Post-millennialism: The Church Reigning in the Millennium (that may or may not be 1000 years long)

I am really optimistic that I'll actually be able to tell you every specific about Bible prophecy when we are done. I'll be able to tell you what position is best, and you'll be happy too. You'll tell others, and then everyone will know how to interpret Revelation and that pesky Olivet Discourse without hassle. The knowledge will precede over the globe, and all other prophecy-hawkers, like Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsay, will be out of business.



...but, my positive attitude in the opening paragraph is similar to the positive attitude of post-millennialists regarding the Gospel and the future. Post-millennialists believe in the triumph of the Gospel and the Church over the earth. Christ will return to a near-converted earth. Christianity will triumph. Some believe in a final rebellion at the end of history, but a great many modern post-mil Bible scholars do not. Here is a chart to give you a comparison with the first two positions we covered: dispensational premillennialism and amillennialism:



Before I go too far, let me back up. Post-millennialism (as I mentioned in my earlier post) shares much in common with amillennialism. It is a response to the difficulty encountered in trying to understand the early church's general perception that Christ's coming was to be soon, when in fact, it didn't happen (or it didn't happen the way they envisioned). See my three reasons for amillennialism's development in the earlier post if you can't remember :)

Most modern post-mil scholars are positive about the victory of the church at the end of this age. This was the minority position of the church throughout history. Most scholars throughout history believed there would be a final rebellion--this is why I said post-millennialism is a first-cousin to amillennialism. Look at the charts again:





There is just not much difference. Amillennialism's scheme of history goes like this:

1-4: See my dispensationalism blog
5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

Postmillennialism's scheme of history goes like this:

1-4: See my dispensationalism blog
5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period, during which the church will triumph, converting massive numbers of people.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the victorious church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

I am oversimplifying, but the difference of the victorious church is first and foremost difference here. Its also good to bear in mind at this point that dispensationalism views the reign of Christ on earth as a literal 1000 years on earth, while amillennialism and postmillennialism view it as an indefinite period of time within the present church age. The weaknesses of postmillennialism mirror that of amillennialism.

That is not the interesting stuff about post-millennialism though. The interesting thing about this system is the two main ways in which its holders have the interpreted the victory of the church to come about. These two ways are "revivalist" and "Christian reconstructionist."

Many Puritans were revivalists and believed the Gospel, as preached in the Reformation, would go to the ends of the earth, and covert huge numbers in the world. One would think they were basing this assumption on the success of the Reformation and the triumph of the evangelical Gospel in various forms of Protestantism. I honestly do not know. That's another blog. The point is that this is a bottom-up approach to converting the world in this system.

Christian Reconstructionism has emerged in the last century or so, and it takes the opposite tack--namely that Christians must take over the government, the arts, education, and all walks of society. Christians, instructed by the law of God in the OT and NT are the most capable of logically building a society in God's world, and will eventually do so, taking over every facet by entering the darkened world and lighting and rebirthing its every activity rooted in the Law of God and the Gospel of Christ. This position is called "theonomy"--rule of God.

Which ever of these positions a postmillennialist takes, they will be hated by the world! For the world hates Gospel preachers and Christians meddling in society. It's interesting to think about the implications...

Next time...historical premillennialism!

PS Most postmillennialists are Presbyterians.

How Can Catholics Believe It?

Peter was married (Matt. 8:14-17; 1 Cor. 9:5). He was, according to Catholics, also the first Pope. If he was married why does the church enforce celibacy on priests?

New baby: Gabriel Aaron Dungan (click on picture to enlarge)

Bible Students: Have You Heard About Robert Crumb's "Genesis?"

If you don't know who Robert Crumb is, and aren't that familiar with comic books, just know that Crumb is the artist behind the lascivious "Fritz the Cat" cartoons and others. Here is a picture of Fritz:


Well, sorry, I didn't publish one because they are so often porno in nature. That's what Crumb is known for, anyways, in "Fritz" as well as his other comics. He is something of an underground phenomenon in US comic history, producing some X-rated stuff that is really bad--but...

Now he has taken on the book of Genesis from the Bible. And here is the amazing thing--he doesn't rake it through the mud of satire, he really tries to portray the text as it reads (with a feminist/liberal sensibility worked in very cleverly in some parts). This is really bizarre. Crumb doesn't believe the Bible, but he didn't think he could top the over-the-top stories of Genesis! To him, (even though the he doesn't believe the Bible is Truth) Truth is stranger than fiction! Here is a shot from his "Genesis."



If you know Ben Witherington (Asbury Seminary prof; contributor to Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" (I think, might be "Case for Faith), he has this to say:

Now however this super-lapsed Catholic has decided to depict scenes from all 50 chapters of Genesis, with the emphasis on verbatim. Those of us who knew a bit about his snarky past were holding our collective breath, but Rabbi Simcha Weinstein, author of the well-titled book Up,Up, and Oi Vey (the history of how Jews had influence on the creation of fictional super-heroes) reassures us that Crumb has not given us a crumby treatment of Genesis. Of course the literal depiction of murder, incest, rape, and a host of the other things that go on in Genesis itself is enough to curdle one's milk and curl one's hair. Hide the babies and pack up the old ladies. But then alas, the Bible is hardly a G or PG book--- it tells it like it is, even when it comes to all our human falleness. It is thus not a surprise that in the 224 pages of this book (out today and published by W.W. Norton) some of these pen and ink drawings reflect the sensual and violent character of some of these stories. This is a comic book my Mom would not have let me read in the 9th grade! Indeed she would have said 'Exodus with this Genesis'.

I might order this book...well, not until investigating it some more!

