sexta-feira, 31 de agosto de 2012

Chevrolet Camaro custa nos EUA menos que Palio Weekend no Brasil



SÃO PAULO - O preço de um Chevrolet Camaro nos Estados Unidos é menor que o do Palio Weekend Adventure no Brasil. Em concessionárias americanas, o musculoso carro da GM pode ser encontrado por a partir de US$ 23.280 na versão mais simples. Já o carro da Fiat sai por R$ 51.500, segundo a tabela da consultoria Molicar, o que equivale a US$ 25.121,95 pelo câmbio atual.
Com o valor cobrado pela versão do Palio no Brasil, seria possível, portanto, comprar um Camaro nos Estados Unidos e ainda garantir um troco de US$ 1.841,95.

Carros incomparáveis

A diferença de preços entre os países fica ainda mais evidente quando os detalhes do Camaro são comparados com o station wagon da Fiat.
Por US$ 23.280, é possível comprar o Camaro 1LS com motor 3.6L V6 movido à gasolina e câmbio manual de seis marchas. Além de enorme, o motor é muito potente. O modelo acelera de zero a 100km/h em apenas 6 segundos.
O carro ainda vem com CD player, bluetooth, tecnologia de controle de estabilidade, monitorização da pressão dos pneus, airbags frontais e de cortina, direção hidráulica e ar-condicionado com controle de temperatura.
O Camaro começou a ser produzido em 1966 para concorrer com outros famosos “muscle car” americanos: o Ford Mustang e o Dodge Challenger. O modelo foi o grande astro do filme “Transformers” 1, 2 e 3 no papel de Bumblebee e também está presente em vários jogos de videogame, como “Test Drive” e “Need for Speed”.
No Brasil, o Camaro é vendido desde 2010, mas apenas na versão 6.2 V8 16V de 406 cavalos. De acordo com a tabela Fipe, o automóvel custa R$ 200.200.
No caso do Palio Weekend, desembolsando US$ 25.121,95, o consumidor brasileiro leva para casa um carro com motor 1.8 16V flex com câmbio manual de cinco marchas. O modelo acelera de zero a 100km/h em 10,7 segundos.
Neste caso, os itens de série são dois apoios de cabeça no banco traseiro, ar-condicionado, direção hidráulica, faróis de neblina e preparação para som e rodas em liga leve.
Os preços brasileiros
Recentemente, um artigo publicado pela revista americana Forbes reacendeu as discussões sobre o alto custo de venda dos veículos no Brasil. Na reportagem, http://carros.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2012/08/13/forbes-ironiza-precos-da-chrysler-no-brasil-e-quem-busca-status-em-carro-caro.htm,  já que paga um valor muito alto por um carro que aqui é visto como modelo de luxo, mas que nos Estados Unidos não possui tanto glamour.
Com a intenção de provar essa diferença, um levantamento feito há pouco tempo comparou os preços de alguns modelos que são vendidos no Brasil e nos Estados Unidos.
De acordo com a pesquisa, uma Mercedes ML pode custar 253,33% a mais no Brasil que nos Estados Unidos. Segundo o levantamento, no Brasil o veículo é vendido por R$ 265 mil, enquanto nos Estados Unidos o mesmo modelo pode ser comprado por R$ 75 mil.
Entre as explicações para os altos preços dos automóveis no Brasil, estão os elevados impostos, o alto custo da mão de obra, a baixa competitividade das montadoras locais, o custo elevado de matérias-primas como o aço e a energia e a margem mais elevada das montadoras.

THE MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS

By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr


Remarkably imperial law so checks the Jews that they do not kill James the Just in Jerusalem until about A.D. 62. This is after the death of the Roman procurator Festus and before the arrival of Albinus (Josephus, Ant. 20:9:1). About this time, Paul writes Philippians from prison with confidence he will be released (Phil. 1:25). But with the outbreak of the Neronic Persecution (Nov., A.D. 64) the “mystery of lawlessness” becomes the “revelation of the Man of Lawlessness.” During Paul’s second Roman imprisonment he is sure he will die (2 Tim. 4:6ff).
The evil “mystery of lawlessness” is “already working,” though restrained in Claudius’s day (2 Thess. 2:7). This could be an allusion to the evil conniving and plotting of Nero’s mother Agrippina, who (apparently) poisons Claudius so that Nero can ascend the imperial throne. [1] The cunning machinations to secure imperial authority for Nero are in gear. Or it could suggest that the true nature of lawlessness is already mysteriously at work in the imperial cultus and its rage for worship, though it has not yet jealously broken out upon the Christian community. Either of these possibilities are suggestive of preterism.
Final comment: I am finished with “the mystery of lawlessness” analysis. In just two brief paragraphs! But so that you won’t feel short-changed for having gotten up at 5:31 am to catch this blog, I will let you have one of my favorite jokes for free.
A first grade girl in art class was drawing a picture of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. Her teacher looked at the picture and said: “Jonah could not have been swallowed by a whale and lived, it would have killed him.” The little girl insisted he was swallowed by a whale, but the teacher just laughed.
The little girl then said: “When I get to heaven I am going to ask Jonah if he was swallowed by a whale.” To which the teacher responded: “What if Jonah didn’t go to heaven?” The little girl replied: “Well then you can ask him.”
Notes
[1] Bruce, New Testament History, 310. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 17-18. John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, vol.2 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, rep. 1989 [1658]), 312.See: J. R. V. Marchant and Joseph F. Charles, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (New York: Cassell, n.d.), 101-2: “Claudius” “1. claudo. . . to shut, close, opp. aperire).

