October 19th, 2012



Book Review: “By This Standard,” by Greg Bahnsen


“God’s Law or Chaos. God’s Law or Tyranny. God’s Law or God’s Judgment. For over a century, most conservative Christian social thinkers have denied all three of these assertions. Some of them have even gone so far as to argue that God’s law is inherently tyrannical. But God’s law is not only just and sufficient, it is obtainable and ideal for civilization. Christianity has the opportunity to overcome all evil with good, and the basis for all good is in the richness of God’s law.
 
God’s law is Christianity’s tool of dominion. This is where any discussion of God’s law ultimately arrives: the issue of dominion. Ask yourself: Who is to rule on earth, Christ or Satan? Whose followers have the ethically acceptable tool of dominion, Christ’s or Satan’s? What is this tool of dominion, the biblically revealed law of God, or the law of self-proclaimed autonomous man? Whose word is sovereign, God’s or man’s?
 
Millions of Christians, sadly, have not recognized the continuing authority of God’s law or its many applications to modern society. They have thereby reaped the whirlwind—cultural and intellectual impotence. They implicitly have surrendered this world to the devil. They have implicitly denied the power of the death and resurrection of Christ. They have served as footstools for the enemies of God. But humanism’s free ride is coming to an end. This book serves as an introduction to this woefully neglected topic.” — from the back cover

 
This is a fantastic book. Using the words of Jesus Himself, the God-breathed words of the Apostles and others, and the general attitude of Scripture regarding the law, Dr. Bahnsen clearly and cogently shows from Scripture that the New Testament supports the continuing validity of certain aspects of the Mosaic Law.
 
He describes the tripartite classification of the Law—moral, judicial, and ceremonial—and shows how the first two categories are still valid. Moral laws—those laws regarding our personal behavior, such as “Thou shalt not covet”—are still binding on all men. No man in his right mind will say otherwise. Judicial laws—those laws which, while also moral, have civil implications, such as tax laws and penal sentences—are likewise binding on all men, but in principle. That is to say: many of these laws had cultural aspects to them which obviously are not quite the same now; so while a man should still receive the death sentence for homosexuality, it is not necessary for stones to be employed. But it is necessary that his death be a public example, as a warning for other would-be malefactors.Ceremonial laws—those laws which relate to the sacrificial system—are no longer binding, because of Christ’s atonement. To continue keeping these laws would be sin. Another division, arguably part of the ceremonial laws (as opposed to its own category) is that of the cultural separation laws—such tassel laws, beard-cutting laws, blended-fabric laws, dietary laws, etc. These no longer apply, either.
 
Here is an excellent quote taken from the book, pages 16–17:

…There is no word from God which fails to tell us in some way what we are to believe about Him and what He requires of us. Paul put it in this way: “Every scripture is inspired by God and PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, in order that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). If we disregard any portion of the Bible we will—to that extent—fail to be thoroughly furnished for every good work. If we ignore certain requirements laid down by the Lord in the Bible our instruction in righteousness will be incomplete. Paul says that every single scripture is profitable for ethical living; every verse gives us direction for how we should live.
 
The ENTIRE Bible is our ethical yardstick for every part of it is the word of the eternal, unchanging God; none of the Bible offers fallible or mistaken direction to us today. Not one of God’s stipulations is unjust, being too lenient or too harsh. And God does not unjustly have a double-standard of morality, one standard of justice for some and another standard of justice for others. Every single dictate of God’s word, then, is intended to provide moral instruction for us today, so that we can demonstrate justice, holiness, and truth in our lives.
 
It is important to not here that when Paul said that “every scripture is inspired by God and profitable” for holy living, the New Testament was not as yet completed, gathered together, and existing as a published collection of books. Paul’s direct reference was to the well known OLD TESTAMENT scriptures, and indirectly to the soon-to-be-completed New Testament. By inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul taught New Testament believers that every single Old Testament writing was profitable for their present instruction in righteousness, if they were to be completely furnished for every good work required of them by God.
 
Not one bit of the Old Testament has become ethically irrelevant, according to Paul. That is why we, as Christians, should speak of our moral viewpoint, not merely as “New Testament Ethics,” but as “Biblical Ethics.” The New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16–17) requires that we take the Old Testament as ethically normative for us today. Not just selected portions of the Old Testament, mind you, but “every scripture.” Failure to honor the whole duty of man as revealed in the Old Testament is nothing short of a failure to be COMPLETELY equipped for righteous living. It is to measure one’s ethical duty by a broken and incomplete yardstick.

But what are we to make of the dismissals of the law in the New Testament? Dr. Bahnsen deals with these alleged dismissals as well.
 
Truly the conclusions Dr. Bahnsen reaches in this book are logically inescapable.
 
A must-read.
 