The Last Word on the Last Days: Amillennialism (No-literal 1000 year Reign of Christ)

I laughed when I started this series as a personal response to the title I decided on. The title is preposterous. However unlikely, I might actually figure out which eschatology is right...not! What I can do is describe them for you and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. My research into Amillennialism is not extensive, and I'll give you my resources at the end. Let's get started.

This is a basic premillennial dispensational view of Bible history:



This is a basic amillenial view of Bible history:



Doesn't the amillenial picture look barren beside even this simplistic dispensational chart? That is deceptive. Amillennial views are complex (especially as their adherents attempt to prove them from scripture). The basic idea is not complex, but the scriptural exegesis is complex. The basic presuppositions are as follows:

1. Scripture pointed early Christians to a soon return of Christ in glory (see Matt. 10:23, 26:64; Rom. 13:11-12; I Cor. 7:31, 10:11; Phil. 4:5; James 5:8-9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:1,3,11, 22:6-7,10,12,20)(Sproul). This list doesn't include yet another text Sproul cites, namely Matthew 24:34, which seems to say that the generation of people standing there at Jesus' utterance would see Him return in glory (also in the other synoptic Gospels).

2. Christ did not come in that generation. Therefore, either the NT writers did not mean that His coming was soon, or they did and His coming was not the end of the world under the conditions we envision when we adopt the "Left Behind" mindset regarding the study of the end times. RC Sproul argues extensively for the latter option, that is, that many Christians have misunderstood the prophetic literature concerning Christ's Second Coming.

3. Therefore, all Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the early churches expectation of the soon return of Christ in glory, and how that coming might have been fulfilled in history, or not yet fulfilled in history.

OK, those are the basic ideas behind amillennialism--the assumptions that it starts with. People have held them since early in church history. At first, many believers where premillennial, then, when Christ did not come early in the first millennium, believers began to look for other ways to interpret the prophetic Scriptures and amillennialism was born. St. Augustine held this position, as did several of the Reformers, and many of the Puritans.

The scheme of events is as follows:

Numbers 1-4 coincide with the Dispensational View in the main.

5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

Simple, right? Well, no...not when one begans to try to understand how this simple scheme comes from Scripture. Amillennialists are divided on their interpretations of the Olivet Discourse, the Epistles, and the Revelation. There is also significant divergence in their interpretation of the OT prophetic books. In fact, I will not address it here, but post-millennialism is an off-shoot of amillennialism! Probably the main control in their interpretation goes back to the presuppositions I told you about--the NT expected a soon coming of Christ, it didn't happen, therefore the Scriptures concerning it must be interpreted differently than in a literal historical manner. Some schemes of interpretation follow:

1. Plain amillennialism: All the scriptures on tribulation and the antichrist are fulfilled throughout church history. Revelation is a symbolic interpretation of God's judgments throughout the church age. As I mentioned before, there is much division in the amill camp over what Scriptures represent what historical trends. Therefore, most plain amillennialists view much of the prophetic Scripture through the lens of symbolism (ie the loosing of the Gospel as the binding of Satan throughout the Church Age (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17-20)). However, plain amillennialists get very literal when they come to interpreting scriptures concerning the final judgment and the eternal state (ie a bodily return of Christ, Christ defeats all His enemies, Christ literally raises all the bodies of the dead, unites soul and body, judges all people, and places people in eternal heaven or hell).

2. Moderate preterist amillennialism: The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) is not symbolic in whole...it deals with the end of the Jewish Age. Jesus prediction of His coming in power was fulfilled in the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD (Sproul's view). This is proved by Luke's account of the Discourse in which invading armies are described as "desolation come near," which coincides with the "abomination of desolation" found in the other synoptic Gospels. Sproul with others also use Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius as historical sources to show the astronomical signs in Jesus Olivet teachings happened in or around 70AD. The NT letters and the Revelation refer to church history, but also to future events. This view gives more exact fulfillment to Jesus' words than the plain amill position.

3. Full-preterism: All the events in scriptural prophecy are already fulfilled in AD70. This view is the most problematic (with moderate preterism sharing some of these difficulties). Some problems are as follows: 1) The return of Christ as found in Matthew 24 and other texts seems not difficult to discern: "For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." 2) The early church did not recognize 70AD as a fulfillment of the return of Christ in this way 3) Jesus resurrection being the pattern, it is hard to believe the spiritual resurrection of people in the new birth and the resurrection described in Matthew 24 and other scriptures are describing the same thing. 4) The Lord's Supper is described as an ordinance kept "until He comes."

The problems go on and on.

Some final thoughts...

1. Basic amillennialism is very appealing to many people. It has a long history, does not run into the problems of preterism, and basically gives the student of prophecy a lot of room for ignorance and wiggle room for interpretation with its highly symbolic view of Scripture. This means it also lacks precision and begs the question concerning how much credit it gives the writers of scripture when they reference seemingly literal events, time periods, etc.

2. All forms of preterism try to answer the problem of time references in the NT by relating 70AD to prophecy. We've already looked at the problems there. Enough said.

3. Compared to dispensationalism or premillennialism, which do convincingly relate prophecy to history in many ways, amillennialism seems a stretch with its resort to symbolism for most of NT prophecy. The best example is the millennium itself. It is obvious from the text of Revelation 20 that the millennium follows the defeat of Antichrist. Given that Antichrist appears to be a literal historical figure of immense proportion who has yet to arise (Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians), it seems unlikely to say that Antichrist has been defeated and the church is reigning in the millennium with Christ at the present. Furthermore, none of the world-wide phenomenon associated with Antichrist's reign appear to have been fulfilled.

That's it for amillennialism. It's a complicated system. It has its benefits, but it too suffers problems of interpretation and historical fulfillment. On to postmillenialism next time!