quinta-feira, 30 de agosto de 2012

IDENTIFYING THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS

By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr

police line up obama
In this blog I continue our study of Paul’s perplexing “Man of Lawlessness.” We are now ready to actually identify him. But don’t worry: You don’t know him. And he is not running for President. In fact, you have entirely missed seeing him. Let me explain.
According to many Church Fathers, the Man of Lawlessness is Nero Caesar, who also is the Beast of Revelation.1 The difficulty of this passage lies in the fact that Paul “describes the Man of Sin with a certain reserve” (Origen, Celsus 6:45). Apparently this is for fear of incurring “the charge of calumny for having spoken evil of the Roman emperor” (Augustine, City of God 20:19). Thus, Paul becomes very obscure in order to hide his prophecy from the Roman authorities. Josephus does the same when speaking about Daniel’s fourth kingdom, which applies to Rome (Josephus, Ant. 10:10:4). Paul and his associates had already suffered at the hands of the Thessalonian Jews for “acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king — Jesus” (Acts 17:7). Wisdom demands discreetness in his reference to imperial authority; his recent (1 Thess. 2:17) personal ministry among them allows it: they are to “remember” that while with them he “told [them] these things” (2:5). His personal instruction would allow them to know much more than we can from his discrete allusions in his letters.
Apparently something is presently (ca. A.D. 52) “restraining” the Man of Lawlessness: “you know what is restraining [katechon; present participle], that he may be revealed in his own time” (2:6). This strongly suggests the preterist understanding of the whole passage. The Thessalonians themselves know what is presently restraining the Man of Lawlessness; in fact the Man of Lawlessness is alive and waiting to be “revealed.”2 This implies that for the time-being Christians can expect some protection from the Roman government. The Roman laws regarding religio licita are currently in Christianity’s favor, while considered a sect of Judaism and before the malevolent Nero ascends the throne. Paul certainly profits from the protection afforded by the Roman judicial apparatus (Acts 18:12ff.) and makes important use of these laws in A.D. 59 (Acts 25:11-12; 28:19) as a shield from the malignancy of the Jews. And he expresses no ill-feelings against Rome, when writing Romans 13 in A.D. 57-59 — during the early reign of Nero, the famous Quinquennium Neronis.3
While Paul writes 2 Thessalonians 2, he is under the reign of Claudius Caesar, who has just banished Jews from Rome for persecuting Christians (Suetonius, Claudius 24:5; cp. Acts 18:2). Paul even employs a word play on Claudius’s name. The Latin word for “restraint” is claudere, which is related to “Claudius.”4 Interestingly, Paul shifts between the neuter and masculine forms of the “the restrainer” (2 Thess. 2:6, 7). This suggests he may be including both the imperial law and the present emperor in his designation “restrainer.” While Claudius lives, Nero, the Man of Lawlessness, is powerless to commit wide-ranging public lawlessness. Christianity is free from the imperial sword until the Neronic persecution erupts in November, A.D. 64.
Early in Nero’s reign careful tutors hide his evil from the public eye. Eventually he breaks free of their restraints and is publicly “revealed” for what he really is. Roman historians write of Nero: “Other murders were meant to follow. But the emperor’s tutors, Sextus Afranius Burrus and Lucius Annaeus Seneca, prevented them. . . . They collaborated in controlling the emperor’s perilous adolescence; their policy was to direct his deviations from virtue into licensed channels of indulgence” (Tacitus, Annals 13). “Although at first his acts of wantonness, lust, extravagance, avarice and cruelty were gradual and secret . . . yet even then their nature was such that no one doubted that they were defects of his character and not due to his time of life” (Suetonius, Nero 26). “Gradually Nero’s vices gained the upper hand: he no longer tried to laugh them off, or hide, or deny them, but openly broke into more serious crime” (Nero 27, cp. 6). “After this, no considerations of selection or moderation restrained Nero from murdering anyone he please, on whatever pretext” (Nero 37).
Comment:Tomorrow I will continue this study on 2 Thessalonians 2. Unless I am too tired. Or change my position. Or become left-handed.[5]
Notes
[1] E.g., Augustine, City of God 20:19; Chrysostom cited in Alford, Greek Testament, 2:80. If I am correct in equating him with the beast, we could add: Victorinus, Apocalypse 17:16; Lactantius, On the Death of the Persecutors 2; Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History 2:28, 29. See my The Beast of Revelation (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2000).
[2] The view that the Roman government was the restrainer is called by Schaff “the patristic interpretation.” Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (3rd ed: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), 1:377n. It was held by Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 24 and Apology 32; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:25-26; Augustine, City of God 20:19; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 7:15.
[3] Trajan, Epistle 5; cp. Suetonius, Nero 19. See: B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (London: Methuen, 1903), ch. 3.
[4] Bruce, New Testament History, 310. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 17-18. John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, vol.2 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, rep. 1989 [1658]), 312.See: J. R. V. Marchant and Joseph F. Charles, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (New York: Cassell, n.d.), 101-2: “Claudius” “1. claudo. . . to shut, close, opp. aperire).
[5] Why in the world would I need a footnote here?

THE FALLING AWAY

 By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry
falling away
Paul’s much-debated “Man of Lawlessness” prophecy is a favorite text of dispensationalists. And it is an important text to defending postmillennial optimism. This is because it looks like a prophecy that paints a bleak picture for the outworking of history. But I believe this passage is widely misinterpreted because it is applied to the wrong end of history. This is my third installment on the fascinating prophecy. Let us consider Paul’s reference to the “falling away.”
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. (2 Thess. 2:3-7
The deception these unprincipled men are promoting concerns Paul: “Let no one deceive you by any means” (v. 3a). He uses the strengthened form for “deception” (exapatese) with a double negative prohibition. To avoid the deception and to clarify the true beginning of the Day of the Lord upon Jerusalem, Paul informs them: “that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3). Before the Day of the Lord “is come” two events must occur: the falling away and the revelation of the man of lawlessness. It is not necessary for these to occur in the chronological order presented, as even dispensationalists admit. Verse nine is clearly out of order and should occur in the midst of verse eight, if strict chronology is important.
The word “falling away” is (apostasia). It occurs only here and in Acts 21:21 in the New Testament. Historically the word may apply either to a political or to a religious revolt.[1] But to which does it refer here? Does it point to a future worldwide apostasy from the Christian faith, as per pessimistic eschatologies? Based on this passage, amillennialist William Hendriksen argues that “by and large, the visible Church will forsake the true faith.” Dispensationalist Constable comments: “This rebellion, which will take place within the professing church, will be a departure from the truth that God has revealed in His Word.”[2]
Or does the “falling away” (apostasia) refer to a political rebellion of some sort? We can make a good case for its referring to the Jewish apostasy/rebellion against Rome.
Interestingly, Josephus calls the Jewish War an (apostasia) against the Romans: “And now I perceived innovations were already begun, and that there were a great many very much elevated, in hopes of a revolt [apostasia] from the Romans” (Life 4). “When John, the son of Levi, saw some of the citizens much elevated upon their revolt [apostasia) ] from the Romans, he labored to restrain them; and entreated them that they would keep their allegiance to them” (ibid., 10).
Probably Paul merges the religious and political concepts, though emphasizing the outbreak of the Jewish War resulting from their apostasy against God.[3]
We may infer this from 1 Thessalonians 2:16. There Paul says the Jews “always fill up the measure of their sins [i.e., religious apostasia against God]; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost [i.e., the result of political apostasia against Rome].” The apostasia (revolt) Paul mentions will lead to the military devastation of Israel (Luke 21:21-22; 23:28-31; Acts 2:16-20). The filling up the measure of the fathers sins (Matt. 23:32; 1 Thess. 2:16; Rev. 18:5) leads to Israel’s judgment, thereby vindicating the righteous slain in Israel (Matt. 23:35; cf. Matt. 24:2-34). The apostasia of the Jews against God is centuries long, culminating in their rejecting the Messiah (Matt 21:37-39; 22:2-6). This leads to God’s providential judgment via their apostasia against Rome (Matt. 21:40-42; 22:7). Paul’s emphasis must be on the revolt against Rome in that it is future and datable, whereas the revolt against God was ongoing and cumulative. This is necessary to dispel the deception over which Paul expresses concern. Due to this final apostasy and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem, Christianity and Judaism are forever separated.[4]
Tune in tomorrow at 5:31 am for our continuing saga. Set your alarm now so that you don’t miss being the first one on your block to be able to unscrew the inscruitable.
Notes
[1] For political apostasia see the Septuagint at Ezra 4:12, 15, 19; Neh. 2:19; 6:6; 1 Esd. 2:23. See also: 1 Macc. 13:16; 2 Macc. 5:11. For religious apostasia see the Septuagint at Josh. 22:22; 2 Chr. 29:19; and 33:19, and in the New Testament Acts 21:21.
[2] William Hendriksen, I and II Thessalonians (NTC) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 170. Thomas L. Constable, “2 Thessalonians,” in John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 718.
[3] Daniel Whitby suggests the apostasy growing among Jewish converts to Christianity, as they return to Judaism. This occurs about the same time. Hebrews (written in the A.D. 60s) shows a deep concern about widespread defections among Jewish converts. Daniel Whitby, A Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 4, in Patrick, Lowth, Arnald, Whitby, and Lowman, A Critical Commentary and Paraphrase on the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1848), 813.
[4] See my Before Jerusalem Fell, 293-298. Better still: Buy it. You will help feed the hungry. And I am hungry. Cf. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Prophecies of St. Paul” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. by Samuel G. Craig, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), 473-475.

