"The Narrow Road": Blogs By Shane Kastler

BOOK REVIEW: Victory In Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism By Greg L. Bahnsen (Reviewed By Shane Kastler)

By Shane Kastler

Not many theological issues are more divisive than eschatology (the study of end times) and not many aspects of eschatology are more divisive than the nature and extent of the “Millennial kingdom”-- that thousand year reign of Christ spoke of in Revelation 20:3.

In Victory In Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism, the late Greg Bahnsen makes a defense of the eschatalogical system of Postmillennialism. He lays out the basic tenets of the three major millennialism positions: Premillennialism, the belief that Christ returns before the Millennium then sets up an earthly reign. This view is by far the most popular (and in my opinion least biblically defensible), Amillennialism (the belief that the Millennial kingdom is symbolic of the extended period between the first and second comings of Christ); and Postmillennialism which is similar to Amillennialism in terms of the timing of the Millennium (between the first and second advent) and to Premillennialism in a belief of gospel dominance in this present world.

This book gives a good basic overview of the various positions and a good layout of the Postmillennial case from Scripture. And while Postmillennialism is much more plausible than Premillennialism; some of the texts Bahnsen uses seem to be a bit forced at best.

For example, when Jesus speaks of the wheat and the tares growing together; then the tares being separated at the end. (Matt. 13) Banhsen points out that it is a wheat field, not a tare field, which is to say that there will be more actual wheat (believers) in the world than tares (unbelievers). Aside from the fact that Bahnsen might be pushing an analogy way too far; Jesus' main point was that in the end God knows those who are genuinely his and will save and judge in proper fashion.

Another sketchy proof text that Bahnsen uses is the great commission's charge to “make disciples of all the nations.” (Matt. 28:19) Of course this passage is also translated “go into all the nations and make disciples” which would have a much different potential application. Is Jesus saying that all the nations will be effectively “Christianized” in this present world? Or is he saying that ultimately God has elect that he will save from “every tongue, tribe, people, and nation.” (Rev. 5:9) The latter seems to be a more natural reading of the texts at hand. Especially when you factor in verses such as Matthew 7:14 where Jesus said, “Narrow is the road that leads to life and few there be that find it. But broad is the road that leads to destruction and many find it.” The idea of God saving SOME from every nation fits in well; but the idea of the majority of this world becoming Christians would seem to be hard to reconcile with Christ's words.

Bahnsen devotes a large chapter to the Postmillennial views of various leaders in church history; primarily from the Reformation on. This particular section is interesting and helpful in giving a background but does little to convince a person of Postmillennial validity. After all, most people would say that just because John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards believed it doesn't make it true. While these are eminent theologians, the case must be made from a Scriptural perspective for it to hold water.

The final section of the book deals with the work of Satan on the earth. What is he doing and how successful will his diabolical goals be in light of Scriptural teaching and God's sovereignty. Bahnsen implies that anything other than Postmillennialism gives Satan more power than he deserves and implies more success for Satan than is warranted. But this simply isn't the case; given the fact that both Premillennialism and Amillennialism have many adherents who hold to the sovereignty of God over all things. Satan will be allowed a certain amount of success in this sin cursed world where he is referred to in Scripture as the “god of this world” and the “prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2). This doesn't mean he is more powerful than God; nor more successful than God. It does mean God has given him a certain amount of influence; and at many times and in many places; a lot of influence.

Bahnsen does an excellent job of decimating Premillennialism throughout the book by pointing out, for example, that death is defeated at the return of Christ in 1 Cor. 15, so death cannot come back as people live and die during the Millennium. Furthermore, a division of the rapture and the 2^nd coming is near impossible to defend Scripturally unless massive surmises are made by the interpreter.

He also attempts to critique Amillennialism as being too focused on the eternal state rather than seeing gospel success in the hear and now. But again, Bahnsen's arguments rise or fall based on an interpretation that is questionable. When Isaiah wrote of a future time when the earth would be “full of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea”; does that mean worldwide acceptance of Christianity? Or does it mean representatives from all nations? When Jesus said, ““This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:14) He didn't say the majority of the hearers would believe; but that every nation would hear; and based on Revelation 5:9 some from every nation would be saved.

The defense Bahnsen gives for seeing the Millennial kingdom as existing between the first and second advents of Christ was admirable and I found myself agreeing with much of it. But to expect a “golden age” of Christianity in this present world was something I found hard to accept exegetically and practically. When I would read such statements by Bahsen I seemed to repeatedly hear the words of Jesus “my kingdom is not of this world” popping into my head.

In conclusion; I would recommend this book as a good overview of Postmillennialism; though I suspect there are better overviews out there. It should be noted that Bahnsen did not set out to write this book but rather this book is a compilation of sermons he preached on the subject. Sometimes this can be seen in a choppy sentence structure that is rarely seen in Bahsen's other written works. His writing, typically being, very coherent and lucid. I would have also liked to see a full orbed defense of the date Revelation was written since a Pre-70 A.D. date is utterly vital to most forms of Premillennial eschatology. But all in all, it was a good book that gives ample information on a topic that most people find confusing. I did not come away convinced of the Postmillennial position. But I did know more of what they believe and what Scriptures they use to defend it. The book definitely gives you food for intellectual thought as you try to sort out the things that “are to come.”

 

BOOK REVIEW: A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America

By Shane Kastler

In A Place at the Table, author John A. D'Elia gives a fascinating account of one of the twentieth century's most influential New Testament scholars. George Eldon Ladd had a sharp mind and a strong desire to influence the liberal scholarly community for the Kingdom of God. Though raised and brought to faith in a Dispensational church, Ladd grew up to reject Dispensationalism in favor of Historic Premillennialism, which differentiates from Dispensationalism in that it does not hold to a pre-tribulational rapture, nor a distinction between the nation of Israel and the Christian Church. Ladd was educated at Gordon College (today known as Gordon-Conwell); and after pastoring several New England Baptist churches, earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Though his doctoral studies were under the tutelage of a liberal advisor, Ladd retained his evangelical faith and sought to write a work, from a conservative theological perspective, that even the liberal's of the higher criticism camp, would have to appreciate. Unto this end, Ladd devoted his academic life, and in the process, sacrificed much of his family life.

In many ways, Ladd was a deeply troubled man, as D'Elia depicts in this work. Ladd had a cold relationship with his father, who appears to have been overbearing. And he was jealous of his younger brother, who was always more popular, athletic, and approved of by their father. Ladd eventually marries and has two children, but his commitment (obsession) with his studies leads to an alienation with his wife, and children. Beginning in the 1950's Ladd starts to struggle with alcoholism and eventually sexual sin (D'Elia implies that Ladd probably had an affair while on sabbatical in Germany and also made a pass at the wife of one of his students.) His alcoholism becomes worse, until eventually his employer, Fuller Theological Seminary had to reprimand and suspend him for one year. Ladd considers divorcing his wife, but never does. She dies in 1976. In 1980, Ladd, who by now is an uncontrollable alcoholic, has a stroke and spends his last two years in a nursing home, dying in 1982.

