## Thursday, September 7, 2017

### Scientific Theory

Godel Incompleteness Theorems

A set of mathematical axioms (of real numbers?) is not complete or consistent.

For instance, take all axioms such as a=b/b=c/a=c or 1 =/= 0 and assign them a number ie 1 (a=b/b=c/a=c) and 2 (1 =/= 0) respectively. Then also include the statement "Not all axioms can be proved by this set." If you include this statement and assign it a number say 237, then the set will not be complete (either with validating the statement or not validating) and also cannot be consistent.

You can add another axiom to take care of the problem, but then the old set + new axiom, falls into the same trap.

Implications: 1) Not all mathematical truths can be proved.  2) One cannot prove math has no contradictions.

Turing Machine
How do algorithms or programs work? It is not the mechanism of  the computer that is ultimately important it is the algorithm that it is following.  All problems can then be solved with 0s and 1s.

Turing Halting Problem
A computer cannot know if a program will halt.

"Taking a solemn oath to promise never to write a program that analyses other programs? - Professor Brailsford"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLWnd6-vSGo

This is a self-referential problem. A program cannot write a program without knowing if it will loop infinitely.

"
 For instance, let's say I have this Turing machine, H, which tells us whether or not a program and input will halt. Let's say we call H on itself. It has to give an answer, so if it prints out "does not halt" then didn't it technically halt to print that statement? Or would it just always in theory print out "does halt"? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around calling H purely upon itself, without negation, and what it would do. I get why the negation leads to a contradiction, but I am just wondering if the following scenario also leads to a contradiction." You need to prove that H does not exist. You have shown that H applied to itself cannot print "does not halt". But, as you rightfully point out, the possibility that it prints "does halt" is not excluded. There's no apparent contradiction in this. So this application of H to itself is not sufficient to prove that H does not exist, we need to use other techniques. It is incorrect to say that this scenario does not lead to contradiction. It probably will if you explore it further. It just doesn't do so immediately.
Gerog Cantor Transfinite Numbers
"Diagonlization"
Zeno's paradox going halfway between 2 points can go on for infinity

"Take, for instance, the so-called natural numbers: 1, 2, 3 and so on. These numbers are unbounded, and so the collection, or set, of all the natural numbers is infinite in size. But just how infinite is it? Cantor used an elegant argument to show that the naturals, although infinitely numerous, are actually less numerous than another common family of numbers, the "reals." (This set comprises all numbers that can be represented as a decimal, even if that decimal representation is infinite in length. Hence, 27 is a real number, as is π, or 3.14159….). In fact, Cantor showed, there are more real numbers packed in between zero and one than there are numbers in the entire range of naturals... Continuing down the list, this mathematical method (called "diagonalization") generates a real number p between zero and one that, by its construction, differs from every real number on the list in at least one decimal place. Ergo, it cannot be on the list.

In other words, p is a real number without a natural number partner—an apple without an orange. Thus, the one-to-one correspondence between the reals and the naturals fails, as there are simply too many reals—they are "uncountably" numerous—making real infinity somehow larger than natural infinity." From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes/

Real Numbers < N(0,1)

## Friday, July 7, 2017

### Ronald Nash Ethics Class Notes

Normative words - Affirmative words "ought" "duty" "right" "good"

Non-normative - Facts

Intrinsic goodness - Good in of itself

Extrinsic (instrumental) goodness - Good due to outcomes

Moral duties vs non-moral duties

Kant:
Deontologist - Consequences are not regulative. We have duties regardless of consequences. Rationalistic ethics. Wanted to rescue ethics from relativism.

Categorical imperative is a moral duty.

Hypothetical imperatives are non moral duties. These take "if -->then" forms.  If you want to do well in class, then you need to study. This is different then you "ought" to study. These are relative to a person's desire.

Provided a rationale case to respect the moral law / categorical imperative. So act in such a way that you can will your maxim (rule of conduct under consideration) to be a universal law. If you lie, you only get an advantage if everyone else is telling the truth. (Golden rule?)

Don't treat people as a means to an end.

Laws of morality are like the laws of mathematics and logic.  Laws of math are discovered not invented. Kant wants morals to be absolute. When you violate morals you are acting irrationally.

Kant differs with Christian ethics. Feelings negate morals??? They need to be self imposed.

Moral systems:
Consequentialist theories / Utilitarianism- Emphasize good and consequences of action. End results. Telological outcomes. This can be used to support conduct that is immoral.

W.D. Ross "Act vs Action": Combines consequential and deontological ethics
Acts are what we do outside and have to do with the "fitting" thing to do..

Action look at the inside ie motives. Helping a rich old lady across the street ie out of greed

What about wrong act with a good action. Good motive, bad delivery.

Hedonism:
Differentiate between Psychological vs Ethical Hedonsim
Psychological means that all men due follow their pleasures no matter what you do

Egoistic Hedonism
Greeks:
Cyrenaics believed pleasure was the ultimate good. "eat, drink, be merry"Epicureus preferred mind over body pleasures.

Plato said if there is a such thing as bad pleasure, then by definition pleasure cannot be the ultimate good.

Aristotle said that seeking pleasure, for its own sake, is self-defeating. Seeking merely pleasure will lessen it.

Altruistic Hedonists / Hedonistic Utilitarianism
Looks out for the pleasure of others. Looking for the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people.

Jeremy Bentham - Pleasure is the ultimate good. Hedonic calculus. Thomas Carlyle called this a "pig's philosophy." Someone else said it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates then a contented pig.

John Stuart Mills noted that there are different types of pleasure and there are higher pleasures. Philosophers have noted, however, that if there are higher pleasures then there must be a standard that is higher than pleasure that is ranking pleasures.

Ideal Utilitarianism (non-hedonistic utilitarianism)
G.E. Moore
Act in a way that produces the most amount of good (not pleasure!).

Rule Utilitarianism
Not about acts, but about which rules we should follow. Telling the truth has better consequences than another alternative rule. Secularist need to have grounding.

Joseph Fletcher Situational Ethics

4 cardinal and 3? Theological virtues

Society vs state.  State has the power of coercion

Classical liberals in the 1800s promote freedom but do not believe is transcendeny morals. Conservatives do. Frank Meyer and William Buckley in the mid to late nineties synthesized these two to make up modern conservatives.

Plato said physical pain is temporary but damage to your soul is forever

5 Principles/justification of what the state can do:
Private harm
Public harm
Offense
Legal paternalism

Legal moralism

Aristotelian Ethics
Goal is for the human good
Particular vs Universal Justice.
There is a "golden mean" between too little of something and too much, but this does not refer to certain things like adultery, where there is no acceptable amount.
Justice is about receiving one's due. Wall Street bankers may be immoral to some, but they are not breaking any rules, and although they may be violating moral laws, they are still acting justly.
Not treating unequals equally! Meaning, if I get a 100% on a test and you get  50% we don't receive the same/equal grade.

Economics
A study of what humans value.
Objects only have subjective value b/c it is all about what you are willing to give up at that certain time.
If economic values are subjective than it is impossible to predict the future prices! Thus top down economies like socialism and communism with economic planners never work.
Resources are scarce, including time. When we make choices,there is always an opportunity cost for our choices, namely our #2 desire!
Choices show our values.
Marginal Opportunity Cost - What they are willing to buy or give up for one less unit. Margin refers to any change at the limits. ie 1 burrito \$5 2nd burrito you are only willing to pay \$3
3 Economic Systems: Capitalism, Socialism, Mixed Economy/Interventionism
Crises that are blamed on capitalism, but is caused by interventionism
Swedish economy is hard to place in the scale. The amount of economic freedom determines where you are among the systems.
Captialism is a voluntary exchange under rules (ie no breach of contract, use of force, etc.).

Ludwig Von Mises  in his 1920 book on socialism prediced it's fall. What's wrong with socialism? Say there is a farmer with no contact with the outside world. You go to him to buy eggs. He charges \$50 for a dozen and you say "no thank you." He then sells them to you for 50 cents a dozen and you ask "how many eggs do you have?" The farmer has no idea what the going rate is at the time because he has no contact with the market ie he has no information about supply and demand .

In socialism, the price controllers do not have enough information supply and demand /what the market desires. A few people cannot know what the wants and desires of the public are at anytime.

[nice article on Mises http://capitalismmagazine.com/2000/06/why-socialism-must-always-fail-ludwig-von-mises-on-economic-calculation-under-socialism/]

American public schools have been overtaken by liberally ideology via the philosophy of John Dewey and now the NEA.

Dr. Nash is a big school choice/voucher supporter with the caveat that government vouchers to private schools may control what private schools can teach (and believe that government overreach will likely happen).

Christian Ethics
Rules (specific examples) vs Principals (generalizations)

Dr. Nash's view - A thenomist is someone who believes all the OT rules are in effect unless specifically abrogated by the NT. A dispensationalist is someone who believes all the OT rules are abrogated unless specifically sanctioned by the NT.

Reconstructionists  are people who want Christianity to influence culture (ie dominion theology). All theonomists are reconstructionists, but not all reconstructionists are theonomists.

Abortion arguments. Need to distinguish between gender vs equity feminists (Nash's terms). Gender feminists see being female as oppressive and want everything they can to take of the shackles. Female reproduction is a major aggression against women, so they want abortion, irregardless if the fetus is a life.

Pro-life feminists see abortion as favoring irresponsible males and is another tool of the patriarchy. Men can only take life and women are the only ones who can give life. Reproduction is a beautiful thing.

Just War: From Wiki (but mentioned by Nash)
The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: "right to go to war" (jus ad bellum) and "right conduct in war" (jus in bello).

Ghandi non-violent resistance is a utopian pipe dream because it works against the British army, but not the Nazis!

## Monday, June 26, 2017

### Notes on Charles Ryrie - Dispensationalism Expanded and Revised Version

D = Dispensationalism or Dispensationalist CT = Covenant Theology or Covenant Theologian

Famous "ridicule the doctrine" attack is to say there are two or more ways of salvation and that the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5) is for a future age. Things, D do not believe.

Even CT have "dispensations" ie Berkhof sees 4 epochs in the OT.

"Concerning the goal of history, dispensationalists find it in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth, whereas the covenant theologian regards it as the eternal state."

"In short, the covenant of grace is God's plan of salvation, and therefore the unifying principle of covenant theology is soteriological. In dispensationalism the principle is theological or eschatological or doxological,..."

3 Sina qua non of D
1. Distinction between Israel and the Church
2. Grammatico-Histroical hermeneutic
3. Center of D is the glory of God.

Thus, the distinguishing characteristics of a different dispensation are three: (1) a
change in God's governmental relationship with man (though a dispensation does not
have to be composed entirely of completely new features); (2) a resultant change in man's
responsibility; and (3) corresponding revelation necessary to effect the change (which is
new and is a stage in the progress of revelation through the Bible).

Cross-sectional and longitudinal view of the progress of revelation (spiral)

On the Eternal state as a dispensation "In other words, the dispensational economies are related to the affairs of this present world, and they are no longer needed when the history of this world comes to a conclusion."

Some believe the Tribulation is a new / 8th dispensation or could be a re-instatement of the Mosaic / Law dispensation as the first 69 weeks of Daniel were in that time and the 70th is a continuation. Ryrie does not agree with this.

D of Innocency [sic]:
Adam was not merely innocent he had positive righteousness. "Also, his [Adam]holiness was unconfirmed until he could successfully pass the tests placed before him. Therefore, it seems that Adam's moral condition before God in those days of "innocency" was that of "unconfirmed creaturely holiness."

D of Conscience:
"During this stewardship man was responsible to respond to God through the promptings of his conscience, and part of a proper response was to bring an acceptable blood sacrifice as God had taught him to do (Gen. 3:21; 4:4). We have a record of only a few responding, and Abel, Enoch, and Noah are especially cited as heroes of faith."

D of Civil Government:
"The new revelation of this time included animals' fear of man, animals given to man to eat, the promise of no further floods, and the institution of capital punishment. It is the latter that gives the distinctive basis to this dispensation as that of human, or civil, government. God gave man the right to take the life of man, which in the very nature of the case gave man the authority to govern others."

D of of Promise, or Patriarchal Rule:
"Until this dispensation, all mankind had been directly related to God's governing principles. Now God marked out one family and one nation and in them made a representative test of all."

D of Grace:
"There are two aspects of the grace of God in this economy: (1) the blessing is entirely of grace and (2) that grace is for all. God is no longer dealing with just one nation as a sample but with all mankind."

Paul was the chief agent of revelation during this age.

Q: Does a dispensation in fact completely end when a new one is inaugurated, or in what sense does it end?
A: As a code of conduct and a specific revelation from God complete for its time, a dispensation ends. But some things may become part of succeeding codes in one way or another in the dispensations that follow. That is how, for example, Scripture can say that the law, and specifically the Ten Commandments, have been done away with (2 Cor. 3:7-11) and yet incorporate nine of those Ten Commandments plus other commandments in the law into the code of the dispensation of Grace

Covenant theology formulated in the 7th century, thus the recency argument not valid against D

Ryrie quotes Calvin: "charge of newness was leveled long ago at the doctrine of the Reformers. Calvin answered it with characteristic straightforwardness, and his answer is one that could be used to defend dispensationalism equally well against the same charge: "First, by calling it 'new' they do great wrong to God, whose Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty.... That it has lain long unknown and buried is the fault of man's impiety Now when it is restored to us by God's goodness, its claims to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of recovery"

"Orr, in his classic work The Progress of Dogma, shows how the doctrines taken up for theological study by the church throughout her history chronologically correspond with the general order followed in most systematic theologies. In chronological order the doctrinal discussions were on apologetics, theology proper, anthropology, Christology soteriology, and after the Reformation, eschatology.111 Undoubtedly the recency of systematic eschatology partly accounts for the relative recency of systematic dispensationalism"

Early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, as well as modern CT recognize dispensations, at the minimum of Law and Grace.

Pierre Poiret was a French mystic and philosopher (1646-1719)... In viewpoint it is sometimes mystical, represents a modified form of Calvinism, and is premillennial and dispensational..."his seventh dispensation is a literal thousand-year millennium with Christ returned and reigning in bodily form upon the earth with His saints, and Israel regathered and converted [quoting Ehlert]."

Isaac Watts (1674-1748) Had 6 dispensations that were the same as the Scofield Bible with the exception of the Millennium.

[Note: Pseudo-Ephraem texts (4th century?) support the pre-trib rapture circa 374-627  A.D. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=pretrib_arch]

The bottom-line questions are these: (1) Is the covenant of grace stated in Scripture? (2) Even if it is, should it be the controlling presupposition of hermeneutics and theology? (3) Even if there is a unity of redeemed peoples, does that remove disunities in God's program for His creations?

"To be sure, apocalyptic literature does employ symbols, but they stand for something actual"

D is about progressive not successive revelation. Each dispensation is not floating on its own.

He believes the sermon on the mount is primarily for Israel, but thay the ethical rules apply to the church today.

People see 2 ways of salvation in D due to wording issues: ie using the words "test" and "D of grace" makes it sound like there is work to pass the test and that other D did not have grace.

The Law was needed b/c Israel came out of bondage from Egypt and now needed a code to live by.

Some statements by Chafer really make it sound like the Israelite's gave up grace and put themselves under law, but these are taken out of context. Chafer and all D's vehemently deny anything, but sola fide.

"a dispensation often reincorporates features found in others."

There is no reason why the law should not incorporate grace and in no way change the promises made in a previous economy. After all, the promise to Noah concerning no further flooding of the earth was not abrogated by succeeding dispensational arrangements. The law, too, was added alongside the promise made to Abraham (Gal. 3:14-18).

Furthermore, the proper functioning and operation of the church is dependent on the giving of gifts to the body, and the giving of gifts is, in turn, dependent on the ascension of Christ (4:7-12). If by some stretch of the imagination the Body of Christ could be said to have been in existence before the ascension of Christ, then it would have to be concluded that it was a nonfunctioning body.

This clearly distinguishes those who have died "in Christ" in this age from believers who died before Christ's first advent, thus marking the church off as distinct to this age and a mystery hidden and unrevealed in Old Testament times.

Since the church is the Body of Christ (Col. 1:18), the church could not have begun until Pentecost, and it did begin on that day.

His death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation were the necessary foundation on which the church was to be built.

In Paul's prayer for natural Israel (Rom. 10:1) there is a clear reference to Israel as a national people distinct from and outside the church. He also wrote, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32). If the Jewish people were the same group as the church or the Gentiles, then certainly there would be no point in the apostle's distinction in this passage... That these words were written after the beginning of the church is proof that the church does not rob Israel of her blessings.

It is hard for CT to star the church with the Abrahamic covenant. They do so because that is the "start of Israel" (ie the Church is Israel), however, what about Godly people before then? Pre-Israel?

Amill/Cov Premill believe the kingdom is inaugurated spiritually. Cov Premill believes in a messianic reign.

D believes if the Jews did accept Jesus, He would still need to be crucified, and then only would Israel kingdom reign be able to have started. D therefore does not minimize the role of the cross.

The contingent offer of the Davidic kingdom by Jesus was bona fide, and it was not a spiritual kingdom that He announced. That does not mean that dispensa-tionalists fail to recognize the rule of God in the heart today, but the Body of believers today constitutes the church, not the Davidic kingdom. The sometime distinction between the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God is not an issue at all

The initial period started with J. N. Darby and continued through the publication of L. S. Chafer's Systematic Theology in 1948. Progressives label this the classical period. (I personally think it makes better sense to divide the early/ Darby era from the Scofield/Chafer period). The second (or third) era extends from the 1950s almost to the 1990s and includes the writings of Alva McClain, John Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and myself. This was first called by progressives the essentialist period (from my listing of the essentials—the sine qua non—of dispensationalism), but more recently it has been changed to the revised period. The third (or fourth) present period differs from the previ-ous ones because it includes "a number of modifications" and "sufficient revisions"

This already/not yet bifurcation is not new in theological parlance. Nor is it always used in the two-pronged concept of the Davidic rule (now in heaven, later on earth). Introduced by C. H. Dodd in 1926, it meant generally that the kingdom of God was already present, even though in some way it was also future. In George Ladd the "already" relates to Christ's reign in salvation and the "not yet" to His future reign in the Millennium. In Hoekema (an amillennialist) it means Christ's present heavenly reign on earth and His future reign in the new heavens and new earth.301 In Sproul (an amillennialist) the "already" is the present age and the "not yet" is the eternal state.302 In progressive dispensationalism, the "already" is Christ's present reign in partial fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and the "not yet" is His millennial reign.

Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews plainly declares that Christ "sat down at the right hand of the throne of God," not the throne of David (12:2)... Remember, too, that David himself was designated and anointed to be king some time before he began to reign as king.

"However, it is preferable to see David's earthly throne as different from the Lord's heavenly throne, because of the different contexts of Psalms 110 and 132. Psalm 110 refers to the Lord's throne (v 1) and a Melchizedekian priesthood (v 4) but Psalm 132 refers to David's throne (v 11) and (Aaronic) priests (w 9, 16).

New Testament references focus on the blood as payment [ie why the New Cov is not currently inaugurated]. In the Upper Room that payment is clearly related to the future fulfillment of the new covenant.

CT see multiple references to the temple (building, church, Christ's body, etc) and say the temple in Rev 11 is the church, thus the church is in the tribulation.

CT point - OT promises fulfilled via Christ's rule in the New Heavens and New Earth?

CT first mentioned in the Westminster Confession of Faith

The ideas and concepts contained in the covenants of works and grace are not unscriptural. But they are ideas that are not systematized, formalized, and stated by Scripture as covenants. At least the dispensationalist finds the word dispensation used of one or two of his specific dispensations (Eph. 1:10; 3:9); the covenant theologian never finds in the Bible the terms covenant of works and covenant of grace.

No one disputes the fact that covenant is a very basic idea in Scripture and that a number of specific covenants are revealed in Scripture. But there remains still the reality that nowhere does Scripture speak of a covenant of works or a covenant of grace as it does speak of a covenant with Abraham or a covenant with David or a new covenant.

Dispensationalists say that the church began at Pentecost, while ultradispensationalists believe that it began with Paul sometime later

Bullingerism has been stigmatized as 'ultra' Dispensationalism.

Bullinger believed in soul sleep and annihilation (?)

He also denied that water baptism and the Lord's Supper are for this age.

Virtually all ultradispensationalists, of whatever school, agree that it did not begin at Pentecost. All dispensationalists agree that it did. Therefore, ultra-dispensationalism may be defined, or certainly characterized rather definitively, as the school of interpretation that places more than one dispensation between Pentecost and the end of the church age.
_____________________

Differences with PD (progressive dispensationalism) & ND (normative dispensationalism)

They see "successive arrangements in progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption" not just relations changing between God and man

See intermingling of the millennium and eternal state thus diminishing the significance of God's accomplishments in history (ND sees history as culminating in the millennium) with Christ's
Less distinction between the church and Israel

Progressive dispensationalists place the eternal state as the second part of their final dispensation (the first part being the millennial kingdom), which is called either "the future dispensation" or the "Zionic dispensation.

PD does not include Pre-fall / Innocence a dispensation.

Neodispensationalism (Modified D?)
(1) the kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history; (2) Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic covenant and is now reigning in heaven on the throne of David (right hand of the Father = the throne of David); (3) the concept of two purposes and two peoples of God (Israel and the church) is not valid; (4) thus, the church is not a separate group of redeemed people, nor was it un-revealed in the Old Testament (just unrealized); (5) there is one divine plan of holistic redemption for all people and all areas of human life (personal, societal, cultural, and political).

"Others, while not agreeing with the view that all the Old Testament promises are now fulfilled spiritually in the church, are saying that these promises have been inaugurated and begun to be fulfilled now in the church age and will be consummated in the new heavens and new earth (the already/not yet concept).145 Whereas half of this viewpoint is the same as that taught in progressive dispensationalism (i.e., the promises have already been inaugurated), the second half is not the same (since covenantalists believe that the consummation will be only in the eternal state and progressives say it will be in the Millennium and eternal state)."

"...they have introduced what they call complementary hermeneutics. This means that "the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise."

Ryrie believes PD's hermeneutic jettison's the ability to do literal / dispensational hermeneutics

They seem to describe the various dispensations more in relation to the history of salvation and the accomplishment of redemption than to the different codes that governed many aspects of life as revealed through the total stewardship arrangement instituted by God in each dispensation.

PD sees a more Christologic/Messianic goal to history (implication for the Davidic covenant reign now?)

Progressive dispensationalism teaches that the mystery character of the church means not that the church was unrevealed in Old Testament times but only that it was unrealized. The view also makes the baptism of the Spirit more of a metaphor related to Messianic times in general, including the nation Israel when it turns to Christ in the future.

By introducing different facets to the concept of the church, the church in this new view is less distinct. For example, Craig Blaising writes, "Progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel.... The church is neither a separate race of humanity [true]... nor a competing nation [perhaps not competing, but a nation nevertheless, 1 Peter 2:9]. . .The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself."

By redefining the concept of the church as a mystery, the church has a less distinctive purpose in God's plan

In a similar vein [to amill] revisionist/progressive dispensationalists view the mystery as unrealized but not completely unrevealed in the Old Testament

Instead, the church is submerged into the broader kingdom concept and called a "functional outpost of God's kingdom" and a "sneak preview" of the future kingdom

Progressive dispensationalism (1) teaches that Christ is already reigning in heaven on the throne of David, thus merging the church with a present phase of the already inaugurated Davidic covenant and kingdom; (2) this is based on a complementary hermeneutic that allows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to Old Testament revelation; and (3) the overall purpose of God is Christological, holistic redemption being the focus and goal of history.

One divergence seems to be this: normative dispensationalists distinguished the future heavenly promises for Jewish Christians who become part of the Body of Christ from the future promises for national Israel in the earthly Millennium; progressives do not ("A Jew who becomes a Christian today does not lose his or her relationship to Israel's future promises").

Basic Tenets of PD
1. The kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history.
2. Within biblical history there are four dispensational eras.
3. Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic reign in heaven at the right hand of the Father, which equals the throne of David, though He not yet reigns as Davidic king on earth during the Millennium.
4. Likewise, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yet fully realized until the Millennium.
5. The concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid.
6. A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside a literal hermeneutic. This means that the New Testament makes complementary changes to Old Testament promises without jettisoning those original promises.
7. The one divine plan of holistic redemption encompasses

progressives conclude that the church is the "present reality of the coming eschatological kingdom."

The major similarities, if not sameness, between Ladd and progressives are these: (1) the focus on the kingdom of God as an overall, all-encompassing theme; (2) the already/not yet, progressively realized nature of the kingdom; (3) the present position of Christ reigning in heaven as the Messianic/Davidic king.

Progressives view the new covenant (like the Davidic covenant) as already inaugurated by Christ, who is dispensing certain of its blessings in this age, even though its provisions will not yet be fully realized until the Millennium. Furthermore, the new covenant will be mediated by the Davidic king, since the new covenant is the form in which the Abrahamic covenant blessing will be fulfilled

Bock Lecture:
Classic no not yet already no Davidic reign new covenant only to Israel. Sermon on the mount only applies to Israel.

Revised D only one new covenant with an application to the church. Sermon of the mouth can apply to Israel.

PD already not yet Davidic reign now / Davidic reign now. We are incorporated into Abraham via our incorporation with Christ. Church functions like Israel thus can share the same terminology. Sermon on the mount is for both Church and Israel. The current Jewish remnant is "bridging?" the OT past and NT future promises now.

Substitute metaphor for millennium in Rev 20. Mentioned too much to be an actual metaphor.

## Tuesday, June 20, 2017

### Notes on Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Garden of Eden is not an economy b/c there was unlimited resources

Need economy due to scarcity and that we have desires that are unmet!

Allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses ie Triage

One resource can be used different ways

Natural resources do not necessarily equal riches

Scarce resources and unmet needs are relative to their prices often. If we have a lack of teachers that is based on today's price. If we gave teachers a million dollars a year we would have no lack.

Some things are just scarce because it is economically scarce such as oil in Canada that is now profitable given high oil costs and better technology.

Taking from one use diminishes its use somewhere else.

Prices tell us if we actually want something and they adjust accordingly. If an outside source, such as government, messes with this equilibrium, supply & demand will be skewed, including less production of the thing people wanted more due to diminishing profits

Stores in rough neighborhoods have higher costs due to increased need of security, shoplifting, and risk

Payday loans have a high interest rate because they are not intended to be long term loans. These business have high risk (not to mention start up costs, employee costs, etc) and are located in rough neighborhoods, precisely because banks do not want to go there. For some, the 70% interest rate for 1 week is worth it to have running water or electricity and without these places, they would have no way to get cash. It may be worth it for them.

Risk needs to be considered. It is important to remember most business go out of business and that there are seasons of losses...

Other costs such as transportation, are the reason small local chain stores faded out of business, as multiple trips for 100 apples is more expensive than 1 trip for 100 apples ie A&P Grocers

Even though it may take a street artist to make something in 5 minutes, it took him 20 years (investment) to get to the skill level. The 20 year investment needs a ROI or we will have no artists

Big corps do not make "excessive profits" more like 10%. Profits cause business to strive to do better and become more efficient. The socialist system, did not have this incentive, so they did not succeed as well. The socialist incentives are sometimes life & death!

Economies of scale are important. Australia cannot afford to make cars b/c it cannot sell enough domestically nor compete with the existing infrastructure of big car companies (ie R&D costs, etc.)

Just because wages are cheaper in other countries doesn't mean they can make items at a cheaper costs because a poor countries capital cost may be too high and their workers less efficient. Rich countries' workers make more, but are more efficient with less capital costs = more output for less.

Political incentives (short term or for re-election) or different from the market's incentives.

Tariff's are bad because they do not take into account the all affected groups. These are focused on saving jobs or helping specific domestic specialist groups over the general public/consumers

Populations that are more open tend to have "better human capital"

Malthus population control theory is wrong b/c increasing populations have brought the ability, and subsequently, more wealth

Not all cultures are equal economically. Some have needed to save food for the winter and some did not b/c sunshine was plentiful. This led to some cultures putting a premium on saving.

Something is not a natural resource (ie oil) unless there is technology to use it

Some resources are only "scarce" b/c current technology is prohibitively expensive

Keynesian Economics - Governmental role  is important and can fine tune the economy thus help (inflation during depression to help curb unemployment)

Friedman and the Chicago school of economics disagree with the Keynesians and believe in the market

--

### 1 & 2 Kings and Isaiah Notes - Including Motyer Commentary Notes

Overview of Biblical History

Ruth - 1&2 Kings = 1 path ; Chronicles just Judah with priestly focus; Prophets interdigitated

DTS 1-2 Kings overview

RTS Judges - Esther Lectures 4?

CTS - OT History Lecture 31-35

SLJ on 1 Kings

Dr. Douglas Stuart on BTI?

Why was 1&2 Kings written? It was written during the captivity to let them know how they got there and how to get back

Adonijah was not disciplined. David's failures (women and fatherhood) are his children's. Shame as this was Solomon's downfall.

The Solomonic kingdom was the height of Israel's earthly glory. 1&2 Kings starts their and ends with the beginning of the return. Please cf Ezra when the old timers cry when they see the rebuilt temple in comparison to Solomon's.

Expulsion of the sodomites

Elisha and the bears - These were not young kids, but young men. Wild animals were a sign of judgment. Other places where wild animals kill - Lion's death too of the prophet and of the man who would not strike the prophet. Lions kill the Babylonians who settle in Samaria 2 Kings 17:25. Cf Leviticus 26:21-22

Cover the blessings and curses of the Palestinian covenant

Rules for kings Deut 17 - predicted

Jeroboam sets up 2 places of worship one up north and the other in Bethel along the way to Jerusalem

Jeroboam's covenant

Nehusta

Mention Jonah

Joshua's curse on Jericho

The curse on Abiathar

Shimei's treachery

Athaliah sees an opportunity here. She was married to the king of the south. She has had her husband killed. She will now kill off all the other descendants of David trying to take over and sets herself up as queen for six years (Kingdom of God vs Kingdom of Satan)

Prophets' / God's word vs the Kings -think current political situation

Baal is the storm and rain God that brings fertility. Tempting to worship him in a dry land like Canaan. Think our current political situation. The death god Mot brings forth the dry season by binding Baal and then anath frees him from Mot to bring back the rain. God therefore sends Elijah to say there will be no rain for 3 years!

Passing children through the fire = Abortion

Syncretic religion in the North basically is liberal Christianity today

Sennacherib invasion also in Isaiah (go into text criticism). Shebnah and Elikiah commentary in Isaiah 22.

Isaiah 30:1-5 explicitly states Judah's desire to partner with and take security in Egypt, rather than trusting in the LORD.

Hezekiah shows Babylon his riches, b/c although still under Assyrian rule, they are a rising in power and he wanted to make friends with them (and not trust in God).

Elisha does miracles for the Israelites (for believing remnant? per Belcher)

Elisha does miracles similar to Christ - heals foreigner, multiplying loaves of bread

Elisha performs military style / warfare miracles

2 Kings 9:13 robes are placed on the ground a la triumphal entry
___________________

Isaiah
Motyer commentary

Master's Seminary Essex

RTS Isaiah-Malachi Lectures

SLJ Isaiah

___
The New Testament does not simply express its dependence on the Old Testament by quoting it. The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. The books most used are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). In the Book of Revelation, there are no formal quotations at all, but no fewer than 620 allusions

Unwanted Sacrifices
Calling Good Evil
Chapter 6
Virgin Birth
Immanuel / He will be called prince of peace
Isaiah 53
Laying down Lion and lamb/cow?
Cyrus
King of Tyre/Satan - Latin translation is Lucifer
Armor of God
Isaiah 55:11 God's word doesn't return empty.
Isaiah 40 - Go over, has the verse below, speaks of God's sovereignty, is the start of a new section
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.
Trinity chapter SLJ
42:23-24 and Ch 1 Motyer says of 23:23 that "The Lord was dishonored by a religion on the cheap; here the assumption that sacrifices were mechanical in the effect dishonors the moral holiness of the Lord by subjecting him to a form of magic." v24 says "But you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses." Motyer says 'On burdened/'made a slave of'... the technique of sacrifice God could be made to do their bidding."
Isaiah 45 is awesome

Hezekiah shows that he first trusted in Egypt and the LORD, however, after Rabshakeh's pronouncement and upon his first retreat, Rabshakeh's notes Hezekiah's allegiance to just LORD. He at first tore his clothes and asked Isaiah to pray, but now he does not rend his clothes and prays himself. Hezekiah's prayer is concerned with who God is, His honour, His uniqueness, and His Glory (From Motyer)

Hezekiah was a good king with an impressive record of religious reform, but his heart was not wholly toward God as he relied on worldly arms, politics, instead of God.

Hezekiah was healed and given 15 years and was directly tested afterwards by Babylon's envoy. Will he choose a military and political alliance in fighting Assyria or trust in the God who just healed him?

In the midst of political chaos come compassion and car for His people.

Began writing at Uzziah's death and there may be  a concern about a return of a wicked king

Essex's view of the purpose of Isaiah:
The holy Yahweh will not permit unholiness in His people, so He will therefore deal with them in such a way as to chasten and purge them and make them fit to participate in His program extending His rule over the Gentiles.

Last 27 ch directed to the future exiled Israelites!

--

3 sections King, servant, conqueror

Main theme Holy one of Israel/ Holiness

See first chapter section c King - awesome threat of holiness servant - the lengths God will go to deal with sin conqueror - the Kingdom / eternal state God is preparing

Ahaz teamed up with Assyria to help him fight the north, but by doing this the Davidic dyanasthy effectively ended as the remaining kings inherited a "puppet throne." Trusting in earthly kings above the divine kings was a lack of faith in God. Isaiah 6-8 are about the consequences that will be reaped by Ahaz's reliance on Assyria and not YHWH.

Deutero and Trito Isaiah all based on conjecture, non-manuscript evidence and materialistic presuppositions.

Dying Uzziah is juxtaposed to the living Holy God in ch 6.

Ch 10 The final woe is to leaders who deliberately make corrupt and/or self-seeking laws.

10:16-18 as an example of complex literary skill.  Also ch. 11 with its inclusios.
Ch 12 whole format
Ch 13-23 doublet where Isaiah comments on the nations Israel is surrounded by in gr N S W E directions with Israel in the middle. Location 3950
Ch 32:6-8 3 sentences each successive stanza is two line shorter giving climatic force to the third line
52:13-53:12 is one unit. 5 stanzas of 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 lines.

God's heart to the devastation of Moab ch 15-16

Isaiah 24 especially vs 21 God's punishment of the heavenly and earthly rulers and comparison to His awesome glory.

Isaiah 25:10-12 Moab's downfall caused by their pride and self-sufficiency are shown as swimming in manure.

God erases the memory and utterly destroys his enemies. For who remember Pharoah's name. He does restrain Himself in punishing His people 27:7

Isaiah 29:21 "In the three lines of verse 21 we meet in turn the false witness, the bent lawyer and the corrupt judge."

Isaiah 32:5 "An imperfect society imperfectly accords honours" - Motyer. The righteous messianic king, brings righteous rulers, and thus a righteous society

Bright, History of Israel, 1960 notes that there are remains of 1500 in  a pit that is possibly the remains of Sennacherib's campaign.

Isaiah 40:12-31 Summary of God as Creator and His omnipotence and sovereignty

In Babylonian mythology, the creator God Marduk had to consult with "Ea, the all wise" not our God! In Babylonian and Caanite creation stories the creator must overcome opposing forces.

Isaiah 42:5 - Not evolution, but God the creator and sustainer!

42:6 Servant of the Lord will be a covenant to the people ie the means by which the people will enter the covenant.

43:20 The animals ie whole world is brought into harmony in the Messianic day.

Isaiah 44:9-20 about modern people and idols. "In our generation we would nominate different 'craftsmen' ... and different constructs... but the absurdity of devotion to the man-made (today's military, economic and market forces) remains." Isaiah talks about spiritual blindness and even the idol makers inability (cf 44:18)  to see the facts. Motyer notes, Isaiah doubts even if they could see the facts that they would not be able to process them correctly.

44:25-26 Whether supernatural diviners or rationale wise men, they all fail against God's wisdom.

51-52 Exodus motif of wrath and redemption (Passover, Punishment of Egyption/Redemption of Jews)

51:1 Jesus refers to when claiming Abraham's sons could be made from stone?

50:6 turn the other cheek?

50:9 now there is no condemnation - Romans 8:1

51:8 moth and garment motif

56:9-12 God does not buy into the view that policies only matter not the personal lives of the politicians.

57:5 Trees were part of the Canaanite fertility cult and orgiastic ceremonies. These sexual ceremonies were performed in the sanctuary to stimulate Baal to fertilize animals, land, and humans. Sacrifice of children to please the god of the underworld - a charm against death.

