Category: Other Opposing Worldview

Bahnsen Picks Apart Thomism

“Disagreeing with the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point, the reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural man, and that which is beneath the threshold of his working consciousness, and the sense of deity which he seeks to suppress. And to do this, the reformed apologist must also seek a point of contact with the systems constructed by the natural man. But this point of contact must be in the nature of a head-on collision.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

1.) This succinctly explains why the Thomistic Natural Law fanboys and the Presuppositional Fanboys are never going to get along. The Thomistic chaps never challenge the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point for what is and what is not true. Thomism leaves the natural man in his self relaxed repose continuing to think of himself as he who is the determiner of truth instead of realizing that the natural man must be converted so that he only sees himself as a reinterpreter of God’s interpretation of truth. This goes back to the maxim that man must be converted so that he can say with the Psalmist, “In thy light we see light.” The Thomist leaves the natural man in a place where even after a putative conversion he says instead, “In my light I see light.” Thomism leaves the natural man as an “I” that has not yet seen itself in submission in a “I-Thou” relationship to God. Conversion, must mean that the natural man is not the ultimate reference point in terms of determining the nature of reality. He must own God as His ultimate reference point. The Natural Laws chaps fail miserably in this regard and so must be challenged.

2.) The Natural Man does not want what is beneath the working threshold of his consciousness to be challenged. When the Christian apologist does this the Natural Man recoils because it necessarily means that his worldview furniture is going to be busted up. The Natural Man like his Worldview living room arrangements and he resents when the presuppositional apologists shows up to tear up the furniture of his self-centered thinking.  I suspect this accounts as a large reason why the Thomists yet today in the Reformed world are so aggravated by the presuppositionalists. We stand as a rebuke to their man-centered thinking.

3.) Van Til used to say that any God reasoned to via the means of natural theology was not the God of the Bible. In the same way, any God reasoned to by the Natural Man as not yet removed from his place of “the ultimate reference point” is not the God of the Bible. Now, I am willing to concede that a babe in Christ may indeed be converted without understanding this but someone who grows in Christ will at some point have to give themselves up as the ultimate reference point of reality and be consistent with their conversion. Many Thomists have yet to surrender this.

4.) Note Bahnsen’s reference to evangelism as worldview collision. This is in marked contrast to decades of Evangelicals being taught that Evangelism has to be a bridge building process where we approach the dead in sins sinner and say things like; “Now, see here, you believe in good and bad and I believe in good and bad and so we have this in common. Now all you need to do is to add Jesus and you will be converted.” Bahnsen, following Van Til here, says 1000 times “NO.” Evangelism is not a bridge building exercise. Evangelism is a head on collision and it is a head on collision because of the radically opposed starting points. It is a head on collision because the Natural Man starts with himself as his ultimate reference point while the Biblical Christian starts with God as his ultimate reference point. The differences cannot be anymore stark. The Natural Man proceeds from the authority of self. The Christian proceeds from the authority of not-self (God). Since that is so all that is possible is collision if each participant in the discussion is to be true to his or her starting point.

5.) This means that the discussion can only proceed along hypothetical lines. The Christ believer enters into the worldview of the Christ-hater for the sake of argument but only with the purpose of soon exposing the contradiction in their thinking. For example; “I see you say you believe in good and bad. That is very good. But tell me, what is the foundation or standard for your categories of ‘good,’ and ‘bad,’ except for your own authority if you do not believe in a transcendent ultimate reference point (God) beyond yourself? I may very well agree with you about what you label as good and bad I can account for my labeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by appealing to God’s authority but your appeal to this idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is only on the basis of your own say so. So, I must ask you, what makes your say so about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories any more authoritative than the Marquis de Sade’s authority of what constituted ‘good’ and ‘bad?’ Don’t you see my friend, you need a firmer foundation than your own determination. Only God in Christ can give you that firmer foundation and only by owning your sin of, to this point, being your own God in your life (your own ultimate reference point) can you be delivered from your captivity to this sin and so be free for the first time to have a true authority of ‘good,’ and ‘bad.'”

My friend, John Leonetti recently did a brief youtube citing this quote with an arresting illustration of worldview collision. It’s only 3 minutes long. You should have yourself a giggle at John’s illustration.

Worldview Thinking … Social Order …. Principalities & Powers

“The idea of unity so possesses itself of man, and is sought for by him so universally, that if he thinks he has found it, he readily yields himself up to repose in that belief. Nor does he content himself with the discovery that nothing is in the world but a creation and a Creator; still embarrassed by this primary division of things, he seeks to expand and to simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.”

