Volume 3 - Number 2 - Amazon Web Services

254 Pages·2005·2.24 MB·English

1
(cid:55)(cid:80)(cid:77)(cid:86)(cid:78)(cid:70)(cid:1)(cid:20) (cid:56)(cid:74)(cid:79)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:83)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:109)(cid:24)(cid:24) (cid:47)(cid:86)(cid:78)(cid:67)(cid:70)(cid:83)(cid:1)(cid:19)
(cid:1134)(cid:70)(cid:1)(cid:43)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:66)(cid:77)(cid:1)(cid:80)(cid:71)
(cid:36)(cid:73)(cid:83)(cid:74)(cid:84)(cid:85)(cid:74)(cid:66)(cid:79)
(cid:51)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:79)(cid:84)(cid:85)(cid:83)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:74)(cid:80)(cid:79)
(cid:52)(cid:90)(cid:78)(cid:81)(cid:80)(cid:84)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:78)(cid:1)(cid:80)(cid:79)
(cid:85)(cid:73)(cid:70)(cid:1)(cid:46)(cid:74)(cid:77)(cid:77)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:74)(cid:86)(cid:78)
(cid:34)(cid:1)(cid:36)(cid:41)(cid:34)(cid:45)(cid:36)(cid:38)(cid:37)(cid:48)(cid:47)(cid:1)(cid:49)(cid:54)(cid:35)(cid:45)(cid:42)(cid:36)(cid:34)(cid:53)(cid:42)(cid:48)(cid:47)
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
COPYRIGHT
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction
Volume 3 / Number 2
Winter 1976–77
Symposium on the Millennium
Gary North, Editor
A CHALCEDON MINISTRY
Electronic Version 1.0 / March 21, 2007
Copyright © 1977 Chalcedon. All rights reserved.
Usage: Copies of this file may be made for personal use by the
original purchaser of this electronic document. It may be printed
by the same on a desktop printer for personal study. Quotations
may be used for the purpose of review, comment, or scholarship.
However, this publication may not be duplicated or reproduced in
whole or in part in any electronic or printed form by any means,
uploaded to a web site, or copied to a CD-ROM, without written
permission from the publisher.
Chalcedon
P.O. Box 158
Vallecito, CA 95251
U.S.A.
To contact via email and for other information:
www.chalcedon.edu
Chalcedon depends on the contributions of its readers,
and all gifts to Chalcedon are tax-deductible.
Opinions expressed in this journal do not necessarily reflect the
views of Chalcedon. It has provided a forum for views in accord
with a relevant, active, historic Christianity, though those views
may have on occasion differed somewhat from Chalcedon’s and
from each other.
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
THE JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN
RECONSTRUCTION
This journal is dedicated to the fulfillment of the cultural mandate of Genesis
1:28 and 9:1—to subdue the earth to the glory of God. It is published by the
Chalcedon Foundation, an independent Christian educational organization (see
inside back cover). The perspective of the journal is that of orthodox Christian-
ity. It affirms the verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts (auto-
graphs) of the Bible and the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ—two
natures in union (but without intermixture) in one person.
The editors are convinced that the Christian world is in need of a serious publi-
cation that bridges the gap between the newsletter-magazine and the scholarly
academic journal. The editors are committed to Christian scholarship, but the
journal is aimed at intelligent laymen, working pastors, and others who are
interested in the reconstruction of all spheres of human existence in terms of the
standards of the Old and New Testaments. It is not intended to be another outlet
for professors to professors, but rather a forum for serious discussion within
Christian circles.
The Marxists have been absolutely correct in their claim that theory must be
united with practice, and for this reason they have been successful in their
attempt to erode the foundations of the noncommunist world. The editors agree
with the Marxists on this point, but instead of seeing in revolution the means of
fusing theory and practice, we see the fusion in personal regeneration through
God’s grace in Jesus Christ and in the extension of God’s kingdom. Good princi-
ples should be followed by good practice; eliminate either, and the movement
falters. In the long run, it is the kingdom of God, not Marx’s “kingdom of free-
dom,” which shall reign triumphant. Christianity will emerge victorious, for only
in Christ and His revelation can men find both the principles of conduct and the
means of subduing the earth—the principles of Biblical law.
The Journal of Christian Reconstruction is published twice a year, summer and
winter. Each issue costs $4.00, and a full year costs $7.00. Subscription office: P.O.
Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251. Editorial office: P.O. Box 1608, Springfield, VA
22151.
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright
Contributors
Editor’s Introduction
Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1. SYMPOSIUM ON THE MILLENNIUM
Justice to Victory
Norman Shepherd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Common Grace, Eschatology, and Biblical Law
Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism
Greg L. Bahnsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
A Survey of Southern Presbyterian Millennial
Views Before 1930
James B. Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion
Rousas John Rushdoony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
2. CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION
Biblical Law: Reconstruction of the Criminal Law:
Retribution Revived
John A. Sparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
The Prophetic Office and Public Exhortation:
Amos and Hosea
Simon Kistemaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
The Industrial Revolution: Pro and Con
Bruce Bartlett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
3. DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH
Stonewall Jackson
Douglas Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
Table of Contents 5
4. BOOK REVIEWS
The Puritan Hope: A Study in Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy, by Iain
H. Murray.
Reviewed by Tommy W. Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
My Years With Ludwig von Mises, by Margit von Mises.
