Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 90

BIG BANG BELIEF BUSTED

[image error]PMT 2017-025 by John Hartnett (Creation.com

he commonly accepted big bang model supposedly determines the history of the universe precisely (see Figure 1). Yet to do so, it is filled with unprovable fudge factors. That may sound like an exaggerated claim, but it seems to be the state of cosmology today.

This situation has come about because the unverifiable starting assumptions are inherently wrong! Some brave physicists have had the temerity to challenge the ruling paradigm—the standard big bang ?CDM inflation cosmology.1 One of those is Prof. Richard Lieu, Department Chair, Astrophysics, University of Alabama, who wrote:

“Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … .”2 [emphasis added]

He goes on to say that this is “because the Universe offers no control experiment, …” He means that the same observations can be interpreted in several different ways. Because there are no other universes to compare ours with, you can’t determine absolutely which is the correct answer. That means, we do not know what a typical universe should look like. As a result cosmologists today are inventing all sorts of stuff that has just the right properties to make their theories work, but it is stuff that has never been observed in the lab. They have become “comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown”, says Lieu.

Dark matter and dark energy

Cosmologists tell us we live in a universe filled with invisible, unobserved stuff—about 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter (see Figure 2). But what is this stuff that we cannot detect yet should be all around us? Only 4% of the matter/energy content of the Universe is supposed to be the ordinary atoms that we are familiar with.

[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

In June 2013, after the release of the first results from the Planck satellite, the fractions of dark energy and dark matter were significantly changed to 68% dark energy and 27% dark matter, leaving 5% normal atomic matter.3

Yet we are told that now we are in a period of precision cosmology.4 But we see a total disagreement between the determination of these fractions from high redshift supernova measurements and Planck CMB measurements. Even the claimed errors do not help the values to coincide.5

For 40 years, one form or another of dark matter has been sought in the laboratory, e.g. the axion (named after a popular US brand of laundry detergent, because they thought its discovery would clean up some problems with particle physics). Recently a claim was made alleging the detection of a dark matter particle in a lab experiment, but that claim requires rigorous verification.6

ow we also have dark energy— some sort of anti-gravity that is supposedly driving the universe apart at an even faster pace than in the past. It was reported that,

“It is an irony of nature that the most abundant form of energy in the universe is also the most mysterious. Since the breakthrough discovery that the cosmic expansion is accelerating, a consistent picture has emerged indicating that two-thirds of the cosmos is made of ‘dark energy’—some sort of gravitationally repulsive material.”7 [emphasis added]

Supposedly, dark energy is a confirmed fact. But does the evidence confirm that the universal expansion is accelerating? They are right about the irony; even though this energy is allegedly so abundant, it cannot be observed locally in the laboratory. In 2011, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the discovery of the accelerating universe, which means dark energy must be real stuff (it would seem that science’s ‘gatekeepers’ can’t ever renege on that now). But it has no correspondence to anything we know in the laboratory today, which hardly makes sense.

As Lieu points out,

“… astronomical observations can never by themselves be used to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ a physical theory. This is because we live in only one Universe—the indispensible ‘control experiment’ is not available.”8

There is no way to interact with and get a response from the Universe to test the theory under question, as an experimentalist might do in a laboratory experiment. At most, the cosmologist collects as much data as he can, and uses statistical arguments to try to show that his conclusion is likely. Says Lieu (emphasis added):

“Hence the promise of using the Universe as a laboratory from which new incorruptible physical laws may be established without the support of laboratory experiments is preposterous …”.8

Unknowns to explain unknowns

Lieu lists five evidences where cos-mologists use ‘unknowns’ to explain ‘unknowns’, and hence he says they are not really doing astrophysics. Yet these evidences are claimed to be all explained (and in the case of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)9 radiation even predicted10) by the CDM inflation model of the big bang. None of them are based on laboratory experiments, and they are unlikely to ever be explained this way. The ‘unknowns’ in the lab (meaning not known to physics today) are listed in italics. They are:

• The redshift of light from galaxies, explained by expansion of space,11

• The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, explained as the afterglow of the Big Bang,

• The perceived motion of stars and gases in the disks of spiral galaxies,12 explained by dark matter,

Distant supernovae?13 being dimmer than they should be, hence an accelerating universe, explained by dark energy,

• Flatness (space has Euclidean geometry) and isotropy (uniformity in all directions), explained by faster-than-light inflation.

Genesis and Creation (Set 1: Genesis 1).

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

As an experimentalist, I know the standards used in so-called ‘cosmology experiments’ would never pass muster in my lab. Yet it has been said we are now living in the era of ‘precision cosmology’.14

Cosmologist Max Tegmark said,

“… 30 years ago, cosmology was largely viewed as somewhere out there between philosophy and metaphysics. You could speculate over a bunch of beers about what happened, and then you could go home, because there wasn’t a whole lot else to do.” [But now they are closing in on a] “consistent picture of how the universe evolved from the earliest moment to the present.”4

How can that be true if none of Lieu’s five observations listed above can be explained by ‘knowns’? They have been explained by resorting to ‘unknowns’ with a sleight of hand that allows the writer to say, ‘We are closing in on the truth.’

What this leads to

To continue reading and to see footnotes: CLICK

[image error]

HOW CALVINISM BECAME A GLOBAL FAITH

[image error]PMT 2017-024 by David C. Noe (New Horizons)

“In a bold act of defiance, comparable to flag burning today, the assembled ate the sausages served by the host.” This is how D. G. Hart begins Calvinism: A History, his comprehensive social history of the branch of Protestantism most familiar to Orthodox Presbyterians, namely the Reformed faith, which takes the biblical teachings of John Calvin and others like him as its guide. The story recounts an act of Lenten rebellion that broke out in Zurich in 1522. The priest Ulrich Zwingli attended this table of discord, and a month later he preached a sermon with the title “On the Choice and Freedom of Foods.”

Flowing from the same source as Martin Luther’s first act of soul-searching devotion to the principle of sola Scriptura, Calvinism developed several different emphases. It is therefore significant that Hart begins with Zwingli, in addition to Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito. Although these men and later the Genevans—Farel, Viret, Beza, and Calvin himself—shared with Luther an unwavering commitment to justification by faith alone, they went on to shape teaching for the Swiss, French, English, Scottish, and American families of Protestantism that Luther would not recognize—and indeed some of whose doctrines he opposed in his own lifetime.