 
 
INDECENCY: None.
BAD LANGUAGE: None.
AGE RANGE: Starting with as young men and women as can understand it.




leave a comment




August 2nd, 2012



Book Review: “An Eschatology of Victory,” by J. Marcellus Kik


There is a great debate today over the meaning of Matthew 24 and Revelation 20, two passages central to any discussion of eschatology. Does Matthew 24 prophesy a Great Tribulation or a premillennial return of Christ? Does Revelation 20 describe a millennial age on earth, or in heaven? Will the nations be converted before the coming of Christ?
 
J. Marcellus Kik provides great insight into these passages and the questions that surround them. He writes, ‘It is the habit of a few to read a few chapters of a book on prophecy to see which school of thought the author belongs. Then if they do not agree with his particular school it is cast aside and condemned. It is my hope that the reader will not use the norm of any particular school of prophecy but will use the Scriptures. Does the Word of God teach this or does it not?’” — from the back cover

Before I review the book, let me give a brief synopsis of my eschatological history, so you know where I’m coming from.
 
For me, eschatology has always been a sort of mysterious fog of bizarre imagery, doom, destruction, glory, and to top it all off, dissenting opinions about all of it and when it shall come to pass (if it even comes to pass at all).
 
Though my early thinking was rather lightly seasoned with premillennialism (I say lightly simply because I’d just accepted whatever I’d heard, not having had a chance to study it out for myself) I’d not really been steeped in any particular school of thought on eschatology. Reading The Last Sacrifice several years ago by Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer was my first exposure to the idea that the tribulation may well have been in AD 70 instead of sometime in the future under a world dictator. That exposure did two things for me. First, by throwing contrary ideas about the tribulation at me, it prevented me from keeping what few errant presuppositions I had and second, it began to prepare my mind for postmillennialism.
 
Again, since I’d not studied eschatology at all up to this point, but had just heard this or that, I had a rather clean slate regarding my doctrine of the end times. The next step I unwittingly took was when I read the first volume of R.J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law and had my first encounter with practical postmillennialism. As I read the book, I got a keen sense of the duty we Christians have here on earth regarding taking dominion in every area of life and advancing the Kingdom of God. I didn’t know it at the time, but that mentality was the practical, direct result of the eschatological school of thought known as postmillennialism.
 
J. Marcellus Kik’s An Eschatology of Victory was the first book I’ve ever read that deals specifically with the end times. With all the foregoing in mind, here’s my review.
 
 
 
Most of the book is divided in two. The first part deals with Matthew 24 (where Jesus speaks of the tribulation, and this generation not passing away, and the Son of Man coming in the clouds, etc.). Kik exposits the passage very ably and makes, in my opinion, a rather conclusive and exhaustive argument that the events of Matthew 24 did indeed come to pass before the generation then living—just as Jesus said would happen.
 
In the second portion, Kik exposits Revelation 20, wherein we find descriptions of the Millennium, the heavenly city, Satan being bound with chains, and other vivid imagery. This section was no less excellent than the first, but in a couple of areas, Kik challenged some of the ideas I’d held during my life. But I’m a firm believer that reformation cannot take place unless presuppositions are challenged—and if those presuppositions are sound, they’ll remain; and if they’re not, they’ll be reformed (Lord willing).
 
Right at the outset of the book, Kik succinctly summarizes the three main eschatological positions. This was especially helpful for me, someone just beginning to learn about these things:

As you know, the premil looks for the establishment of the millennial kingdom after the second coming of the Lord. As to the amil view we quote Prof. D. H. Kromminga: “The name literally means ‘no millennium’; while as a matter of fact its advocates believe that the millennium is a spiritual or heavenly millennium rather than an earthly one of a literal reign of Christ on earth before the final judgment.”
 

 
The postmil looks for a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of a glorious age of the church upon earth through the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit. He looks forward to all nations becoming Christian and living in peace one with another. He relates all prophecies to history and time. After the triumph of Christianity throughout the earth he looks for the second coming of the Lord. (pp. 3–4)

Now, what of those other eschatological positions? What about amillennialism and premillennialism? Kik’s purpose in this book is not to refute other positions as it is to make a Scriptural case for his own. As such, he doesn’t touch too much on the objections other perspectives bring to the conversation.
 
I recommend this book to anyone seeking to understand the end times. It’s this kind of book that I read and wonder, “This argument is so solid, how can anyone bring an argument against it?”
 
Highly recommended to me personally by Dr. Joe Morecraft.
 
 
 
INDECENCY: None.
LANGUAGE: None.
AGE RANGE: As young as can understand it, but that range would probably begin with young men and women in their mid/early teens.




leave a comment




May 16th, 2012



Book Review: “A Word In Season,” by R.J. Rushdoony


Meant to be a sort of “devotionals,” these three volumes are a collection of articles Dr. R.J. Rushdoony wrote over a period of about 25 years for a California periodical. I’ve never really paid attention to many “devotionals” per se, so I’m afraid I can’t contrast how much more meaty they are than your typical, mainstream daily readings. But knowing who wrote them, I suspect they are far more substantial than those devotional booklets.
 
