wine) is also an issue. Slavery or addiction is a nuanced version of drunkenness. A person might be drunk once in their life (a sin that must be confessed and repented of), but not enslaved to wine. Slavery or addiction is a pattern of behavior. Drunkenness controls the moment; slavery controls the life.

Do not think only women are warned against slavery to much wine. All the verses listed imply the same principle, which is why all are admonished against addiction to wine: men, women, overseers, and deacons.

We can draw some helpful applications by looking at the symptoms of addiction (or slavery) to alcohol (or wine) even by worldly standards (so long as we don’t forget that God’s Word is the final authority).

The National Institute of Health provides warning signs of “Alcohol Use Disorder.” Drinking too much alcohol and/or being enslaved to much wine is not a disorder; it is a sin and should be dealt with as such. A better name would be “The Sin of Alcohol Addiction.” But nonetheless, here are some questions the NIH suggests you ask to ascertain if you might be “addicted to much wine” (please view them through a Christian lens).

Questions To Ask Concerning Christian Liberty and Alcohol Addiction

Have you:

• Had times when you ended up drinking more, or longer than you intended?

• More than once wanted to cut down or stop drinking, or tried to, but couldn’t?

• Spent a lot of time drinking? Or being sick or getting over the aftereffects?

• Experienced craving — a strong need, or urge, to drink?

• Found that drinking — or being sick from drinking – often interfered with taking care of your home or family? Or caused job troubles? Or school problems?

• Continued to drink even though it was causing trouble with your family or friends?

• Given up or cut back on activities that were important or interesting to you, or gave you pleasure, in order to drink?

• More than once gotten into situations while or after drinking that increased your chances of getting hurt (such as driving, swimming, using machinery, walking in a dangerous area, or having unsafe sex [anything outside of God’s design])?

• Continued to drink even though it was making you feel depressed or anxious or adding to another health problem? Or after having had a memory blackout?

• Had to drink much more than you once did to get the effect you want? Or found that your usual number of drinks had much less effect than before?

• Found that when the effects of alcohol were wearing off, you had withdrawal symptoms, such as trouble sleeping, shakiness, irritability, anxiety, depression, restlessness, nausea, or sweating? Or sensed things that were not there?

Application

To read the full article: click

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

HOW CARL SAGAN RUINED SCIENCE

[image error]PMT 2017- 037 by Robert Tracinski (The Federalist)

The organizers of the ‘March for Science’ follow the legacy of substituting a political narrative for the distinctive language and methods of science.

Robert Tracinski writes: I am a Carl Sagan fan from way back. His 1980 TV miniseries “Cosmos” hit me at just the right age and inflamed a lifelong love of science. But we’ve had nearly 40 years to assess the long-term effects and see how Sagan unwittingly contributed to a trend that muddled public understanding of science. This weekend’s so-called “March for Science” is a perfect example of what went wrong.

All you really need to know about the “March for Science” is that it is scheduled for Earth Day. The organizers may say the march is nonpartisan and has a variety of goals, but it’s mostly just about global warming. It’s not just about whether global warming is actually happening, or whether it is caused by human activity, but about a specific political program for dealing with global warming.

To be sure, there are other goals involved in the march and some contention, even among the organizers, about the extent to which the march should embrace causes like “diversity.” So the goals run the gamut from the left to the far-left. And that’s the problem. The “March for Science” is an attempt to equate the Left’s political goals with Science Itself, claiming the intellectual and moral authority of science for the Left’s agenda.

You can see why they would want to do that. The Left’s latest worker’s paradise-this time in Venezuela-is finishing up the usual devolution into mass poverty, starvation, dictatorship, chaos, and gang warfare. Given this ongoing track record of destruction, the Left has to seize on the illusion of moral authority however it can.

[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

This is an old campaign-the Communists used to claim that they represented “scientific socialism”-but its modern form was largely shaped by Sagan, by way of “Cosmos.” He is remembered as a great popularizer of science, explaining the achievements of physics, mathematics, and astronomy in glowing, inspirational terms. But he faced the basic problem of all such popularizers.