Before describing the contents of this 350-page work, it will be helpful to explain what the book is not. First, it is not a systematic theology or a theological tour of Calvinism. Although any book like this must by its nature contain doctrinal discussion, Hart’s brief is not to explain dogma. For that, readers will better consult Calvin’s Institutes or a more modern work like Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. Nor is this a biography of Calvin. Indeed, he is last mentioned in a historical context on page 80. Bruce Gordon’s recent biography entitled Calvin, also from Yale, serves this purpose very well, as does Alexandre Ganoczy’s classic The Young Calvin.

[image error]

Predestination Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

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

the doctrine of absolute predestination.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Rather, Hart is concerned with highlighting not how Calvinism played a “role in the forces of globalization” so much as the “unlikely ways by which it became a global faith” (p. xii). Touching on one of Hart’s favorite themes, and of our communion in general, Calvinism seeks to explain how the Reformed faith “circumnavigate[d] the planet … not by underwriting the political and economic forces of the modern West or by preaching humanitarian ideals, but [due] to the ordinary—and often accidental—efforts of average pastors and laypeople” (p. xii). In other words, this is a story of divine providence—and in telling it, Hart succeeds admirably.

The volume contains thirteen chapters, beginning with the episode in Zurich and ending in the late twentieth century with an analysis of the legacy of Karl Barth. As a representative of neoorthodoxy (Calvinism can be a big tent), Barth is compared to three separatist leaders in Scotland, the Netherlands, and the United States: Thomas Chalmers, Abraham Kuyper, and J. Gresham Machen, respectively. Along the way, Hart carefully details most of the unexpected twists and turns in Calvinism’s surprising story. In chapter 1, for example, he discusses not just the political and social changes that the Reformation wrought in Switzerland, but also the experience of worshippers in the churches. He tells the familiar anecdote of Farel inducing Calvin to stay in Geneva with threats of God’s condemnation (p. 17). Yet he also explains the reformation in worship that Calvin inaugurated with his insistence on psalm singing in 1537 (p. 19).

As the story leaves Geneva and Zurich, Hart moves rapidly back and forth between developments on the continent and those in Britain (chs. 3–4), eventually arriving in New England (chs. 5–6). Some of these transitions are not entirely comfortable or natural, but they are obviously necessary because of the nature of the subject. Writing a history of a system of thought is no easy task, especially one driven by many prominent political and theological figures on multiple continents. The churches of the Dutch West Indies, South Africa, the American South, and everything in between must at least be mentioned and made to fit into a coherent whole.

In addition to dealing with the big names, Hart also endeavors to keep the experiences of lesser-known pastors and laypeople front and center. In chapter 6, for example, “New Communities in the Land of the Free,” he recounts the career of Francis Makemie (1658–1707). His story is a fascinating one, which Hart makes emblematic of the intersection of religion and culture in the New and Old Worlds: “The Presbytery of Laggan ordained Makemie, either in 1861 or 1862, and … [he] boarded a ship for North America. He took with him a commission from the Presbytery to plant churches among the British colonists. Beyond that mandate, he had the freedom to channel the energies of a twenty-five-year-old into a productive pastorate; he also had no financial provisions beyond his own ingenuity” (p. 121). This tale of the devotion and commitment of faithful and unheralded saints is told under many different names and in many different settings. But Hart does not neglect the more familiar and historically dramatic episodes either. Adequate coverage is given to all of the major confessions and assemblies (Augsburg, Dort, Westminster), and even some lesser ones (Tetrapolitan) receive attention.

[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

Chapter 9, “Missionary Zeal,” gives significant weight to the thesis presented in the introduction about the unlikely spread of Calvinism. Detailing the nineteenth-century efforts of such trailblazers as Theodorus van der Kemp (d. 1811), Joseph Kam (d. 1833), and Alexander Duff (d. 1878), the author shows the painful tensions that arose from differing and sometimes conflicting views of the church and her mission. Hart deals with the issues particularly well in the section of that same chapter entitled “To Civilize or Christianize?” The imperial and commercial expansion of Western society and norms (i.e., colonialism) carried the Protestant faith, including Calvinism, around the globe. In the process, the heirs of the Reformation sought to decide whether the church was “chiefly a vehicle of evangelism” or an “institution that nurtured and instructed the faithful” (p. 194). At the same time, seeking to disentangle the faith from the indifferent and nonessential trappings of a particular culture proved hazardous. The contrast between Duff’s program of Western inculturation in India, which was sometimes a prerequisite for the preaching of the gospel (pp. 194ff.), and the approach of missionary to China John Nevius (d. 1893), is powerfully instructive.

Hart clearly hits his stride in chs. 12 (“American Fundamentalists”) and 13 (“The Confessing Church”), where his expertise and long résumé in American church history are fully on display. This reader found it particularly interesting to hear Hart interpret these events (e.g., the Old Side/New Side controversy, the careers of Hodge and Warfield and their interactions with Darwinism, the Presbyterian reunions of 1867 and 1869, and Machen’s career) for a much wider audience than when he tells them in OPC-sanctioned publications or in books from evangelical publishers.

The story of our own communion, the OPC, is told with appropriate brevity, given the larger history of which we are a small part. Hart himself, along with others, has told our story before. But in Calvinism the OPC resides in the context of Machen’s life, who is himself, as mentioned before, part of a larger narrative that includes other advocates of the ordinary means of grace. Men like Chalmers, Kuyper (despite his political engagements), Van Raalte, and Machen opted for the church’s spirituality, and so are presented as genuine heirs of the churchly spirit of Zwingli and Calvin, seeking to restore to the people the spiritual benefits denied to them by broader historical forces.

Other Calvinists of previous generations, like Frelinghuysen, Edwards, and Tennent (pp. 164ff.), do not fare as well in Hart’s treatment. But his hand is lighter here than in other works where he criticizes the theory, proponents, and practice of revivalism and worldview thinking. On page 247, for example, he writes: “For all of the problems that attended the Neo-Calvinist movement, it was a testimony to the genius of Kuyper and his organizational abilities.”