Though Ladd's psyche was always brittle, it seems that he was ultimately pushed over the edge in the 1960s shortly after completing his magnum opus. For ten solid years, he had worked on a book called "Jesus and the Kingdom" that was meant to be a work to engage the liberal scholars of the day. One book reviewer, Norman Perrin, panned the book in a theological journal, and Ladd absolutely fell apart. From that point on, he considered his life a failure and he slid deeper and deeper into emotional duress and alcoholism. Friends, colleagues, and family all tried to help him but he refused. Ultimately his behavior cost him numerous relationships, including those of his children who rarely spoke to him. This is the tragedy of Ladd's life, and a lesson for those who would put work, even God's work, ahead of their relationship with the Lord and the family he has given them to care for. But Ladd's academic achievements were indeed profound.

While dispensational theology was the predominant conservative view of the day, Ladd confronted it with some of its unbiblical and extreme tendencies. In so doing, he was much maligned by leading dispensationalists such as John Walvoord, but he added another, much needed perspective to the debate regarding eschatology. Ladd is still considered the most prominent twentieth century spokesman for the millennial view known as Historic Premillennialism, and is widely read on the subject even today.
Ladd also wrote a Theology of the New Testament, that some have considered on par with John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in its scope and influence. Clearly Ladd had something to offer the world of Christian scholarship. But sadly, his personal life didn't coincide with his stated, written beliefs.

My conclusion of this work is that it is a tremendous read for those interested in the theological academy, and for those who would like a glimpse into the personal life of this truly tragic figure. D'Elia does a masterful job of weaving the scholarly achievements of Ladd with his personal life in way that is interesting, albeit sad. Ladd's life and work have much to teach us in both positive and negative ways. D'Elia brings this out clearly in a book that is both intellectually challenging, and personally interesting. I recommend its reading, and the reading of Ladd's work, without reservation.

(NOTE: This review was originally written for Amazon.com on Feb. 24, 2009)

BOOK REVIEW: "The Making & Unmaking of an Evangelical Mind: The Case of Edward Carnell"

By Shane Kastler

In The Making & Unmaking of an Evangelical Mind: The Case of Edward Carnell, Rudolph Nelson delves into the fascinating life and tragic death of one of the 20th century's most influential Christian philosophers, Edward John Carnell. After receiving simultaneous doctoral degrees from Harvard Divinity School and Boston University, Carnell blazed onto the theological scene in 1948 by winning the $5,000 first prize in a book contest sponsored by Eerdmans Publishing for his book: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith. Soon after the book was published, Carnell sought and was granted a professorship at the newly formed Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. Though still a young man in his twenties, Carnell appeared ready to take the Christian academic community by storm. Instead, by the end of his short life some twenty years later...the "storm" had overtaken him. He died alone, in a hotel room, having overdosed on prescription sleeping pills. Adding further stigma to his name, the autopsy report stated that it was unable to determine whether the death was accidental or suicidal.

Early Life
Ed Carnell grew up as the third of four children born to a fundamentalist, Baptist pastor named Hubert Carnell. After bouncing around the Midwest, serving various churches, the Carnells eventually settled in Albion, Michigan, where Ed was a popular, though unimpressive student. Both his family and his friends were quite stunned when Ed, upon graduating from High School as a "C" student, announced his intentions to enter the ministry and to pursue training at Wheaton College in Illinois.
        The college life, proved financially difficult for Carnell. Coming from a poor family, he had to make his way by working part-time in the school cafeteria. But, for the first time in his life, he excelled in the classroom. By sitting under the teaching of renowned Philosophy professor, Gordon H. Clark, Carnell found his wings, academically speaking. Clark's influence over many of the Wheaton student's was quite profound. An engaging, theologically Reformed, apologist educated at the University of Pennsylvania, Clark challenged and inspired his students to understand and properly defend the rationality of the Christian faith. This is exactly what Carnell set out to do.
After graduating from Wheaton, Carnell moved to Philadelphia to attend Westminster Theological Seminary. It was here that he encountered the teacher who was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the 20th century, Cornelius Van Til. While Van Til influenced Carnell toward an Apologetic methodology that espoused man's presuppositional belief in the Christian God; Van Til's influence proved to be much less significant than Clark's had been. By the end of his writing career, Carnell had received some mild rebukes from Van Til for not having embraced the full-orbed presuppostionalism that he espoused. Van Til was also involved in a major controversy with Gordon Clark over Clark's ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The argument, over an extremely technical and theological point, led to a permanent schism between the two men, both of whom remained in the same denomination. Clark eventually left for a different brand of Presbyterianism, but undoubtedly, the damage done to Clark by Van Til, had a profound impact on Carnell.

Fuller Seminary
Carnell dutifully served Fuller Seminary as Professor of Theology for five years, but the situation at Fuller was contentious. Harold Ocknega had served during that time as President in Absentia, remaining in Boston where he pastored a church. He vacillated numerous times between moving to Pasadena to take up the Presidency full time and resigning to focus on his pastorate. But it was clear that the seminary needed on hand leadership. In 1957, into this void stepped Edward Carnell.
        While it is frequently difficult for a person to go from colleague to supervisor, the transition seems to have been doubly hard for Carnell. Though the faculty sought an onsite President, they were divided in their agreement on Carnell's suitability for the position. Young, ambitious, and inexperienced Carnell appeared to be in over his head, and perhaps he was. Add to the mix that Carnell was by personality and temperament more suited for the classroom and study than he was the fundraiser and figurehead role of President and you have a recipe for disaster. Carnell made it clear time and time again that he was not a fundraiser, but an academician. Nevertheless, funds were extremely tight, and stress weighed heavily upon him. Though the seminary progressed under his leadership, he ultimately resigned in 1959 after a five year tenure, and returned to the classroom. But his life was never the same again.

