Sproul and the Manhattan Project

R.C. has finally weighed in as to why he didn't sign the Manhattan Declaration.

When this document first became public, I remember people asking if whether or not he would sign it as if the guy's signature sealed the legitimacy of the thing. He notes other non-signers as well like John MacArthur and pretty much agrees with their sentiments of why they didn't sign it.

Now I await all the finger wagging bad mouthers to write up their disdainful blog articles against him.

Ted Haggard Starts New Cult

Or so says this LA Times write up on his new church.

A few comments from this article disturbed me:

Upon describing his removal from his old church,

... he spoke of his ouster from New Life, describing his self-loathing and doubts. "Am I full of the devil? Am I everything that the paper says I am?" he said. "I was scared to death I'd gone off the deep end."

Charismatics - particularly the preachers - tend to describe all personal sin as "being under the influence of the devil." Thus, if one falls into some gross immorality, or habitually acts in any dishonest, ungodly fashion, the real culprit is a diabolical spirit who has temporarily come upon the person. The "sinner" is never truly responsible for his actions, but is a victim, much like the people he hurt. In order to "fix" the problem, the devil needs to be cast out, or the person set free from the demonic bondage.

Sadly, I have known many Christians over the years who believe these false notions about their personal sin. Rather than pursuing the biblical means of personal sanctification by the daily renewal of one's mind in the Word of God and putting off old sinful conduct and thinking about, and putting on new righteous conduct, they spend money to read "how-to" books on casting out demons of this sin or that sin or attend bondage breaking seminars or the like.

This mindset of placing the blame for personal sin onto some outside evil influence dismisses the seriousness of what God thinks of sin and the need of personal repentance, as well the significance of Christ's lordship in one's life by creating a dangerous, misinformed perspective of God's holiness.

That leads me to a second disturbing element in this story. I don't see any genuine repentance in Ted's life. Note this comment [if reported accurately by the article] he makes during the service,

As the service began, he was jovial, even joking about his indiscretion. "If you're not getting enough snuggling [from your spouse], don't do it the way I did it," he said.

If you are seriously grieved over your sin and the damage it did to you, your spouse and family, and most importantly, the dishonor it brought to Christ and His church, YOU DON'T JOKE AROUND LIKE THIS FROM THE PULPIT! A long, sexual affair with a homosexual prostitute is not a laughing matter! In fact, a truly repentant person wouldn't joke around like this in normal, conversational discourse. This inappropriate remark does a lot to reveal the true nature of the man's heart.

Haggard committed adultery with another man against his wife while as a pastor of a church. He broke his wife's trust, his children's trust, and the trust of all the people he supposedly shepherd. He turned God's people into a cause for mockery. Then three years later he has the gall to start up a new church in the same area where his old church is and opens the service by making a wise crack about the very sin that brought him to his downfall? Where is his brokenness over what happened? All I see is bitter complaining against his old church for removing him from preaching and insisting he attend counseling.

And that leads me to one final disturbing element to this article. His loose attitude toward sin reflects itself off the folks who have come after him and are now attending his church. The only thing the "members" are concerned with is how he was treated by the old church, or ill-treated in this case, and whether or not everyone is being forgiving enough toward him. One guy is thankful he is not as arrogant as he once was (which I take as code word meaning "he doesn't talk about sin as much anymore") and he is like the regular guy who falls down everyday. No one is concerned whether or not Ted is biblically qualified to pastor a church or whether or not he has truly repentant of what had happened. This flippancy will only grow worse in respect to how they all view personal sin and holiness.

So far, from what I see, he's a guy who is sorry he got caught and he is mad at how the church handled his discipline process. In his mind, he should had been restored to his previous position once the demon got cast out. Instead, they held him accountable to his deplorable actions. And to think the church gets painted as the anti-gay bigot bad guys in this whole mess where as he's the sympathetic martyr.

So why do I say he is starting a cult? Here we have a man with an epic scandal in his background, who can draw a crowd solely upon his ability to speak publicly and captivate people's emotions with his histrionic story telling, drawing to himself disgruntled ex-church members. These are all the ingredients necessary to cook up a big batch of cult stew.

Twilight as Mormon Allegory

Haven't read a book. Haven't seen a movie. I do know some people who are so consumed with the series it's outright disturbing.

This article has a good summary about the series as a long allegorical retelling of Mormon theology.

Mormon Vampires in the Garden of Eden

Worth the ten minutes or so to read through it.

Family Day in Alabama

Ahhh. This brought back memories of summer days when I was a boy in Arkansas...

As one of my volunteers noted in his email when he sent me this clip, "It's the reason why terrorists don't attack Alabama."