Dr. Rushdoony covers many, many different subjects in these books. Slander, irrelevant preaching, where true charity begins, fools, humility, happiness, fearfulness, standards, prayer, the vengeance of God, and the future—all these subjects (and many, many more) are covered in these little books of about 140–150 pages each.
 
I think these books would be great for a father to read over dinner. This would also enable him to explain these lessons to younger children who might not normally understand the writing. Highly recommended.
 
 
 
INDECENCY: None.
LANGUAGE: None.
AGE RANGE: The recommended age range would probably start with young men and ladies in their early teens sometime, but I would have no problem letting my children read them as early as they can comprehend the subject matter—and if a dad is reading them to the family, he can explain the principles in simpler terms to younger children.




leave a comment




May 10th, 2012



C.S. Lewis on God’s Omnipotence


I have been reading a decent amount of C.S. Lewis lately in an effort to study his theology and worldview. As I do with all authors, I agree and disagree with Lewis on certain issues to varying degrees, but I appreciate what he has to say on the issue of impossibility and God’s omnipotence.

OMNIPOTENCE means ‘power to do all, or everything’. And we are told in Scripture that ‘with God all things are possible’. It is common enough, in argument with an unbeliever, to be told that God, if He existed and were good, would do this or that; and then, if we point out that the proposed action is impossible, to be met with the retort ‘But I thought God was supposed to be able to do anything’. This raises the whole question of impossibility.
 
In ordinary usage the word IMPOSSIBLE generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word UNLESS. Thus it is impossible for me to see the street from where I sit writing at this moment; that is, it is impossible to see the street UNLESS I go up to the top floor where I shall be high enough to overlook the intervening building. If I had broken my leg I should say ‘But it is impossible to go up to the top floor—meaning, however, that it is impossible UNLESS some friends turn up who will carry me. Now let us advance to a different plane of impossibility, by saying ‘It is, at any rate, impossible to see the street SO LONG AS I remain where I am and the intervening building remains where it is.’ Someone might add ‘unless the nature of space, or of vision, were different from what it is’. I do not know what the best philosophers and scientists would say to this, but I should have to reply ‘I don’t know whether space and vision COULD POSSIBLY have been of such a nature as you suggest.’ Now it is clear that the words COULD POSSIBLY here refer to some absolute kind of possibility or impossibility which is different from the relative possibilities and impossibilities we have been considering. I cannot say whether seeing round corners is, in this new sense, possible or not, because I do not know whether it is self-contradictory or not. But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.
 
‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying ANYTHING about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can’. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Lewis, C.S., The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 16–18.




leave a comment




April 16th, 2012



Book Review: “What Would Jesus Drink?,” by Joel McDurmon


“Joel McDurmon is my kind of conservative believer. He is willing to go where the Bible says we may go, even if that is the wine aisle of the supermarket. He is willing to sit down with the apostles to share a meal, even if the establishment serving lunch has beer on tap. He is willing to drink what the Bible says we may drink. And in this book, he does a fine job of setting before us the scriptural reason for all of this. He begins where all our lessons in eating and drinking ought to begin, which is with the Lord’s Supper, and he moves on to discuss the words the Holy Spirit chose to reveal His will on the subject. He then turns to address some common objections, which you have probably heard before. This is a small book, but there is a lot here.” — from the foreword by Douglas Wilson

 
This is a great book on the subject of alcohol. Is prohibitionism biblical? Is it sinful to consume alcohol? Or is it not only allowed, but also sanctioned in Scripture? Joel McDurmon argues, that yes, it is sanctioned and even blessed as a gift of God.
 
In this book, McDurmon takes the reader through Scripture and covers many topics relating to alcohol. Did Jesus drink wine? Did He approve its use? What does Scripture say about drunkenness? If it’s at least allowable to physically consume wine, beer, etc., is it alright to enjoy it? What about the weaker brother? The author answers these questions and many more (as well as prohibitionist arguments) in these small 128 pages.
 
This book is not so much a negative defense against prohibitionism, as much as it is a case for the biblical, moderate enjoyment of one of God’s gifts to us—a gift that also has spiritual symbolism. What Would Jesus Drink? is a brief but thorough treatment of the subject and is highly recommended—even if you’re already in favor of partaking of fermented drinks.
 
 
 
INDECENCY: Chapter 4, “Wine, Women, and Song,” specifically deals with the connections made in the Song of Solomon between wine, marital relations, and pleasure; and while what he says is entirely biblical and sound, McDurmon is no prude and certainly doesn’t shy away from the graphic depictions of marital love found in Song of Solomon. (If reading aloud, a father may elect to significantly abbreviate this chapter if he has young children present.) In another section of the book the author mentions the damage drunkenness will do to a man’s reproductive system.
 
LANGUAGE: None.
 
AGE RANGE: Older young adults; but as in all cases, parental discernment is required when letting a son or daughter read this book. A parent especially needs to take into consideration the chapter on “Wine, Women, and Song” and the potential reader’s maturity in that area.




leave a comment