Hope: Marching to the beat of the march of Providence

By Nathaniel  Darnell


Often even when towns laid in ruin after a bombing raid from the Germans, the British in World War II drew great comfort from seeing Winston Churchill raise his two-finger symbol: the sign for victory. In a similar way, when things seem dark, Jesus Christ holds out His own victory sign to His people: the symbol of an abandoned cross and empty tomb.
It’s easy to feel impatient about the small part we play in God’s Providence. If we are students of the Great Commission, then we sense the immensity of our mission from God even as we realize our own frailty. It seems things are not progressing as fast as we would like.
Many Christians in America are right now feeling very discouraged about the next four years. Neither of the two presidential picks from the two major parties are anything to get terribly excited about. Laurence Vance of LewRockwell.com assessed a good bit of the problem fairly well recently when he wrote:
Prediction 1: If Romney wins, in four years we will have a higher national debt, and still have a drug war, a police state, troops in 150 countries, and a national security/warfare state.
Prediction 2: If Obama wins, in four years we will have a higher national debt, and still have a drug war, a police state, troops in 150 countries, and a national security/warfare state.[1]
I would add that regardless of who wins, it is very unlikely that either candidate would make any progress on eliminating the federal subsidization of abortion, the legalization of abortion, or the federal protections of sodomy.
It’s at moments like these when many Christians get depressed and are tempted to lose hope of advancing Christ’s Kingdom. We are tempted to run away or hide in the hills, to abandon the fight, to become mere spectators from a safe distance. If we stop caring about the setbacks, we reason, then maybe it won’t hurt as much when they come. We pick an eschatology to fit our surrendered outlook. Our attitude is summed up in a poem one of Teddy Roosevelt’s friends wrote while he was at Harvard, an Ode to Complacency:
We deem it narrow-minded to excel.
We call the man fanatic who applies
His life to one grand purpose till he dies.
Enthusiasm sees one side, one fact;
We try to see all sides, but do not act.
. . . We long to sit with newspapers unfurled,
Indifferent spectators of the world.[2]
We lose the gusto to excel in the work of the Lord because we have forgotten that it is the work of the Lord, not the work of us. If the advancement of the Kingdom depended on the heart and hands of such feeble ones as us, we would have good cause for depression. But it doesn’t. Having begun our walk with God by faith in the work of Christ, we somehow have thought that we would take it from here. Salvation was something Jesus did, but the Great Commission is something that we do, we have mistakenly assumed. The Apostle Paul rebuked this notion in Galatians 3:3. In a sense, it is true that we are performing the Great Commission, but we are not accomplishing the Great Commission. Jesus is accomplishing that because “all power is given unto [Him] in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). We are vessels, 2 Timothy 2:21 tells us, but we are neither the oil that goes into the vessels nor the hands that carry the vessels.
“It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). So even our work, to whatever extent it is holy and effective to the advance of God’s Kingdom, is accomplished not by crafty politicking and scheming, but by the power of the work of God in the redeemed saint and through him.
After facing many setbacks in his life, Robert E. Lee observed in 1870:
“The truth is this: The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”[3]
This is why at American Vision so much of our ministry involves pointing Christians back to history to see the hand of God in the past so they have hope for the future. How often has it seemed that the God’s people were nearly defeated, only to rebound to enjoy great victories?
I have sometimes wanted to ask the Lord, “God, don’t you know how I would be able to glorify you more if you just took away this impediment? Don’t you know that I would be able to advance your kingdom in greater ways if you would just remove this obstacle?” The Apostle Paul wrote of a similar struggle in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 when he told about his “thorn in the flesh” God had sent that led him to depend more on the grace of God. “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9).
God doesn’t need our feeble efforts to advance His Kingdom. He is gracious to use feeble instruments as He wisely chooses. He is far more interested in conforming us to the image of His Son.
“Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:10).
God is far more interested in glorifying His name as He blesses us than He is in having me help Him. He is not so impoverished that He would need to call on me to advance His Kingdom. God owns the cattle upon a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10). He is so glorious that He can advance His Kingdom even through so impoverished a vessel as me. He will handle history.
Oh, for grace to have the perspective of Joseph! That servant of God was somehow able to grasp the essence about which General Lee wrote. He could see God’s over-riding purpose in his personal setbacks. “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Genesis 50:19-21).
So we observe that God controls the advance of history in spite of our setbacks and even through our setbacks. This providential power is amazing enough to consider, but then add to that the wonder that he works through feeble vessels such as us in His history. He does this not by pressing us into a monolithic organization (such as an institution like the Roman Catholic Church) nor by drafting us into a Holy Civil Empire because “there is power in numbers,” but by going inside our hearts, and transforming that heart so that we might “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).
The wonder of God in history is that He will never allow the human race to ruin the advance of Christ’s Kingdom. America may pass like Rome but Christ’s Kingdom will increase. An evil man may stand in the White House, but  Christ won’t leave his Great White Throne. He will indeed even work through His elect in things so simple as teaching our families the Word at home, loving our wives, honoring our parents, providing for our homes, witnessing to the lost, and discipling new saints. These things involve an on-going surrender to the Lordship and wisdom of God.
It is with the assurance we have that God governs in the affairs of men that we can boldly echo the resolute remarks of D.V. Cooke in his poem How did you die? Duty is ours. The outcome is God’s. He cannot be defeated.
Did you tackle the trouble that came your way
With resolute heart and cheerful?
Or hide your face from the light of day
With a craven soul and fearful?
Oh, a trouble’s a ton, or a trouble’s an ounce,
Or a trouble’s what you make it.
And it isn’t the fact that your hurt that counts,
But how did you take it?
You are beaten to earth? Well, well, what’s that?
Come up with a smiling face,
It’s nothing against you to fall down flat,
But to lie there—that’s disgrace!
The harder you’re thrown, why the higher you bounce;
Be proud of your blackened eye!
It isn’t the fact that you’re licked that counts,
It’s how did you fight—and why?
And though you be done to the death, what then?
If you battled the best you could;
If you played your part in the world of men,
Why, the Critic will call it good.
Death comes with a crawl, or it comes with a pounce,
And whether he’s slow or spry,
It isn’t the fact that you’re dead that counts,
But only, how did you die?
Endnotes:
  1. See Laurence Vance, My Official Prediction on the LRC Blog. []
  2. David McCullough, Mornings on Horseback 207 (1981, Simon & Schuster). []
  3. Robert E. Lee, Letter to Lt. Col. Charles Marshall (September 1870). []

terça-feira, 28 de agosto de 2012

O que é Teocracia Bíblica?