Science has its own unique language and methods: the language of mathematics and a method of systematic observation and experimentation. The reason science tends to be opaque to the public is because it ultimately requires that they understand its language and learn to use its methods. But how do you communicate the history and meaning of science to those who don’t yet speak its language? You turn science into something they can understand. You make it into a narrative, a story.

Sagan mostly turned it into a story about brave and honest scientific pioneers fighting against the forces of superstition and obscurantism. He made it into a narrative of good guys versus bad guys, of the forces of light and progress against closed-minded reactionaries. This was sometimes oversimplified, but it wasn’t entirely wrong; the religious authorities who persecuted Galileo definitely weren’t the good guys. But Sagan fell into the temptation to make this narrative about science fit just a little too closely with the agenda of conventional late-twentieth-century liberalism, so he used “Cosmos” as a platform for the Cold War-era moral equivalence of the “anti-nuclear” movement and homilies about environmentalism.

“Cosmos” is an interesting intellectual time capsule, because it was broadcast just at the point when predictions of global environmental catastrophe were tipping between global cooling and global warming. So he presented the two as equally likely scenarios that required further study (and, of course, massive government funding).

Genesis and Creation (Set 1: Genesis 1).[image error]

An in-depth sermon series on the opening chapters of the Bible from a Six-day Creationist perspective. Offers many insights into the reason Moses wrote the Creation Account, insights little recognized by the average Christian. This is set 1, which covers Genesis 1.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But he dropped his guard at this point, forgot his own admonitions about following the evidence wherever it leads, and indulged the conceit that science would just happen to line up neatly with his own political preferences. What he didn’t do was entertain the possibility that human beings aren’t destroying the planet or cruising toward planetary catastrophe. He did not even consider this null hypothesis as a possibility.

It was a glaring hole in scientific objectivity, and it set the path for the popularizers of science who would follow in his footsteps. He had fixed the narrative in place, and they followed it.

Like I said, I’m a big fan of Carl Sagan. There was a lot of merit in his history of science, his style was thoughtful, and he was adamant about the principle of tolerance for opposing ideas. People like Bill Nye who muse about imprisoning “climate deniers” are unworthy of claiming any part of his legacy. Yet that has been the trend.

Sagan clearly hoped that his stirring narrative about science would inspire young people to go beyond and beneath the narrative and learn the actual method of science. Instead, his successors saw the success of his approach-in terms of attention and celebrity and moral authority-and chose to use the narrative as a substitute for science.

If you don’t really need science so much as the narrative, then what you get is our own era’s official replacement for Sagan: Neil deGrasse Tyson. As the decades pass, Sagan’s imitators become less thoughtful and more propagandistic, less interested in conveying the actual scientific method and more concerned with just telling the public what to think. It’s also about making those who accept the approved “pro-science” political agenda feel they are superior to all of those ignorant, knuckle-dragging bigots who disagree with them. It equates science, not just with the politics of the Left, but with the Left’s attitude of smug condescension. That’s how you get Tyson’s fake-but-accurate narratives or the meme-swapping superficiality of the IFL Science crowd.

That’s also how we get things like the March for Science, in which . . .

To continue reading: click

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

5 REASONS I’M A CALVINIST

[image error]PMT 2017-036 by Stephen Altrogge (The Blazing Center)

What comes to your mind when you hear the word “Calvinist”? A grumpy, cold-hearted person who only wants a select few people to get into heaven? An annoying guy who won’t stop rambling on about Romans 9? That awful, sterile, passionless church you used to go to?

I get it.

Calvinism doesn’t have a fantastic reputation, at least in some circles. Some people feel like it focuses more on theology than on loving people. Others have had really bad experiences with Calvinists. And some people think it runs counter to the beautiful free offer of grace found in the Bible.

But what if someone who is not a jerk (at least most of the time) could talk about Calvinism in a way that didn’t make you want to smash your computer?