Lot's of junker cars and old oil drums lost their lives making this video.

False Prophets

From the introductory page of the Evangelical Climate Initiative

Now is the time for followers of Christ to help solve the global warming crisis. There is overwhelming evidence that human activity is a major cause, and we know that the impacts of climate change would be hardest on the poor and vulnerable, and on future generations. · We need to act, and everyone has a role. Christian leaders can join more than 280 other senior evangelical leaders who have signed the Evangelical Call to Action on Climate Change. As Christian citizens we can learn more, make personal changes, and rally action. For policymakers, it’s time to make wise and moral choices to protect God’s world and its people. · Join us. Take the next step. [emphasis mine]

From the Evangelical Climate Initiative section on science.

No one has a single “smoking gun” that could “prove” the anthropogenic influence on the climate system. That’s not the way science works. Our current best understanding of global warming is the product of over 100 years of thought and scientific research. We must appreciate the fundamental fact that nothing in science is ever “proven” (which is why we should never place our ultimate faith in any scientific claim). Our complete faith can only be in God as revealed in His word and in His Son!

But science can be very credible, and it can warrant a high degree of confidence. When climate scientists review the vast literature on climate change, as they did most recently in 2007, they say that they are 90% sure that people are warming the globe. That was the consensus position of all the scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process, which means that even government scientists from Saudi Arabia and the United States agreed. You wouldn’t get even the most convinced scientist to say he’s 100% sure of our current understanding of global warming, just that he’s very, very confident. That’s the nature of global warming science–it’s about the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, not “proof” in the legal sense. [emphasis mine]

From the London Telegraph,

But perhaps the most damaging revelations ... are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. [emphasis mine].

More links HERE [thanks to Steve Hays]

People. The next time there is a big push among evangelicals to sign the current popular declaration or initiative in spite of vast theological difference between interested parties, this amusing fiasco should be kept in mind. Herein lies one of the main reasons Christians should exercise caution and restraint when they are pressured to put their name on something just because it currently is the popular thing to do.

Gleanings from Daniel [1]

Having spent a good deal of this past year of 2009 writing on the subject of eschatological systems, and looking forward to writing even more on the defense of premillennialism, I thought I would supplement my articles by reproducing the notes to my devotional study on the book of Daniel I have been presenting to my volunteers. A lot of the eschatological themes found with in the prophet's book will be reiterated in later posts.

Daniel: A Brief Introduction

One of the best books in the Bible I believe clearly outlining a premillennial perspective is Daniel.

I agree with theologian Robert Duncan Culver who argues that the only way to really understand the prophecy of Daniel is according to a premillennial perspective. It is the one eschatological system that best explains the purpose of the prophecy -- a presentation of the sovereign rule of God's kingdom over all man-made kingdoms.

To provide a brief introduction to the book:

1) The Critics and their Criticisms

Daniel has been one of the most criticized OT books in all of scripture. Particularly from the unbelieving community. Probably the main reason is due in part to naturalistic skepticism advocated by these individuals. They have a problem with Daniel's predictions: they are too exact. In fact, they will argue, they are so exact the only reasonable explanation is that the book was written after the exile during the intertestamental period for the purpose of offering encouragement to the Jewish revolters against their Roman oppressors. Moreover, they say, there are historical problems. For example, the chronological counting done by Jeremiah who chronicled the same events being different than Daniel's reckoning.

Some notable unbelievers are the first ones who raised these criticisms against the book of Daniel.

Porphyry - He was a 3rd century critic of Christianity. He studied in Rome under the neo-Platonist philosopher, Plotinus. Just like many of the new atheists one will encounter on the internet these days, Porphyry mocked the Bible as being filled with foreign fables and lies. He wrote a 15 volume (15 VOLUMES!) work called "Against the Christians" in which he devoted a major section attacking the authorship of Daniel.

Uriel Acosta - He was a 17th century Jewish rationalist who argued Daniel was a forgery. It was merely written, he claimed, to favor the concept of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the hope of the Christians. The whole point of Daniel was to get the reader to chapter 12:3 where the prophet tells how those who sleep in the dust shall awake.

2) The Truth about Daniel

Contrary to these skeptics and the many, many others like them, the biblical OT synagogue and the biblical NT Church, confidently taught that Daniel was a real prophet who served in the Babylonian court from 605 B.C. to about 535 B.C. Nothing in the entire prophecy seriously suggests the idea the book was written in the 2nd century B.C. as a rallying cry for rebels.