Soli Deo Gloria

Greg

Sources

"The Last Days According to Jesus" RC Sproul
John Stevenson Bible Study Page (http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/jts.html)
"Prophecy and the Church" Oswald T. Allis

PS

Amillennialists could be any denomination. From what I've read, its main adherents are Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists (I'm sure I missed some).

The Last Word on the Last Days: Part 1--Dispensationalism (click on the chart to enlarge!)

Looks pretty crazy doesn't it? Before I say a word about Dispensational Premillennial Pre-Tribulation Rapture Eschatology, I thought I'd give you an idea what I'm up against. Charts like this are common among folks who believe this Left Behind style end-times scheme. They are necessary because the plotlines are so stinkin' complicated that you have to write them down to get a grip on their immensity. I'm going to stew this chart down to a tender seven or so points that I hope you can digest them, much like cooking up some good fresh green beans so they're easier to chew on.

Here goes:

1. In the OT God selected Abraham as the father of the Jews, to be His own nation. God made promises to Abe and His Seed that have never been revoked about giving him the land of Canaan, the covenant of circumcision, and about Abe being a blessing or a curse to all mankind.

2. The result of this was the Jewish nation, called forth to God's true worship from their pagan environment in Egypt, to whom He gave the land of Canaan, His Law, and many promises.

3. The Jews went through periods of disobedience and obedience throughout their history, with God saying that He would eventually establish His eternal Kingdom, involving the Jews, at some point in the future. The prophets elaborated on Deuteronomy during this time as it pertained to a future prophet, like Moses, whom the Jews called Messiah, who would inaugurate the Kingdom and deliver them. The prophet Daniel alluded to a "stone cut without hands" (Christ the Messiah) in his visions that would destroy all the empires of the world and rule. The prophet Daniel specifically foretold that 483 years would occur from his time till Messiah's coming, and that at the end of this time (69 prophetic weeks), the prince/prophet/Messiah would die and a nation would destroy the Jews. The 70th week would see a future destroyer who would attack God's people and then be destroyed. The "stone cut without hands" would be the only Kingdom left--Messiah and His Kingdom (interpreted to be only the Jews by some Jews).

4. Christ came to the Jews in the Roman occupation period of history. He was the promised Messiah and King. The Jews did not understand the Trinity, which they couldn't see in the OT, and furthermore, Jesus did not meet their expectations as a military leader, so they killed Him. What they didn't know is that He was the Messiah, yet His first coming did not start with world conquest, but the conquest of sin, Satan, and death. They couldn't even see His role as a sacrifice for sin, though they killed sacrifices for their sins all the time.

5. The Jews, having rejected the Kingdom, were rejected by God as the main agents of redemption of the world for a while, while the church age, a "mystery" to the OT prophets (Col. 1:26) was revealed to last for an indefinite time. This age could've lasted a few years, but its been now over 2000 years.

6. Most dispensationalists believe that the church age is not the full Kingdom of God described in the OT, therefore, Christ will return suddenly to "rapture" (catch up) the church before He brings tribulation on the earth. During the tribulation, the earth will suffer His wrath 7 years, but He will redeem Israel, which will begin to believe in Him and spread the Gospel like crazy. After His wrath is spent on the agents of Satan, they are consigned to hell, and Satan is locked-up. Those redeemed in the tribulation will unite with the raptured saints on earth in a 1000 year Kingdom under Jesus Christ, ruled from Jerusalem.

7. At the end of 1000 years, Satan is released from bondage for a while to recruit all remaining unbelievers throughout earth who will try to attack Christ. What results is their destruction by fire from heaven, the last judgment and finally, all the redeemed enter the eternal state in a new heaven and earth, while all the unbelieving, evil people are consigned with Satan to eternal hell. So ends the history of sin and death in this world.

*Points are Scripture referenced as follows: 1)Genesis 12-25 2)The rest of the Pentateuch 3)The OT History Books, The Psalms, The Prophets (mainly) 4)The Gospels (note Matthew's many citations of the Prophets and Psalms) 5)The Gospels and Letters
6) The Gospels, Letters, Revelation, The Prophets 7) The Revelation

Wow! Isn't that a mouthful! The issues are too many and too big to address pro-con debate style, so let me make a few remarks and we'll be done.

1. Dispensationalism is highly Scriptural, which is its appeal. It hits on Scripture after Scripture, giving them historical tags. No wonder people like this--its history beforehand. People like that certainty and predictability. They like the fact that every base is covered. However, there are many weak links in the chain, given that many of its scripture-based interpretations are dubious (for fun, try to distinguish Christ's coming in the Rapture vs. His 3rd Coming in Judgment from a simple reading of the NT).

2. Dispensationalism is a new phenomenon. It's about 150 years old. It was invented by the Brethren Christian Community in Europe/Britian and formalized by John Nelson Darby circa 1830. This is not considered a liability by dispensationalists, since the people near the end were expected to understand prophecy better, since the times of fulfillment were at hand. However, this leaves the question: "Why did no one come to this view before 1830?" It's not easy to answer why some enlightened interpreter of Scripture didn't come to it earlier. (Also see Revelation 1:1)

3. Dispensationalism also carries the baggage of its namesake--the Dispensational periods included in the original scheme. These aided in distinguishing periods of history, since dispensationalists make radical differences in between different periods of redemption history, the biggest being Jewish Kingdom of Heaven vs. Christian church. Again, this requires some interpretive gymnastics, which I won't go into here much, except to say that the NT regards the 1st Coming of Christ as the inauguration of His Kingdom, howbeit in the hearts of men (Matthew 12:28).