57:12-13 Reminds me of Matthew 7

59:17-18 The original "armor of God"

63:16 & 64:8 God is called "our Father"

64: menstrual rags

65:17-25 New Heavens and New Earth

### Politics: Church and State

Noahic Covenant
Genesis 9
Cain - Genesis 4:15
Lamech - Genesis 4:23-24

Theocracy of Israel

New Testament
Church is not made to be  theocracy, but Christ will (is) reigning

Christ's future theocracy

Peter's defiance
4:18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Romans 12
13 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Mark 12:17
17 And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.

Burkean Conservatism in First Principles ISI Web Journal
Peter J. Stanlis - 07/25/11

"Burke’s statement that “the principles of true politics are those of morality enlarged” makes his politics a branch of ethics and thus separates him completely from Machiavelli and the whole modern political tradition that makes power supreme. His basic political principles are based on the ancient classical and Christian moral natural law, derived from God and perceived by all uncorrupted men through “right reason.” The moral natural law provided Burke with the normative principles by which to judge whether or not rulers used their power to fulfill or to violate the great ends of civil society—the protection of life, liberty, and property [14th amendment]—which Burke regarded as the necessary means of achieving temporal happiness. Through legal prescription, which derived from natural law, Burke defended private and corporate property as the necessary condition of the maintenance of freedom in society."

Declaration of Independence (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript)

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Great Conservative Minds: A Condensation of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” by Aaron McLeod. 2005. Alabama Policy Institute

"Six Canons of Conservatism"
"Belief in a transcendent order or body of natural law that rules society as well
as conscience. There is objective truth in the universe, and we can know it. Further, it is
the great object of politics to apprehend and apply true Justice to a “community of souls.”
Kirk rightly places this idea first on the list; for a conservative, moral relativism is not an
option. On this point all others will depend. There are such things as truth and right, falsehood
and wrong. Without an unchanging standard, attempts at social living are doomed
beforehand for failing to acknowledge that men are spiritual beings not infinitely malleable."

14th Amendment Section 1:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State... I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

Hyde Amendment Codification Act - Prohibits the expenditure for any abortion of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law .

Prohibits the use of federal funds for any health benefits coverage that includes abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, and plans receiving federal funds must keep them segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/142)

Mexico City Policy - President Trumps signs an Executive order re-instating this policy that was originally written by President Reagan.

Johnson Amendment & Trumps recent EO "Promoting Free a Speech and Religious Liberty"
Trump has promised to repeal the so-called Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision that prohibits tax-exempt organizations from participating in political activities. Proposed by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and later revised by Congress, it keeps churches and other non-profits from lobbying for specific causes, campaigning on behalf of politicians, and supporting or opposing candidates for office.

While opponents of the Johnson Amendment often frame their objections in terms of free speech, the provision’s primary impact may be financial. Right now, the IRS makes a clear distinction between non-profit groups—from charities and universities to certain private schools and houses of worship—and political organizations.

If the Johnson Amendment were repealed, pastors would be able to endorse candidates from the pulpit, which they’re currently not allowed to do by law. But it’s also true that a lot more money could possibly flow into politics via donations to churches and other religious organizations. That could mean religious groups would become much more powerful political forces in American politics—and it would almost certainly tee up future court battles. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/how-trump-is-trying-to-put-more-money-in-politics/493823/)

Blaine Amendment
Columbia, Missouri, that is Trinity Lutheran Church, that has a Montessori school for young children that is sponsored by the congregation The Blaine amendment at the federal level died in terms of that effort in 1875. The wording of the amendment as proposed was this:
“No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

You’ve heard that before, the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. But it continued,
“And no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.” (http://www.albertmohler.com/2017/04/19/briefing-04-19-17/) Supreme court recently ruled in favor

Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority said,
“The State in this case expressly requires Trinity Lutheran a renounce its religious character in order to participate in an otherwise generally available public benefit program, for which it is fully qualified. Our cases make clear,” said the Chief Justice, “that such a condition imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must be subjected to the ‘most rigorous’ scrutiny.” (http://www.albertmohler.com/2017/06/27/briefing-06-27-17/)

From the official ruling:
The Department’s policy violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying the Church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status (Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S., (2017)

Prop 8 and Obergefell decision
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.  Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S., (2015)

Burwell v Hobby Lobby. 573 U.S., (2014)
As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]

Right of conscience in medicine

House Bill 2 (HB2) North Carolina / Canadian Bill C16

Tax exemption status and separation of church and state

Two Poles: Reconstructionism vs Benedict Option

It maintains that the world should be brought under (reconstructed) the lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas: social, moral, political, judicial, military, family, art, education, music, etc. (CARM.org)

" I believe that Christians now have got to realize that we’re living in a post-Christian civilization and take measures to build a kind of ark for ourselves with which to ride out the dark ages, to hold onto our faith, and tender the faith for such a time as light returns and civilization wants to hear the gospel again... Saint Benedict of Nursia, the 6th century saint, who was a Christian who lived through the fall of the Roman Empire; he was born four years after the Empire officially fell. And he went down to Rome to get his education and saw it was completely corrupt, it was falling apart. He went out to the woods to pray; he lived in cave for three years, and asked God to show him what to do with his life. He ended up coming out and founding a monastic order...Benedict Option is sort of a blanket term referring to Christians, the choice that we all have to make now to be countercultural, to quit trying to shore up the imperium and instead focus on building new forms of local community, churches, Christian schools, things like that that will thicken our relationship to each other and make our roots go deeper in the gospel, in the Christian tradition, so we can survive these dark ages to come." Rod Dreher Author of The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. Interview on albertmohler.com