Later Life & Tragic Death
Carnell had suffered from insomnia for much of his life; and the added strain of the presidency exacerbated his emotional state. At times, he fell into deep seasons of depression and sought relief through medication and electroshock therapy. His mental condition was further assailed by polemic assaults from the fundamentalist Christians of the day. Though Carnell once labeled himself a "fundamentalist" he ultimately preferred the term "evangelical." Fundamentalists were considered anti-intellectual, and legalistic in some of their views, and Carnell was anything but. He desired Christian scholarship to be rigorously academic and rational; and he confessed that he had grown up under a smothering brand of legalism that he found distasteful. Because of some of these comments, he was attacked by some fundamentalists, and the assaults took their toll.
        It appears that in his later years, the medication and shock therapy influenced his teaching abilities. His once quick and sharp mind now took awkwardly long pauses when lecturing; and at times, he appeared to be distracted while in the classroom. The end came in 1967, when he was invited to address a Roman Catholic conference in Oakland, California. He had struggled for some time with remembering whether or not he had taken his sleeping medication, and his wife had gotten in the habit of dolling his pills out to him. But, he had done well for quite some time and was beginning to take care of the responsibility himself. Because of this, he attended the conference by himself and was scheduled to speak on noon of the second day. He never showed up and was found dead in his hotel room's bathroom floor. He was 48.
        It seems that Carnell's death was more than likely accidental. A towel rack in the bathroom was pulled from the wall, indicating that he had fallen. Furthermore, several pill bottles were found in his room, with pills remaining in them. Typically if one is planning a suicidal overdose, they take all the pills they can. Finally, the level of barbiturates in his system was 3.5mg, and the average barbiturate suicide victim has between 6 and 8 mg. But, the coroner's report sealed his fate and left a permanent cloud over his name as a "possible suicide." Perhaps the suspicions are justified. After all, he was an insomniac, who suffered from severe depression, and had a history of mental anguish associated with his career. But the evidence points to the contrary; and in truth we will never know for certain.

Critique of Rudolph Nelson's Critique
Nelson's book is loosely divided into three parts. The first part examines Carnell's life in a largely biographical fashion. The second part examines his theological positions and professional struggles. The third part, shortest in length, makes final conclusions. Without question, the first part is the most interesting section of the book. One cannot help but be impressed and inspired by this poor, underachieving "C" student, who works his way up the academic latter to the point of attaining two doctorates by the age of 30. Nelson contends, rightly so, that if Carnell had stayed in the classroom he probably would have lived a long and fruitful life. As it was, his ascension to the Presidency proved to be the turning point, and downfall of his career.
        The author's critique of Carnell's theology is predictable. Nelson confesses that he was once a "fundamentalist" until he saw the theological light and became a liberal. In his criticism of Carnell, he sneers frequently at Carnell's "primitive understanding" of the Bible and essentially dismisses him as an oaf because he never reached the enlightened position of denying the faith he claimed to possess. In essence, Carnell is ripped and labeled as an ignoramus because he didn't reject his Biblical beliefs and climb (or slide) to the heights (or depths) of higher critical liberalism. In fact, in reading Nelson's condescending critique of Carnell's beliefs, one could easily forget that Carnell was not a backwoods illiterate at all. He had a Ph.D. from Boston University, and a Th.D. from Harvard having written dissertations on the philosophy of the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard and the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr. The author seems aghast that one could attain such intellectual accomplishments and still be a Biblical Christian.
        Nelson also implies that perhaps Carnell didn't really believe what he claimed to. Based on a comment by Carnell's brother, whom Edward was not especially close to, Nelson contends that Carnell suffered greatly because his mind refused to accept the Christian faith that he was taught to believe. Indeed Carnell does admit to struggles with doubt (as all people do), but nowhere in his writings, personal or private, does Carnell come anywhere close to denying the faith. He had his faults, and he had his struggles, but he remained devoted to the Christian faith to the end. It seems that Nelson makes a little too much of Carnell's occasional mentions of suicide in his writings. In his first book, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, Carnell begins the book by writing of the struggles man faces in a fallen world. He mentions that these struggle are manifested most dramatically when once commits suicide. Nelson also comments on an alleged statement made by Gordon Clark in a debate with an atheist. Supposedly, when confronted with what he would do if Christianity proved to be false, Clark responded that he would kill himself because there would be no reason to exist. This statement of Clark's is found no where in print and was given to Nelson by an alleged witness to the debate. But regardless of whether or not it's true; to try and make a case for Edward Carnell's anguish over the believability of Christianity from such shoddy evidence is unconvincing.
        Nelson ends the book with a brief conclusion in which he takes the stance of Carnell's death being accidental. And he suggests that his "primitive faith" combined with his foolhardy venture as a seminary President, pushed him over the emotional edge.
        While I obviously didn't agree with all of Nelson's conclusion, I did enjoy the book and was fascinated by Carnell's life. The author did a thorough job, in my opinion, of presenting the biographical information in a highly readable fashion. However, the author's personal prejudice against conservative Christianity tainted his judgment towards Carnell and led to conclusions that were unjustified. I would recommend the book, with an exception. If one believes they can be entertained by an interesting life story, while also warned about the possible pitfalls of entering a professions that doesn't suit them then read the book. But the Christian reader needs to be discerning and see through the polemic attacks the author makes on the Biblical, Christian faith.

(NOTE: I originally wrote this as an Amazon review in 2009)

BOOK REVIEW: "End The Fed" By Ron Paul (Reviewed By Shane Kastler)

  Ron Paul is most well-known for his numerous unsuccessful Presidential bids.  He is also known as a fierce Libertarian Congressman who has been a consistent voice for adherence to the Constitution and financial responsibility, in a place (Washington) that doesn’t seem to understand responsibility of any type.  In his book, End The Fed, Paul lays out the case for abolishing the Federal Reserve.  While it's a cause he has advocated since the early 1970s, Paul’s arguments have finally begun to gain some traction in the nation at large.

Created in 1913 by an act of congress, the Federal Reserve was supposed to regulate currency in such a way that America’s financial system would be much more stable.  The actual result, according to Ron Paul, is that the Federal Reserve is the only entity in the country with the legal right to create money “out of thin air.”

As America has drifted away from the “Gold Standard” and embraced paper currency, the value of the dollar can be manipulated by the Federal Reserve’s authority to simply “print more money.”  But, as common sense should dictate, printing more dollars only makes the dollars you currently have worth less.  The Federal Reserve has the government sanctioned ability to legally counterfeit money to finance whatever the government, or those banks that are in cahoots with government, want to do.  Top that off with the frightening reality that the Federal Reserve is not accountable to Congress, nor anyone else.  They cannot legally receive a full audit.  And they do not have to disclose whom they pay “stimulus” or “bail out” monies to.  When questioned by Congressmen, such as Paul, the Fed chairman will simply say it would be “counter-productive” to disclose where the money is going.  Or as Paul states, what they are really saying is that it is “none of our business.”

The end result is a financial system that is not only broken, but corrupt and immoral.  Make believe “wealth” is propped up by the flooding of more dollars.  Banks need not be responsible in their lending practices because of the Feds backing.  Economic “booms” such as the recent housing boom give the illusion of financial success, until the bubble bursts.  The banks are bailed out.  The politicians are seen as heroes.  And the common man loses his home.  These are just some of the results of the Federal Reserve.  And this is why Ron Paul says that this corrupt entity should be abolished.

This book gives a good overview of what the Federal Reserve does, how our financial system worked prior to the establishment of the Fed, and how our world would look without it.  The average American has no idea what the Fed is; and is frightened by any talk of changing the current broken system.  Change, by nature, is scary.  And this is how the Fed likes it.  An uneducated and fearful populace is much easier to control.  But according to Paul, it’s time to “End the Fed.”