Reviewed by Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Sane Asylum, by Charles Hampden-Turner.
Reviewed by Gary North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Publication Schedule Volume 4
The Ministry of Chalcedon
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
CONTRIBUTORS
Greg L. Bahnsen, ThM, is assistant professor of theology at Reformed Theologi-
cal Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.
Bruce Bartlett, MA, is an economist for Congressman Jack Kemp (R–NY).
James B. Jordan, BA, is a student at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson,
Mississippi.
Douglas Kelly, PhD, is pastor of First Presbyterian Church (U.S.), in Dillon,
South Carolina.
Simon Kistemaker, PhD, is professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological
Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.
Gary North, PhD, is editor of The Journal of Christian Reconstruction. His latest
book is None Dare Call It Witchcraft.
Tommy W. Rogers, PhD, is a professional sociologist (unemployed) and a lawyer
in Jackson, Mississippi.
R. J. Rushdoony, MA, BD, is president of Chalcedon. His latest book is God’s Plan
for Victory.
Norman Shepherd, PhD, is professor of systematic theology at Westminster
Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.
John Sparks, JD, is professor of business administration at Grove City College in
Grove City, Pennsylvania.
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
Gary North
The millennium. Secularists can hardly believe that anyone believes in
such a thing. When President Carter was campaigning, he made the
statement that he supported Israel because Israel today is a fulfillment
of biblical prophecy. Liberal commentators, always supporters of Israel,
were disturbed. They liked his conclusion, but they did not understand
his reasons for making the conclusion. Yet millions and millions of
Americans agree with his reasons; and millions of people in the South
elected him, in part, because he was willing to make such “outlandish”
statements.
Strictly speaking, the belief that modern Israel fulfills biblical proph-
ecy is a theological aberration. Traditional postmillennialists, amillen-
nialists, and premillennialists have never believed that national or
geographical Israel is relevant this side of the rapture. Dispensational
premillennialists also hold (officially) that the so-called “clock of
prophecy” stopped ticking long ago. Some believe it stopped ticking at
the resurrection, and others (ultradispensationalists) believe it stopped
ticking with the conversion of Paul, while still others (hyper-ultradis-
pensationalists?) believe it stopped ticking when Paul was imprisoned
in Rome. But all of them say that the sixty-ninth week of Daniel ended
in the first century, and that the seventieth week will begin only with
the rapture, when the whole church will be caught up to Christ in the
clouds. So, strictly speaking, nothing happening in Israel today can
possibly be a fulfillment of prophecy. If it were, the clock of prophecy
would be ticking again. At best, the events in Israel are mere “shadows”
of fulfilled prophecy—events to be fulfilled after the rapture.
The problem is, unfortunately, that practically nobody speaks strictly
when it comes to theology these days, especially concerning the doc-
trine of eschatology: the last things (events). Everyone talks about
eschatology, but almost nobody studies it very thoroughly. It is a very
difficult topic, one which scared both Luther and Calvin away from
commenting on the Book of Revelation. Both men had ideas about the
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
8 JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION
millennium, but neither wrote a commentary on this forbidding book.
Today, on the contrary, most fundamentalist Christians believe that
they have very clear explanations for the Book of Revelation, and
prophecy conferences can still draw crowds a century after they began
to be popular in the United States.
Part of the reason why prophecy is popular today is that we are
drawing near to the year 2000. According to Norman Cohn, whose
book, The Pursuit of the Millennium, is a classic study of medieval pro-
phetic traditions, the year 1000 did not have that much effect on the
minds of medieval {2} Europeans. The years after 1100 did see the rise
of interest in the millennium, he says, but tales about the supposed
belief in the imminent return of Christ in the years after 950 are largely
mythical, concludes Cohn. But when they write up our era, they had
better acknowledge that within a significant substratum of American
culture, concern with the year 2000 was important in this nation after
1950.
The year 2000 has been important in the minds of secularists since
the seventeenth century, a point emphasized by the sociologist, Robert
A. Nisbet.1 There are a dozen recent secular books, at the minimum,
about the year 2000. Herman Kahn’s book on the subject became a
bestseller.2 But today the significance is only symbolic among secular-
ists. A new century, a new millennium, is thought by most people to
begin in the year 2000. (Actually, the twenty-first century begins on
January 1, 2001, but practically nobody understands this. In fact, I
don’t understand it, but I’m reporting it anyway.)