There's my first post. Dispensationalism is very complicated and teaches many unlikely doctrines, strung together from many proof-texts. It also teaches much truth. I would say my own end times view is akin to dispensationalism in some ways, and not in others. In my opinion, the ideas in my 3 points are my problems with it. In my following posts I'll consider the amount of strengths and weaknesses of dispensationalism as well as the next view I look at. I'll do that until I reach a conclusion, at which point we'll be able to see each view's strengths and weaknesses.

Hope you enjoy the journey.

His peace,

Greg

PS Dispensationalists can be Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic, whatever...the system is ubiquitous among Evangelicals. Most of the mainline denominations (Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, etc.) are wary of it.

New Series

I will be embarking on a series of blogs entitled "The Last Word on the Last Days" (hahaha). This will be a similar format to my previous series "Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth." In case you missed my conclusions on that series, you are welcome to go back and read them yourself, but basically my conclusions were the following:

1. The majority report on evolution is certainly not true as the public schools, universities, and scientists teach it. The fossil record doesn't match. The DNA record doesn't prove that DNA can morph according to environmental influences. There is no secular answer for the start of life (against Stanley Miller and all his followers), because the naturalistic mechanism proposed isn't powerful enough given even billions of years based on pure chance. There is a growing movement in the sciences that recognizes these and other problems with the current majority paradigm of naturalistic evolution. So evolution is headed out scientifically. It's no secret Scripture doesn't agree, and that is more important than all the opinions just presented.

2. The age of the earth remains a problem for the biblical chronology. However, it is highly likely Genesis is a factual/poetic account, given to Moses's primitive people to fit there education level on the universe. Before anyone goes ballistic over what I just said, consider half the days of Genesis are not normal (a la day 1, where light exists with no light-bearing bodies). Also consider that God can and did change human DNA (where do you think Eve came from?). So it seems that there is room for more time than 6 normal solar days in Genesis. However, before I go too far, I will say that if God is as the Bible describes Him, 6 solar days, and all the problems that go along with it from our perspective would be no problem at all to God. Correct? Notice that none of what I have said undermines normal history taking place in Genesis 2 with Adam and Eve. The temptation would have simply taken place after day 7, whether it was a long time, or a shorter one. God knows.

3. Where does this leave us? Genesis is history, but it doesn't include all the details, and that for our benefit. It immediately zooms in on mankind in chapter 2, describing why we are sinners and gives a proto-Gospel answer to that problem. The Bible is theocentric (God-centered), but is also anthropocentric (man-centered). So many other details about God's world are not important to His main plan and message. We will be scratching our heads about a great many things (Genesis included), all the way to Glory.

Speaking of scratching heads...I'll start my new series soon...

Shalom

Greg

Luke 6:43-45: Fly Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee

Today my preacher addressed the text in the headline, and it appeared to be difficult. Not because he was unprepared. Not because he didn't deliver well. It is just a difficult subject. The greatest hardship in addressing this text is it's connection with the preceding text about "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Luke 6:37). There is a irresistible tension set up when one attempts to harmonize what we heard today with that text that immediately precedes it. The quandary goes like this: "If we are not to judge--then how are we to judge people's fruit?" There are only two options here: 1) Do not judge other's fruit all 2) Or judge them.

The Scripture calls us to make too many judgments (remember that pesky discernment), for the first option to be a live one. So this inevitably leads us to a second sticky question:

How are we to judge people?

My preacher gave the simple answer and explained it well: Judge all things by the Word of God.

This led him to the difficult position of explaining that all things people judge as evil are not evil. However, this is not the end of the story. There is a burden upon Christians to consider their actions, so sin is not the only issue. There is also the issue of other believer's consciences. So anything that makes one stumble, lose faith, or does the same to others, is off limits.

Here is where the difficulty came in. My pastor noted a vineyard owner in town who has been rejected by his church. Then came the shocking statement: "It might not be a sin to own a vineyard and sell wine." Without a doubt, this is true, but I'm sure it raised some eyebrows this morning down here in the Bible Belt! Let me say immediately that I agree with my pastor. He is one of my heroes, and I love him. However, this kind of thing in the ministry in a Bible Belt Baptist Church is where I got my title. O how carefully one must step amongst the landmines of cultural sensitivity!

My pastor went on to explain that this is a Romans 14 issue--an issue of conscience. Not all people are able to handle a person selling alcohol. I can even hear Habakkuk 2:15 being shouted out by people all over the county right now! Yet right there in that passage, the motivation for the one giving out the alcohol is exposed: "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, to thee that addest thy venom, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! (Hab 2:15 (ASV)). The motivation of this person is to bring drunkeness and shame on his neighbor. This is most likely not the cold-hearted motivation of the local vineyard owner my pastor talked with. The Bible roundly condemns drunkenness, but never condemns plain use of alcohol as a beverage, nor of its selling to others. Similarly, soldiering is an occupation that without a doubt can bring someone into the position of harming someone, but God doesn't condemn it through John the Baptist earlier in Luke, because a soldier's duties don't always involve personal malice as a rule (3:14).

God is all about the motivation of the heart concerning behaviors that can affect others for good or bad. Certain sins are named in the Bible, and that's that for them. There is no other case or argument. However, many things in the Bible require careful discernment, judgment, and grace to determine their moral value. I have become convinced through today's sermon and my previous studies of Romans 14, that we don't know that chapter as we ought here in my state. It's true in missionary work, that anything that is a cause for stumbling or a hindrance to the Gospel, ought to be abstained from. However, that doesn't mean its easy to determine what is legal. Every situation must be analyzed with the highest goal of loving God and man as first priority. That said, we are required to live wisely, in the fear of God, more than anything else.

Keep floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee Brother R!