To continue reading: https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=900

THE REFORMATION OF WORSHIP

[image error]PMT 2017-023 by Glen J. Clary (New Horizons)

Doctrine and worship are mutually formative aspects of church life. What we believe determines how we worship, and over time the way we worship shapes what we believe. Accordingly, the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to reform both doctrine and worship according to Scripture and with respect for the customs of the ancient church. Unlike the Lutheran wing of the Reformation—which was reluctant to introduce extensive changes in worship—the Calvinistic Reformers sought to purge the church of all man-made rites, ceremonies, and ordinances that had corrupted pure worship with superstition and idolatry. For Luther, the Reformation was chiefly a war against works righteousness. For the Calvinists, the Reformation was primarily a war against the idols of Rome.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

Lutherans and Anglicans held that whatever is not forbidden in Scripture is lawful in worship, as long as it edifies the church. Presbyterians (and the Reformed more generally), however, insisted that whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden as an act of worship. Not to command is to forbid. This is known as the regulative principle of worship. Scripture regulates worship not merely proscriptively but prescriptively. Hence, Presbyterians prohibited worship practices that are additional to Scripture, not merely those that are contrary to it. Lawful worship is established by God himself and cannot be the product of human invention. In the words of John Knox, “Any act of worship not commanded in Scripture is idolatry” (The Works of John Knox, 3:34).

Anabaptists also affirmed the regulative principle of worship, but they insisted that every act of worship had to be sanctioned by an explicit biblical precept or precedent. They rejected infant baptism, for example, because Scripture does not expressly command it, nor is there a clear example of it in the New Testament. Presbyterians, however, held that biblical warrant could be established not only by explicit precept or precedent, but also by good and necessary inferences drawn from Scripture (cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:6). Furthermore, ordinances established by such inferences have divine authority and are just as binding as an express command. Thus, infant baptism, they reasoned, is commanded by God because it may be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary inference.

“Godly Worship”

7 downloadable messages by Ken Gentry

The Church of our Lord is to be a worshiping community. But today we are so experience-oriented and entertainment-driven that worship has been washed out. In this study we emphasize the significance of proper worship according to biblical principle. At the same time the study seeks to counter-balance those who would claim that we may only sing psalms in our worship service.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Orderly Worship

The Reformers insisted that since God is a God of order, worship must be conducted in a decent and orderly fashion (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33, 40). Consequently, many of the Reformers published liturgies or service books to guide ministers in their task of conducting worship. Beginning in the mid-1520s, Reformed liturgies were published and utilized in several cities, including Strasbourg, Zurich, Basel, Bern, Constance, and Geneva. It was Martin Bucer’s Strasbourg liturgy that inspired Calvin to publish a service book for the French-speaking refugees in Strasbourg (1540) and also one for the churches of Geneva (1542).

When John Knox pastored the English-speaking refugees in Geneva, he used an order of worship that was drawn from Calvin’s liturgy. Knox’s liturgy, known as the Genevan Book of Order (1556), was officially adopted as the standard of worship by an act of the General Assembly of the Scottish Presbyterian Church in 1564. Every minister in Scotland was required to “use the order contained therein, in prayers, marriage, and the administration of the sacraments” (William Maxwell, The Liturgical Portions of the Genevan Service, p. 8). This Book of Common Order, as it came to be called, was the official liturgy of the Scottish Presbyterian Church until it was superseded by the Westminster Directory for Public Worship in 1645.

For the Reformers, service books such as the liturgies of Calvin and Knox were necessary to maintain orderly worship. It is true that Calvin and Knox did not produce fixed liturgies like the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. However, they did not merely produce directories for worship either. Their discretionary liturgies contained formulas for prayer and the administration of the sacraments that could be read directly from the service book. But they also allowed ministers a measure of freedom to frame their own forms, provided that these were in keeping with the liturgy. In Reformed churches, ministers were required to honor the official liturgy, but they were also allowed to pray “as the Spirit of God shall move their heart,” said Knox (see the Genevan Book of Order). Discretionary liturgies do not contain fixed formulas that must be read or recited verbatim, but rather sample formulas for prayer and the administration of the sacraments. [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

In the age of pietism, sincerity in worship came to be measured by spontaneity and even informality. Consequently, all written forms of prayer—even the biblical forms of prayer, such as the Psalms or the Lord’s Prayer—were eventually excluded from the service of worship. To the pietists, printed prayer forms and liturgies were often seen as marks of pretense and formalism that would inevitably quench the Holy Spirit. The legacy of this rejection of printed orders and forms of worship may be seen today in the liturgical chaos that often characterizes modern evangelical worship. To be sure, in the history of Reformed worship, there is diversity, but the Reformed tradition has generally sought to worship decently and in order, thus avoiding idiosyncratic forms.

Ordinary Means

Once they discarded the pomp and theatrics of Roman Catholic worship, the Reformers eagerly recovered the pure and simple elements used in the apostolic age. In Acts 2:42, they discovered a basic outline of apostolic worship: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” “The apostles’ teaching” refers to the ministry of the Word. “Fellowship” (koinonia) refers to the charitable distribution of material goods to those in need. The other two elements listed are “the breaking of bread,” meaning the Lord’s Supper, and prayer. Thus, in the apostolic era, a typical worship service consisted of the ministry of the Word, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, and almsgiving. Accordingly, Calvin says of Acts 2:42, “No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving” (Institutes, IV.17.44). These divinely prescribed ordinances of public worship are the means through which the triune God establishes and nurtures fellowship and communion with his covenant people. Through these outward and ordinary means of grace, God gives to the church Jesus Christ and all his saving benefits by the power of his Holy Spirit.

In the nineteenth century, revivalism replaced these God-given ordinances of worship with new measures that were seemingly more effective at converting the unregenerate. For revivalists, the efficacy of a religious ordinance was measured by the subjective experience it produced in the worshiper. The Reformers, however, maintained that the value of any worship practice depended on its being ordained by God, being blessed by Christ, and carrying the Holy Spirit’s promise to work through it—not on its ability to produce some desired result (cf. Shorter Catechism, 91). These divinely instituted means of worship—Word, sacraments, prayer, the singing of psalms and hymns—must not be replaced or supplemented by any man-made rites, ceremonies, or traditions, no matter how effective they may appear to be at stimulating religious affections. Indeed, a lack of contentment with the outward and ordinary means of grace exhibits a lack of faith in God, who has promised to use them as a means of salvation.