Por Steve C. Halbrook                                                       
 
Deus é o soberano governante de todas as coisas: “O SENHOR tem estabelecido o seu trono nos céus, e o seu reino domina sobre tudo” (Sl 103.19). A reivindicação de um governo universal por Deus deve-se ao fato de ele existir antes de todas as coisas (Jo 1.1,2), ser o Criador (Jo 1.3), Ordenador (Is 46.10) e Sustentador de tudo (Cl 1.17), e ser a única fonte de justiça (Sl 89.14) e bondade (Lc 18.19). Todas as coisas, portanto, são em todos os aspectos propriedade de Deus (Sl 24.1, 2; cf. Rm 9.20-23; Is 10.15). O governo soberano de Deus sobre todas as coisas é o ponto de partida para a teocracia bíblica.
O significado básico de teocracia é “governo de Deus”. O termo é derivado das palavras gregas theos, significando Deus, e kratos, significando poder, força ou governo. No primeiro século, Josefo, o famoso historiador judeu, cunhou a palavra “teocracia” e definiu-a como “colocar toda soberania e autoridade nas mãos de Deus” (Against Apion, 2.164-165). [1] Embora a palavra teocracia não esteja na Bíblia, de capa a capa o seu significado é ensinado de maneira clara: Deus governa sobre tudo.
“Teocracia” pode ser entendida em contextos diferentes. Ela pode descrever a realidade do governo de Deus sobre todas as coisas (Dn 4.17; Mt 28.18). Pode também descrever o reconhecimento por parte do homem desse governo divino sobre todas as coisas (Pv 3.6; Sl 2.11-12).
Com respeito ao último sentido, que teocracia requer o reconhecimento do governo total de Deus, a teocracia bíblica começa com o indivíduo, i.e., a conversão do coração a Cristo (Ez 36.27). A teocracia de um cristão então começa na esfera do autogoverno. Visto que do coração “procedem as fontes da vida” (Pv 4.23, KJV), a partir do autogoverno, a teocracia de um cristão naturalmente flui para outras esferas de governo sob o governo de Cristo, incluindo a família, igreja e Estado.
Visto que Cristo é a cabeça de todas as esferas de governo, nenhuma esfera pode exercer monopólio de poder sobre outra; elas são restringidas pelo poder e autoridade de Cristo. Dessa forma, embora os poderes delas se sobreponham em alguns aspectos, nem a família nem a igreja têm a permissão de ter um controle autoritário sobre a outra. Deus é soberano sobre ambas. O mesmo conceito se aplica à Igreja e ao Estado: cada um responde a Deus como sua autoridade suprema, e não um ao outro.
É nesses dois pontos — a natureza ascendente (de baixo para cima) da teocracia e a separação da Igreja e Estado — que muitos se confundem. Com respeito ao primeiro, uma razão pela qual os humanistas temem a teocracia é por causa da mentalidade totalitária deles: eles pensam que a visão deles de que a sociedade muda somente via condicionamentos que partem do Estado, de cima para baixo, é partilhada pelos cristãos, os quais são vistos como competidores que apresentam uma forma rival de imposicionalismo.
Para o secularista, a ameaça vinda da teocracia é simbolizada pela entronização dos Dez Mandamentos num tribunal, escola ou lugar público. É por isso que eles veem a remoção do monumento do Juiz Roy Moore como uma vitória para o movimento de resistência à teocracia. Contudo, a teocracia é antes de tudo a entronização da lei de Deus no coração do crente, visto que todos os mediadores humanos, quer na Igreja ou no Estado, são removidos e o governo direto de Deus é colocado sobre o homem que se governa. A teocracia não é vindoura. Ela já está aqui! Em minha casa, relacionamentos e trabalho, eu não funciono em termos de democracia, oligarquia, monarquia, socialismo ou comunismo. Em todas as áreas da vida devo ser governado pelo governo direto de Deus (theos-kratos), através de Sua lei escrita em meu coração e mente. [2]
O humanismo, sendo uma cosmovisão que começa com o homem caído e pecador, não entende a transformação de baixo para cima, pois não entende o autogoverno (Rm 8.7; Gn 6.5). Embora a lei de Deus prescreva de cima para baixo, a sociedade deve abraçar esta lei de baixo para cima via regeneração pelo Espírito Santo. Quando isso acontece, uma teocracia nacional naturalmente se desenvolve onde a “lei revelada de Deus é suprema sobre todas as leis humanas, e é a fonte de todas as leis”. [3]
Ao rejeitar o controle soberano de Deus sobre a sociedade — incluindo o seu controle sobre o coração dos homens regenerados — o humanismo tenta preencher o vazio da soberania tentando o controle soberano do coração e ação dos membros da sociedade por meio da espada do Estado. Assim, de maneira não surpreendente, quando alguém menciona o governo na sociedade humanista de hoje, já se pensa instintivamente no Estado. Tal pensamento, por desconsiderar outras formas de governo, é “implicitamente totalitário”. [4]
Não devemos pensar no Estado como a única forma de governo, mas é isso o que a nossa sociedade faz; ela espera que o Estado governe as outras esferas de governo (família, igreja e indivíduo). [6]
Por contraste, uma teocracia bíblica irá naturalmente promulgar leis a partir da Bíblia, mas contrário aos temores humanísticos, tal sociedade é a única que não seria tirânica, visto que é a única sociedade possível que prioriza a regeneração, não a coerção. [5]
E assim, enquanto o humanismo impõe os seus ideias de cima para baixo, com espada e por meio de um Estado totalitário, a teocracia bíblica impõe os seus ideais primariamente de baixo para cima, isto é, por meio de corações em submissão direta a Cristo.

NOTAS:

[1] Gary Demar, America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Inc., 2007), 207, 208.
[2] Christopher J. Ortiz, “Theocracy Now!” Faith for all of Life, May/June 2007, 9.
[3] Joe Morecraft III, With Liberty & Justice For All: Christian Politics Made Simple (Sevierville, TN: Onward Press, 1991), 68.
[4] R.J. Rushdoony, God’s Law and Society: Foundations in Christian Reconstruction, Jay Rogers, ed. (Melbourne, FL: J.C. Rogers Production, 2006), 35. Acessado em 5 de maio de 2008, from http://forerunner.com/law/glsbook.pdf.
[5] Os humanistas liberais são mais consistentes em ver o Estado como “o governo”, já que defendem que tudo é um produto do meio, e, portanto, é o trabalho do Estado produzir o meio ideal, coagindo com a espada (i.e., governando o comportamento de) a família, igreja e o indivíduo (i.e., as outras esferas de governo). O governo de baixo para cima é impossível nessa visão, visto que o meio é externo ao indivíduo.
[6] Rushdoony descreve as alternativas humanista/cristã como “revolução ou regeneração”, respectivamente. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), 426.

Fonte: God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws, p. 13-16.
Tradução: Felipe Sabino de Araújo Neto – janeiro/2012

OUR GATHERING TOGETHER

By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr

I am considering the difficult “Man of Lawlessness” passage in 2 Thessalonians 2. This is often brought forward as an objection to the optimism of postmillennialism. In the previous post, I set up the historical backdrop of this prophecy. In this one I will look at one of its earliest elements that seems to require that we see the passage as final-eschatological rather than preteristically.
Let’s consider 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. (2 Thess. 2:1-2)
Though he speaks of the Second Advent just a few verses before (1:10), he is not dealing with that event here. Of course, similarities exist between the Day of the Lord upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the universal Day of the Lord at the Second Advent. The one is a temporal betokening of the other, being a distant adumbration of it. The Second Advent provides a final hope for the eternal resolution to their suffering; the A.D. 70 Day of the Lord affords an approaching temporal resolution (cp. Rev. 6:10). Orthodox scholars from each of the millennial schools agree that Christ brings these two events into close connection in the Olivet Discourse. Indeed, Christ’s disciples almost certainly confuse the two (Matt. 24:3). The same connection seems to exist here, as well.
There are several reasons why we believe that Paul is speaking of two distinct comings here in 2 Thessalonians. (1) In 2 Thessalonians 1:10 Paul employs a different word for the coming of Christ (elthe) than he does in 2:1 (parousia). (2) There the Second Advental judgment brings “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (1:9); here a temporal “destruction” (2:8). (3) There the Second Advent includes “his mighty angels” (1:7); here the temporal judgment does not mention these mighty angels (2:1-12).
(4) Furthermore, the “gathering together to Him” of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 picks up on the Lord’s reference in Matthew 24:31. The word translated “gather together” here is episunagoge. We find this word elsewhere only in Hebrews 10:25, where it speaks of a worship assembly. But its cognate verb form appears in Matthew 24:31, where the gathering relates to “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). There it signifies calling the elect into the church by the trumpeting of the archetypical Great Jubilee (cf. 2 Thess. 1:11; 2:14). Here it functions in the same way: with the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, from that point on Christians will be “gathered together” in a separate and distinct “assembly” (episunagoge — the Church is called a sunagoge in James 2:2). After Jerusalem’s destruction, God no longer tolerates Temple worship — indeed, he makes it impossible. Though Christians frequently worship at the Temple prior to A.D. 70, they never will again.[2]
The Day of Christ / the Lord here fulfills Joel 2:31-32, which Peter applies to first century Jerusalem in Acts 2:16-21. In Acts 2 Peter identifies tongues as a sign of covenantal curse, which points to Jerusalem’s coming destruction in blood, fire, and smoke (Acts 2:19-21, 40). This explains why it is at Jerusalem (and nowhere else) Christians sell their property and share the proceeds (Acts 2:44-45): Jerusalem is on the eve of destruction (Matt. 24:2-34; Luke 23:28-30).
Paul consoles his readers by denying the false report that “the day of Christ had come” (2 Thess. 2:2). Apparently there is an unusual reason for this epistle so soon after the first one: some unscrupulous deceivers forge letters from Paul and falsely claim charismatic insights about eschatological concerns. In his earlier letter he corrects the Thessalonians’s grief over deceased loved ones, who worry that their deaths preclude their sharing in the resurrection (1 Thess. 4:13-17). Now new eschatological deceptions are troubling the young church (2 Thess. 2:1-3a): Some think the Day of the Lord had come,[3] so they quit working (2 Thess. 3:6-12). In another context and due to the catastrophic upheaval expected in the approaching judgment of Israel, Paul suggests that the Corinthians forgo marriage for a while (1 Cor. 7:26-29). But here in 2 Thessalonians 2 incorrect doctrinal instruction is tempting the Thessalonians to stop all necessary labor, thinking the time had come.
The word “trouble” (throeo; 2:2) is in the present infinitive form, which signifies a continuing state of agitation. This word appears elsewhere only in the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13:7; Matt. 24:6), where it sits in a similar theological context: one warning of deception and trouble regarding the coming Day of Christ. “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; for such things must happen, but the end is not yet” (Mark 13:5-7). The Olivet Discourse parallels are instructive.
In my next installment Paul’s direct statement about the Man of Lawlessness himself. I can’t wait to see what I say!
Notes
[1] There are various Days of the Lord in Scripture. For example, upon Babylon (Isa. 13:9, cp. v.1) and Egypt (Jer. 46:10, cp. vv. 2, 11-14; Eze. 30:36).
[2] Acts 1:4; 1:8; 18:21; 20:16; 24:11. Even in this early post-commission Christianity, believers continued to gravitate toward the Jews: engaging in Jewish worship observances (Acts 2:1ff.; 21:26; 24:11), focusing on and radiating their ministry from Jerusalem (Acts 2-5), frequenting the Temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1ff.; 4:1; 5:21ff.; 21:26; 26:21) and attending the synagogues (13:5, 14; 14:1; 15:21; 17:1ff.; 18:4, 7, 19, 26; 19:8; 22:19; 24:12; 26:11).
[3] Acts 1:4; 1:8; 18:21; 20:16; 24:11. Even in this early post-commission Christianity, believers continued to gravitate toward the Jews: engaging in Jewish worship observances (Acts 2:1ff.; 21:26; 24:11), focusing on and radiating their ministry from Jerusalem (Acts 2-5), frequenting the Temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1ff.; 4:1; 5:21ff.; 21:26; 26:21) and attending the synagogues (13:5, 14; 14:1; 15:21; 17:1ff.; 18:4, 7, 19, 26; 19:8; 22:19; 24:12; 26:11).