Greg

911 and Today's Tea Party

Yesterday was a horrific and heroic day in US history 8 years ago. Planes smashed into the World Trade Center destroying them. Other planes hit the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. I have read much conspiracy literature concerning these events. However, two things are most certainly true--in New York, crisis struck and service workers reacted with courage and discipline. Thank God for firefighters, EMTS, paramedics, policemen, and others who served their fellowmen and country on that day. Thanks also to others who served in Pennsylvania and Washington. God bless their families and comfort them with His peace. Furthermore, God bless and keep those who were lost on that day and their families because of these acts of violence and terror.

Much has happened since that fateful day. Americans have largely continued with their lives as normal. However, trouble has been brewing. President Obama and the Democratic led congress have attempted to counter one of the greatest recessions in our nation's history by spending taxpayer money hugely. The US government now has huge debt (much of it backed by China), and has funneled huge amounts of taxpayer money for the forseeable future into the nation's large insurance companies, banks, and automakers. Rather than allow these companies to fail and restructure or disband (which would be just), we the people have been expected to foot the bill as big business repairs itself with our money. Now Obama has said of reforming (socializing) the healthcare industry, "I am not the first president to address this issue, but I am determined to be the last."

Today, in Somerset, there was a Tea Party. It was pro-US, but more than that, themed heavily on our responsibility as citizens to control the democratic process by exercising our right to vote. The keynote speaker refrained, "We must vote out all those who have produced the current situation--democrat and republican." Sitting there, I thought to myself, "how can the people change this situation by voting out politicians?" Surely, the speaker understood that the campaign process is shaped by and favorable to the often self-serving rich, who then bring forward one of two candidates to every post, from which we must choose one. Surely he knows that the problem is not that we can't vote them out, but it is the choices we are given. Big business and the wealthy shape the Republican party. Big business and the wealthy even shape the Democratic party. Campaigning is a costly business and the rich will have their advantages and often their way when it comes to shaping the leadership of this country and the world, and the agenda that leadership imposes. The people are angry...but I doubt they will prevail, as this world is controlled by Satan and his lies about greed and indulgence. As Ecclestiastes says, "Money is the answer to everything." (10:19).

(I am not against rich people in general. However, if the bail-outs are not the rich working with the politicians to preserve and extend their assets as the rest of the country runs low on cash, I don't know what they are. I also believe that despite the inconvenience of the system, good politicians do make it into Congress, however, their numbers are meager. This is were a Gospel revival nationwide could make a difference. If the Holy Spirit doesn't turn the human heart from stone to flesh, there is no answer for greed, poverty, or sharp dealing. Certainly socialist "change" is not the answer, as it provides no accountability or sense of urgency to to instill the values of accountability, work ethic, or fair wages. If the chains of Christ do not lead men--the chains of sin will prevail over them.)

I then thought, "What then is my duty, considering there is faint hope for such nationwide character reformation?" Romans 13 came to mind. I mulled over the fact that Paul told Christians to obey the ungodly and evil Roman government with its Satanic emperors. Why? Paul answers that the authorities have been appointed by God to enforce the law and protect us. This is the best advice. We might not be able to change the political/economic system to a more just one economically and politically, but we can bear witness for Christ, work for our food, deal squarely, and obey all laws not in conflict with God's law under the present system. We may not be able to live comfortably on social security when we retire in the future, and we might not be able to leave worldly goods to our children and grandchildren, but we can instill these values in them and pray that Mammon does not become their god. The positive side of that is thankfulness to God for whatever we receive. Even to the point were all we might have is a day's food at a time and clothes on our backs. (Blessed are the poor/poor in spirit). Thankfulness entails also the recognition that many citizens of this world live in absolute poverty and disease, and that though we Americans seem to have less all the time, we certainly have many more material things than most of the world. We ought to help them in whatever way we can.

I predict the rich will continue to influence the system for personal gain, simply because they have advantages the working and middle class do not. Unconstitutional/progressive/socialist ideas will continue to overtake our Constitution's original intent in legislature and the courts a bit at a time as the world moves toward globalism. Unless America is granted another great revival, which would grant a change of heart to many, many Americans, our country, as after 9/11, will never be the same and will not continue to be governed under the values it was in the past. (Not that the country has been perfect--far from it, but it has and still is great in many ways--just ask all those immigrants why they want to come here.)

However, I say, with the courage of a New York firefighter, rushing into the burning towers, we must fight the good fight, teach our fellowman and children about the Kingdom of righteousness that will never be abolished, about the Treasure laid up that can never rust or be stolen, about the retirement that is really permanent rest, and about the Leader--the Good Shepherd, who never goes astray, who never will leave us or forsake us, who will take care of us eternally. Jesus Christ is His name. This is the Kingdom of Heaven, which we must latch onto forcefully--the USA is a kingdom of this world and can ultimately not provide any of the these things. Never will we fail if we do this, though the world fall apart around us. Let's roll...

Country Boy

So many things have happened since July. I figure I'll start with something I love--music. Lately I have been studying country music and bluegrass because I play guitar at church and I wish to incorporate some aspects of these styles into my playing. What sparked this desire was finding an Albert Lee video on YouTube.



I came across this video because in the days when I played mostly rock and metal, all of my guitar mags raved about Albert Lee when they came to talk about country music. I didn't give it much thought, but I was simply astounded when I found out how good Albert Lee was! I already knew that Chet Atkins was a guitarist's guitarist, and that his influence, Merle Travis had also had a drastic influence on many American styles of music from rock to folk, but I had no idea of the technical expertise owned by Albert Lee and other country soloists. So, new musical respect has arrived in my mind concerning country guitarists--they are as good, or better than their rock and roll counterparts.