Reformed in Doctrine and Worship

To continue reading click here: https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=912

THE POWER OF FICTION FOR PRETERISM

[image error]PMT 2017-022 By Brian Godawa

If you are like me, a postmillennial redemptive-historical preterist, you have been deeply disturbed by the past huge success of Left Behind, as well as the current financial siphon of speculative novels on the book of Revelation. Is this concern because of greed or envy for the success of others? May it never be. My sadness is because I think it represents the spirit of the age: a hunger for conspiracy theories. In this world of obsession with narrative over facts, even Christians are more drawn to sensational fantasies of the end times than to the real-world glory of the Gospel in the Kingdom of God. Futurists (like Left Behinders) seem more interested in the coming of the “Antichrist” than in the coming of Christ, or rather, than in the current reign of Jesus Christ over all (Eph 2:20-22).

And yet, storytelling is not inherently wrong or even less significant than say, systematic theology. It’s part of the way God created us. We need both rationality and narrative to make sense of our world. In fact, the Bible communicates theology through narrative so powerfully, that I would argue that is also one of the reasons why the futurist versions of the end times are so successful. It is not just that they are sensational comic book movie scenarios of fantasy, but because storytelling embodies a message with a strong impact on our worldview through the imagination.

Think of Jesus’ parables. By inhabiting the story, the audience experiences the doctrinal truth in a distinctly different way than rational explanation does. Not superior, just different. We need both. But when it comes to the complexity of eschatology, a fictional narrative can take that complexity and give it narrative flesh that connects with our “storied nature” in a way that most people can relate to. Think about it. As much as I personally study theological writings to understand the Bible, many many people simply do not have the personality or the patience for such in-depth rigorous study. God didn’t make us all the same way, and the truth is, most people I know prefer a good story to a good systematic theology.

The Beast of Revelation[image error]

by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

If you’re like me, you prefer both!

So since I love both theology and story, I decided to bring orthodox preterist eschatology to the masses by writing a novel trilogy about the book of Revelation fulfilled in the first century called Chronicles of the Apocalypse. The first novel is called Tyrant: Rise of the Beast. Ken Gentry’s writings on eschatology changed my life decades ago. And his newest commentary on Revelation has updated that effect just in time to be of influence on my research behind Tyrant. Though I do at times make creative choices that are a bit different take on things than Ken (so don’t blame him for my differences), I think it is safe to say that we follow the same “big picture” narrative and vision. And just to satisfy that theological side of others, I footnoted the novel with as much text as I have in the novel itself! So people can enjoy the entertainment or dig deeper if they question the interpretation. That’s where you’ll find Ken quoted in abundance.

If you are familiar with the story of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 from the writings of Josephus, you will know that it is a very complex series of events that lie behind the last days of the old covenant. So the way that I tackled the problem was to tell a fictional story that occurs within the historical events. And since decoding Revelation is so difficult, I made the narrative a supernatural conspiracy thriller, so readers can discover the “code” along with the protagonists of the story. It’s kind of like an ancient Christian version of The Da Vinci Code – without the heresy! Here’s the book logline:

Tyrant: Rise of the Beast

Rome, A.D. 64. A Roman prefect and his Jewish servant are ordered by the evil emperor Nero to track down a secret Christian document that undermines the Roman empire and predicts the end of the world. But they’re not prepared for the spiritual war they’ve unleashed. The truth behind the origin of the most controversial book of the Bible: Revelation. An historical conspiracy thriller with angels and demons.

[image error]

Revelation is one of the most supernatural books of the New Testament. It reveals the spiritual reality behind the historical judgment of God upon first century Israel and his world-changing confirmation of the New Covenant kingdom. We are only given glimpses of that spiritual war in Revelation, so I took creative license to depict the angelic battle of that dragon Satan (also known as Apollyon), with Michael and the other angels of judgment. I used fantastical imagery to depict what we do not see in the spiritual world, but it’s all based on theological fidelity to the Book. And the human story helps readers to experience the theme of Revelation as an encouragement to first century martyrs through the Neronic persecution and the struggle of the seven churches of Asia Minor, as well as the Jewish revolt in Jerusalem of AD 66-70.

I warn you, the persecution depicted in the novel then is not for the faint of heart. But it is true. Narrative has a way of showing how all the theological elements fit together within the human experience of God’s will in history. Eschatology is not just some game of proof-texting and winning intellectual arguments. It is a real world incarnation of the kingdom of God. It’s time we have a narrative that tells the postmillennial redemptive-historical hope and victory to counter the defeatist fantasy entertainment that is blinding so many in our Christian culture and diverting them from the Gospel of the kingdom.

Gentry note

Brian Godawa is an long-time friend of mine. He has designed several covers for my books, including my Revelation commentary which will be published later this year.

You can buy Tyrant: Rise of the Beast on Kindle or paperback here.

Or on Kobo, iBooks, Nook, and others here.

If you want to find out more information before buying, check out Godawa’s website for Chronicles of the Apocalypse here. There you will find intriguing artwork, synopsis, and free scholarly articles about the content. And you can sign up for special information, discounts and updates of his work.

Brian Godawa is an award-winning Hollywood screenwriter (To End All Wars), a controversial movie and culture blogger (www.Godawa.com), an internationally known teacher on faith, worldviews and storytelling (Hollywood Worldviews), an Amazon best-selling author of Biblical fiction (Chronicles of the Nephilim), and provocative theology (God Against the gods). His obsession with God, movies and worldviews, results in theological storytelling that challenges your mind while inspiring your soul.

SAM FROST ON DON PRESTON’S JESUS

[image error]PMT 2017-018 by Sam Frost (Book of Job Blog)

In a recent and rather long, written “debate” with Full Preterist leader and teacher Don K. Preston on Facebook, it has become clear to this theologian that Mr. Preston advocates a different version of Jesus than espoused by the Church.

First, some preliminary remarks. Mr. Preston teaches a view of Eschatology (or “end times” thought) that is called, Full Preterism. That is, every single prophecy that can be called a prophecy in the Bible is fulfilled within the generation of Jesus’ original hearers and followers. The culmination of this was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (and their alliances) in 66-70 A.D. Much can be said about the importance of this event for biblical interpretation of prophetic events and has been said.

However, by and large, the message Preston brings is rejected within Christendom because it does not do justice to the “purpose of God” (Ephesians 1.11), which is seen as encompassing all human history from beginning to end. Preston utterly rejects the idea that the Bible anywhere speaks of the end of history or time. All Christian theology that has come down us and being worked out even today is based on the notion that time and history will end with the Jewish-Christian hope of a new heavens and a new earth (Christianity in Jewish Terms, 2000, Westview Press, xx).