sexta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2012

YOU DEFINITELY ARE A DISPENSATONALIST IF:

 By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr
falwell
In today’s “Just for Fun” blog, I am continuing the tedious task begun yesterday. I am working on a psychological evaluation tool to help spot dispensationalism lurking within your own system. You can apply these observations to yourself for fun or profit. But if you make a profit, I hope you will send me 10% of the proceeds (I mean that literally).
YOU MIGHT BE A DISPENSATIONALIST IF:
IF you have on your den wall a framed, aerial photograph of Jerry Falwell.
IF in casual conversation with friends and fellow employees at work you begin every sentence with: “According to biblical prophecy….”
IF more than one of your children is named Ryrie, Chafer or Darby. (However, you may deduct this from your overall score if you have a child name Calvin.)
IF you get excited when you see a sentence with a parenthesis.
IF your license plate reads: “IM PR TRB.” (You get extra credit if you have a friend who actually knows what it means — and wishes he had one.)
IF you believe the musical “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” contains an apocalyptic message. (You get extra credit if on the basis of the coded message you have sold your house and cashed out your retirement investments and moved to the top of some mountain — on the side facing towards Jerusalem.)
IF you ever thought you sealed a victory in a theological argument by introducing your rebutal by stating: “Nevertheless, as Tim LaHaye has saliently argued….”
IF there are more underlined sentences in your copy of Late Great Planet Earth than in your Bible. (You get extra credit if you have a thumb-indexed edition of Late Great Planet Earth.)
IF your Pastor gives a sermon exclusively from the Scofield Reference Bible study notes. (You get extra credit if he doesn’t realize he has done so.)
IF you own a leather-bound, red-letter edition of the Left Behind series.
IF you have to have a full-color foldout chart before you can understand salvation by grace through faith.
IF you’ve ever had more than three candidates for the AntiChrist at one time. (You get extra credit if you justified it by arguing from the doctrine of the Trinity.)
IF you can read Stephen King novels and chuckle, but you see 666 on a cash register receipt and you run screaming out of the store, crying out: “I told you so!”
IF you took Hal Lindsey’s advice forty years ago not to make any long term plans and are now broke, uneducated and in a dead-end job. (You get extra credit if your sanctification is such that you are not miffed at his raking in millions and investing them in long-term real estate ventures while you declare: “He deserved it for all of his time-consuming research in the newspapers.)
IF you always make sure there’s at least one non-Christian pilot on every flight you take. (You get extra credit if you discount the argument that: “If God had meant for us to fly he would have given us tickets.” You must deduct points, however, if you are convinced Matt. 28:20 is a compelling argument against Christians’ flying, because you understand that in this passage Jesus warns that: “Low, I am with you always.”)
IF you believe the concern about “population explosion” refers to Muslims blowing themselves up on a daily basis to make a salient theological point, and you are convinced there must be a verse in Revelation that mentions it (because explosions produce fire, fire occurs often in Revelation, and Revelation contains the letters “M,” “U,” “S,” “L,” “I,” “M” scattered throughout the text).
IF you still hold a lingering suspicion about Gorbachev’s birthmark on his forehead. (You get extra credit if you never confuse the shape of his birthmark with a map of Texas.)
IF you believe that Grant Jeffrey, Dave Hunt, Hal Lindsey, or John Hagee is a theologian.
IF you know the location of the European Central Bank because you believe you have properly exegeted Revelation 13:17 from the original Belgium version.
IF you count trampoline aerobics as “Rapture Practice” in your 4:00 am devotions each morning. (You get extra credit if you believe the neighbors who live in the apartment below you are non-Christians and are persecuting you because they complain.)
IF you think Texe Marrs’ books belong in the “Reference Works” section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you think they belong in your Christian bookstore at all.)
IF you look for Chick Tracts in the “Theology” section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you shop at a Christian bookstore that actually has a “Theology” section. Note: The WWJD supply section is not considered a “Theology” section.)
IF you ever stand on your head out of the fear that the Rapture will occur when Jesus returns over China, because you are confident of your exegesis of Rev. 9:16 regarding the battle involving 250,000,000 million Chinese soldiers. (You get three extra points if you can name each one of the 250,000,000 million soldiers without making the sound of a spoon hitting the floor.)
IF your baby’s stroller has a break-away sun bonnet. (You get extra credit if it also has a bumper sticker on it stating: “In case of Rapture this vehicle will be unbabied.”)
IF you have five children, but refuse to buy life insurance on yourself because “I won’t be needing it.”
IF your personal hymn favorite is: “My hope is built on nothing less, than Scofield’s notes and Moody Press.”
IF Clarence Larkin is your favorite artist and you scoff at Norman Rockwell’s meager artistic attempts.
IF you think there are only two millennial positions: Pre-Trib and Liberal.
IF your favorite party game is “Pin the horns on the Beast.”
IF your favorite Christian TV game show is: “Name that Antichrist.”
IF after reading the Left Behind series you file formal legal papers leaving your body to science fiction. (You must deduct points, though, if you realize the error of reading too many dispensationalist books and you donate your eyes as an organ donor before you die.)
Tomorrow I will finalize this intriguing theological discovery tool, which I have named: YMBI Analysis. Check in  tomorrow, same time, same URL. Be there, or be a trapezoid (which is worse than being a square because a trapezoid appears to be a dizzy square).

quinta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2012

YOU MIGHT BE A DISPENSATIONALIST IF:

By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr
 


In that my post on “Witnessing to Dispensationalists” was so popular, I thought we might re-visit the humor department. Not that dispensationalism is laughable — it actually causes me to cry a lot. Normally, my crying doesn’t occur until I look at the New York Times best-seller list and see it crowded with dispensational fiction books. Indeed, that is why I stopped subscribing to the NY Times — in addition to the fact that I live 800 miles away from New York (the “movie showings” section was not helpful to me at all).
Several blog readers sent me emails suggesting that I give some insights into how to recognize a dispensationalist. This, they thought, might help them in their quest to seek them out for an “intellectual” (I use the term loosely) encounter. Attempting an intellectual discussion with a dispensationalist is a lot like saddling a giraffe: It is a whole lot of trouble and there’s not much point in it. (This is why you never see me riding a giraffe through the neighborhood.)
So then how can you recognize a dispensationalist? Jeff Foxworthy has developed one of the most useful psychological profiling systems for determining a person’s identity. So I will follow his well-argued principles and apply them to the task at hand. I will even apply them personally to you, my reader, just in case you fear you may be succumbing yourself (out of saddness that you are never invited to Rapture parties).
You Might Be a Dispensationalist IF:
If you like to chew gum constantly so that your ears won’t pop in case of the Rapture.
If you subscribe to the newspaper simply to keep up with biblical prophecy.
If you always leave the top down on your convertible — just in case.
If bar code scanners make you nervous.
If you have been a Christian for less than one year and you have already studied through the Book of Revelation twelve times.
If you attend a church that sings as a Christian hymn the 1960s pop song “Up, Up and Away.”
If you think general revelation is the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Armageddon.
If you can name more dispensations than commandments.
If you forget your wife’s birthday, but you know the latest predicted date for the Rapture.
If you have already forgotten the last date predicted for the Rapture but you are excited about the most recent prediction, confident that “this is it!”
If you are a book collector and you long to locate a copy of The Late Great Planet Earth in the original Greek.
If you believe that the term “Early Church Fathers” refers to J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer.
If you would like a copy of Hal Lindsey’s personal study Bible with penciled in corrections.
Conclusion
Join us tomorrow, same time, same URL for part 2 of our pop-psychological analysis. But tomorrow’s study is even deeper and more probing. It is titled: “You Definitely Are a Dispensationalist if….” You won’t want to miss it — like you have some many Rapture predictions.
Just one last comment: Yesterday I was . . . . No wait! That wasn’t me.

Do evolutionists have an agenda?


By

A while ago I wrote an article about the Answers in Genesis creation museum, and received a comment from someone calling herself “The Happy Feminist” who asserted that evolutionists do not have an agenda. She claimed that evolutionists are only interested in the truth, but is her claim true? I wish there was such a thing as a “Two Kingdom” evolutionist, but I’ve never run into an evolutionist who believes that we should simply keep evolution in the science theory books. Most want to spread the implications of evolution to every other field, such as the practice of law. I don’t know of any evolutionists who promote the kind of dualistic view of life to their worldview that some Christians seem to encourage for the Christian worldview. The evolutionists most definitely have an agenda for all of life and culture, and it is necessary for Christians to oppose their agenda at every level and promote God’s agenda for life, as revealed in His Word, in furtherance of the Great Commission.
“The Happy Feminist” wrote:
I now see one of the bases of misunderstanding between people who believe in Biblical creation versus people who accept the theory of evolution. Creationists, I now see, think that evolutionists have an agenda, an agenda above and beyond the search for truth by means of the scientific method.
In response to this claim of objectivity and harmlessness, consider the following quotes by various evolutionary, humanistic leaders on a handful of significant areas of life and culture.
The Evolution Agenda for Marriage & the Family
Evolutionary, humanist leader Lawrence Casler asserted that man must evolve away from the Christian concept of marriage because “marriage and family life have been largely responsible, I suggest, for today’s prevailing neurotic climate, with its pervasive insecurity, and it is precisely this climate that makes so difficult the acceptance of a healthier way of life.”[1]
Fellow evolutionist author George Simpson explained the need for evolution away from Christian marriage and family this way:
The doctrine of cultural evolution emphasized the adaptive stages of human development, ways of social living, and forms of group existence. That is, various social forms came to be seen as selected means for carryng on the struggle for existence. Thus each family form had to be considered as valuable only relative to the adaption of the people of a particular group. Hence the western family system was not permanent and final but only one of many possible forms.[2]
As Casler further explains, from the evolutionary viewpoint, marriage and family are out-dated.
Marriage, for the most part, has outlived its usefulness and is doing more harm than good. The solution is not to make divorces more difficult to obtain, but to recognize the so-called divorce problem for what it is: a symptom of the marriage problem.[3]
So do evolutionary humanists have an agenda about marriage and family? Apparently, they do, and their agenda is that they are against it. For evolutionists, it is time for society to evolve away from marriage and the family.
The Evolution Agenda for Politics
Evolutionist Walt Anderson explained his belief that evolution “urges us to see political development itself as an advanced form of biological evolution, to look at humanity not as a cog in a vast social machine but rather as (in Julian Huxley’s phrase) evolution become conscious of itself.”[4]
How should evolutionists make their views of politcs become “conscious” of their belief in evolution? Evolutionist Timothy J. Madigan writes:
Humanism holds that the planet Earth must be considered one ecosystem, which is to say it is no longer feasible to arbitrarily divide it into separate states and hope that each one can satisfactorily manage itself. . . . Quite simply, national borders can no longer be considered sacrosanct when manipulation of the environment can easily lead to worldwide devastation.[5]
Thus, evolutionists believe in a world-wide government. As evolutionist spokesman Paul Kurtz wrote,
We believe, however, that it is necessary to create a global scale new democratic and plurastic institutions that protect the rights and freedoms of all people. As a first step, humankind need to establish a system of world law and to endow the World Court with enough moral force that its jurisdiction is recognized as binding by all the nation-states of the world.[6]
Using this one-world government, evolutionists believe they should force total disarmament. Evolutionist Linus Pauling wrote, “The only hope for the world lies in achieving control of the methods of waging war and ultimately to reach to goal of total and universal disarmament.”[7] Evolutionist Erich Fromm agreed, writing, “The first steps in avoiding nuclear cataclysm and preserving democracy are to agree on universal disarmament.”[8]
Evolutionist Lucile W. Green listed the “essentials for world government” as “disarmament, effective peacekeeping machinery, financial security for the United Nations, a world court, a world legislature, and a world executive.”[9]
Do evolutionists have an agenda for politics? Apparently, they do, and it entails a one-world government and global disarmament.
The Evolution Agenda for Morality
What about ethics or morality? Do evolutionists have an agenda on those subjects? Evolutionist spokesman Paul Kurtz seemed to think so. He wrote:
If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself and to discover new areas of significance and achievement.[10]
Evolutionist Max Hocutt expressed a similar notion:
The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules? God or men? The theistic answer is that God makes them. The humanistic answer is that men make them. This distinction between theism and humanism is the fundamental division in moral theory.[11]
How does that “fundamental division” play itself out? Evolutionist William Provine explains the basic premise:
No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding princples for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.[12]
If there are no absolute guiding principles for human society, then how does an evolutionst think he is supposed to behave? The Humanist Manifesto II states, “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.”[13]
Kurtz agrees, stating that evolutionists “are committed to free thought and to the view that ethical values are relative to human experience and needs.”[14] Using a specific ethical situation as an example, evolutionist Dr. Arthur E. Gravatt elaborates, “The morality or immorality of any behavior, including sexual behavior, has been put in the context of ‘situation ethics.’ In this approach moral behavior may differ from situation to situation. Behavior might be moral for one person and not another or moral at one time and not another.”[15]
The Humanist Manifesto II goes into even greater detail. “We believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct,” it says. “The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’ . . . individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-style as they desire.”[16]
Evolutionist Corliss Lamont makes another application. “Historically,” he writes, “a primary reason for the enormous importance given to genital faithfulness and unfaithfulness was the lack of reliable birth-control techniques. Now that those techniques, including abortion, are generally available, this importance has more and more diminished.”[17]
So do evolutionists have an agenda for morality? Apparently, they do. Namely, moral relativism — allowing for sexual promiscuity and abortion, among other things.

The Evolution Agenda for Truth?