Alexis de Tocqueville
“Democracy in America”

Fallen man is hopelessly Unitarian in his theology. He is forever looking for the unity of the godhead and having taken man as god, all individual men must submit to this denial of the Creator-creature distinction. All of this explains how it is that the State almost uniquely ends up being god walking on the earth. Fallen man, having denied the Creator-creation distinction looks to the state to provide the Unitarian God it requires and having found that God in the state all must be compelled to serve the state in order for the humanist godhead to have the requisite unity that divinity always requires. Thus slogans are born such as “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” When the Creator – creature distinction is denied the State, more often than not, is assigned the status of the imminent God (true transcendence having been lost) and having the status of the imminent God all the subjects (formerly citizens) must be as one with the Unitarian godhead of the State in order for the state to achieve apotheosis.

All of this follows like water running downhill. If a people eliminates the God of the Bible from their reckoning the inevitable eventual conclusion will be what is described above. However, all of this is not absent a spiritual reality. We are not talking about merely ideas here though obviously ideas enter into all this. We are also talking about principalities and powers. When the social order has evacuated the God of the Bible, embracing instead itself as its own unitarian God spiritual realities begin to exercise their muscle. Having locked God out of His rule — having made the heavens bronze and the earth iron — the power from below begins to reveal itself. Man’s evil thinking becomes consistent with the reasoning and work of the power from below. The social order is inverted and good becomes evil and evil becomes good. This was seen to have happened in the Weimar Republic. It was seen to have happened during the French Revolution as a brief familiarity with the Marquis de Sade’s work testifies. It is happening now in our social order. We have denied the Creator – creature distinction, we have joined the unitarian God-state in a creaturely oneness and the effect is now that we have let loose the demon horde upon ourselves as witnessed by our seeking to remake ourselves in the image of our creaturely demon god. Children are being sexually maimed via surgical techniques. Sodomy and Lesbianism is now mainstreamed and rampant (paging Rick Grenell) children are routinely sexually trafficked, the elite (as the Epstein files reveal) are Lizard people with no souls.

There is a danger of reading the times in a fashion that only traces out the ideas without realizing that behind the implications of bad ideas is a spiritual reality — principalities and powers — that rabidly hate those creatures who still retain the image of God that those spiritual powers likewise intensely hate. Hating God, they hate all creatures and so strive to pull down any social order that isn’t a reflection of the hell that they themselves occupy. Yes, ideas have consequences but both ideas and consequences are not spiritually neutered. There is a spiritual component to Worldview thinking that must be taken into account. It is not the case that we are only seeking to snuff out bad thinking. We have to realize behind that bad thinking is a Screwtape and a Uncle Wormwood that has an interest in breathing out bad thinking.

Yes, the denial of the Creator-creature distinction has great ramifications for a social order but those ramifications are being pursued by a malevolent consciousness to the end of destroying as many image bearers as possible.

A Few Words On Dispensationalism & A Book List

 

“[i]f Higher Criticism is the error of the Bible-disbeliever, “Dispensationalism “, as it is called, is the error of many a Bible-believer.”

O. T. Allis
Professor Princeton/Westminster
Semitic Philology

The stew that was Dispensationalism not only arose from the odd teachings of Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby as systematized by Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, and others, it also folded into itself revivalism, common sense realism, Keswick and Holiness teaching, Pentecostalism, with additional contributions from prominent Lutherans (Seiss), Reformed (Chafer, D. G. Barnhouse), many Baptists (Vance Havner, John MacArthur, Jerry Falwell, W. A. Criswell, etc.), and of course the Brethren movement from which it arose. These various strains often jostled with one another for supremacy but in the end they all adopted one variant strain or another of Dispensationalism. Indeed, more than a few have argued that R2K is merely another variant of Dispensationalism and has been skewered by being called “Reformed Dispensationalism.” R2K certainly bears the mark of retreatism that was characteristic of Dispensationalism. R2K, also, like Dispensationalism divided the world into “worldly” (R2K’s common) and Spiritual arenas. Finally, R2K, like all Dispensational models emphasized covenantal discontinuity as opposed to covenantal continuity.

What few people know is that D. L. Moody used Dispensationalism as a tool to reunite a fractured nation after the War of Northern Aggression. Moody, who was hardly one to be overly concerned with theological systematization, used Dispensationalism as a tool for sectional reconciliation arguing that as Jesus was coming back at any moment previous disagreements between warring Christians should be put aside and the business of saving souls should unite us all. In such a way sectional recriminations were set aside for the greater work of soul saving.