Mountaintop

The climber is poised on the precipice high,
His hair and his lips are touching the sky,
A climb very long has taken its toll,
And the top has been reached, as has his goal.
The winds whip high in the thin cold air,
No creatures or people make a stir there,
And taking it in, a lonely figure frowns,
For now he is considering, how to get down.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating and Scripture (part 6)

So far, I've noted some scientific perspectives on radiometric dating. Most scientists and many people believe the procedure has validity. Others question the scientists who use the method according to their bias, as they harmonize evidence that agrees with their assumptions of an old earth, while dismissing a lot of examples of dates that do not agree as mistakes caused by some natural process, etc.

This post is about the views of Scripture (Genesis 1) and how they harmonize with radiometric dating.

1. 7 Day Creationism: This is the oldest view of Christianity and is still held today. This position holds radiometric dating as completely false as a scientific discipline that can tell the age of the earth. Just last week I listened to John MacArthur (pastor of Grace Community) say the earth is about 6000 years old. He didn't immediately offer an explanation of his view on radiometric dating, but he was implicitly saying it offers (in its secular persuasion) no evidence for earth's age. MacArthur was relying only on Scripture. In other places, I have seen he and other 7 Day folks bring forward other objections to the method. In one such instance, MacArthur claimed that the speed of light was slowing down over time centuries. Thus, in old times, the decay of radioactive elements (the "clock" of the method), was faster, giving high ages that are false according to the true age of the earth. Additionally, those who hold this view also give credit for the fossil record to Noah's Flood. Proponents of this view staunchly declare there was no death in the world before sin (Romans 5). With this position, there is no compromise or agreement with mainstream science.





2. Theistic Evolution: This view represents a huge compromise with science on the part of Bible scholars. It assumes evolution and all old earth arguments are valid, and empties Genesis of explicit meaning. It attributes the Creation to God, and the workings of it (through NATURAL processes), but there is no Creation, save maybe the beginning of life. This view picked up steam from the middle of the 19th century on, and eventually resulted in liberal Christianity, which also allowed other sources of authority to dictate the words of the Bible (such as the social Gospel replacing the Biblical Gospel and psychology's terms and methods replacing the "soul care" that earlier generations of Bible believer's taught in regard to sin and righteousness of the believer). The weakness of this view is that makes no distinction between the strength of the scientific evidence for evolution (weak) and that for the old age of the earth (strong). The mainline denominations (Presbyterianism in the PCUSA; Anglicanism in the Episcopal Church USA; The United Methodist Church) have all either boldly or quietly accepted science's claims without reservation (though the Methodists didn't commit their position in paper until last year). Noteworthy in all this is that many proponents of the secular scientific worldview in these denominations did not start with radiometric dating as their problem, rather, it was the evolutionary worldview that started to be popular in 19th century that pushed them. Radiometric dating only strengthened their initial position. The Catholic Church has officially agreed with this position for many years.

3. Day-Age Theory: This theory is essentially the same as the above (#2) in accepting an old earth, except that the theologians who advocate it try to find harmony in the order of creation found in Genesis and that propounded by natural science. The trouble is the orders do not match up (birds before fish in Scripture versus fish before birds in science, for example). This view also does not recognize the difficulties that evolution faces. It is little different than theistic evolution.




4. The Gap Theory: Hailing from the days of the Bible teacher CI Scofield, this view inserts a "gap" between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 that is supposed to account for all the animals and plants laid out in the earth's foundation that seem not to be part of the main part of the Genesis 1 record (1:3-end of the chapter). These creatures are supposed to be part of a world that fell after the initial creation of God, but before the rest of Genesis 1. This previous creation and fall is attributed by many proponents of this view to God creating a world for Satan (originally a beautiful, great angel) to rule. When Satan fell into sin, the world God gave him was destroyed and he was punished with eternal condemnation (to be executed finally in the Last Judgment). This view is interesting, mainly because it is creative, and possible. It is far from certain however, as it lays on shaky foundations. First, its interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3 is far from conclusive. Second, its "fall of Satan" story has little Scriptural backup. Third, it offers no interpretation of the the fossil record, which seems to show a progression of lifeforms that appear and go extinct throughout the record, from one layer of rock to another (save a few forms, which remain to this day). However, this position is compatible with an old earth as found by radiometric dating and accepts a literal Flood story, but does not lay the fossil burden on the Flood. These factors make it somewhat appealing.



5. Progressive Creationism: This view embraces the Day-Age categorization of God progressively creating life over long ages (per radiometric dating), but does not agree with evolution, because of the theory's weaknesses. However, regarding the Creation of man, many progressive creationists insist on literal historical nature of the account. This position is the best compromise (if one wants a compromise) between Scripture and available scientific data. However, many of the theories proponents do not hold to literal interpretations of certain Scriptures, specifically, the ancient history found in Genesis 1-11. This leads them in the direction of the popular "framework hypothesis" view of Scripture, which is not an origins theory proper, but is instead an explanation of Genesis as a literary description of God's real creative process, given by God to Moses for simplicity. The framework's main features are a focus on God creating all that was and is, and an attention to God's creating of the realms of existence (the land, sky, and sea) and then God filling them (the Sun for the heavens and fish for the waters for instance). This theory is still not well-known as the Day-Age Theory, but it is very interesting nonetheless, and is compatible with aspects of both the Intelligent Design movement and the Young Earth Creationist movement.



(I included the cartoons because so much information in the debate I've been writing about contains mostly rhetoric and a little bit of truth. Many Christians don't want to critically examine good arguments for an old earth and many Christians and others, including scientists don't want to critically examine the evidence for creation and the evidence against evolution.)

Is Obama socialist? Hmmm....

