Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

Sennacherib (as crown prince) on a relief from the Khorsabad,  now in the Louvre.

Sennacherib (as crown prince) on a relief from the Khorsabad, now in the Louvre.

Hezekiah had a problem.  And not just any old problem either,  He had a king sized problem.  Literally.  In particular, he had a problem with the king of Assyria, Sennacherib by name.

Hezekiah was a direct descendent of David and reigned as the thirteenth king of Judah from 715 B.C – 686 B.C.  The scriptures paint him in a very positive light, saying of him,

Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea the son of Elah, king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign.  He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem.  His mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah.  And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done (I Kings 18:1-3).

Due to a foreign policy blunder by this father Ahaz, Hezekiah found himself on the receiving end of a blitzkrieg from the Assyrian empire at the zenith of its power.  How he dealt with the attack is a model of faith and courage from which Christians today can draw important lessons.

Hezekiah’s Trusts in the Power Egypt

One of the big takeaways from the Old Testament is this:  If the Lord doesn’t fight your battles, you’re going to lose.  From the time of the fall until the present, man has believed that he knows best.  “Forget what God says; I’m going to do it my way,” is the language of the world.   In the history of God’s covenant people, there are several instances where military defeat was the direct result of this sort of thinking.  The loss suffered by Israel at the hands of the men of Ai (Joshua 7), the Philistines’ victory over Israel recorded in I Samuel 4, and the beat down the Syrians gave the allied armies of Ahab and Jehoshaphat (I Kings 22 and II Chronicles 18) all stand as testament to this principle.

Even a godly man such as Hezekiah was not immune from the temptation of conducting the affairs of state the world’s way.  As the Assyrian threat loomed on the horizon, some in his administration had gone to Egypt to persuade Pharaoh to join in alliance with Judah against the invading Assyrians.  This worldly mindset, the sort of thinking that causes men to look everywhere for help except the one place it can be found, is rebuked by the prophet Isaiah.  He wrote,

“Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD, “who take counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who walk to go down to Egypt, and have not asked My advice, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!  Therefore the strength of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your humiliation (Isaiah 30:1-3).

Commenting on this passage, Edward J. Young remarked,

To avoid the bondage of this enemy [Assyria], the people now look to another source of human deliverance, namely Egypt.  Indeed, there may have been a pro-Egyptian party in Hezekiah’s court.  The present prophecy, however, relates not so much to one particular act as to an attitude of the mind, which in the face of danger turns to man rather than to God; it is this attitude wherever manifested that the prophet condemns (The Book of Isaiah, A Commentary, Vol.2, 335).

In 701 B.C., Hezekiah was faced with the unfortunate fact that the mighty Assyrian army was on Jerusalem’s doorstep.  From a human standpoint, Judah was a beaten nation.  The Assyrians had overrun Israel 21 years earlier and deported the people.  No help could be expected from the northern tribes.  Further, Sennacherib’s forces had just crushed the Egyptian army sent by Pharaoh to defend Judah at the behest of Hezekiah.

It was at this dark hour for God’s people that Sennacherib sent one of his commanders to threaten Hezekiah at Jerusalem.  The Assyrian commander stood outside the wall of Jerusalem and began what today we might talking trash.  He boasted about the conquests of Assyria, blasphemed the Lord by speaking of him, “as against the gods of the people of the earth – the work of men’s hands” (2 Chronicles 32:19), and even mocked the Egyptians, saying of them, “Now look!  You are trusting in the staff of this broken reed, Egypt, on which if a man leans, it will go into his hand and pierce it.  So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him”  (2 Kings 18:21).  Tiny Judah was all alone and without hope in the world.  Where would its help come from?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Jeroboam sets up a golden calf.

Jeroboam sets up a golden calf.

Among other things, the Bible is a book of examples. As God’s people, we can be thankful for this. Had he wished, God could have given his bare commandments and left it to us to draw our own lessons. But that’s not what he did. After providing very clear instructions to his covenant people in the Law of Moses, God inspired the writers of the Old Testament to record a detailed and fascinating history of his people. Some of this history was recorded as a warning to future generations. In his letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul highlighted several negative examples from the history of Israel and made the point, “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (I Corinthians 10:11).