Pretending that evolutionists do not have an agenda – when they have published so much detailing their agenda on various aspects of life — comes across as absurd. Even more absurd is the contradictory idea that evolutionists are commited to the truth when they have denied any basis for the concept of truth. Why should mankind uphold truth, if there is no God who requires that we uphold truth? The very concept of truth is a Christian concept, and the evolutionist is forced to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to have any sense of stability in his life.
Yet the “Happy Feminist” writes that “the point of the scientific method is to search for truth regardless of where it leads or where we wish it to lead.” Why? Why should an evolutionist adopt the scientific method? Why should an evolutionist search for truth? What is the standard of truth in the evolutionary worldview? As evolutionist Max Hocutt revealed, the standard for truth in an evolutionary worldview is man.
Man in the evolutionary, humanist religion, has in effect become god on earth. He holds the position other religions reserve for God. He makes himself, and he sets his own rules. His belief in himself or the scientific method as a standard of truth is a faith-based belief. He has no way to use even the scientific method to prove that the only realities in the world are material. The evolutionist has exchanged one faith for another.
As Romans 1:25 says, evolutionary humanists have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Endnotes:
  1. Lawrence Casler, “Permissive Matrimony: Proposals for the Future,” The Humanist, Sept/Oct 1969, p. 5. []
  2. George Simpson, People in Families (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1960), p. 4. []
  3. Casler, “Permissive Matrimony: Proposals for the Future,” p. 4. []
  4. Walt Anderson, Politics and the New Humanism (Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1973), p. 83. []
  5. Timothy J. Madigan, “Humanism and the Need for a Global Consciousness,” The Humanist, March/April, 1986, pp. 17-18. []
  6. Paul Kurtz, “A Declaration of Independence: A New Global Ethics,” Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 6. []
  7. Linus Pauling, “Humanism and Peace,” The Humanist, 1961, no. 2, p. 75. []
  8. Erich Fromm, May Man Prevail? (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), p. 248. []
  9. Lucile W. Green, “The Call for a World Constitutional Convention,” The Humanist, July/August 1968, p. 13. []
  10. Paul Kurtz, ed., The Humanist Alternative (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1980), p. 179. []
  11. Max Hocutt, “Toward an Ethic of Mutual Accomodation,” in Humanist Ethics, ed. Morris B. Storer (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1980), p. 137. []
  12. William Provine, “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, September 5, 1988, p. 10. []
  13. Humanist Manifesto II, p. 17. []
  14. Paul Kurtz, “Does Humanism Have an Ethic of Responsibility?”, in Humanist Ethics, ed. Storer, p. 11. []
  15. Arthur E. Gravatt, cited in William H. Genne, “Our Moral Responsibility,” Journal of the American College Health Association, vol. 15 (May 1967), p. 63. []
  16. Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18. []
  17. Corliss Lamont, Voice in the Wilderness (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1974), p. 97. []

quarta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2012

5 Things We Do Today Instead of Preach the Word

By James MacDonald

5 Things We Do Today Instead of Preach the Word


Excerpted from his talk given at the Acts 29 Lead Pastors' Retreat in June 2011:
I wish I could tell you that most pastors are preaching the Word. I can't — some are not preaching the Word. So here are five things we may choose to do instead of preaching the Word.

1. Entertaining

"Music, drama, and video, felt needs, topics, more stories"
None of those things are wrong — unless they displace the preaching of the Word of God. Some teachers will tell you that you need to tell stories in your sermons or you will bore people. I'm not bored. If you're not bored, no one is going to be bored. Can you take hold of the Word of God and take hold of a group of people and make them listen because you have something to say?
Are you bored? The greatest sin in ministry is to bore people with the Bible. Martin Lloyd Jones said, "Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit and should never be allowed to enter one."
You have to get the Word of God, let it grip your heart by the power of the Holy Spirit, and drive over to church with something to say.
Now if a story fits in, I might tell you a story before I sit down, but don't make that your thing. If people come up to you afterwards and say, "I love that story you told," it should make you crazy. Really, that's what I am? I'm a storyteller? The Gospel is the main story that you should be telling.

2. Sharing

We hear a pastor say, "There are some things I just want to share with you today..."
Since when is the man of God some Dr. Phil and Oprah combo? You're supposed to proclaim a message. If you're not preaching, glory is not coming down. You have to preach the glory down — people have to hear a word from God.

3. Wooing

"Careful, careful, don't offend, always comfortable, never pressured, just a pinch of truth, when they're ready to handle it"
The preaching of the gospel has become so watered down that the non-elect can't even reject it.
If you don't have people walking away from your ministry saying, "This is a hard word, who can accept it?" then you don't have a ministry like Jesus had.
I just hate this notion that we can be so clever and sophisticated that we can remove the offense from the gospel. It is foolishness to those who are perishing; it is the power of God to those who are being saved. It is the aroma of death to those who are perishing; it is the aroma of life to those who are being saved.
Listen, preacher: If you don't want to be the aroma of death to those who are perishing, you can never be the aroma of life to those who are being saved. That's why preaching is hard work.

4. Intellectualizing

"I've been thinking and researching this in the original languages..."
We're supposed to love God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength. And preaching that stops at the shoulders is defective preaching. It has to move me — it has to call me to action — mind, emotions, and will. If you're just preaching your theological construct, you're blowing it.
Stop preaching the scaffolding around the Bible and preach the Word — what God actually says.
John Calvin said, "God deigns [considers it proper] to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them." Your preaching is at its best when your people have forgotten that you're even standing there, and God's Spirit is moving through you. I am afraid that we've lost sight of this.

5. Abbreviating

"Twenty minute sermons"
I don't know how it works at your church, but for us it takes 5 minutes to set the rig up and another 5 or 10 minutes to take it down. If you're only preaching for 20 minutes, that gives you 5 minutes to drill. You're not going very deep, are you? It takes some time.
Romans 10:16 Jesus said, "He who hears you, hears me."
"He who hears you," Jesus said, "hears me."
Yet there's no pridefulness, is there? It's so humbling. It's a crushing weight, isn't it? I tell people the weekly message preparation is the crucible of my sanctification. Never get in a habit of getting up in the pulpit when things aren't square everywhere. That by itself will keep you going in the right direction. "He who hears you, hears me," Jesus said. I love that challenge — to be that person.


Why Ranting Does Not Equal Preaching

 By Tony Merida

A few years ago, Dr. Chuck Kelley gave me this “Torah Pointer.” It is used for the reading of the Torah, indicating the sacredness of the text. Dr. Kelley gave this to me to illustrate this simple charge: “Keep your finger on the text when you teach and preach.”
I was thinking about his gracious gift as I was preparing to preach on this passage:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the Word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
2 Timothy 3:14-4:4 ESV
Timothy is being urged to keep his finger on the text as he continues in the ministry of the Word.
The opposite of this, of course, is to get away from the text.
And that seems to be quite popular. It was then, and it is now.
So what is preaching? Preaching is saying what God has said in his Word and declaring what God has done in Christ. When the Word of God is truly preached, the voice of God is truly heard. In contrast, when the words of man are at center stage, then the words of man are heard (though often mistaken for the Word of God).
Ranting is not preaching.
Ranting may be entertaining. It may get you on YouTube. It may even get you a large podcast following. But it isn’t preaching. Preaching is rooted in the text.
What I’ve observed of late is a fashionable trend among a lot of popular preachers to go on these thirty-minute rants about issues like manhood, church planting, Calvinism, the President of the U.S., or how to dress.
While we need to apply the text to a given congregation, does this mean we just use a verse to jump into some agenda of ours? No. That’s not preaching. I have one word for the ranters out there: Keep your finger on the text when you teach and preach. And I will try to do the same.
God has not called us to rant; he has called us to preach the Word – faithfully, consistently, pastorally, patiently, and theologically.
Prosperity gospel preachers and other false teachers use the rant method, and this same method seems to be employed by others, but they don’t get called out because they are orthodox theologically.
Let’s remember that the thirty-minute rant is dangerous. Why?
• It is dangerous because you lose authority when you leave Scripture.
• It is dangerous because you are feeding the flesh of people. Every generation has people who want to find teachers to “suit their own passions.”
• It is dangerous because it feeds the cult of personality movement in our culture. People come wondering, “What will he say this week?” instead of preparing to hear a faithful exposition of Holy Scripture.
• It is dangerous because it disregards our holy mandate as preachers and teachers. We will be held accountable for how we’ve handled the Word (James 3:1, Heb. 13:7, 17).
• It is dangerous because we don’t want people putting their faith in man’s wisdom but in God’s Word.
May God raise up a new generation of faithful, responsible expositors of Scripture who keep their finger on the text as they teach and preach.

