Rapture Fever

by Gary North by Gary North

12.07.2013 Views

Conclusion 203 supposedly based on universal principles of natural law - than the Church. They have trusted the moral authority of the humanist State far more than they have trusted the moral authority of the Church. And why not? The humanist State is a winner in history. The Church is a loser. So say the theologians. The result is easily predictable: a Church filled with people who are unskillful in the word of righteousness, God’s revealed law. No better statement of this ethical position can be found than Norman Geisler’s 1992 affirmation. Dr. Geisler received his Ph.D. in philosophy from a Jesuit university. He defends neutral natural law. He has devoted a large portion of his academic career to a public rejection of biblical law. Geisler is a dispensationalist: formerly a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and formerly a professor at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. He writes: “The religious right is at least as dangerous as the secular left. Religious theonomy (divine law) as the basis for human dignity can be as frightening as secular anarchy.” 1 He assures us that “Theonomy is an unworkable ethical basis for government in a religiously pluralistic society, whether it be Muslim or Christian in form.”2 He insists: “Sooner or later the question arises: whose religious book will be the basis for the civil laws? It is sheer religious bigotry to answer: ‘Mine.’ “3 Conclusion: it is not sheer religious bigohy for secular humanists to answe~ “Ours.” Dr. Geisler believes in the legitimacy of secular humanism’s claim that civil law can be religiously neutral and morally valid. Dr. Geisler is a consistent dispensationalist: he prefers to live under the civil banner of religious pluralism rather than under the civil banner ofJesus Christ. So do his colleagues. 1. Norman Geisler, “Human Life:’ In Search of a National Morality: A Man$esto fm Evangelical and Catholics, edited by William Bentley Ball (Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker Book House, 1992), p. 114. Mr. Ball is a Roman Catholic lawyer who specializes in defending Christian schools. Baker Book House is a Protestant publishing firm with a Calvinist slant. It publishes mainly amillennial books. 2. Idem. 3. Idem.

204 RAPTURE FEVER A Covenant of Historical Despair There are five reasons why modern Christians take this grim view of their condition: history’s losers. These reasons imitate perversely the Bible’s five-point covenant model: First, the strength of God obviously cannot be trusted in history, for God brings defeat for His Church in history. The Arminians have explained the guaranteed defeat of the gospel in history as the outcome of man’s free will. The evil in most men’s hearts will not be overcome, we are told. Covenantbreakers will generally remain covenant-breakers until the final judgment. The Calvinists offer another explanation: God predestined the gospel to cultural failure before the world began. So, Christians have seen God as either unwilling to do what it takes to win in history or else determined to lose in history. Dealing with such a God is a fearful thing. It means that the Church of Jesus Christ is filled with people who are religiously committed to their own cultural impotence in history. Who would trust such people with authority or power? No rational person would. So, Christians do not trust the judgments of local church officers. When rulings go against them, they transfer membership to another local church. Because they cannot escape judgment this easily in civil affairs, Christians demand the separation of Christianity from the State. They much prefer to live under the civil jurisdiction of God’s enemies rather than under other Christians. They agree with Norman Geisler. Third, they do not trust the Bible-revealed law of a God who has chosen them to be crushed in history. Who can trust the law-order of a God who will not bring victory to His Church in terms of that law-order? Christians have been told by their leaders for almost two millennia that the Old Testament is a discarded first draft, a judicial mistake. God used to judge history in terms of His law (Lev. 26; Deut. 28), but no longer. 4. Ray R. Sutton, Thut lbu May Prosper: Domtnion By Covenunt (2nd cd.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992).

Conclusion 203<br />

supposedly based on universal principles of natural law - than<br />

the Church. They have trusted the moral authority of the humanist<br />

State far more than they have trusted the moral authority<br />

of the Church. And why not? The humanist State is a winner<br />

in history. The Church is a loser. So say the theologians.<br />

The result is easily predictable: a Church filled with people who<br />

are unskillful in the word of righteousness, God’s revealed law.<br />

No better statement of this ethical position can be found<br />

than Norman Geisler’s 1992 affirmation. Dr. Geisler received<br />

his Ph.D. in philosophy from a Jesuit university. He defends<br />

neutral natural law. He has devoted a large portion of his academic<br />

career to a public rejection of biblical law. Geisler is a<br />

dispensationalist: formerly a professor at Dallas Theological<br />

Seminary and formerly a professor at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty<br />

University. He writes: “The religious right is at least as dangerous<br />

as the secular left. Religious theonomy (divine law) as<br />

the basis for human dignity can be as frightening as secular<br />

anarchy.” 1 He assures us that “Theonomy is an unworkable<br />

ethical basis for government in a religiously pluralistic society,<br />

whether it be Muslim or Christian in form.”2 He insists: “Sooner<br />

or later the question arises: whose religious book will be the<br />

basis for the civil laws? It is sheer religious bigotry to answer:<br />

‘Mine.’ “3 Conclusion: it is not sheer religious bigohy for secular<br />

humanists to answe~ “Ours.” Dr. Geisler believes in the legitimacy<br />

of secular humanism’s claim that civil law can be religiously<br />

neutral and morally valid. Dr. Geisler is a consistent dispensationalist:<br />

he prefers to live under the civil banner of religious pluralism<br />

rather than under the civil banner ofJesus Christ. So do his colleagues.<br />

1. Norman Geisler, “Human Life:’ In Search of a National Morality: A Man$esto fm<br />

Evangelical and Catholics, edited by William Bentley Ball (Grand Rapids, Michigan<br />

Baker Book House, 1992), p. 114. Mr. Ball is a Roman Catholic lawyer who specializes<br />

in defending Christian schools. Baker Book House is a Protestant publishing firm<br />

with a Calvinist slant. It publishes mainly amillennial books.<br />

2. Idem.<br />

3. Idem.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!