Daniel is mentioned in the writings of one other contemporary prophet, Ezekiel, in chapters 14:14, 20, and 28:3 of his prophecy. Ezekiel was also a 6th century prophet taken to Babylon more than likely during the second deportation in 598-97 B.C. In chapter 14:14, 20 while Ezekiel is speaking against the persistent unfaithfulness of Judah, he affirms their judgment from God as sure and nothing would rescue them. Even if Job, Noah, and Daniel lived among them, God would not spare them. Later, in 28:3, Ezekiel commends Daniel's wisdom, or his God given ability to know divine revelation. In both these sections, Daniels righteousness and wisdom are noted by Ezekiel. He was speaking of a real, contemporary person to himself.

What exactly is the book about?

When surveyed, Daniel's prophecy is generally broken into two main parts.

Chapters 1-6 is considered historical narrative and covers significant events during the life of Daniel as he was in Babylon. In these first 6 chapters, Daniel speaks of himself in the third person.

Chapters 7-12, on the other hand, is considered to be a series of prophetic visions. In these passages, Daniel speaks of himself in the first person.

Though that is the traditional division within the book, one of the more interesting aspects with the book of Daniel is how it is composed in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. I don't believe this is just some mere factoid or some weird coincidence. God is the sovereign author of scripture and He purposed the two languages for a reason.

Aramaic was the common language at that time of the ancient world. Similar to how English is in many places around the world today. If one is to divide the book according to the language an interesting pattern occurs:

Chapters 1, 8-12 are in Hebrew where as chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic.

Robert Duncan Culver states, Daniel had two related, but distinct kinds of messages to deliver. One message of judgment and final defeat to the gentile world, the one written in Aramaic. The second, a message of hope and deliverance for God's oppressed, but precious holy people, the Hebrews. That message was delivered in Hebrew.

With that in mind, chapters 2-7 relates to the gentile nations and the divinely determined course of their existence. Chapters 1, 8-12 has a primary reference to Israel's future, a future intimately connected with the conflict they will have with the gentile powers but leading to the eventual destruction of all gentile powers at the end of all things when the Messiah will come and establish His kingdom above all others.

Climategate

Supplementing yesterday's blog...

Investors has a good summary of Climategate as well as the willing dismissal from the media.

Seeing no evil with climategate

Honestly, I don't think people have truly come to understand the significance of what Climategate represents.

Magic Bean Science

This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation...

About a month or so ago I attended a science lecture given by our seminary librarian, Dennis Swanson, on the subject of the weather and the Bible. The lectures are available HERE in 7 video segments if anyone is interested.

One of the more amusing moments toward the end, and regrettably not on any of the videos I linked, is when Dennis flashed up the picture of this sci-fi looking ship and proceeded to tell us what the purpose of this ship is.

Cloud ships could cancel out effects of global warming

Yep, you read that right. A group of European climatologists and engineers are attempting to build and launch a flotilla of unmanned, fully automated, cloud producing ships that will circle the worlds oceans creating clouds to reflect sunlight back into space, and thus canceling out the effects of man-made global warming. All to the tune of 9 BILLION DOLLARS! Its a good deal, of course, because 9 billion dollars is just a fraction of the 230 trillion dollar cost of the original idea of sending into space giant orbiting sun screens. It's ideas like these that makes a laughing stock of the so-called global warming community. It's amazing what rich, pantheists leftists can do when they put their minds to it.

Not sure if the enthusiasm over there proposed navy of cloud ships has damped now that climate change science has been exposed as one of the biggest frauds in recent years. See HERE and HERE.

Studies in Eschatology [16]

The Duration of the Thousand Years: Literal or Figurative?

I come to my last comments on my study of Revelation 20. My series of posts on this subject has argued that the exegesis of Revelation 20 cannot sustain the Augustinian hermeneutic utilized by amillennialists and postmillennialists who interpret the vision to be describing the state of the Christian Church being presently experienced.

Much to the contrary, the exegesis of Revelation 20 makes this to be a prophecy regarding the future. That after Christ's coming to vanquish the armies of the beast as described in chapter 19, Satan will be literally bound and his influence removed from the earth, and Christ will establish a physical kingdom that will last 1,000 chronological, calendar years.

The question still needing to be explored is whether the duration of these 1,000 years described in chapter 20 are truly literal calendar years or are they meant to be taken symbolically as an expression of a long period of time?

Those who employ Augustine's hermeneutic when interpreting Revelation 20 believe the 1,000 years should be symbolic. The primary reason being is that they start with the presupposition that because Revelation is filled with much symbolic language, then the overall interpretation of the book should be symbolic. Revelation is considered apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic literature must always be interpreted symbolically. In fact, the true, "literal" sense of the book is to interpret the numbers and images symbolically. Moreover, the use of 1,000 years to describe the length of the messianic kingdom is only mentioned here in Revelation 20. That is an important detail, because in both the OT and NT, the kingdom is described as being everlasting, or eternal. A thousand years, though a long time in human history, is still not even close to being "everlasting."

Hence, the only conclusion an interpreter can make is that the 1,000 years are not real, calendar years, but are meant to describe a long, indefinite period representing a complete and ideal time. In this case, the reign of Christ over the Church in the world. Amillennialists and postmillennialists both interpret the 1,000 years in a similar fashion. The one difference between the groups, however, is that amillennialists see the time being the entire period between the first and second coming of Christ, whereas most postmillennialists refer to the years as a period of time beginning sometime way after the first coming, but before the second coming [Waymeyer, 99].

Theologians who have spiritualized the years have developed clever ways of trying to understand their meaning. Some suggest the number "1,000" is the cube of ten, which is the sum of 7 plus 3. The number "10" signifies completeness, and 1,000 is ten to the third power [Hoekema, 227]. Others, like David Chilton, believe the 1,000 years are a hyperbolic expression meant to express a long period of time. Similar to the expression, "I've told you a million times!" Obviously, a person hasn't told the person a literal "million times," but rather means they have told the person many, many times. In like manner, the 1,000 years are meant to convey that there were many, many years between the first and second coming [Chilton, 507].

There is biblical precedence for understanding the years in this fashion. For example, when Psalm 50:10 says of God, He owns the cattle on a 1,000 hills, it is obvious there are more than 1,000 hills in the world, so it cannot be literal. Rather, the idea speaks to God's absolute dominion over all the world. The 1,000 years as recorded in Revelation 20 is to be understood similarly and not as being literal years. Interestingly, though Augustine popularized the understanding of Revelation 20 as describing the church age, he saw the 1,000 years as being real years and expected Christ to return at the first of the 10th century. That didn't happen and his interpretation of Revelation was re-worked to understand the years as being symbolic.

In spite of the myriad of commentaries written attempting to spiritualize the 1,000 years, none of the conclusions are truly satisfying as representing the best way to read Revelation 20. Instead, I believe the best understanding of the texts is that these years as real calendar years describing a future, messianic age with Christ ruling over the earth. Let me add three reasons to my already long list outlined in my previous posts on this subject:

The use of numbers in the book of Revelation. Steve Sullivan notes that the vast majority of the numbers used in the book of Revelation are conventional. In other words, the numbers are meant to convey true measurements, mathematical operations, and other calculations. That clearly implies the bulk of them are not symbolic, but real.

In the book of Revelation there are 24 elders, 42 months, 7 seals, trumpets, and bowls, 3 1/2 years, 5 months, and fractional uses of counting parts of the earth and populations destroyed in specific judgments [Sullivan, 38]. Nothing in those particular contexts suggests a symbolic use of numerical values. John spoke, for example, to one of the 24 elders, indicating there are 24 individual elders. The same can be said about the 42 months or the 7 churches or the 10 kings. If these numbers are real, actual numerical values, why can't we say the same about the 1,000 years?

The specificity of "a thousand years." Revelation 20:3 records how Satan will be bound for 1,000 years, but at the end of the verse John writes, But after these things he must be released for a little while. Some translations read "a short time." John's use of a specific time designation, 1,000 years, is a sharp contrast to the indefinite phrase "a little while." That is an important point to note, because if John had meant to convey the idea of "a long while" when speaking of Satan being bound, he could have very well described Satan's captivity with such indefinite language.

In fact, Charles Feinberg points out that the Greek language knows well how to express the indefinite period of "a long time" or "a long while." In Matthew 25:19, for instance, when Jesus taught the parable of the talents, he uses the phrase polun chronon, which means "a long time" [Waymeyer, 50]. Yet John does not contrast two indefinite periods of time, a "long while" with a "short while." Rather, he states a specific time designation of time, 1,000 years, and contrasts it with an indefinite short period of time. This implies clearly a specified length of real time is in view here.

The characteristics of symbolic language. Contrary to the thinking of most biblical students, symbolic language is meant to clarify divine revelation, not make it mysterious and unknowable. The thousand years in Revelation 20 does not contain two important characteristics of symbolic language: some degree of absurdity when taken literally and some degree of clarity when taken symbolically.

For example of what I mean, consider Isaiah 55:12 where the prophet proclaims how the trees in the fields will clap their hands. Taken literally, there is a degree of absurdity: trees are not like human beings and do not possess arms nor have hands they can clap. We're not talking about Ents here. Taken symbolically, however, there is clarity of interpretation: The image is meant to express how Israel's return from captivity will be a time of great rejoicing [Waymeyer, 51].

