1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/12/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon

    1/3

    told that it will be dangerous to do so,

    lest, when the

    son

    should know that all

    was securely

    his,

    he would treat him un

    kindly. What severer reflection could he

    cast upon the son? And what mournful

    evidence it would be of the son's entire

    selfishness, and want of love to his

    father, to hear him say, that i his father

    would fix the patrimony securely in

    his

    hands, he would not care how he treated

    him Just such is the evidence that the

    professed Christian gives of his love to

    God, who says that i he once felt sure

    of heaven, he would not care how he

    lived. I admit that it would be danger

    ous to make heaven sure to such.

    Whether it would be dangerous or not,

    for a father thus to settle the patrimony

    upon his son, would depend altogether

    on the nature

    of

    the son's feelings

    towards

    him.

    If they were altogether

    selfish, it would be dangerous. But

    if

    the son truly loved his father, it would

    increase his filial attachment to know

    that his father had done so much for

    him. The more he would give the son,

    the more the son would love him.

    So,

    i a Christian have true love to God, we

    need not fear

    to

    tell him how much God

    has done for

    him.

    The more he sees

    of

    the love of God, the more his own heart

    will be warmed with the heavenly

    flame, and he will desire the more to be

    conformed to his image. I think it will

    be admitted, that it is the experience of

    every Christian, that the brighter and

    frrmer his hopes are of heaven, the

    more he desires to be made meet for

    it;

    and jus t in proportion

    as

    faith is to him

    the certain "evidence (or confidence) of

    things not seen, he presses with eager

    ness "to the mark, for the prize of the

    high calling of God in Christ Jesus."

    The doctrine of perseverance, then, to

    a true Christian, is one of his greatest

    incentives to growth in grace; and every

    one upon whom it has a contrary effect,

    has much reason to doubt the reality of

    his religion. His love to God cannot be

    sincere. But

    as

    our conversation has

    been sufficiently protracted at present,

    we will defer the Bible argument on the

    subject to another time.

    [To be continued]

    The Reduction o hristianity

    A review article

    by

    Kenneth

    L. Gentry,

    Jr.

    The Reduction

    of

    Christian

    ity: Dave Hunt s Theology of

    Cultural Surrender, by Gary DeMar

    and Peter Leithart. Published jointly by

    The American Vision, Atlanta, GA and

    Dominion Press, Ft. Worth, TX, 1988.

    403 pp.

    Two of the current best-selling Chris

    tian books on the market are dispensa

    tionalist Dave Hunt's

    The Seduction o

    Christianity (1985) and Beyond Seduc-

    tion: A Return

    to

    Biblical Christianity

    (1987). As DeMar and Leithart note in

    their

    Reduction

    o

    Christianity,

    Hunt

    "has brought to light a real problem by

    exposing the demonic side

    of

    the New

    Age Movement . . . . . The New Age

    Movement needs to be confronted and

    battled. Mr. Hunt has provided much

    valuable ammunition to help Christians

    deal with New Age seduction" (p.

    xxxiii). Unfortunately, DeMar and Leit

    hart continue, Hunt "has discerned a

    problem, but has no solution. In fact,

    one of the thrusts

    of

    his books is that

    there is really no solution. He sees no

    way to combat a growing cultural

    malaise because he is operating with a

    reduced

    gospel and a

    teduced

    Christian

    ity. Hunt has no comprehensive Chris

    tian view

    of

    life to offer"

    ibid.).

    This last observation is well-taken in

    that Hunt's books not only confront

    New Age theology, but also

    attempt

    (and we must emphasize "attempt") a

    frontal assault on "Dominion Theo

    logy" as well. And in perfect illustra

    tion

    of

    Paul's lament, Hunt demon

    strates that he

    has

    a "zeal of God, but

    not according to knowledge" (Rom.

    10:4). Thus, he illustrates why "my

    people are destroyed for lack of know-

    Kenneth L.

    Gentry, Jr. Is

    pastor of the

    Reedy River

    Presbyterian

    Church (PCA)

    In

    Greenville, South

    Carolina.

    ledge" (Hos. 4:6). DeMar and Leithart's

    work is a response to the woefully in

    adequate analyses and faulty assertions

    in Hunt's book regarding Dominion

    Theology. In light

    of

    Hunt's recent

    growing influence, The Reduction o

    Christianity is both important and time

    ly.

    As DeMar and Leithart point out,

    Hunt (along with Wilkerson, Lindsey,

    Swaggart, and other dispensationalists)

    perceive Dominion Theology to be not

    only dangerous but heretical. DeMar

    and Leithart note that these popular

    writers (we do not say scholars or theo

    logians) believe that "Christians who

    support social and political involve

    ment with any chance of long-term

    success are leading people astray" (p.

    1 .

    The inevitability

    of

    social collapse

    and the necessity of cultural retreat have

    been elevated to creedal status among

    dispensationalists; any desire for cul

    tural holiness along biblical lines is

    anathema to this system. As a matter of

    fact, the whole idea of seeking the

    application

    of

    Christian and biblical

    principles in society is ro be avoided at

    all costs. One dispensationalist theolo

    gian, Norm Geisler, argues that the

    premillennialist view

    of

    government

    must rest on natural law, rather than

    God's Law (writing in

    Moody Monthly,

    October, 1985, p. 130; see also Reduc-

    tion, pp. 89-90).

    Undoubtedly the most absurd and pa

    tently false assertion in Hunt's books -

    an assertion that prompted the writing

    of The Reduction o Christianity - is

    that Dominion Theology, a

    l

    Rush

    doony, Morecraft, North and Bahnsen,

    is an ally of the New Age Movement

    and prepares Christians for its adoption

    As DeMar and Leithart point out, this

    is not only an incredibly inaccurate

    analysis of the matter, but it overlooks

    the fact that one of the first Christian

    warnings against the New Age Move

    ment was Gary North's 1976 book

    The Counsel of Cbalcedon, AprU-May, 988

    Page

    9

  • 8/12/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon

    2/3

    None Dare Call

    t

    Witchcraft.

    In one important chapter in Reduc

    tion,

    the authors define significant

    tenns, such as "dominion theology,"

    "kingdom theology," and "Christian

    reconstruction" (Chapter 2). This chap

    ter will prove immensely helpful to

    clarifying the debate, and, therefore,

    should be carefully read by opponents

    of

    reconstruction thought. One of the

    real problems with Hunt's books is that

    h has not defmed his terms. As DeMar

    and Leithart point out, in an interview

    with Hunt on "Contact America" Hunt

    was asked to define "Christian recon

    structionism." His answer? "I haven't

    defined that term" (p. 19) I am per

    sonally convinced that the bulk of the

    popular opposition against reconstruc

    tionist thought is due to a failure to

    accurately grasp the significance of its

    tenns and arguments; this annoying

    problem presents a straw man in popu

    lar discussion. Also defined in this chap

    ter

    are the three major eschatological

    systems (pp. 38-42). In addition, the

    authors here provide a brief historical

    analysis of the roots of reconstruction

    thought, showing it to be the heritage

    of the Puritans, American Calvinists,

    and Abraham Kuyper. Reconstruction

    ~ o u g h t

    per se

    is not new, and. cannot

    be a part

    of

    the "New Age Movement,"

    contrary to Hunt.

    Interestingly; DeMar and Leithart

    point out that in one Hunt associate's

    newsletter, the question is asked: "What

    is pur view of the Kingdom of God?"

    Then the entire conte;Kt of the writer's

    answer is given, prompting the re

    sponse of DeMar and Leithart: "This is

    the entire section. Yet, nowhere are we

    told exactly what is nieant by the Gng

    dom God. All that we find is

    an

    ern L

    phasis on the importance of king

    dom'' (p. 172). This

    is

    a failure to de

    fin:e tenns with a vengeance

    h a p t ~ r

    4 is an essential chapter for

    those wlio have been taken in by Hunt's

    improper analyses of reconstructionism,

    a8

    well as being important for Hunt

    himself in order to help him clarify the

    matter. In this chapter the authors estab

    lish the four foundational presupposi

    tions ofNew Age concepts. These foun

    dations are: (1) Monism and pantheism,

    (2) the divinization of humanity, (3)

    higher consciousness, and (4) reincarna

    tion and karma (p. 68). Having percep

    tively penetrated to these essences of

    New Age theology - something that

    Hunt did not do - DeMar and Leithart

    point out what every orthodox recon

    structionist knows: the views

    of

    Rush

    doony, North, Bahnsen, et

    al.,

    are

    resolutely set against each and every

    one

    of

    these concepts. Chapters 5-7 care

    fully demonstrate the polarity of recon

    structionist thought with New Age theo

    logy.

    This book, written by two contributing edi

    tors to Tlie Counsel -of Chalcedon, is avail

    able,

    free, for a

    $25.00'

    donation to the

    minis

    try of this magazine.

    n order

    to

    set forth one of the basic

    errors

    of

    Hunt, Chapters 8-11 discuss

    the biblical notion of the kingdom.

    These chapters could well be published

    as a book in themselves, so needful is a

    proper conception

    of

    the kingdom to

    day. DeMar and Leithart point out an

    incredible position of Hunt, a position

    that is astounding in that

    it

    not only

    reduces Christianity, but God. Hunt has

    written: "In fact, dominion--taking do

    minion and setting up the .kingdom of

    Christ--is

    an

    impossibility, ;

    even

    for

    God. The millennia reign

    of

    Christ, far

    from being the kingdom, is actually the

    final proof of the incorrigible nature of

    the human heart, because Christ Him

    self can't do what these people say they

    are going to do (p. 157).

    Sq

    much for "with God all things are

    possible " Out the window with Psalm

    115:3; Isaiah 46:9,10; Daniel 2:20;

    4:35; etc. This statement alone .demon-

    strates the absurdity of Hunt's sitting in

    judgment upon dominion theology; he

    has his

    own

    massive theological pro

    blem that not even standard, run-of-the-

    mill, dispensationalism accepts

    Chapter 9

    of

    the present work pro

    vides a masterful refutation of Hunt's

    "Heavenly Kingdom" concept. In the

    final analysis

    of

    Hunt's hyper-spiritual

    view, the authors ask: "Ultimately the

    issue is, what

    does

    it

    mean to be

    a citi

    zen

    of

    heaven? Does it mean that

    we

    abandon the earthly battles that sur

    round us? Does it mean we leave the

    earth to the devil? Does it mean we

    don't have any dominion on earth? (p.

    187).

    In Chapter

    15

    the authors expose an

    issue in the debate that I strongly be

    lieve to

    be

    a fundamental matter. The

    position of DeMar and Leithart - and

    Calvinistic dominion theology - is:

    "There is no true justification without

    sanctification. Christ is our justifica

    tion and our sanctification. To tear

    these

    two aspects

    of salvation asunder

    is to tear Christ asunder" (p. 289). It is

    terribly important to consider ~ i s very

    "spiritual" matter, for it gives rise to

    the "this worldly" views

    of

    reconstruc

    tionism. n my own spiritual journey

    the issue of the Lordship

    of

    Christ in

    salvation

    was

    the very issue which jetti

    soned me from the dispensational sys

    tem and paved the w;ty for my adoption

    of a reconstructionist perspective.

    n an

    85 page paper entitled

    The Great

    Op-

    tion: A Study

    of

    the Lordship Con-

    troversy,''

    which

    was

    prepared

    at

    Grace

    Theological Seminary in May, 1975, I

    analyzedthepredominatedispensational

    ist view that claimed salvation may be

    gained by belief in Christ as Savior

    divorced from commitment to Christ

    as

    Lord (as ,exhibited in; especially, Ryrie,

    Balancing the Christian, Life,

    [Moody,

    1969]).

    O.T.

    Allis noted much earlier

    that the unconditional covenant concept

    of dispensationalism is intimately re

    lated to the divorce between sanctifi

    cation and justification in the system

    (Allis, Prophecy and the Church,

    pp.

    42-43). ,Properly speaking, dispensation:

    alism is 110t merely concerned with one

    of the loci of theology, i.e. eschatolo

    gy. Rather, dispensationalism is itself

    Page

    3

    The Counsel of Chalcedon, April-May, 1988

  • 8/12/2019 1988 Issue 4-5 - The Reduction of Christianity: A Review Article - Counsel of Chalcedon

    3/3

    an

    entire, self-contained theological sys

    tem. And on this matter we see its in

    trinsic relation

    to

    soteriology.

    From the observation cited above,

    DeMar and Leithart move to penetrating

    questions: "We must now ask a funda

    mental question: Does the justified, re

    generated, and sanctified sinner affect

    his society? That is, does sanctification

    spill over into society

    as

    Christians

    work out the implications

    of

    their salva

    tion? Are we responsible to reform our

    lives? Are we responsible

    to

    reform our

    families? Are we responsible

    to

    reform

    our children's education? Should we

    work

    to

    reform our church

    if

    it

    is

    not

    following its God-directed mission?

    As

    a Christian, should I work to reform a

    business that I have control over? What

    i

    I run for a political office? Should I

    work

    to

    bring righteousness to bear on

    all the issues

    of

    the day Where do

    we stop the process? Where do we say

    'no'

    to

    reformation? Where do we draw

    the line on sanctification's effect on our

    world?

    (pp. 289-290).

    The

    Reduction

    o

    Christianity is an

    excellent rebuttal

    to

    a popular, but ill

    conceived, assault on reconstructionist

    thought. I highly recommend its pur

    chase and study. In fact, I would recom

    mend that rather than ordering it by

    mail, the reader ask for it at his local

    bookstore. Have the bookstore order

    copies to set on their shelves beside

    Hunt's work. I might add that I was

    particularly appreciative of the spirit of

    the work. DeMar and Leithart bent over

    backwards to treat Hunt respectfully.

    Though I wholeheartedly endorse the

    work, there are a few observations I

    would like to make that, in my

    opinion, could serve

    to

    strengthen the

    work in some minor areas.

    On page 207 Herman Hoyt's article

    on the nature

    of

    the kingdom (in

    Clouse's

    The Meaning o the Millen-

    nium: Four Views)

    is

    cited and summar

    ized

    thus:

    "The major differences be

    tween Hoyt's position and ours are 1)

    the question

    of

    timing, and 2) whether

    or not Christ will be physically present

    during the millennium." I would have

    added a third distinctive: The exclusive

    ly Jewish nature

    of

    the kingdom. The

    dispensationalist system greatly errs in

    seeking the re-establishing

    of an

    Old

    Testament kingdom that sets the re

    demptive-historical advance

    of

    God's

    kingdom back to a pre-cross nature,

    complete with sacrifices, a Promised

    Land, and Jewish domination, and con

    trary to Ephesians 2: 12ff; Galatians

    3:26ff; and Hebrews. As Hoyt notes

    of

    the Jewish role in the millennia} king

    dom: "The redeemed living nation

    of

    Israel, regenerated and regathered to the

    land, will be head over all the nations

    of

    earth. . . . So he exalts them above

    the Gentile nations. . On the low

    est level there are the saved, living,

    Gentile nations" (in Clouse, p. 81).

    That Christ's blood-bought Gentile peo

    ple would be reduced to servility to His

    other ( ) blood-bought people (Israel)

    borders on blasphemy. This seems

    to

    me

    to

    be even more fundamental a dis

    tinctive than the other two, although

    they are important, as well.

    I admit much disappointment with

    much

    of

    Chapter 12 of the work:

    "From the Church Fathers to the

    Reformation: The Theology

    of

    the

    Kingdom." The purpose

    of

    this chapter

    is "to note some major figures from

    church history who taught an optimis

    tic view

    of

    the kingdom's future on

    earth" (p. 229). In this chapter, early

    premillennialists are cited--such as

    Irenaeus--to demonstrate this view. In

    that Hunt's view

    is

    itself a peculiar

    aberration

    of

    a peculiar aberration (dis

    pensationalism), in its denial

    of

    any

    earthly victory for God's kingdom, the

    time spent in this chapter could have

    been better spent in a slightly different

    direction. The point

    of

    Christian recon

    structionism that is a main bone of

    contention in the wider debate today, is

    not that it teaches the victory

    of

    God's

    kingdom on earth (most standard dis

    pensationalists teach that there will be

    almost 1000 years

    of

    victory), but that

    it teaches the victory

    of

    God's kingdom

    on earth during and continuous with our

    present era. I would like to have seen

    this chapter emphasize the anti-pre

    millennia elements in early Church his

    tory, particularly the optimism of

    Athanasius (who is treated on pp. 231-

    233).

    Finally, it would have been helpful

    i f

    the authors had employed James B.

    Jordan's article

    A

    Survey

    of

    Southern

    Presbyterian Millennia Views Before

    1930 (in The Journal o Christian

    Reconstruction, 3:2, p. 122ff) in Chap

    ter

    14:

    "The Zenith and Decline

    of

    Opti

    mism." In this historical chapter a num

    ber

    of

    orthodox postmillennial theolo

    gians is cited; but Jordan's article lists a

    great deal more

    of

    them from the impor

    tant Southern Presbyterian tradition.

    Addendum:

    Moments after writing this review I

    received in the mail a tape I had ordered

    from Falwell's Liberty Baptist College.

    The tape is a "sermon" (with sparse

    reference to Scripture) by Norm Geisler

    against reconstructionism (dated Febru

    ary 3, 1988). This has led me to add a

    few sentences to this review article.

    Dave Hunt's error seems due to a lack

    of

    theological training and philosophi

    cal ability. Like Scofield before him, he

    is laboring outside

    of

    his field

    of

    train

    ing and expertise.

    He

    is simply co

    nfused.

    But

    in Geisler's case it is diffi

    cult to account for his tirade--it was

    nothing more--against Christian recon

    struction. Geisler is a certified scholar,

    or at least he has certified academic de

    grees. Geisler's entire 20 minute "ser

    mon" was filled with one misconstrual

    of

    reconstructionism after another. He

    labeled it one

    of

    the two most d n g e r ~

    ous heresies of our time, next to secular

    humanism.

    f

    interested in the tape, the

    reader might write to Liberty Baptist

    College, Lynchburg, VA 24506, and

    ask for the February 3, 1988, message

    against reconstructionism by Norm

    Geisler. 0

    pecial

    rice

    Judy Rogers' two tapes

    Why Can t I See God?

    &

    Watkin

    Wise

    now available for $5.00 each,

    plus, the pro-life song by 9 year-old

    Jenny Rogers, entitled Little Brother,

    is available for $2.00.

    (Please add $1.25 postage &

    handling for each tape)

    Make checks to Judy Rogers,

    P.O. Box 888442,

    Dunwoody, GA 30338

    The Counsel

    o

    Chalccdon, April-May,

    988

    Page