So what would replace the Fed?  A true free-market system where supply and demand determine the value of money, rather than an intrusive entity with political interests.  Noted economist Thomas Sowell, when asked what you would replace the Fed with stated that you replace it with nothing.  As Sowell has said, “if you cut out a cancer, what do you replace it with?”  According to Sowell, the Fed is a cancer upon our financial system.  And he, like Paul, and a growing number of Americans, believes that the Fed should be abolished.

Regardless of what one thinks of Ron Paul, he does often seem to make sense on economic matters.  In End The Fed, he makes the constitutional and moral case for abolishing this dishonest entity.  By quoting everyone from Economist Ludwig von Mises to the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul argues that the Fed creates “false measures” that lead to dishonest gain for the elite, at the expense of the average man, and future generations who will foot the bill.

End The Fed will educate, enlighten, and inspire you.  Regardless of where you come down regarding your opinion, you will have much more information for deciding your position after reading this short, but informative book.

A Critique of Infant Baptism & A Review of Douglas Wilson’s book: “To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God”

In his book,  To a Thousand Generations:  Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God, Douglas Wilson, Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho attempts to make a Biblical case for infant baptism.  He begins by setting the bar impossibly high when he states:  “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism.” (pg. 9, italics in original).  The problem here is obvious.  Wilson is attempting to show that the Bible requires something that it never even mentions.  Infant baptism is never commanded, modeled, suggested, described, displayed, or spoken of in a single verse of Scripture, Old Testament or New.  So any attempt to suggest its “commanded” will require a certain amount of creative exegesis, illogical logic, and massive leaps to inferred assumptions that have no Biblical support.  Even most paedobaptists will admit that the Bible never speaks of infant baptism and the case must be made from assumptions and church history, rather than explicit exegesis.  This utter lack of infant baptism in the Bible has always been the “elephant in the room” for the paedobaptists; and after reading this book one can be assured that the elephant remains, as big and obvious as ever.

Wilson is a former Baptist who has changed his views on several issues, including baptism.  No doubt motivated by the Reformers cry of Semper Reformanda (Always Reforming); Wilson has sought to examine church and life in light of Scripture and humbly (and commendably) seek to make changes accordingly.  But to jettison Believer’s baptism in favor of infant baptism is to reform in the wrong direction.  He’s abandoned the clear Biblical teaching in favor of a church tradition view rooted in Roman Catholicism.  In this book, he takes it a step further by attempting to accomplish the impossible and make a case for the Biblical mandate for infant baptism, when it nowhere exists.

One of the main debates between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians centers on the understanding of the “Covenant.”  Presbyterians will invariably say that Baptists don’t understand the Covenant; and Baptists will say that Presbyterians don’t understand the New Covenant.  Under the Old Covenant, Israel was a “type” of the elect under the New Covenant.  The sign under the Old Covenant was circumcision, which was required of all Israelite males.  In the New Covenant the sign is baptism which is required (for obedience, not salvation) of all members of the New Covenant.  To receive the sign under the Old Covenant you had to be born.  To receive the sign under the New Covenant you have to be “born again” (John 3:3).  Wilson muddles the two covenants together and argues for the New Covenant sign to be administered to infants, just as the Old Covenant sign was.  But to do this is to miss the typological nature of Old Testament Israel.  All Israelite males received the sign because they were a type of the Elect (i.e., Christians) who likewise receive the sign of the New Covenant.  To force the sign upon an infant in the New Covenant would be akin to taking an unwilling pagan (not a slave or convert) from a nation other than Israel, and forcing circumscision upon them in the Old Covenant.  Such “circumcision” would be pointless and invalid because the recipient is not really a part of “Israel” just as an unregenerate infant is not really a part of the “church” in any genuine sense; and should therefore not receive the New Covenant sign until some sort of evidence exists that they possess saving faith and are indeed a part of the New Covenant.  To say that they are included because of their parent’s faith is to grossly misapply the scriptural passages which speak of “promises to your children.”  And such misapplication occurs throughout this book.

The title for the book comes from Deuteronomy 7:9, “Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments.”  Wilson uses this passage and other similar ones to attempt to show the generational promise of the Covenant.  Of course the promise in this passage speaks to those who “love Him and keep His commandments” which requires regeneration.  In other words the promise is not to those born, but to those “born again.”

Likewise Psalm 103:17-18, which Wilson cites:  “But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children’s children, To those who keep His covenant and remember His precepts to do them.”  Again notice the promise is to ‘those who fear Him…..those who keep His covenant and remember His precepts to do them.’  That is, obedience, from a pure heart of reverent love for God, which would not describe an infant.

One of the quintessential Old Testament passages describing the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31: 33-34:  “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”   In the New Covenant, everyone “knows” God, because everyone in the New Covenant is born again by the Spirit, indeed they have the Spirit living within them.  They possess saving faith and have God’s law “within them.”  When we see these people coming out of spiritual death into life in the New Testament we also see them obediently receive the sign of the New Covenant by being baptized….as believers, by immersion.  And not one of these is a sprinkled infant.  The Biblical case for infant baptism is simply non-existent.

Rather than begin with the Scriptures and proceed forth to practice, Wilson begins with Infant baptism then backs his way into the Bible, with many curves and sharp turns by way of creative logic; followed by a couple of quantum leaps over obvious inconsistences to land on a handful of texts that never really mention infant baptism.  Wilson is clearly a very intelligent man and a skilled philosopher and debater.  Indeed one would have to use great philosophical talent to argue for something that exegesis will not prove. 

In a nutshell, Wilson’s argument is this:  although infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, the covenant sign of circumcision was still practiced and required of Jewish Christians, but not Gentile Christians.  And since Jewish babies were receiving a sign you would also have to administer a sign to Gentile babies to include them in the church as well.  And since circumcision was clearly not required of Gentiles they must have done a different sign, namely infant baptism.

            But the philosophical house of cards Wilson builds is itself based on the incorrect assumption that Jewish Christians were required to circumcise.  Was it required?  Not according to the Apostle Paul, who unleashed a vitriolic, Holy Spirit-inspired diatribe against the very thing Wilson is claiming.  “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:2-6 NASB)  While Wilson may be right to conclude circumcision was still practiced by some early Jewish Christians; it would be incorrect to say it was required.  And if you remove circumcision as a requirement for Jewish Christians in the early church, then Wilson’s entire house of cards falls because it eliminates his basic premise for requiring infant baptism for Gentile Christians.

With the issue of baptism, we are talking about one of only two ordinances that Jesus instituted in the New Testament.  We are not talking about an obscure text on the validity of snake-handling, or trying to decipher how Endor’s witch conjured up Samuel.  Given the importance of baptism as a perpetual ordinance commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission, one would think the Bible would clearly state how it is to be administered.  Indeed the Bible does.  The word “baptize” means to immerse; and every example of it in Scripture is of a person old enough to profess faith in Christ.  Wilson’s arguments that “baptize” can mean things other than “immerse” is unconvincing, being largely based on the use of “baptize” regarding Spirit baptism, which when compared to water baptism is like comparing apples to oranges.  If infant baptism was meant, and certainly if it’s required, then why is the New Testament completely silent about it?  Why is there not one single example of it?  Why is there no commandment for it?  Why is it that the only way to justify it is to lurch into a long, confusing dalliance on the nuances of Covenant Theology coupled with examples from extra-Biblical sources from church history?  Again, this is a church ordinance.  Why is the Bible utterly silent on its application to infants?

            Certainly, Christian parents are to love and nurture their children; raising them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  No Christian parent can look at Scripture and deny their responsibility to raise their children to be godly.  But it is no insult to a child to withhold from them an ordinance that Scripture doesn’t say to administer to them.  It would be equally fallacious to somehow see a child with Christian parents as being any way “in covenant” with God more than a child with non-Christian parents.  While there’s no denying the advantage to being raised by godly parents in a Christian home, the child of Christians is just as depraved and unregenerate as the child of pagans.  And both will remain that way apart from the regenerating, electing, grace of God.  An electing grace, I might add, that is unconditional, as Wilson knows full well and teaches (as a Calvinist).

            I’ll conclude by saying Douglas Wilson is obviously a very intelligent man, whom I have no doubt loves the Lord greatly.  In many areas I would stand in complete agreement with him and I have in the past enjoyed and been edified by some of his writings.  His well-known debate with Christopher Hitchens (‘Collision’) is a stellar example of Van Tillian Presuppositional apologetics at work.  His adherence to the five points of Calvinism would further make him a theological comrade.  And his apparent disdain for the anti-intellectualism so prevalent in many Baptist circles would find a hearty agreement with me.  But he also seems to be given to extreme positions on this, and other issues (i.e., Federal Vision theology).  If one quickly breezes through this book they may come away saying, “he must be right” although they’ll likely have a headache trying to follow the logic.  But if one reads the book slowly and actually looks up the cited Bible verses to read them in context, one will see that more often than not the verses were not used by the Biblical writers to say what Wilson is expounding.  Perhaps Wilson is hoping the reader will simply take his word for it and be dazzled (confused?) by his skills for argumentation, rather than study this issue more deeply.  Whatever his motivation, the reality is that the argument for infant baptism falls flat in this book; and it will always fall flat with any book that purports to prove, from Scripture, that infant baptism is required.  It’s not required.  It’s not taught.  It’s not modeled.  It’s not even mentioned in passing.  Believer’s baptism is all of the above, and therefore the “elephant” of Biblical silence unfailingly remains in the room for all paedobaptists, and Believer’s baptism should remain (and will hopefully abound) based on clear, Biblical teaching.

BOOK REVIEW: "Memoirs of An Ordinary Pastor: The Life & Reflections of Tom Carson" By D.A. Carson

Unfortunately, the ministry is not exempt from self-seeking glory hounds who long for attention and strive to climb denominational ladders.  Even among the truly faithful, God assigns some to large churches with many resources….and he assign others to labor in obscurity with few sheep to his charge.  Those with worldly eyes immediately see the “mega-church” pastor as successful and the “mini-church” pastor as a failure.  But thankfully, pastors (indeed all Christians) stand or fall based upon the judgments of the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than the judgments of the world.  And Jesus judges by a different standard.  Ultimately Jesus commends faithfulness over flair, perseverance over pomp, and service over stardom.  Believe it or not, in this world of pastors seeking superstar status, Jesus loves the “ordinary pastor” who slaves away for His master amid ridicule, mockery, and persecution.  Such a man was Tom Carson.

            In the book:  “Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor:  The Life and Reflections of Tom Carson”, D.A. Carson tells the story of his dad, who faithfully served as a Baptist missionary/pastor in 20^th century French Quebec Canada; a place which was overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.  Through those hard years of ministry, Tom and a handful of others faithfully preached the gospel in the midst of much spiritual darkness, with very little visible fruit to show.  A normal Sunday might have 20-30 people in attendance.  A good Sunday (which was rare) might have 40.  For many years the Carson family lived in the same building in which they ministered.  The kitchen and bedrooms would double as Sunday School classes.  Tom and his devoted wife Marg would disciple the men and women they led to Christ.  And they would sacrifice much to get the gospel to Quebec.

            Ironically, out of this obscure Baptist household would arise one of the greatest New Testament scholars of our day.  D.A. Carson (Ph.D. - Cambridge University) serves as Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.  In addition to this, he has lectured and preached in over 70 countries throughout his life.  I first heard him when he delivered a series of lectures at my alma mater, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2000.  What you immediately discover upon hearing Carson speak is that he is no “ivory tower” intellectual who is removed from the messiness of pastoral ministry.  While his diction and grammar are erudite, his messages frequently cut to the heart.  I have been richly blessed by his preaching, as well as his writings…this book included.

            I would recommend this book for any Christian to read, especially pastors.  We desperately need a Christian America that rejects equating success with numbers.  In truth, God doesn’t grant every Pastor a “mega-church.”  Indeed he grants it to very few.  Most are called to faithfully shepherd their “few sheep.”  Some, desiring to grow at any cost, have chosen to turn the church into a marketplace; polling the unconverted masses upon what they want in a church.  But the church doesn’t belong to the non-Christians…nor does it belong to the Christians.  The church belongs to Christ and if it is to remain a legitimate church it must submit to Him alone and faithfully teach truth; accepting that God may grant you many….or He may grant you few who come and worship among you.  The faithful man of God must be content to persevere, leaving the numerical results to his Lord and Master.  In short, faithfulness equals true success.  Always has…always will.

            Tom Carson was faithful.  According to D.A., Tom was not a fantastic preacher, nor a charismatic personality.  Through his ministry he was given at times to depression and discouragement.  He held himself to an amazingly high standard, then berated himself for falling short.  By the end of his days, he had served both full-time and bi-vocationally; and had done much as a layman watching other men bear the fruit of his labor.  Yet he never bemoaned this.  He rejoiced to see the gospel go forth and the church grow.

            His last several years were spent in nursing his wife through Alzheimer’s disease.  D.A. Carson writes of what a tremendous example he saw in his dad’s care of his mother.  He never complained.  He never lost patience with her.  He nursed her to the end.  Then a few years later, he too went to be with His Lord.

            Tom Carson was a man who would have never been known, were it not for his famous son.  But Tom Carson is the type of minister that should be emulated.  Perhaps by God’s grace, America will see many young pastors who aspire to the faithfulness of a Tom Carson as opposed to the fame of the latest faddish clerical superstar.  Faithfulness is necessary for genuine success.  And what the world calls genuine success doesn’t always include faithfulness. 

            Read this book and be inspired by a normal man….who was yet extraordinary in his devotion to his Lord and his family.  As the title indicates, Tom Carson may have been an “ordinary pastor” – but let us pray that God gives his church many more like him.  Men willing to be considered ordinary, so that Christ might be seen through them as the extraordinary Savior that He is.

BOOK REVIEW: The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture By George Eldon Ladd

“We are looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Titus 2:13

Will Christians be raptured prior to the Great Tribulation, as most believe?  Or will Christians endure the Great Tribulation, looking for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?  What is the “Blessed Hope” of the church today? Is it the escape of tribulation or is it the visible return of Jesus Christ to the earth to redeem His people and judge His enemies? George Eldon Ladd, in The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture, argues for the latter, attempting to debunk the theory that the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ are two distinct events separated by the seven year “Great Tribulation.”

George Eldon Ladd is widely considered one the most influential Bible scholars of the 20^th century. After pastoring two Baptist churches early in his career, he eventually settled in as New Testament professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in California. Throughout his career he sought to engage the broader academic community with Biblical writing that liberal scholars would have to take seriously. He also sought to promote more unity within the conservative, evangelical world.

In Ladd’s day, much like our own, Dispensationalism was the predominant view of the church. In fact, some were so rabidly Dispensational, that they considered any other eschatological (end times) view to be heretical and dangerous. Ladd argues that such a stance is unnecessary and divisive. He gives a brief historical lesson in this book showing that many stalwart Christian defenders of the faith were NOT Dispensational in their theology. Ladd’ s view is that there should be plenty of room for various views, as long as the views are defended from Scripture. Ladd’s personal view is Historic Premillennialism, which is similar to Dispensationalism in that it espouses a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. But it differs from Dispensationalism in that it see’s the rapture occurring at the same time as the Second Coming of Christ, at the END (rather than beginning) of the Great Tribulation.

Regardless of one’s end times viewpoint, it should be noted that Ladd makes a good case for a post-tribulation rapture both from a historical and a Biblical standpoint. Most of the early church fathers appear to have believed in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ (millennialism) and saw the 2^nd coming and rapture as occurring at the same time. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian are some of the church fathers Ladd presents as holding to these views. Perhaps the most significant of these is Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle. While it doesn’t guarantee the validity of the Historic Premillennial position, it is intriguing that a Christian who is one generation removed from John the writer of Revelation would hold these views. Furthermore, the apparent acceptance of other church fathers makes the case from history compelling. But, at the end of the day, it’s Scripture that must be the deciding factor in the case. And Ladd’s primary arguments are from Scripture.

Ladd points out that nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly teach that there will be a “pre-tribulational” rapture. First Thessalonians clearly teaches a “rapture” when we shall be gathered together with the Lord in the air. But to suggest that this rapture will occur prior to the Great Tribulation is an inference that is not explicitly stated. The passage states: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 (NASB)

Ladd’s case is presented throughout that New Testament Christians were not looking to be raptured out of tribulation, but instead the Bible taught Christians to expect tribulation. Given this fact, that Christians throughout the centuries have endured persecution unto death….why would God change this course with the “end times?”

One Scripture that Ladd uses effectively is from 2 Thessalonians 2, where the Thessalonian Christians were afraid they had missed the “Day of the Lord.” “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,  that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.  Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,  who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (NASB)

Paul sets their mind at ease by telling them the “Day of the Lord” won’t occur until the “apostasy” and the “son of destruction” is revealed. Why doesn’t Paul simply tell them to relax about the Day of the Lord since, as Christians, they’ll be raptured before it occurs? Was Paul unaware of a pre-tribulation rapture? That seems unlikely since Paul is the one who wrote the most significant passage on the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Since most scholars are in agreement that the “Day of the Lord” refers to Christ’s coming in judgment at his Second Advent, the passage in 2 Thessalonians seems to give credence to the belief that the Second Coming and the Rapture are simultaneous events that occur at the end of the Great Tribulation.

Another argument that Ladd addresses is the idea of an “any moment” rapture. Those who oppose Historic Premillennialism state that it takes away the idea that Christ could return at “any moment” as taught in Scripture. Ladd points out that the “any moment” passages refer to the outplaying of all the “end times” events that could being at “any moment.” Furthermore, he states that the Dispensational view requires a “nation of Israel” to be in existence before the rapture of Christ. Therefore, those with a Dispensational view couldn’t have held to an “any moment” rapture anyway, until 1948 and the re-emergence of Israel as an actual physical nation.

Regardless of what you “end times” view is, “The Blessed Hope” is a book that Christians should read and examine with an open mind. While you may not agree with all of his conclusions, it would do any Christian well to consider the validity of Ladd’s arguments. Ladd’s hope was that Christians of various camps could debate these issues in Christian love without breaking fellowship. It was also Ladd’s concern that many Christians would one day find themselves unprepared for tribulation because of their blind hope in a pre-tribulation rapture that was unlikely to occur. Ladd makes a good case for his viewpoint, and the wise Christian will prayerfully consider if he’s on the right track regarding future events.

For Crying Out Loud... Just SPANK 'Em!