In many respects then Dispensationalism has been the religious glue that kept America together since Reconstruction ended. It also served as the means by which we have been enslaved by Israel. Dispensationalism so emphasized the ongoing integrity and necessity of Israel that all of World History was changed because of Dispensationalism’s errant premise that Israel remained God’s earthly chosen people and that all Christians were duty bound to bless Israel upon pain of divine retribution.

A Few books that will forever cure you of Dispensationalism;

John Gerstner – Wrongly Dividing the Truth
O. T. Allis – OT Prophecy & The Church
Gentry/Bahnsen – House Divided: The break up of Dispensational Theology
Hummel – The Rise & Fall of Dispensationalism
Steven Sizer – Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church
Steven Sizer – Christian Zionism
O. Palmer Robertson’s – “The Israel of God”
Allison Weir — Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel
Giles Corey – The Sword of Christ____ 

Charles Ryrie in his 1965 book seeking to bring Dispensationalism up to date wrote that the main distinctives of Dispensationalism were

1.) The distinction between Israel and the Church
2.) Literal and plain hermeneutic

3.) Overall point of history was to glorify God

Ryrie’s first essential fails to take into account that OT Israel was the Church in its cocoon stage. Ryrie failed to understand that God is eschatologically done with Israel as a nation-State. Modern Israel is irrelevant to God’s ongoing macro plan of redemption or eschatology.

Ryries second point requires asking the question, “By what standard.” All Protestants who believe in the inerrant and inspired and infallible word of God believe that Scripture should be read via a literal and plain hermeneutic. However, reading the Scripture via a literal and plain hermeneutic looks very different when somebody sane does it as compared when a Dispensational comic book theologian does it.

Everyone agrees w/ #3… we just don’t agree with how the Dispie thinks history is going to glorify God.

___

It’s startling how big a part eschatology and teleology plays into one’s theology. Indeed, I don’t think it would be too much to say that one’s eschatology is the engine that drives all other sub areas of systematic theology. Tell me a man’s eschatology and I’ll tell you his soteriology, ecclesiology, anthropology, etc.

I’m reading Hummel’s “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism” now and Hummel makes the point that the reason that what he calls “new premillennialism” was able to take hold in the states is because people’s attitudes about the future were altered by the War of Northern Aggression and the desire for reconciling white people North and South. The new eschatology allowed the previous postmills to create a dualism that allowed them to be optimistic about the church while being agnostic about the world. If agnostic about the world there would be no reason to not embrace Yankee versions of reconstruction. The price that had to be paid for this “reconciling theology” though was the surrendering of the postmil eschatology that had previously been held widely in the Reformed Church in America. If Jesus was coming back at any minute then there was no need to see all of life needing to conform to God’s revealed law Word. The job at hand was to get souls saved. The job at hand was not to shine the brass on a sinking ship (the world).

Also, what is interesting here is that Plymouth Brethren theology (Darby) became owned by Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians alike as filtered through their particular flavor. So the Plymouth Brethren eschatology owned the day without the Plymouth Brethren denomination reaching any kind of ascendency. Still, the AnaBaptist flavor of the Darby Plymouth Brethren doctrine leavened the whole denominational landscape in America resulting in Prophecy conferences, Bible Colleges peppering the landscape, and the rise of the Missions Movement.

I keep thinking as I read this … “Ideas have consequences.”

Also, I am beginning to understand some of the leavening effect that remains inasmuch as there is a good amount of Plymouth Brethren hermeneutic that remains in R2K

A Few Words About Dispensationalism’s Origin & Influence

The stew that was Dispensationalism not only arose from the odd teachings of Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby as systematized by Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, and others, it also folded into itself revivalism, common sense realism, Keswick and Holiness teaching, and Pentecostalism. Dispensationalism also found contributions from prominent Lutherans (Seiss), Reformed (Chafer, D. G. Barnhouse), many Baptists (Vance Havner), and of course the Brethren movement from which it arose. These various strains often jostled with one another but in the end they all adopted one variant strain or another of Dispensationalism. Indeed, even yet today the theology of Dispensationalism finds influences in the Reformed world as more than a few have argued that R2K is merely another variant of Dispensationalism. R2K certainly bears the mark of retreatism that was characteristic of Dispensationalism, as well as a Gnostic dividing the world into “worldly” (R2K’s common) and Spiritual.

What few people know is that D. L. Moody used Dispensationalism as a tool to reunite a fractured nation after the War of Northern Aggression. Moody, who was hardly one to be overly concerned with theological systematization, used Dispensationalism as a tool for sectional reconciliation arguing that has Jesus was coming back at any moment previous disagreements between warring Christians should be put aside and the business of saving souls should unite us all.