That’s what I’m going to try to do in this post. I want to explain why I’m a Calvinist, why it brings me great joy, and why I think it’s profoundly biblical. If at the end you disagree with me, that’s okay. We can still be BFS (best friends sometimes).

I can’t answer all your objections in this post. I’m not intending to turn this into a furious, spittle-flying debate. Think of this as a pleasant conversation over a craft beer (or coffee if you’re a Baptist).

John Frame’s Selected Shorter Writings (Vol. 3)[image error]

Includes more than thirty short, pointed essays, sermons, and addresses that summarize some of John Frame’s central (and sometimes peripheral!) ideas about the nature and method of theology, theological issues, epistemology, apologetics, the church, and ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

What Is A Calvinist?

Before we dive off the deep end, I should take a minute to define what I mean by Calvinism. A simple definition is this:

Calvinism is a series of doctrines that describes the state of humanity apart from God, how God saves people, and how God will ultimately bring those people to Glory.

A common acronym used to remember the doctrines of Calvinism is:

T – Total Depravity

U – Unconditional Election

L – Limited Atonement

I – Irresistible Grace

P – Perseverance of the Saints

I don’t like some of the phrases in the acronym and I think they can be confusing but it’s what most people use.

Because It’s All Over The Bible

I am not a Calvinist because of John Calvin. In fact, if John Calvin never existed I would still be a Calvinist (except it wouldn’t be called “Calvinism”). I don’t have man-crush on Calvin, nor do I think he’s the greatest person since Jesus. I won’t name any of my kids “Calvin”.

Calvin simply took some biblical ideas and organized them. Actually, I prefer the term “Doctrines of Grace” rather than Calvinism. It better describes the doctrines. Plus it takes the focus off John Calvin who, just like everyone else, had some great strengths and wicked weaknesses.

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

I believe in the doctrines of grace because they run throughout the entire Bible, like a golden thread from Genesis to Revelation. In the Old Testament, we see that God unconditionally chose Israel to be his people….

To continue reading full article: click

DEYOUNG, PERSECUTION, POSTMILLENNIALISM

[image error]PMT 2017-035 by Larry E. Ball (author, Blessed Is He Who Reads)

Pastor Kevin DeYoung represents the standard view of the modern church with regard to the present and future expectation of Christian persecution (Four Thoughts on Persecution in America). However, I have been silent too long. It’s time to post a contra-view. Consider the following.

1. As Pastor DeYoung rightly suggests, the examples of “persecution” in the Bible refer to acts of violence toward Christians such as arrest, imprisonment, and even death. I would include a loss of employment and being ostracized by a particular community. Certainly, it can refer to pure hatred.

2. Pastor DeYoung quotes from the books of John and Timothy.

John 15:20: “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”

2 Timothy 3:12: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

As Pastor DeYoung intimates, John 15:20 is spoken specifically to the Apostles – not to the church as a whole. I would also add that 2 Timothy 3:12 is spoken in the context of the “last days” (2 Tim. 3:1) of Israel before its destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70. Timothy speaks of persecution at the hands of men like Jannes’ and Jambres’ who “will not make further progress, for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’ and Jambres’ folly was also.” This persecution was of a limited duration. This is the context of 2 Timothy 3:12.

[image error]

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

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

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

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

3. Yes, the entirety of the Bible is inspired by God, but the early church was a seed church in transition under persecution. References to persecution should be expected. It does not represent a mature church where the influence of the Christian faith permeates every part of culture. It does not represent a nation where the leaders of both the church and state think Christ’s thoughts after him. There is a big difference.

I remember in the 1950s and 60s when clergymen always received a discount at the local clothing store just because they were ministers. Clergymen and Christians were regarded with high esteem in the community. It was not a time of persecution. It was a time of respect and admiration of the church. We all need to talk more to old people. We might become wiser.

4. Most Christians I know today in America have never experienced biblical persecution. They may have to endure disagreement with unbelievers, but that is not biblical persecution. Most Christians I know live in nice houses, drive nice cars, have good jobs, and take annual vacations. We all have it pretty good….

To continue reading full article: click

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