This past week, Fox News reported a story about a mother who made her son wear a sign saying “I’m a thief and a liar” out in public.  Apparently the 12-year old boy had stolen a cell phone from his aunt and then lied about it.  The mom only asked the boy to apologize which he refused to do.  She didn’t know what else to do…so she resorted to the sign.  He wore the sign for two hours, but still refused to apologize.  As it turns out the kid has been incorrigible for some time, and has not responded to discipline.  While millions of factors play into the causes of his behavior, one thing that must be addressed is the defiance…which starts young.  And the best way to deal with such defiance is by a good, swift swat on the bottom.  Let me elaborate.
    I find it interesting how far some parents will go to avoid doing what the Bible says to do regarding unruly children.  And I find it appalling how brain-dead the so called child raising experts are on this matter.  Oftentimes, even the Christian ones will jump through hoops to avoid Biblical, God-ordained discipline. “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; But the rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” Proverbs 22:15 (NASB)
    I’ll give two examples.  James Dobson and Kevin Lehman.  Both of these Christian experts have given some very reliable and sound advice over the years.  Dobson’s book on Bringing Up Boys is a must read for anyone who has a son.  It’s a shrewd analysis of the current war on boys in our culture, as well as a great encouragement to raise your boys to be men….instead of geldings.
    Kevin Lehman is well known for his “reality discipline” in which you let kids make choices, but you force them to live with those choices.  For example, if Johnny doesn’t want to eat his dinner, he doesn’t have to eat his dinner, but he won’t be allowed to eat anything else until the next meal.  If Johnny’s sister Susie ate her dinner then she might get a bedtime snack.  But Johnny won’t.  He chose to skip dinner and he will have to live with the reality of his choice.  I see some elements of this mindset which can be beneficial as well.  Part of the growing up process means you learn to live with your choices.  And kids need to learn that sooner rather than later.  But Dobson and Lehman both go astray in the area of spanking.
    While both of these men advocate spanking, they say to do it as a “last resort.”  This is foolish and wrong; and I found that out the hard way.  When my son entered his terrible twos, I thought a demon had overtaken him.  He would throw fits and scream and say rude things, etc., etc.  Of course the “experts” tell you this is normal behavior for a two year old, and they’re right.  Normal? Yes.  But should it be acceptable? No.  That’s the part they leave out.
    I took the “spank as a last resort” approach to my family’s peril.  After struggling with endless (and worthless) “time-outs”, lectures, and groundings.  I discovered that a parent’s policy should be the same as George Bush’s.  “We will not negotiate with terrorists.”  Thankfully, I came across a book by Tedd Tripp (yes, that’s how he spells Tedd) called Shepherding a Child’s Heart.  In it, Dr. Tripp uses Scripture, not Psychobabble to guide the parent through the sometimes painful process of child rearing (pun intended).  If your two-year old is defiant, then spanking is not a “last resort” it should he a frontline defense.  Tripp asserts that Scripture’s two main methods for disciplining a child is Communication and the Rod.  And if you embrace one and forget the other, you’re destined for problems.
    Communication is paramount.  Little Johnny must know what he did.  And he must know why it’s wrong.  And he must know how to avoid doing it again.  But reason alone won’t work with a child.  I discovered clearly that children don’t simply learn with words…they must also feel certain consequences for the truth to sink in.
    The Rod is also paramount.  But it must be administered the right way.  If you spank in anger without communicating in love then you’re not teaching the child the full story of redemption.  The Rod without communication will create anger, frustration, and future rebellion.  But Communication without the Rod will not adequately make the point.  And regardless of how great you think your parenting skills of persuasion are…..GOD SAYS to use both tools.  And if you’re too “loving” to use the rod, you might be surprised to the learn that the Bible says you’re behavior isn’t loving at all.  In fact by withholding the rod, you’re hating your child.  “He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.” (Proverbs 13:24 NASB)
    In his book, Dr. Tripp gave me permission to do, what I KNEW needed to be done, regardless of what the “experts” say.  Andrew needed a spanking.  Andrew needed instruction.  Andrew needed a hug and affirmation that his dad loved him.  Andrew needed to know that his behavior was not only disrespectful to his parents but it was a sin against God.  And Andrew need to know that further defiance would result in the same process.  And ten minutes later, when he once again behaved defiantly, he got another spanking, and another hug.
    The funny thing is that most parents won’t spank.  And if they do, they’ll stop at one.  When sometimes more are needed.  Rome wasn’t built in a day…and children aren’t trained in a day either.  I determined that I would spank Andrew fifty times that week if necessary.  But what I found was that fifty times wasn’t necessary.  It only took a few times of dogged, consistent discipline for him to realize the destruction of his ways and to change.  And then I found thereafter that the spankings weren’t needed as often as they once had been.  He began the process of learning and growing…only because of the reality of discipline and the Rod in his life.
    Don’t think you are doing your kids any favors by withholding the loving administration of the Rod.  Sadly, if you refuse to discipline them today, the criminal justice system will tomorrow.  Often times today, excuses are made for wayward children.  Parents are blamed for not patting Johnny enough on the head….when in reality the parents should be blamed for not swatting Johnny enough on the hind-end.  The fact is that kids need both encouragement and discipline.  They need to be taught justice and grace.  They need Communication and The Rod.  So listen to your so-called “experts” if you wish.  I’ll listen to God.  He knows plenty about raising children.  In fact, he INVENTED children.   
    Dobson wrote another book that has a very accurate title:  “Parenting Isn’t For Cowards.”  This is so true because sometimes parents have to do things they would rather not do, for the sake of their children.  And many factors must be considered when looking at the issue of corporal punishment.  Some kids are too young for it…some kids are too old for it.  Some kids need it often….some kids need it seldom.  Some kids are stronger willed than others and will always push you to the limit.  Other kids are more naturally compliant and respond well to the mere threat of the Rod.  But the Rod must be present for there to be true peace and love in the home.
    Andrew is seven now, and he is growing into a really good kid.  He’s not perfect and still requires discipline.  But when that time comes we deal with it and we move on with our lives.  I don’t hold his mistakes over his head for a week or two by grounding him.  I don’t publicly humiliate him with a sign around his neck.  And I don’t put him in a “time-out” and drag out a worthless process.  (Although I do think time-outs are effective sometimes, when a kid needs to be removed from a heated situation.)  And I certainly don’t spend all day bickering with him and haggling over what his punishment will be.  When I see parents doing this…I always want to say the same thing:  “FOR CRYING OUT LOUD….JUST GIVE HIM A SPANKING!”….AND if he is repentant then give him a hug and tell him you love him.  If he’s still defiant, then give him another spanking.  Eventually, he’ll get tired of it and come around.  In the long run it’s easier on the kid and the parent AND its more effective to just spank them like God says to do, as opposed to dreaming up a million different “creative” punishments that only draw out the problem and ignore the real matter.
    So ignore the experts and do what God says instead.  If you’ll consistently and lovingly show your children communication and the rod…then you’ll probably find that you won’t need to use the latter so much in the future…IF you’re consistent.  Andrew responds well to the Rod.  His sister Savannah seems to respond well to Andrew getting the rod also and usually needs only the threat of the rod.  But I’ve got another one who is now coming of age.  Karissa will be two this week….and you know what??? I think she seems to be more like her brother than her sister.  But we’ll do what we can to bring her around -- because I know what to expect this time...and I'll listen to God from the start, rather than the "experts."
    Love your children.  Teach your children.  Communicate with them and hug them and tell them about Jesus.  And when they are defiant…as ALL sinners will be at times….spank them.  Don’t argue with them all day…just SPANK THEM!  Don’t negotiate with terrorists….just SPANK THEM!  Then hug them and teach them how to avoid spankings in the future.  Whether you want to admit it or not, your children are “fools” by nature.  And whether you want to admit it or not, they are “fools” because they take after their parents (“for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23).  And whether you want to admit it or not….God’s Word is true when it tells us:  “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; But the rod of discipline will remove it far from him.” Proverbs 22:15 (NASB)
………
(P.S.-- I would strongly encourage all parents to read “Shepherding a Child’s Heart” by Tedd Tripp.  Click here for details.)

DVD Review: “The Children of Caesar: The State of American Education, Where it is Headed, & What Your Family Can Do About It!” By Voddie Baucham

  “If you hand your kids over to Caesar to educate…don’t be surprised when they grow up to be Romans.” With this provocative statement, Voddie Baucham begins his 2 part DVD series called: “The Children of Caesar: The State of American Education, Where it is Headed, & What Your Family Can Do About It!”