In many respects then Dispensationalism has been the religious glue that kept America together since Reconstruction ended. It also served as one of the means by which we have been enslaved by Israel. Dispensationalism so emphasized the ongoing integrity and necessity of Israel that all of World History was changed because of Dispensationalism’s errant premise that Israel remained God’s earthly chosen people and that all Christians were duty bound to bless Israel upon pain of divine retribution.

Random Observations On Dispensationalism & A Reading List For Dispies

All of this in the context of reading Daniel G. Hummel’s “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism; How The Evangelical Battle Over The End Times Shaped A Nation.”

In 1957 A. W. Tozer warned that;

“A widespread revival of the kind of Christianity we know today in America might prove to be a moral tragedy from which we would not recover in one hundred years.”

He was referring to Dispensationalism.

____

In 1967 there was an updated version of the C. I. Scofield Dispie Bible released. One of its most significant updates was a note on Genesis 12:1-4 where the Holocaust (TM) was introduced into the notes. The new note clarified that God’s promise to Abraham- “I will curse those who curse you” — was;

“A warning literally fulfilled in the history of Israel’s persecutions. It has invariably literally fulfilled in the history of Israel’s persecutions. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Bagel – well with those who have protected him. For a people who commit the sin of antisemitism brings inevitable judgment.”

Now, the kicker here, that is not in the notes, is that the Bagels and Christian Zionists were the ones who got to define what antisemitism meant.

Look, when I see this stuff, it only convinces me that as a Christian I am playing on team stupid.

____

Charles Ryrie in his 1965 book he authored sought to bring Dispensationalism up to date. Ryrie wrote that the main distinctives of Dispensationalism were;

1.) The distinction between Israel and the Church

2.) Literal and plain hermeneutic
3.) Overall point of history was to glorify God

Ryrie’s first essential fails to take into account that OT Israel was the Church in its cocoon stage. The distinction between Israel and the Church was always the distinction between caterpillars and butterflies. Ryrie’s Dispensationalism always insisted (and still insists) that God, after the death, resurrection, ascension, and session of the Lord Christ, still has a plan for Israel that is tied to God’s eschatological and redemptive clock.

Ryrie failed to understand that God is eschatologically and redemptively done with Israel as a nation-State. Modern Israel is irrelevant to God’s ongoing macro plan of redemption or eschatology. And “No,” Romans 11 does not prove me wrong.

Ryries second point requires asking the question, “By what standard.” All Protestants who believe in the inerrant, inspired and infallible word of God believe that Scripture should be read via a literal and plain hermeneutic. However, reading the Scripture via a literal and plain hermeneutic looks very different when somebody sane does it as compared when a Dispensational comic book theologian does it. For example, when there is Sensus Plenior in the text to read the text that way is to read it according to its literal and plain hermeneutic. For example, when the text requires a archetype and type reading to read it in just such a way is to read the text according to a plain and literal hermeneutic. For example, to make a proper distinction between allegory and parable and then to read those aright means a plain and literal hermeneutic is being used. The point is, is that Dispensationalism doesn’t get to claim that it alone is reading the Scripture according to its original intent while everyone else is limping along trying to keep up with the Comic Book interpreters. When Dispies slice and dice the Scriptures into seven compartmentalized epochs, when Baptists refuse to see the continuity of Scripture so as to not bring covenant children to the Baptismal font, when Pentecostals insist that speaking in tongues is required for believers, they are all not reading the Scripture according to its plain and literal meaning. However, Dispensationalists exceed all in this category.

Everyone agrees with Ryrie’s #3… we just don’t agree with how the Dispie thinks history is going to glorify God. For example, the Dispie thinks that history will glorify God with doom and despair being the necessary keynotes before Christ return, whereas Biblical eschatology theology understands that the King is going to return to a world where the Great Commission has been fulfilled.

___

A reading list to cure what ails the Dispensationalist;

1.) John Gerstner – Wrongly Dividing the Truth
2.) O. T. Allis – OT Prophecy & The Church
3.) Gentry/Bahnsen – House Divided: The break up of Dispensational Theology
4.) Daniel G. Hummel – The Rise & Fall of Dispensationalism
5.) Steven Sizer – Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church
6.) Steven Sizer – Christian Zionism
7.) O. Palmer Robertson’s “The Israel of God”
8.) Allison Weir — Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel

___

“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, while the other is to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer
Systematic Theology – p. 448

Dispensationalism is NOT Christianity. This sets the Abrahamic covenant on its head and works to the end of keeping the Bagels as God’s chosen (earthly) people. That is total trash thinking and largely explains where we are today with our problems with the Bagels.

But how different is this from Doug Wilson’s advocacy of “The Covenant With Hagar” crapola?