Seven Deadly Sins in the Pulpit

 

1. PREACHING CHRIST WITHOUT THE CROSS.

No cost Christianity. Paul determined to know and preach nothing except Christ and Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). Today it seems we preach everything but Christ and the cross, causing many to live as enemies of the cross (Philippians 3:18).

2. PREACHING SALVATION WITHOUT SANCTIFICATION.

No change Christianity. So many claim Christ today with no evidence or change in their lives, and the pulpit is at least partially to blame.

3. PREACHING DECISIONS WITHOUT DISCIPLESHIP.

No commitment Christianity. I know we are getting crowds and decisions, but are we making disciples?

4. PREACHING LOVE WITHOUT LORDSHIP.

No compliance Christianity. Jesus is Lord, and because He is Lord, he heals, delivers, provides, and saves. 

5. PREACHING PROSPERITY WITHOUT PURPOSE.

No cause Christianity. God blesses us so that we can be a blessing.

6. PREACHING BLESSING WITHOUT BIRTHRIGHT.

No covenant Christianity. Esau threw away his birthright and still expected a blessing. It does not work that way. If we want the blessing, we must accept the covenantal responsibilities that go with the birthright.

7. PREACHING REVIVAL WITHOUT REFORMATION.

No transformation Christianity. We are called to be salt and light, to impact individuals and cultures, families and nations. The gospel is supposed to be transformational.

I have certainly been guilty of all of above at different times in my life as a preacher. As I have matured, hopefully, I'm being more and more faithful to preaching the WHOLE WILL OF GOD. How about you? 

By Steve Murrell

terça-feira, 21 de agosto de 2012

John MacArthur: “There is No Hope for a Better World”

By Gary DeMar

If you tell someone he can’t do something, in most cases that person will stop before he even tries. Of course, there are some people who take the impossible as a challenge and use the impossible as an incentive to work hard to disprove the critics. Many of the advances in science, technology, and everyday life are the result of people who fought against impossible odds.
Life is full of impossible challenges until someone comes along and defies the detractors. I wonder how many people in 1903 — when the Wright Brothers took to the air for the first time in their heavier-than-air flying machine — ever conceived that in 1969 two men would land and walk on the moon.
With this short background, I want to discuss a statement that John MacArthur made in he preached on Mark 13:14-23. He had already dealt with verses 1–13 in previous messages:
It ought to be obvious to all of you now. I think it will be when I say this, that there is no hope for a better world. Are you pretty well settled in on that? Yeah, the world is not getting better, is it? More scary, more threatening, more dangerous, more deadly, more hopeless.
Humanity is not headed toward a humanly engineered utopia. Folks, there is no Age of Aquarius. There is no coming time of world peace. This is a cursed planet and it exists under the effects of sin and divine cursing. Not only does all creation groan because it is cursed, but sinners live in this creation are also cursed and so it is a compounded curse that makes life so difficult.
The environment feels the effects of sin. The population feels the effects of sin. And collectively, mankind with all of his ingenious abilities and all of his mental powers, and all of his determination cannot restrain the deadly influences that are in the very DNA of this creation. The earth and its environment and its inhabitants make survival difficult. We live on a dangerous planet and it is becoming more dangerous as it nears its final end. The second law of [thermodynamics] — entropy — the law that tells us all things are breaking down, tending toward disorder, is at work at every level.
Since MacArthur is basing his above remarks on Mark’s version of the Olivet Discourse, we have to ask this question: Where would we be in this period of history if ministers of the gospel had preached on the same text 1900 years ago telling new Christians “that there is no hope for a better world”? This would include advances in technology, science, hygiene, medicine, dentistry, food production, disease prevention, infant mortality, communication, transportation, to name a few advances that are the result of worldview Christianity.
It’s obvious that a lot of things are better today than they were just 100 year ago. The building where John MacArthur preached this message is a wonder of technology and comfort that can be attributed to a biblical view of the world.
Consider science. If we are to believe secularists, religion has been the enemy of science. In reality, “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.”[1] Before science could get started in proposing theories, certain assumptions about the way the world works had to be assumed to be valid and operationally consistent. Isaac Newton’s encounter with a falling apple and the theories that followed did not immediately change the way people lived. Everyone knew the effect of gravity, even though they did not always understand all of its characteristics and functions or give the “scientific law” a name. When people stepped outside, they never considered that they would float away. Rain always fell down from a cloud-filled sky, and sailors knew the daily change in the tides. Water was wet, and when it got cold enough, it froze, even if no one knew its precise freezing point.
For millennia people from around the globe operated in terms of these assumptions even though they did not always comprehend them theoretically or scientifically. They came to be designated “natural laws,” the “laws of nature,” or the “laws of Nature’s God,” critical assumptions about the way the world worked that did not exist in India, China, or among the Islamic nations. These universal laws operated predictably because the majority of people–scientists included — accepted that they were God’s laws, established and upheld by Him.
It has even been suggested that such a view played a key role in the successful development of science in the Western cultures, and did so because they were influenced by the Judaeo-Christian tradition which fostered faith in the underlying rationality and orderliness of Nature during periods of history when human ideas were inbred by all manner of magical and occult notions.[2]
Life is predictable because God is predictable. Even those who did not embrace a biblical worldview knew that they could not develop an ordered world without the shared belief that God was necessary to make it happen.
In cultures where progress was made in mathematics, science, medicine, political theory, and law, people assumed that the world was not an illusion, that truth mattered, and man was a rational being created by a rational God even though at times man behaved irrationally and believed irrational things.
Cultures that believed that spirits inhabited trees, rocks, and animals made very little progress culturally and scientifically because they never knew what the spirits might do. There was never a guarantee that what people did one day could be repeated on another day. They were at the mercy of what they believed were impersonal forces controlled by capricious gods who were always changing the rules.
Pagan religions are typically animistic or pantheistic, treating the natural world either as the abode of the divine or as an emanation of God’s own essence. The most familiar form of animism holds that spirits or gods reside in nature. In the words of Harvey Cox, a Baptist theologian, pagan man “lives in an enchanted forest.” Glens and groves, rocks and streams are alive with spirits, sprites, demons. Nature teems with sun gods, river goddesses, astral deities.[3]
These false operational assumptions meant that the world could not be studied in a reliable and systematic way. “As long as nature commands religious worship, dissecting her is judged impious. As long as the world is charged with divine beings and powers, the only appropriate response is to supplicate them or ward them off.”[4] As James B. Jordan writes:
Technology is a purely Christian thing. It is impossible to take a technological view of the world in a pagan culture, partly because the world is seen as inhabited by spirits who will be offended if we manipulate the world, and partly because the means of manipulation is seen as magical, the use of mental and/or ritual occult powers.
It is Christian faith which pronounces the world free of demons and spirits, and which encourages men to manipulate it. It is Christian faith which says that men cannot and must not try to play god (via magic), and which directs men to the use of tools (technology) as a means of dominion. In fine, the development of tools (technology) is exclusively Christian, and has happened beyond a very marginal degree only in the West. Indeed, the two great eras for technological development were the Christian Middle Ages, and the protestant industrial Revolution.[5]
Some will counter that the world is a dangerous and immoral place. So what’s new about that? The world wasn’t an immoral place in Jesus’ day? The apostle Paul addressed the issue of “ungodliness,” worship of the creation rather than the Creator, and general lawlessness that included homosexuality (Rom. 1:18–32; also see 1 Cor. 6:1–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). His epistles are filled with admonition against the moral decline of his day.
There were persecutions, martyrdom, “wars and rumors of wars,” “famines,” one of which was said to be over the entire Roman Empire (Acts 11:28) in the period just after Jesus’ ministry. What would have happened if a minister of the gospel had gone about the Roman Empire telling new Christians “there is no hope for a better world”?
There’s a great deal more to say on this issue and MacArthur’s later claim that society “does not advance morally. It does not advance spiritually. And it does not advance socially.”
Endnotes:
  1. Loren Eisely, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1958), 62. Quoted in Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 18. []
  2. John D. Barrow, The World Within the World (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1988), 23. []
  3. Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 23–24. []
  4. Pearcey and Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 24. []
  5. James B. Jordan, “Popular Fictional Literature,” The Geneva Review (April 1984), 2. []