The term “millennium” means a thousand years. The thousand years
are mentioned only in Revelation 20. Theologians have debated its
meaning and its application. Some millennialists have argued that the
period of special blessings is indeterminate; it will last a long time, but
not necessarily exactly a thousand years. Amillennialists deny that the
term is to be taken literally at all; there will be no period of external,
cultural blessings. Dispensationalists accept the thousand years as lit-
eral years. In short, there has been no agreement among Protestant cir-
cles over the years. Roman Catholics, since the time of Augustine, have
1. Robert A. Nisbet, “The Year 2000 and All That,” Commentary (June 1968).
2. Herman Kahn and A. J. Wiener, The Year 2000 (New York: Macmillan, 1967).
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
Editor’s Introduction 9
generally been amillennial in outlook, and eschatological questions
within Roman Catholic circles have been confined to the last days of
individuals, not the last times of a culture. Death, rather than the mil-
lennium, has been the focus of Roman Catholic theological concern.
How important is the question of eschatology? It is always impor-
tant, since the Bible speaks about it. Historically, there have been peri-
ods in which the issue was more important than at other times. In the
United States, eschatological or millennial issues were more central to
the culture in 1640, 1740, and 1840 than in 1700, 1800, or 1900. There
is no doubt that one’s eschatological views will influence one’s list of
earthly priorities. If, as one dispensationalist leader once remarked
concerning this pre-rapture world, “you can’t [shouldn’t] polish brass
on a sinking ship,” then his listeners ought to conclude that passing out
simple gospel tracts is of greater importance and urgency than devel-
oping a distinctly Christian philosophy, economics, or chemistry. Of
course, some dispensationalists are willing to consider Christ’s words,
“occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13), but in general they pay very little
attention to this injunction. A few do, {3} but not many. They are too
occupied in passing out tracts to bother much about occupying the
seats of cultural influence.
Secularists in the United States have never heard of Hal Lindsey’s
book, The Late Great Planet Earth. Secularists never bothered to put it
on any list of the bestsellers of the year. Yet this book has sold, as of
1976, 12,000,000 copies. This makes it the largest selling new title of
the 1965–76 period. Its influence is enormous. The secularists will not
acknowledge its existence, since they cannot explain its existence.
Those who read it, however, are conditioned by its perspective not to
have hope for the culture’s future, a perspective driven home by Lind-
sey’s later books. So the leaders of the culture will not acknowledge it,
and those millions who have purchased it and agree with it are condi-
tioned to their position as part of a culturally irrelevant remnant—the
permanent remnant psychology.
Which kind of remnant are we? A permanent remnant, impotent
culturally because the “times” are against us? Or a temporary remnant,
whose era is coming? In answering this question, men will be faced
with differing views of responsibility. The brass polishers will get little
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07
10 JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION
help from the tract passers, at least little direct, conscious, deliberate
help. It makes a difference what men believe about eschatology.
Norman Shepherd’s essay is representative of a traditional, mild
postmillennialism. In the early 1960s, few students at Westminster
Theological Seminary, where Shepherd is a professor, understood that
he and the late Professor John Murray were both mild postmillennial-
ists. I recognized it when I heard Murray’s comments in class about
Romans 11, but these lectures had not yet been published. When I
remarked to several classmates that Murray was obviously postmillen-
nial, they assured me that I was confused. It couldn’t be true. He was a
Calvinist, and most Calvinists are amillennialists. Everyone knows this.
(The statement is true; most Calvinists are Dutch, and all Dutch Cal-
vinists are amillennialists.) A few may be historic premillennialists.
None (except J. Marcellus Kik) was postmillennial, thought the stu-
dents in 1964.
This is a strange fact. Neither Murray nor Shepherd talked about
their postmillennialism. Murray’s lectures in senior systematics
sounded amillennial, although he assigned Charles Hodge’s Systematic
Theology, a distinctly postmillennial book. Shepherd assigned Geer-
hardus Vos’s Pauline Eschatology to his students. (“Pauline Eschatol-
ogy,” he once commented, “was one of the nicest girls I ever dated.”)
The book is rigidly amillennial. The other faculty members were amil-
lennial, except Paul Woolley, the church historian, who was known to
be a historic premillennialist, but who never went into eschatological
matters in the classroom. (I once asked Woolley what eschatological
views were held by J. Gresham Machen, the founder of the seminary.
Woolley replied that he had been a postmillennialist, {4} to the extent
that he ever announced his views, which I gathered was infrequently.)
So the chief Reformed seminary of the English-speaking world, 1929–
65, minimized the Reformed heritage of postmillennialism. The other
two Reformed seminaries of this period, Covenant Seminary and Faith
Seminary, were premillennialist, though not dispensationalist.
Just to set the record straight, I started out as a standard, run-of-the-
mill dispensationalist. In my senior year in college, I was introduced to
ultradispensationalism (the church began after Acts 8, when Paul’s
ministry began), which is far more consistent than the standard ver-
sion of dispensationalism. In a nutshell, the ultradispensationalists
A Chalcedon Publication [www.chalcedon.edu] 3/30/07