If the 1,000 years are meant to convey a symbolic period of time, the use of 1,000 doesn't contain these two characteristics. There is nothing absurd about Christ's reign over the world being 1,000 calender years in length, nor is there any true clarity if we take the 1,000 years as being symbolic for "a long period of time." If anything, interpreting John millennium symbolically adds interpretative confusion to the text.

Now.

With this post I wrap up my basic overview of eschatology. But, I am not finished yet. I have receive many friendly, but disagreeing emails this past year while I have been posting these articles. My detractors have offered a lot of good objections. One individual pointedly argued that my position of premillennialism unravels when we consider other eschatological NT texts like in 1 Corinthians 15 and the two books of Thessalonians. Additionally, I have been directed to consider Sam Storms paper against premillennialism located HERE that is touted as being the single most concise "slam" (as one of my detractor described it) against a premillennial position.

So. My attention will now be turned to answering these objections and offering a defense of what I consider to be biblical premillennialism.

*******
Sources:

David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of Revelation. (Dominion Press: Forth Worth, TX, 1987)

Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and The Future. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapid, MI, 1979).

Steve Sullivan, Premillennialism and an Exegesis of Revelation 20. On-line paper.

Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate. (Kress Christian Publications: The Woodlands TX, 2004).

MacArthur and the Manhattan project

I was totally unaware of this document until Hugh Hewitt began plugging it regularly on his radio program this week. He gushes over the thing as if it represents some sort of new religious revival preparing to break forth upon the United States.

My pastor captures my sentiments exactly on what is really ECT2. Or maybe we could call it ECT 2000 to be trendy? Or ECT21st Century?

At any rate, the document has been re-named the Manhattan Declaration.

Why I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration

What I always wonder with documents like these is how anyone who signs it can take it seriously at the same time. Is the concept of "unity" just spiritualized or something? How can there be any unity at all seeing that each group defines the gospel with such diversity? If myself, a baptistic Calvinist, and a Roman Catholic, and a Greek Orthodox are asked by an 18 year old guy how he can be saved from his homosexual sin he will receive three entirely different answers. All of them cannot be true at the same time. And I know for certain I will refuse to lay aside my commitment to the biblical gospel grounded in Christ alone to redeem sinners just so I can have some fake unity with the Catholic and the Orthodox on moral issues in society. I would imagine the same is true of my counterparts as well.

And by the way, where do the conservative Jews come into play here? I mean, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager hold to the same convictions regarding abortion, same-sex marriage and religious liberty as Chuck Colson. What would they say, by the way, if a homosexual asked them about how to be saved from his sin?

Additionally, consider a couple of highlights from the declaration itself:

We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. (emphasis mine)

If we are going to make this declaration in light of the truth grounded in Holy Scripture, the Holy Scripture plainly declares man's reason to be fallen and darkened (Ephesians 4:18, Romans 1:20 ff., 8:6,7 to mention a few). Natural human reason thinks according to the flesh and does not want anything to do with the things of God. According to scripture, the only solution to this condition in men is the saving gospel of Christ. The very thing on which there is no unity.

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. ... Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. ... In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem.

Just as there are diverse opinions as to the sufficiency of the gospel to save among these three groups, so there is diversity of opinion regarding the nature of marriage. Oh certainly all three groups recognize and affirm the divine establishment of marriage, but this establishment is recorded for us in which book? Genesis. The very reason we are to defend marriage as being between only one man and one woman as a one-flesh union is because God created man and woman at the beginning and ordained marriage for the entire realm of humanity.

Yet, all of these groups are divided as to the authenticity of the Genesis record and are divided in opinion concerning the use of Darwinian evolutionary constructs to re-interpret the Genesis record. These philosophical ramifications are astronomical to any sustained argument in favor of traditional, God ordained marriage as defined in this document and yet these signers completely ignore these factors relegating them to mere secondary matters that have no bearing on what they are attempting to affirm.

Then I ask: Will these individuals firmly press these points in public discourse with vehement detractors? In other words, are they prepared to anger their opponents on Larry King Live by telling them their support of gay marriage is morally wrong? It has been my observation of many of the names of those who signed the document that they generally do not. And if they do, they do all they can to leave out any reference to Scripture and speak of God in vague, general terms. Rarely do they argue on behalf of the sovereign creator who has revealed truth which must be obeyed by His creatures. This alone limits the effectiveness of this declaration to being just another pointless conservative Christian comment upon the state of affairs in America.