It may seem entirely strange, indeed “bizarre” as one leading theologian put it, that someone professing the Christian faith would argue for such a proposal, but argue it they do. Although there appears to be no groundswell among its adherents, one would not get that from their constant appeals to the “success all over the world” they claim. This claim is not the point of my article. It’s the doctrine of Jesus. For Preston to make his claim, which in and of itself is outside the pales of orthodoxy for Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodoxy and mainline Evangelical communities, he has to redefine the nature of the Son of God as is commonly understood and believed.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:[image error]

A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error

by Ken Gentry

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

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

First, then, allow me to define the Nature(s) of the Son of God (or, the Logos – Greek for “Word”). I will utilize three references so as to show complete unity of doctrine on this matter from Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and mainline Protestant (Evangelical) churches. First, the Creed of Chalcedon (451 A.D.): “We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body.” It’s this last part that I wish to point out, “reasonable soul and body.” This is the Christ that Christians “confess” and believe. This is what is reflected when the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed states, “Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man.” “Was made man” means, “a reasonable soul and body.”

Greek orthodoxy expresses the same sentiment, and the Westminster Confession, following this tradition-based-on-Scripture does the same, “On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.” The phrase, “with which also he ascended into heaven” is to be noted. Thus, from this brief consideration Jesus, who is worshiped and confessed by the one, Holy Church is a man with a reasonable soul and body, with which body he ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. The God-Man, Two Natures, One Person. Preston flatly denies this, and as we shall see, mocks it.

Now, to be fair, Preston acknowledges that the Son of God, the Logos, the Eternal, Uncreated Son, who is God the Son, became a human being (“flesh”) and had, had, mind you, a body. However, this body was “shed” at his ascension recorded in Acts 1, and what remains of his human “nature” is not that which is “of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.” As of the “substance” with us, Preston changes this. The “nature” of Christ as it presently regards his humanity is merely the retaining of the “knowledge and understanding” (memory) of his days in the flesh.

In the “debate” with Mr. Preston I pressed him over and over to answer a question concerning this matter, “did the man, Christ Jesus, die twice?” Preston would not answer the question but rather went on with pointing out my inconsistencies about all matters eschatological. In other words, Eschatology, as we shall see, controls the entire doctrinal catalogue of Christian Theology proper. Everything is read through the lens of Full Preterism. It’s not that I cannot answer Preston on exegetical matters concerning Eschatology, it’s that in my view, Christology is more important than Eschatology. If we can’t get WHO we worship correct (Christology), then it matters not about WHAT he has done or will do (Eschatology). Mormons also say, “Jesus is Lord”, but when you ask them, “Who is Jesus” you get an entirely different answer than you would from the Church. For Preston, this is not so important as is the matter of Eschatology. If you get Eschatology wrong, then you get all the other doctrines wrong (and, he admits, as we shall see, that the Church has, basically, got it all pretty much wrong because her Eschatology is, pretty much, all wrong).

Allow me to let Mr. Preston speak for himself. “I want everyone to pay particular attention here. We have Mr. Frost offering this: “I could care less who you think Babylon is….but, “who do you say that I am?” THAT’S fundamental to me. FAR more important than your eschatology. But, if your eschatology gets you to deny the Continued Incarnation of our Holy Lord, then it is WRONG, period, end of story.”” Yes, I wrote that. I do not care what Preston thinks concerning his identification of Babylon in Revelation 17. I do care about the identification of Babylon, just not his, and I note that (which he takes to mean that I have no care at all about who Babylon is in Revelation 17, but that’s not what I said, even in his quote from me!).

[image error]

The Christ of the Prophets (by O. Palmer Robertson)

Roberston examines the origins of prophetism, the prophets’ call, and their proclamation and application of law and covenant.

www.KennethGentry.com

From my quote, Preston goes on: “Folks, here we have a man openly– overtly- scoffing at Biblical doctrine and truth. Scoffing and MOCKING the importance of properly understanding the identity of Babylon! Sam Frost does not care who Babylon was, in spite of the fact that I have shown, the coming of the Lord, the judgment and the resurrection were to occur at the destruction of Babylon! So, to mis-identify Babylon is to miss- to negate- to pervert, the Biblical narrative of eschatology! But, Mr. Sam Frost does not care! Instead, all he cares about is MOCKING the Biblical, exegetical arguments about the heavenly existence of Jesus.” Again, that’s not what I am “mocking” (actually, I am not mocking anything). I said, I do not care what Preston thinks about his interpretation of Babylon, not about who Babylon is (I have my own opinion on that). But, Preston is right on this matter: I do care about the mocking of the present heavenly existence of Jesus, who I worship. Correct.

Preston continues, though, and watch the slide into even greater exaggeration: “HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT ESCHATOLOGY, AS LONG AS HE CAN HOLD ONTO HIS PRECONCEIVED, MISGUIDED, BUT, CREEDAL!!!- VIEW OF JESUS STILL POSSESSING A PHYSICAL, BODY OF BLOOD, FLESH AND BONE! It is truly a sad day when a man openly says he does not care about what the Bible says about the subject that is mentioned more times than any other subject– eschatology!” (his words are capped by him). From “I do not care what you (Preston) think about Babylon” to “Frost does not care about who Babylon is” to “Frost does not care about what the Bible says about Eschatology.” Somehow, Preston thinks himself of such great importance that to not care what he thinks about a topic is not to care at all about that topic (Babylon), to not caring at all about the entire subject matter (Eschatology) of which that topic is contained! I can’t make this stuff up.

I’ll let all of that slide, for Preston is prone to self-importance. In this last quote he admits that my position is, in fact, “creedal.” Thus, my position, which is in full creedal agreement with the Holy Church, Greek, Roman and Protestant Evangelical on this matter of Jesus’ heavenly existence is “misguided”. Further, Preston writes, “Mr. Frost says that I MOCK, the doctrine of Christ and his body. No, Mr. Frost, I simply reject your distorted view of Christ’s body.” My “distorted view of Christ’s body” as it is in heaven is “creedal”. Therefore, by strict logic, the creedal view is “misguided”, “distorted” and to be “reject[ed].” This is as clear as an admission as one can get: Preston’s Full Preterism rejects the creedal doctrine of Jesus’ continuing Incarnate body….