In a previous post, we looked at two bad examples from the Old Testament, specifically the actions of kings Rehoboam and Jeroboam. In the case of Rehoboam, his was a political failure. Instead of being a servant to his people, he instead chose to lord it over them, answering a reasonable request for lower taxes with a churlish threat to increase them. His arrogance was the proximate cause of the division of the twelve tribes into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. On the other hand the failure of Jeroboam, the first ruler of the Northern Kingdom, was of an ethical nature. He was charged by the prophet Ahijah to walk in the commandments of God. But Jeroboam, doing what he ought not, was quick to set up an idolatrous religion in the Northern Kingdom, which corrupted the people for generations. At bottom, the failures of both kings were epistemological, for both men rejected the clear commands of God and followed the dictates of their own hearts.

As a follow up to the bad examples, over the next two weeks we will look at two good examples from the Old Testament, one of them a prophet, the other a king. Both of had this in common: they trusted in God, not themselves.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The Arrogance of Rehoboam, circa 1530.  Hans Holbein the Younger.

The Arrogance of Rehoboam, circa 1530. Hans Holbein the Younger.

“Nothing is completely worthless,” or so the saying goes, “it can always serve as a bad example.” I’ve always liked this old saw and have found it oddly comforting. In my own life, God has used my sins and to teach me some painful, negative lessons, which to this day I remember. But negative lessons are not unique to me. In fact, chastening from God is the common experience of Christians, for the author of Hebrews tells us that without chastening, we are illegitimate children and not sons.

But our opportunity to learn negative lessons is not limited to our own experience. God is a gracious God. It would be enough for him to provide us with bare commandments on how we ought to live, or just enough of the Gospel to be saved. But that’s not what he did. He gave us a whole library of 66 books, in which are found, not only his commandments, but example after example of what happens to those who heed his voice as well as to those who disobey.

Today, I’d like to focus on two negative examples found in I Kings 12-14. In particular, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the examples of Rehoboam king of Judah, Jeroboam king of Israel. Both individuals were in a position of great responsibility, both brought upon themselves the judgment of God by their own poor decision making, which in both cases was the result of their failure to take their ideas from the correct source.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

philosophy_dictionaryMy previous posts in this series were intended as a survey of what the Bible has to say about the four main disciplines of philosophy: epistemology (the theory of knowledge, metaphysics (the theory of reality), ethics (the theory of conduct), and politics (the theory of government). The structure and ideas contained in this series are taken from the tract What is Christian Philosophy? written by John Robbins and published by The Trinity Foundation.

These posts were written with three goals in mind. First, to lay my philosophical cards on the table. Since my purpose in writing this blog has always been to articulate the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark and John Robbins, it seemed good to set forth the basic assumptions of this system as clearly as I possibly could.

Second, it has been my hope to show the importance of systematic thinking. Systematic thinking is not popular today. That the world should passionately embrace irrationalism is not surprising. But the hostility toward logical thought in the professing church is alarming. Christ is the logos, the logic, of God. And those who bear his name, those who have the mind of Christ, of all people should have respect for sound thinking.

My third goal with this series has been to make philosophy accessible. Often people are turned off from philosophy, because they think they cannot understand it. Much of this is the fault of the philosophers themselves. If you are in that camp, I understand. In spite of my best efforts, I never understood philosophy until I started reading John Robbins. He was possessed of remarkable ability to take ideas that in the hands of other authors were all but impenetrable and make them clear. It has been my goal to do the same for others.

To close out this series, I have summarized my previous posts on Christian philosophy below.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

PoliticsSo far in this series on Christian philosophy, we have looked at three of the four major philosophic disciplines. First was epistemology, the theory of knowledge. It answers the question, How do you know? Second came metaphysics, the theory of reality. For those who have not previously studied philosophy, these terms may seem a bit strange or intimidating. Ethics, the theory of conduct, was third. Ethics is a more familiar term for us. It answers the question, What ought we to do ?

This post will address the disciple on politics. Politics is the theory of government. As you may suppose, there are many different views on government. Men differ on the origin of government – is it a natural institution?; does it arise from the consent of the governed? – the proper scope of government – should government be minimal or involve itself in every area of one’s life? – and what form of government – democracy, republic, or monarchy – is ideal.

The Origin of Government

In his book A Christian View of Men and Things, Gordon Clark raised the question, “How does a government get, not the power, but the right to coerce its people?” This may seem like a strange question to many people. For the most part, folks accept the existence of government in much the same way they accept the fact that the sun rises in the east, or the grass is green, or the sky is blue. But this is an important question. For if government cannot be justified in any form, there is no use in discussing its proper scope or form.