Karl Marx was a complex figure. Communism and Socialism are associated with him. The idea at the heart of his and Engel's Manifesto is simple though. Basically, Marx decried the advantage of property ownership and the inequality it produces in the world economy. Those who own property, and especially lots of property (the "means of production) are set to control all those who work under them. Therefore, he believed that all property (real estate, factories, businesses, etc.) should be public property. Property ownership results in a ruling class over a Capitalist society (with capital meaning property, basically). Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto of Capitalism:

"It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands."

See for all citations from here on: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf)

The idea here is a ruling class that has by chance of history inherited the power to rule industry and all of life. The "economy" is regarded as belonging to them. Marx and Engels would say the Dow Jones Average or the Fortune 500 belong to this class. Those at the top of these structures control everything in life: the condition of the workplace, the government, the church, and the family. The individual capitalist (or bourgeois) as he calls them, may fall and be replaced by another, but the class remains distinct as a ruling entity over all other members of society (the proletariet).

Marx and Engels go on to say that these capitalist folks will be overthrown by a new spirit: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism." This spirit will motivate, over time, all members of the proletariet to produce a classless society in the future, called communism, in which property rights are destroyed, everything is owned by everybody, and there is no bourgeois. Marx mentions societies will "prepare" themselves for this, unwittingly, as industry grows.

The Communist governments of Russia and China, Cuba and Korea wanted the change to communism immediately. These revolutionary government's leaders relied on the following logic from the Manifesto:

"If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means
of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."

(I know this passage is controversial, as those who used it for revolutionary purposes did not abolish their own power.)

What resulted was a world-wide blood bath, as these small groups of leaders gained a following and created violent revolution throughout the world, changing the face of the nations in a century. These leaders remained in control, and no classless society ever emerged in these nations (see George Orwell's "Animal Farm").

So now, we have two things: The Manifesto's view of capitalism and its view of communism. What about socialism? How does the Manifesto regard it? And is President Obama a socialist? Here is a quote from the Manifesto regarding a socialist position that sounds like our president:

"A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government."

Plain English: One form of socialism is a mechanism of the ruling class to suppress true Communist revolution by giving the working class "stuff."

Does that sound like Obama? It does doesn't it? I think Obama is socialist in his views of the economy according to the Manifesto.

What does the Manifesto say the purpose of such socialism is? To stave off revolutionary tendencies of the working class through gifts.

I am no Communist. I am not a socialist either. Nor do embrace the capitalist system when the working person is squeezed as much as they can be by those who control property, but based on Marx--I don't think Obama is just trying to help "the least of these," but craftily is also helping the greatest. For those of you who hate George Bush, know that the motivations of these two men are not that disparate, or separated. They both help the lesser of society in some way to serve the greater, if not only for their own benefit, then for the benefit of themselves and others of their class.

The greatest difference between them is: Who is going to take care of you better? Business or big government? Where should the power lie heaviest? After all, Bush was an oil man and Obama is a constitutional law professor (a lawyer--read government) from Harvard.

Who will really take care of you better though? God. Yes, there is one power, one government, one Kingdom, and one King that all will bow to. So if your a Christian, remember that your Savior is not legislating in Washington. Nor is he test-drilling for oil in the sands of Arabia. He is in Heaven, and He will take care of us--our Lord Jesus Christ is our hope, not the petty powers of this world.

More on Obama's eligibility and birth certificate

Seems this Obama eligibility issue is still stewing. See the following link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90574

Let me say something though.

At this point, I almost wish it wasn't an issue. Yes I did say that.

Here is why...my first inclination is that it would be a huge mess for our country. Who knows the outcome? Obama's quick string of decisions and actions would be called into question. Can you imagine the stimulus package being voided because he signed it? I'm not saying this is possible or probable...maybe the government would find a easy solution to the mess that would cause, but maybe not. Then think of this: Joe Biden President. (At least I think that's the course of action the government would take, but I don't know constitutional law). Not only that, imagine the fall-out among young people, blacks, and other groups. At very least, the huge disappointment would be felt far and wide. Perhaps something worse would happen.

Yet, there are other things to think about.

Do we have a Constitution or not? Does it mean something or not? Does public opinion or law rule the land? Or, as many of us are feeling, do many of the politicians in Washington do what is best in their own eyes?

I was disappointed yet again today as Obama made known his desire to repeal some of the Bush administration's legislative actions to protect medical professionals who cannot recommend abortion with a clear conscience. His nomination of pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services further shows his campaign positions were sincere regarding his support of abortion on demand rights. I vehemently disagree with the President on these issues.

Yet, they are not the reason I think his eligibility issue is important. It is because he must comply with federal law just like any other candidate. And it's just a birth certificate. Why in the world is Hawaii's government holding it back from public view? This whole issue is so strange, and could be solved so simply. Perhaps we shall see if there is more to it than talk.

John Piper On the Recession: A Timely Word

One of my favorite writers and pastors is John Piper. He is insanely in love with the LORD (so far as I can tell). Here are his observations on the current recession. To listen or read the whole thing, go to the link on the right side of my blog under "Desiring God."

(Some of) God’s Purposes in This Recession

Now what are some of God’s purposes in this recession? I will mention five:

1. He intends for this recession to expose hidden sin and so bring us to repentance and cleansing.
2. He intends to wake us up to the constant and desperate condition of the developing world where there is always and only recession of the worst kind.
3. He intends to relocate the roots of our joy in his grace rather than in our goods, in his mercy rather than our money, in his worth rather than our wealth.
4. He intends to advance his saving mission in the world—the spread of the gospel and the growth of his church—precisely at a time when human resources are least able to support it. This is how he guards his glory.
5. He intends for the church to care for its hurting members and to grow in the gift of love.

As I listened to this message, I was convicted deeply of our selfishness in America. Two bright spots:

1. He said: "Recession is to make us think of the poor of the world, who for, there is only crushing, everlasting recession." (my paraphrase).