To read full article: click

[image error]

[image error] [image error]

CONTRADICTING GENESIS CREATION ORDER

[image error]PMT 2017-020 by Jonathan Sarfati (Creation Ministries International)

A straightforward reading of the Bible indicates that God created in six 24-hour days a little over 6,000 years ago. This is the way the church has understood it for most of the church’s history,1 and the way Hebrew scholars have always understood it.

However, with the rise of long-age claims in geology led by James Hutton2 and Charles Lyell3 about 200 years ago, some conservative Christians became intimidated. So they proposed schemes by which the Bible could accommodate these long–age ideas. Various views, unheard of before this time, sprung up: day-age, gap theory, framework hypothesis, theistic evolution.

All of these views have the baneful consequence of placing death before sin, including human death—even death by sinful means including cannibalism. However, the Gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, 21–22, 26, and 45–49 tells us that Adam, “the first man”, “a man of dust”, sinned and brought physical death into the world as punishment. So Jesus, “the last Adam”, “the man of heaven”, came to die physically for our sin, then rise physically from the dead.4 Therefore, if death came before sin, then death is not the punishment for sin, so how could Jesus die for our sins?

Day-Age

This view asserts that the days of creation were long ages of time. This idea was unknown until evangelical Anglican theologian Stanley Faber (1773–1854) proposed that the days of Genesis 1 were really eons of time. This was not widely accepted until it was popularized by the Scottish geologist and professing evangelical, Hugh Miller (1802–1856), who abandoned the gap theory and started promoting the day-age view in his book Testimony of the Rocks. This was published in the year after his untimely death (by suicide). He speculated that the days were really long ages. Miller held that Noah’s Flood was a local flood and that the rock layers were laid down over long periods of time. The best known modern proponent of this view is Hugh Ross (1946– ) and his organisation Reasons to Believe, whose justifications for the view have been thoroughly discredited.5

[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

As we have often shown, the days of Genesis 1 must be normal-length days, because they have both a number and an evening plus morning. Also, the Fourth Commandment explicitly cites Creation Week as the pattern for our working week (Exodus 20:8–11)—we don’t work for six eons and rest for one eon!

Even the order is wrong!

Some are attracted to the false Day-Age view because they think that if the time scale of Genesis were stretched out, then it would match the long-age/evolutionary order. But this view is naive, as will be shown. There are major contradictions between a straightforward reading of Scripture and the order claimed by uniformitarian/evolutionary ‘science’. Day-agers accept the evolutionary order, but just deny biological transmutation of kinds.

This is explained in the table (p.54) Some of the major highlights are:

1. Big bang theory places the big bang at 13.8 billion years ago, then for billions of years, stars were born and died, and from ‘stardust’ our own sun was born—all elements above helium were supposedly released by exploding stars.6 Then the earth and the rest of the planets formed about 4.5 billion years ago by somehow condensing out of a swirling cloud of gas and dust (nebula).7 Thus the sun came before the earth, and many stars came billions of years before the sun. But Genesis teaches that God made the earth on day 1, and the sun and stars on Day 4.

Genesis and Creation (Set 1: Genesis 1).

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

2. Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science but bad exegesis. The Hebrew word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’)—e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the big bang. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as He did when He said that the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). . . .

To read the full article at Creation.com: click

[image error]

STOP SAYING “GOD TOLD ME”

[image error]PMT 2017-019 by Josh Buice (Delivered by Grace)

It happened again recently. I was listening to a sermon online and the preacher said, “God told me.” Apparently everyone in the congregation enjoyed it from the response I heard, but I immediately turned it off. This type of communication is becoming more prevalent in Christian circles. It’s showing up in conversations because people are hearing it from the pulpit and reading it in books they purchased from the local Christian bookstore. Perhaps it sounds spiritual or is emotionally stirring to the congregation.

Although the “God told me” method of communicating makes for interesting, suspenseful, and entertaining stories, what people need most is to hear from God. I would like to make a simple request. Please stop saying “God told me” unless the phrase is immediately followed up with a text of Scripture. Have you considered the connection between the “God told me” language and the sufficiency of Scripture? What connection does the “God told me” phrase have with the third of the Ten Commandments?

It Violates the Sufficiency of Scripture

If God spoke to Moses from a burning bush (Ex. 3:4-6 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ), to Samuel in the dark of night (1 Sam. 3:1-9 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ), to Elijah in a cave (1 Kings 19:9 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ), to John the Baptist and others at Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:9-11 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ), and to Saul (subsequently Paul) and his traveling companions on the road leading to Damascus (Acts 9:4-7 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] )—why would God not speak to us today? That’s a fair question, but it might surprise you to know that God does still speak to us today. He does so through His sufficient and authoritative Word.

[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

In chapter 1 and paragraph 6 of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), we find these words:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

During the days of the Old Testament, God was communicating to prophets in order to write Holy Scripture and to prepare the way for Jesus’ birth. All of the audible communication of God has direct connection to the redemptive plan of God to save sinners. God’s direct communication with His people was not centered on what to eat for breakfast, the need to give money to a random person at a bus stop, or to go join a group of college students at a morning workout.

During the days of the New Testament, and the early church period, God’s audible voice, although rare, was connected to the redemptive plan of God in Jesus Christ. Once the Bible was completed, there was no longer any need for God to speak to people audibly or to provide direct (divine) communication. God has communicated everything necessary for faith and life, worship and service, in His sufficient Word. To use the “God told me” language violates the sufficiency of Scripture. Simply put, it needs to stop.

It’s strange that many churches that once stood courageously for the inerrancy of Scripture in the past frequently employ the “God told me” language in their pulpit today. We don’t allow Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses to play the “God told me” divine revelation card, and we shouldn’t allow Baptists or Presbyterians or Methodists or mainstream evangelicals to have a free pass on this crucial issue.

The “God told me” language majors on our stories rather than God’s story. We need more of God and less of us in our singing and preaching today. If people are genuinely hungry to hear from God, we must direct them to God’s Word. To raise children on “Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so” and to emphasize the authority of God’s Word is a good thing. But, when those same children arrive in the worship service on the Lord’s Day and hear a preacher waxing eloquent about how God talked directly to him in the early hours of the morning — that’s severely inconsistent. John MacArthur writes:

“Preoccupied with mystical encounters and emotional ecstasies, [many] seek ongoing revelation from heaven – meaning that, for them, the Bible alone is simply not enough. [With them], biblical revelation must be supplemented with personal “words from God,” supposed impressions from the Holy Spirit, and other subjective religious experiences. That kind of thinking is an outright rejection of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16–17 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ). It is a recipe for far-reaching theological disaster. [1]

Charismatic Gift of Prophecy[image error]

(by Kenneth Gentry)

A rebuttal to charismatic arguments for the gift of prophecy continuing in the church today. Demonstrates that all revelatory gifts have ceased as of the conclusion of the Apostolic era.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

It Uses God’s Name in Vain

Although some people unintentionally use the “God told me” vocabulary without understanding the implications, in other cases, certain people and preachers use the phrase as a means of claiming that they actually heard directly from God. This intentional use of God’s name is a clear violation of the third commandment (Deut. 5:11 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ).

For whatever the reason, some people feel compelled to us God’s name as a stamp of approval on their stories, their decision to move churches, their decision to go into the ministry, or their decision to take a job transfer. Either way, it’s not true. It’s intellectually dishonest. We as evangelicals must not allow people to continually get away with using this language. We certainly shouldn’t celebrate it. Hear the word of Charles Spurgeon from a sermon he preached titled, “The Paraclete,” October 6, 1872:

“Take care never to impute the vain imaginings of your fancy to Him [the Holy Spirit]. I have seen the Spirit of God shamefully dishonored by persons – I hope they were insane – who have said that they have had this and that revealed to them. There has not for some years passed over my head a single week in which I have not been pestered with the revelations of hypocrites or maniacs. Semi-lunatics are very fond of coming with messages from the Lord to me, and it may spare them some trouble if I tell them once for all that I will have none of their stupid messages… Never dream that events are revealed to you by heaven, or you may come to be like those idiots who dare impute their blatant follies to the Holy Ghost. If you feel your tongue itch to talk nonsense, trace it to the devil, not to the Spirit of God. Whatever is to be revealed by the Spirit to any of us is in the Word of God already – He adds nothing to the Bible, and never will. Let persons who have revelations of this, that, and the other, go to bed and wake up in their senses. I only wish they would follow the advice and no longer insult the Holy Ghost by laying their nonsense at His door.” [2]

….

To read full article at DBG (Delivered by Grace): click.

Gentry note: If God is speaking to you, you really ought to write it down. Do so with style.

SCIENTIFIC MYTHS ABOUT THE BIBLE

[image error]PMT 2017-018 by Justin Taylor (The Gospel Coaltion)

Ronald Numbers grew up as the son of a fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventist minister, attending Adventist schools and being taught young-earth creationism until adulthood, where he lost his faith and became an agnostic. Today he is perhaps the world’s leading scholar on the history of the relationship between science and religion.

If you were to ask Professor Numbers for the “greatest myth” about the historical relationship between science and religion, he would respond that it’s the idea the the two “have been in a state of constant conflict.”

Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, agrees: “The so-called ‘war’ between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured . . . . It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes.”

If these two historians—one an agnostic, one a confessional Christian—both agree this is a manufactured myth, then who is to blame for inventing it?

[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

That distinction falls to American scholars from the nineteenth century: (1) Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and (2) John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York.

In December 1869, Andrew White—the young and beleaguered Cornell president—delivered a lecture at Cooper Union in New York City entitled “The Battle-Fields of Science.” He melodramatically painted a picture of a longstanding warfare between religion and science:

“I propose, then, to present to you this evening an outline of the great sacred struggle for the liberty of Science—a struggle which has been going on for so many centuries. A tough contest this has been! A war continued longer—with battles fiercer, with sieges more persistent, with strategy more vigorous than in any of the comparatively petty warfares of Alexander, or Caesar, or Napoleon . . . In all modern history, interference with Science in the supposed interest of religion—no matter how conscientious such interference may have been—has resulted in the direst evils both to Religion and Science, and invariably.”

His lecture was published in book form seven years later as The Warfare of Science (1876).

In 1874, Professor Draper published his History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1874). His thesis was as follows:

“The antagonism we thus witness between Religion and Science is the continuation of a struggle that commenced when Christianity began to attain political power. . . . The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.”

Draper’s work was enormously popular, going through 50 editions in the next half century.

Adam in the New Testament [image error]

by J. P. Versteeg

Carefully examining key passages of Scripture, Versteeg proves that all human beings descended from Adam, the first man. He argues that if this is not true, the entire history of redemption documented in Scripture unravels and we have no gospel in any meaningful sense.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Larsen writes:

“Draper and White were not simply describing an ongoing war between theology and science, but rather they were endeavoring to induce people into imagining that there was one. In order to do this, they repeatedly made false claims that the church had opposed various scientific breakthroughs and developments.”

Here are a couple of urban legends that Draper and White perpetuated:

1. The church believed for centuries that the earth is flat.

2. The church opposed the use of anesthetics in childbirth since Genesis promised that childbirth would be painful.

On the first myth, Lesley B. Cormack, chair of the Department of History and Classics at the University of Alberta, writes that “there is virtually no historical evidence to support the myth of a medieval flat earth. Christian clerics neither suppressed the truth nor stifled debate on the subject.”. . .

Continue reading full article at The Gospel Coaltion: click

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

ALCOHOLIC WINE IN THE BIBLE

[image error]PMT 2017-017 by Mischelle Sandowich (Reformed Health)

Gentry introduction

Wine is often used in Scripture to symbolize the joy and abundance of the eschatological hope of God’s people.

Isaiah 25:6-7: “The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations.”

Isaiah 27:1-2: “In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea. 2 In that day, A vineyard of wine, sing of it!”

Isaiah 55:1: “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost.”

Joel 3:18 “And in that day The mountains will drip with sweet wine, And the hills will flow with milk, And all the brooks of Judah will flow with water; And a spring will go out from the house of the LORD To water the valley of Shittim.”

Thus, I thought this article would be helpful for my PostmillennialismToday readers.

Sandowich article

We are continuing our case that we should not refuse food (or drink) that God has given us to enjoy. Our argument is based on 1 Timothy 4:4-5 where the Apostle Paul condemns men “who advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude.”

Is Wine Taboo?

The current taboo we are considering is “wine.” Does God forbid the drinking of wine? Or is it allowed in moderation? Those who oppose drinking alcohol often claim that the wine the saints drank in the Bible contained little or no alcohol.

But the Bible paints a different picture, showing that the wine used in the Bible was capable of intoxication. And it is well-known that the alcohol in wine is the element that intoxicates.

God Gave Wine[image error]

Book 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

Here are 7 reasons that demonstrate that the wine in the Bible was a powerful intoxicant, containing enough alcohol to make the heart merry and/or cause drunkenness.

Scriptures and Intoxicating Effects of Wine

Noah got drunk

One of the first things Noah did after the flood waters dried up was plant a vineyard. When the grapes matured, he pressed them into juice. By natural, God-ordained processes, the juice fermented into wine. The Bible records that Noah drank the wine and got so drunk that he passed out in his tent naked. Drunkenness in the Bible is almost always condemned. In this case, Noah sinned against God. And if you are familiar with the story, there was a great cost for his sin, bringing a curse upon one of his sons. See Genesis 9 for the rest of the story. That Noah got drunk from the product of his vineyard demonstrates incontrovertibly that the wine was strong with alcohol.

Alcohol makes the heart merry

Psalm 104:15 declares that wine has the power to make man’s heart rejoice and be glad. Barnes’ Commentary on the Whole Bible translates this verse literally: “wine (it) gladdens the heart of man to make his face to shine more than oil.” What is it about wine that gladdens the heart? This verse does not refer to grape juice, but wine that contains alcohol. Moderate use of alcohol has the power to bring joy to the heart of man (by God’s design).

Jesus turned water into wine

Jesus turned water into wine “after” the guests were filled with wine. John chapter 2 records Jesus turning water into wine. Jesus instructed the servants to fill some jugs with water and take a sample to the headwaiter. Upon sampling the water turned wine, The headwaiter is perplexed because the wine is so tasty. He approaches the bridegroom saying, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says of the phrase have drunk freely that “translators have timidly shrunk from giving the full coarseness of the man’s joke: it should be when they have become drunken, when they are drunk.” The clear implication is that the wine contained alcohol which could lead to drunkenness.

Jesus accused of being a drunkard

Jesus was falsely accused of being a drunkard by the Pharisees. Jesus Himself partook of wine while He walked on the earth in human form. The Pharisees of the day latched onto his use of alcohol as a way to accuse Him of being a glutton and a drunkard. Imagine the irony of calling the King of Glory a sinner. But that they did call Him such demonstrates that the wine He drank had the power to cause intoxication. See Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34.

Apostles accused of being drunk

The apostles were accused of being drunk at Pentecost. Acts 2 records the coming of the Holy Spirit with power at Pentecost. The apostles and followers of Christ are given power from on high to speak the mighty deeds of God in the native tongue of “devout men from every nation under heaven.” Some observers mock the apostles and accuse them of being drunk with sweet wine. Peter responds by saying it was way too early to be drinking wine. They were not drunk, but rather fulfilling the prophecy of Joel. Notice Peter didn’t say that the wine didn’t even contain enough alcohol to get drunk. Rather he says they are not drunk because “it is only the third hour of the day.”[image error]

God Gave Wine Lectures

By Ken Gentry

Professionally-produced, four-part doculecture series, engages a hotly-debated issue within the Christian church: the question of the Christian and alcoholic beverages. Presents and defends the case for a moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages by Christians.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Paul spoke against drunkenness

Paul commanded the saints to not be drunk with wine. In Ephesians 5:18, Paul writes: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.” If the wine that was available for common use would not cause drunkenness, Paul would not have to give the warning to not be drunk by it.

The Corinthian church got drunk

The Corinthian church was getting drunk. Paul calls out the Corinthians for getting carried away with their drinking at fellowship gatherings. When they were gathered together to eat the Lord’s Supper, some were being selfish with food, while others went hungry. In addition, some were getting drunk, according to Paul. He admonishes them that they have missed the purpose of the supper – which is to remember the sacrifice which Christ made for the forgiveness of sins. See 1 Corinthians 11:20 and following . . . .

To continue reading full article, click: Reformed Health

But now a free joke from Ken Gentry for visiting PostmillennialismToday. We aim to please!

While sitting on the patio with her husband sipping on a glass of wine, a woman said, “I love you so much, I don’t know how I could ever live without you”.

Her husband asked, “Is that you talking. Or the wine?”

She replied, “It’s me…. I’m talking to the wine.”

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

LONG LIVES IN GENESIS

[image error]PMT-2017-016 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The early generations of men following Adam live to enormous ages of centuries. According to the genealogy in Gen. 5 Adam lived to be 930; Seth 912; Enosh 905; Kenan 910; Mahalalel 895; Jered 962; Methusaleh 969; Lamech 777; Noah 950.

Then in the Gen. 11 genealogy after the Flood, longevity begins dropping: Shem lives to be 600; Arpachshad 438; Shelah 433; Eber 464; Peleg 239; Reu 239; Serug 230; Naho 148; Terah 205. Later Abraham lives to be 175 (Gen. 25:7) and Moses 120 (Deut. 34:7). Moses’ age was remarkable in its day (Deut. 34:7), and he even declared that a strong man might live to be 80 (Psa. 90:10).

Critical scholars point to these as evidence of Genesis’ mythological character. But these ages are set in a strongly historical context. Some well-meaning scholars suggest that the “years” in view are much shorter than our year. But the Gen. 5 chronology will not allow that, while the later genealogy in Gen. 11 obviously assumes standard year lengths as it points to declining longevity.

[image error]

Postmillennialism

By Keith Mathison

The promises of the gospel offer hope of a brighter future for the families and nations of the earth. Mathison’s an optimistic eschatology supported by biblical, historical, and theological considerations.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

These are literal ages from a remarkable era of history following the original creation. Three factors are apparently involved in allowing these life spans.

First, God intended for man to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) and wanted him to spread out through the world (cp. Gen. 11:8). Therefore, he allowed longer ages for earlier men to enhance population growth and geographical spreading.

Second, this probably also results from what scientists’ would call “natural causes.” Adam and Ever were originally created perfect and without any genetic defects. But as time went on, defects began multiplying and reducing longevity.

Third, apparently the climate changed after the Flood for we also see smaller animals and larger plants when compared to some of the large dinosaurs of the past.

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

Apparently, long lives are expected to return as the gospel conquers the world bringing in righteousness on a remarkable level. God tells Isaiah of this day:

“No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed. (Isa. 65:20)

In the height of the postmillennial advance of Christ’s kingdom, men will turn from their evil and destructive conduct, wars will decline and cease as peace takes root, medical research will expand without the encumbrance of evolutionary mythology, and God will pour out his covenantal blessings.

[image error]