I’ve been aquatinted with Voddie Baucham’s ministry for many years now, and would say without reservation that he is one of the most powerful voices for Biblical truth our country has. Baucham is somewhat of a rarity: He is a black, Southern Baptist pastor, who was raised by a Hindu, single teenage mother in the projects of South Central Los Angeles. The first time, he heard the gospel was his freshman year of college, where he was converted to Christ and ultimately entered the preaching ministry. He serves as Pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, where he lives with his wife and 4 children. They are committed homeschoolers, and strong advocates for adoption, having adopted several children. I would strongly encourage anyone with children (or anyone who knows a child) to watch these videos—and at least consider what Baucham says.

 

Baucham blows apart several myths with statistical fact. He refutes the idea that children are better off with “government certified” teachers, that homeschoolers are lacking in social abilities, and that the federal government should have any say in how you educate your children. Citing the 10^th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, the Federal government has absolutely ZERO Constitutional right to dictate educational requirements to an American citizen. As a sidebar, the 10^th amendment flatly proves that the Federal Department of Education is Unconstitutional and should be abolished post-haste. In fact, you may remember Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 promising to do just that. The left-wing liberal educational establishment had a collective “freak out” and Reagan was never able to follow through. But then again, our Federal government currently does numerous things that are Unconstitutional…but too many politicians are pleased with the power to do anything about it.

Baucham states that the reason people so often wonder about the “legality” of homeschooling is because they’ve been duped into thinking they have to have the Federal government’s permission to do anything. “We’ve become a nation of sheep, instead of ‘free men.” Baucham says. We simply follow the crowd and wait for the next order from our Master (i.e., the government.)

Using Deuteronomy 6 as a model, Voddie gives an outline for how God calls us to teach our children. By showing them that all truth is God’s truth, we can teach them how everything in our life relates to God and His Glory.

Baucham makes a strong case for homeschooling because that is the system he has adopted. However, he does contend that there are other educational alternatives. He contends that what must be fought against is the handing over of our children an atheistic, secular state. I remember an old commercial for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show where a woman said: “First he made me mad. Then he made me think. Then…he made sense.” I hope that many will get this DVD series, and let Voddie Baucham, and more importantly the Spirit of God do the same thing.  Not everyone will agree with Baucham's conclusions, but hopefully he will give the listener something to think about. 

BOOK REVIEW – “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” By Thomas Dilorenzo.

At the height of his influence, many deemed him to be one of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen.  He incarcerated 15,000 of his fellow citizens because they disagreed with his war policy.  He had his army shut down newspapers and destroy the presses for any papers that wrote against him.  He declared martial law and arrested political opponents without a warrant or trial and kept them locked up for years.  His Secretary of State bragged that he could have any citizen jailed “at the snap of a finger.”  He had one Congressman who disagreed with him deported to another country.  Then oversaw a war that led to 620,000 deaths…all within his own country.  When half of the country sought to escape, they were forced to remain in the Nation…..or be slaughtered in mass for seeking liberty.  In essence they were forced to remain citizens at the point of a bayonet.  He ordered cities to be burned.  Farms to be destroyed.  Civilians, including women and children, to be bombed and executed.  He was one of the most hated men in history…..and one of the most beloved.  His name?  Abraham Lincoln.

            If the above paragraph shocked you, then you might consider reading a book entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, By Thomas Dilorenzo.

            While Lincoln is perhaps not as evil as this book presents, one can’t escape the reality that Lincoln took some very harsh and unnecessary measures during the American Civil War.  Ironically, the majority of Americans in both the North and South were in favor of a peaceful secession in 1860.  The North wanted separated from the South just as bad as the South did from the North.  Yet Lincoln would hear nothing of it.  Dilorenzo makes a rather compelling case for the economic motivations behind the war, given the fact that the South was paying roughly 80% of the Nation’s expenses through tariffs, while the North was reaping the majority of the benefits in terms of bridge and railroad construction.

            Furthermore, in Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he stated clearly that he had no interest in freeing the slaves in the South and had no constitutional right to do so.  When he reversed course and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he confided to his cabinet that it was simply a “war measure” meant to spark a slave insurrection in the South.  Though most people don’t realize it, the Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in the South.  Slaves in the North were not granted freedom because their Masters had been loyal to the Union.  William Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State bemoaned at the time that the act was worthless having “freed slaves that we no longer have jurisdiction over…while keeping in bondage those slaves that we do.”  Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and even parts of Louisiana were under Federal control by 1863, and were thus allowed to keep their slaves.  That seems to be one of those quirks of history that has been forgotten.  Or as Dilorenzo contends….glossed over by the victors.

            Dilorenzo, who is an Economics Professor at Loyola College (Maryland), writes in a very readable style as he makes his case that slavery should have been abolished by compensated emancipation as done in Britain, Brazil, and many other countries during the 1800s.  The forward to the book was written by Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, and frequent fill in host for Rush Limbaugh (and incidentally, an African-American).  Furthermore, he contends that the South should have been allowed to secede peacefully….as our colonial fathers did when faced with an overbearing British taxation system.  Had this happened, Dilorenzo contends that the North would have been forced to change their overbearing tax structure, and eventually North and South would have reunited with a much more solid and efficient government.  But what in fact did happen was the centralization of federal government power to the extent that the Constitution was repeatedly ignored leading to the Federal albatross that exists today.

            The argument between a massive Federal government vs. individual state sovereignty goes back to our founders.  Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that the government that “governs best is the one that governs least.”  In other words, the Federal government’s job is to protect the citizens and insure they’re given the freedom to purse life, liberty, and happiness.  Jefferson’s primary opponent was Alexander Hamilton, who sought to have a strong Federal government that dictated things to the individual states and the citizens thereof.  Jefferson’s followers fought against this (rightfully so), given the fact that they had just escaped tyrannical government control from Britain during the American Revolution.

            As the course of our Nation progressed, the Hamiltonians, led by Lincoln, eventually gained control and vastly expanded the Federal government during the Civil War.  By 1865 and the end of the Civil War, states right’s had virtually ceased to exist, and the Federal government, which was CREATED BY the states, had become the ruling King of American government.  Ironically, the states had created a monster and now that monster would rule over them for the next 143 years (and counting).

            The great irony in all of this is that the two predominant political parties have swapped sides in the area of government control.  Today, it is the Democrat party that seeks higher taxes and more Federal control over the lives of its citizens.  While the Republicans seek a smaller government with more individual liberty.

            In conclusion, I would heartily recommend the reading of this book.  Its insights into our Nation’s history are illuminating to say the least.  You may not agree with every position taken, but the book does promise to make you think long and hard about governmental and constitutional issues.  And it gives a pretty clear road map for the bureaucratic mess that we find our federal government mired in today.  History kind of has a way, sometimes, of making people seem better (or worse) than they really were.  I suspect this is true of Lincoln as well.  While he had some admirable qualities, he was certainly not above political posturing or deceit, as is documented in this work.  So check out a copy of The Real Lincoln…and prepare to be challenged.