2. He noted the Afar people of Africa:

Our family prays through the Global Prayer Digest each morning. For January 29, 2009, we prayed for the Afar people of Ethiopia:

It’s 3:00 a.m., and the Afar father is still awake. The desert night is cold. He snuggles up to his wife and newborn baby to keep them warm. Their stomachs rumble with hunger. Should he slaughter his scrawny goat to feed his wife, hoping she will produce enough milk for their baby? Or should he beseech the clan elders to move again, in search of weeds for the goat, or maybe even some fresh water?

They are fortunate; both his wife and their baby survived the birth. The Afar people have the highest maternal fatality rate in the world. Women give birth without benefit of sterile conditions, or even clean water. Of the babies born alive one-third die before age five. Afar people roam throughout one of the most desolate places on earth: the Ethiopian desert.

Drought and malnutrition make them vulnerable to diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, conjunctivitis, and other water-borne illnesses. Of 13 million Afar people, three million are infected with HIV/AIDS.

All this is well worth pondering for a moment apart from the constant hum of the flat screen, large television (in many of our houses) that numbs our minds nightly.

A Powerful Pro-Life Video!

What's Love Got to Do With It?

On my birthday, June 4th in 1984, Tina Turner's label released the following song by her. The lyrics go:



You must understand
That the touch of your hand
Makes my pulse react
That it`s only the thrill
Of boy meeting girl
Opposites attract

It`s physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that

Oh whats love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a second hand emotion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken

It may seem to you
That i`m acting confused
When you`re close to me
If i tend to look dazed
I`ve read it someplace
I`ve got cause to be

There`s a name for it
There`s a phrase that fits
But whatever the reason
You do it for me

Oh whats love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a second hand emotion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart
When a heart can be broken

I`ve been thinking of a new direction
But i have to say
I`ve been thinking about my own protection
It scares me to feel this way

What`s love got to do, got to do with it
What`s love but a sweet old fashioned notion
What`s love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken


Today, on February 12th, 2009, Valentine's Day is only 2 days away (so men, take note). "Love" is in the air. This begs a question: What is "love"?

To Tina Turner's speaker in the above song, love cannot be physical attraction or the butterfly gut feelings and excitement that accompany that attraction. Perhaps in the most telling lyrics of the song above, she says: "What's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love but a sweet old fashioned notion?" It seems that the speaker in her song has decided to detach physical attraction from love, and also has come to believe true love between men and women is mostly a dangerous delusion. These words belong to someone who has gotten "burned," and can't risk connecting physical attraction and love anymore. Poignant words, seeing that Tina's life with Ike Turner melded fierce attraction, cooperation, and also pain and abuse. Sounds like she knew her Shakespeare:

They do not love that do not show their love.
The course of true love never did run smooth.
Love is a familiar. Love is a devil. There is no evil angel but Love.
-- William Shakespeare

Many young people in our culture are following this logic of love to a "t." College campuses are rife with the "hook-up" culture, where physical relationship is detached from the risk of love and commitment. These grown kids wait for a later date, say 30 years old to take a stab at marriage. The US Census Bureau says divorce is also still alive and well, though with the increase in cohabitation and the decrease in marriage rates, it has waned somewhat.

I was somewhat surprised to see Valentine's "pajama gram" advertisement while watching FOX News. The catch-line? "The only present guaranteed to get a woman to take off her clothes." We are seeing a culture in which the real hope of attaching love to commitment and long-term care is either being degraded or deferred in favor of physical satisfaction and pleasure. After all--"Who needs a heart, when a heart can be broken?"

So "What's Love Got To Do With It?" Is there a definition for "love," in our modern, post-Christian context? Not from many voices in our culture. But the Bible speaks to the reality of love--and it's an act of will. It is not just magnetic feelings, but it is a marvelous commitment--a covenant. And covenants need sterner stuff at their base than momentary human emotion. God chose Christians as sons and and daughters in love from before the foundation of the world (see Eph. 1). This was at base an act of will, looking forward to a bright future with His children in which all things are giving Him glory.

As human beings, we can't choose our mate knowing that what they lack, we will sovereignly complete in the future. God does that with His church, but we can't. This is why it is so critical for Christians to find a Christian spouse--God can meld two of His own together better than any wisdom of the world! But, love here is again an act of will, strongly because the Christian's mind is not on vacation while the body, the flesh, makes choices based on physical cues. Again, I believe Shakespeare summarized this as well:

...Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or Bends with the remover to remove.
O, no! It is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken.
It is the star to every wandering bark,
whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
-- William Shakespeare

Being that human beings cannot know hearts as God does, there is always peril in relationships of all kinds. Sin can rear its ugly head and ruin the best of relationships horribly. However, when the mind (through obeying the Holy Spirit) is in control, the chances of heart-break are less. For example, suppose two Christians want to get married. They spend time getting to know each other and trying to care for one another. They discuss goals and dreams. They discuss, most importantly, faith. Through this process, they find out if they are compatible. If they are not, they can part ways. If they are, they might marry. This process is true in a certain way for unbelievers as well. They match up better with someone whose vision of life and dreams match their own. But, as with any kind of people, there is always the peril of the human heart's sin. So, there is always a risk in love relationships. That doesn't mean true love in life and marriage is not possible or even common. In fact, I would argue that strong love relationships between husbands and wives help keep this world civil and sane!

Is "love" just an "old fashioned notion?" I do think so. But it's God's notion--His thought. Mankind has just twisted it, resulting in pain and questioning. Love is eternal in the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost willingly and happily loved each other before they ever began creating the world. Love is an act of will, it is beautiful, and it has eternal consequences. It starts in Heaven, and when the Kingdom is sought above all things, the best of romantic love flows to earth.