Historically, there have been several answers to Clark’s question. Aristotle, for example, believed that government was a natural institution. In one of his lectures on philosophy, John Robbins described Aristotle’s view thus, “People grow into states the way that acorns grow into oak trees.” Another view is the social compact theory: governments derive their coercive authority form the consent of the governed. Still another view is that government is power. This was the view of historian Oswald Spengler, who held that, “Great statesmen like Caesar or Napoleon act immediately on the basis of a flair for facts. Their action is not sicklied o’er by the pale cast of thought. If indeed ther ar any general principles of politics, they never enter the heads of great men” (Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, 95). These views of government, diverse as they are, all have one important element in common: God, the God of the Bible, does not matter in any of them.

Christian political theory rejects all these answers to the origin of government. The Bible teaches us, in the words of Gordon Clark, that, “The existence of the state is a partial punishment and cure for sin” (A Christian View of Men and Things, 100). Government bears the power of the sword, the power of coercion, in response to man’s sin. Proof of this can be seen in Genesis 3:24, which reads, “So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”
Civil government was not a natural institution, it was not part of the original created order, it came about after the fall of Adam. Writing in Romans 13 about the civil magistrate, Paul makes this same point where he tells us, “[H]e does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Dictionary definition of the word

Throughout this series on Christian philosophy, it has been my argument that Christianity is a system of ideas thought out together. Christianity is not the only system of thought, it is not the only worldview. Marxism, for example, is a systematic attempt to provide a comprehensive worldview. On the other hand, Christianity is unique in that it is God’s revealed system of thought. it is truth itself. Paul’s statement, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, not have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him” (I Corinthians 2:9), is a denial that man can discover truth on his own.

Throughout the course of history, men, brilliant men such as Plato and Aristotle, have argued that man can too discover truth by his own efforts. Secular epistemology – epistemology is logically the first discipline of philosophy, it is the theory of knowledge answering the question “How do you know?” – comes in one of two forms. Rationalism (Plato) tells us that men can know truth from ideas they come up with in their own minds. Empiricism (Aristotle) argues that man can know truth by observing things. Our senses, say the empiricists, furnish us with knowledge. Christianity, on the other hand, argues that truth, all truth, is graciously revealed by God to men, that men do not discover truth on their own, that the so-called wisdom men claim to have found by their own efforts is, in reality, foolishness.

One’s view of metaphysics – metaphysics is the theory of reality – depends upon his epistemology. Since we live in an age in which empirical epistemology is dominant, it is not surprising that people believe that matter, physical stuff, is the ultimate reality. Carl Sagan gave voice to this idea when he wrote, “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” But as John Robbins wrote in his tract What is Christian Philosophy?, Christian metaphysics, which is based upon a Christian theory of knowledge, speaks in this way, “in God, not matter, we live and move and have our being.” The universe is not eternal, but created Not independent, but upheld by God. Not evolving to perfection, but advancing in its decay.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1771.

My earlier post In Praise of Karl Marx makes the point that Christians can take one positive lesson from Marx’ work: the power of systematic thought. Marx was a thoroughgoing atheist, and both he and his followers consistently applied atheism to all fields of study, creating a well-developed all-around view of the world. Systematic thought is powerful and impressive. One idea is related to and supports another, in much the same way the flying buttresses support a majestic gothic cathedral. This is true, even if the system itself is badly flawed.

Of all people, Christians should be the most systematic thinkers, for we have the systematic, non contradictory truth of God’s Word revealed to us in the 66 books of the Bible. From the express statements and necessary implications of Scripture, we are able to develop a coherent, complete, systematic worldview. The apostle Paul tells us that the Scriptures make the man of God complete, thoroughly equipping him for every good work. This includes the good work of developing a systematic, Christian view of the world.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Raphael's The School of Athens, depicting Plato and Aristotle.

Raphael’s The School of Athens, depicting Plato and Aristotle.

Last week I mentioned one positive lesson Christians can take from Karl Marx. That may seem like a strange statement at first blush. After all, Marx was an atheist, a collectivist, and a violent revolutionary. Hardly the sort of fellow a Christian should look to for philosophical guidance. And yet, there is one aspect of his program that does recommend itself to the Christian: he was a systematic thinker. He didn’t randomly throw ideas together, but sought to develop a unified worldview based on certain philosophic principles. Systematic thinking, systematic philosophy, has tremendous power. So much so, that even an evil system of thought such as Marxism can take the world by storm.

Christianity also is a system of thought. But unlike Marxism, or Kantianism, or Objectivism, or any other system developed by man – what the apostle Paul deemed “the wisdom of this world” – Christianity is a revealed system of thought. One could even call it a revealed system of truth. For Christianity reveals the mind of God, the truth that comes from God, in every area of intellectual inquiry.

But even though Bible-believing Christians would be the first to defend the Word of God as inspired, inerrant and infallible, too often their thinking, and thus their practice, betrays a certain amount of inconsistency. The Bible, in the view of many Christians, is good for learning about God, sin, and salvation in Christ. But when it comes to questions of philosophy, well, the Christian will have to go to the experts. This always means the secular philosophers.

Thomas Aquinas is the ultimate example of this approach. In his case, he attempted to combine revealed ideas from the Bible with the empirical philosophy of the pagan philosopher Aristotle. The resulting system called Thomism is now the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church-State. It is also, unfortunately, the philosophical system of many Evangelicals. Well known evangelicals such as R.C. Sproul and Norman Giesler both espouse Thomism. And while Aristotle and Aquinas were brilliant men, neither one’s system of thought was Christian. By following Aquinas, these Evangelicals unknowingly undercut their Christian witness.

In one of his lectures on philosophy, John Robbins made the point that a major weakness of the Reformation was the fact that it never produced a systematic philosopher. That is, no one, at least in any coherent way, ever attempted to apply Scripture to the problems of philosophy. That is, no one until Gordon Clark. With Clark’s work, Christians for the first time were furnished with a Biblical system of thought capable of meeting and defeating all rivals in all fields of intellectual endeavor. In some ways, it is hard to believe that it took so long for this to happen. Yet happen it finally did. And as Christians we can take great delight in this. My goal in this and in the next few posts will be to summarize the basic ideas of Christian philosophy using John Robbins tract What is Christian Philosophy? as my guide.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

Christians can lean lessons in the oddest places, even from the likes of Karl Marx. Marx, of course, was the 19th communist radical whose ideas have proven to be one of the dominant forces in the world over the past 100 years. Now before you think I’ve gone off the deep end, I can assure you I’m not sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt or making plans to visit to Fidel Castro. No, my praise for Marx has nothing to do with his ideology, with which I vehemently disagree. But if not for his ideology, why would I praise him? What would a Christian writer find praiseworthy about a militant atheist whose considerable body of work was radically opposed to Christianity and has proven to be the cause so much misery in the world? The short answer to that question is this, Marx was a systematic thinker.

It was a Christian video series on worldviews that started me thinking about this. Marx was an atheist, and his atheism imbued every aspect of this thinking. Marxist views in the fields of politics, history, economics, sociology, psychology, ethics, etc. all can be traced back to atheist assumptions. Marxist ideas about a particular subject, economics for example, are not divorced from Marxist ideas on other subjects. Marxism is not a random collection of ideas, but a system of things thought out together. This is what gives Marxism much of its appeal. It provides, or at least seems to provide, people with a unified worldview. And this unified worldview is a powerful motivating force.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Practical Calvinism

“What practical difference,” asked my friend across the breakfast table, “does Calvinism make in your life?” In truth that really wasn’t the question that I wanted to hear that morning. The fellow I was sitting with was an Arminian and tended to be a bit of argumentative. What was more, it was Saturday morning after a long work week. I would have preferred to talk about baseball, or even yard work for that matter, rather than get involved in a heavy theological discussion. On the other hand, it was a good question. And we don’t always get to pick and choose our opportunities to witness, so I made my case. And as I’ve thought more about our discussion over the past week, it seemed good to me to set down in writing some of what I said.

Clarity of Thought

I was raised as an Arminian. More specifically, I grew up attending the Church of Christ, which had its roots in the Campbellite Restoration movement of the 19th century. For those who aren’t familiar with the Campbellite movement, its most notable founders were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, father and son preachers from Ireland. Although both had been Presbyterians, the church they founded practiced credo-baptism, was congregational in its government, and Arminian in its teaching.

It’s been pointed out by others that Arminians don’t sing like Arminians, they sing like Calvinists. This was certainly true in my church. We’d sing all the standard Calvinist hymns, but the preaching was all Arminian. It always seemed to me that I met two different Gods on Sunday morning. There was the sovereign God of the hymnal, whose counsel stood and who did whatever he pleased. And then there was the weak god of the pulpit, who had to respect human will. Jesus was knocking, but you had to open the door.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »