# The Real Meaning of the Zodiac by D. James Kennedy



## cultureshock

I was wondering if anyone has read D. James Kennedy's The Real Meaning of the Zodiac. It seems a bit suspect to me on two grounds: First, the book has the full support of TBN having been a love gift a few years ago, and second, Kennedy seems to have a few other quirky views. I haven't read the book yet, but I am curious whether other people on this board have. 

Brian

[Edited on 12-31-2005 by cultureshock]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Go with your instincts... Stick with the Word of revelation.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> I was wondering if anyone has read D. James Kennedy's The Real Meaning of the Zodiac. It seems a bit suspect to me on two grounds: First, the book is has the full support of TBN having been a love gift a few years ago, and second, Kennedy seems to have a few other quirky views. I haven't read the book yet, but I am curious whether other people on this board have.
> 
> Brian



Brian,

The Gospel is not revealed in the stars or anywhere in nature. Only the law, God's existence and some of his attributes are revealed in nature (Rom 1-2). 

WCF 1.1:



> Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation...



The attempt to correlate the gospel with astronomy reveals, if I may say, a sort of rationalism. The Gospel cannot be made "reasonable" to autonomous man (1 Cor 1-2).

Apart from the regenerating illumination of the Spirit, it is necessarily judged by them to be "foolish."

Some years back, I saw him preach a version of this and couldn't believe my eyes or ears. It is not a model to be imitated!

rsc


----------



## Texas Aggie

God is infinite.

God has an infinite number of ways to reveal Himself as well as His Son to His elect.

The Gospel is: "Christ died according to the scriptures."

How this is revealed to a man is up to God... not man. If He chooses to use nature or the stars, that is between Him and the chosen. There is an infinite number of ways God will reach His individual elect.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> God is infinite.



True.



> God has an infinite number of ways to reveal Himself as well as His Son to His elect.



This is nowhere in the Scriptures, which are the revealed will of God. In fact, the Scriptures say the exact opposite:

1 Corinthians 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God *through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe*.

1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, *which are able to make you wise for salvation* through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Peter 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom. 10:17)




> The Gospel is: "Christ died according to the scriptures."
> 
> How this is revealed to a man is up to God... not man. If He chooses to use nature or the stars, that is between Him and the chosen. There is an infinite number of ways God will reach His individual elect.



How the gospel is revealed is up to God -- and He has chosen His Word.


----------



## cultureshock

Thanks for the feedback. I was caught off guard a bit because Kennedy often has very good things to say, but this book just seems way out there.

Brian


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> God is infinite.
> 
> God has an infinite number of ways to reveal Himself as well as His Son to His elect.



This is not in question exactly. No one is limiting what God _might_ do (with respect to his absolute power). It is that we know *nothing* about what God might but has not done. To say God could do X (but hasn't or hasn't promised that he shall) is speculation not theology.



> The Gospel is: "Christ died according to the scriptures."



Very true. Do you notice the qualifier Paul used? "According to the _scriptures_" It is notable, in this context, that he did not say, "according to the stars"!



> How this is revealed to a man is up to God... not man.



Again, this is not in question. What is in question is how he has revealed the gospel. You did not quote "the stars" you quoted Scripture! Why? Because that's where the gospel is. 

If we had to rely on deciphering the stars, we would never get it. Why? Because the Apostle Paul says that our minds are darkened by sin. We are dead in sins and trespasses. Thus Paul says in Rom 1-2 that nature convicts us. It leaves us without excuse. It nowhere says that the natural man can find the saving message of the death and resurrection if he stares at the night sky. Who in the whole history of humanity has deduced the gospel purely from the stars? No one. 

What reputable Reformed theologian or ecclesiastical confession teaches that the sinner can find the gospel in the stars? Where has God promised to use the stars or nature to preach his gospel or to what part of nature has attached saving promises? None. 

That is why the Westminster Confession -- your confession -- and Heidelberg Catechism 65 are explicit that it is through the preaching of the gospel that God has promised (Rom 10 - Paul didn't say, "How shall they see it in the stars, if someone doesn't point it out") to bring his elect to faith.

The notion that the gospel is in the stars betrays a serious misunderstanding of Scripture, Reformed theology, the distinction between law and gospel and the relation between special and general revelation.

I can understand these things existing among the laity but not in a highly trained minister.

rsc


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The Gospel is not revealed in the stars or anywhere in nature. Only the law, God's existence and some of his attributes are revealed in nature (Rom 1-2).



Dr. Clark, I fully understand and agree with your (and others') comments on the distinctions between general and special revelation, as well as the Word being God's chosen means for communicating and applying the latter. 

What I'm a bit unclear on, though, is the Law and Gospel distinction as you mention it here. I fully agree with the Westminster Confession's beginning, stating that "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation." I also naturally agree that, while there is _much_ intertwining and overlap between Law and Gospel in their purpose and what they both point to alike, there is still nonetheless a certain biblical _distinction_ between the two as well, concerning both content and function.

I do not see in WCF 1.1 (or anywhere else in Scripture, the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity), however, the distinction you seemed to be making between the two with respect to what is revealed in general revelation. Why do you say that there is a definite sense in which God's existence, attributes and Law are all revealed in general revelation (through creation, common grace, etc.), but not His Gospel? I fully agree that the Gospel is not revealed in creation in such an explicit way as to give the knowledge of it possessed by believers (which is only given by the Word) - but I would also say that the same type of thing is true of the Law (and thus at least some of God's attributes), namely that it is not revealed in creation in such an explicit way as to give the same degree of knowledge of it that believers possess (which is only given by the Word).

(To the Administrators and other Moderators, the reason I posted this here rather than starting a new thread is because I think it would be a good issue to clarify in light of the topic of what types and degrees of knowledge can or cannot be obtained from general revelation, since that is the central topic of concern regarding the soundness of Kennedy's book.)

[Edited on 12-31-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Texas Aggie

Either way you wish to view this is fine with me. An infinite God may reveal Himself in an infinite manner... otherwise, you (man) limit God and His capabilities to save His elect. This is scriptural logic 101.

If He so chooses to use the stars than so be it. If He chooses to use a burning bush or even a jack ass to reveal Himself to His elect then so be it. 

The gospel declares that Christ died and was raised from the grave in three days according to the scripture. We have the scripture; however, we also have the Spirit (as partakers of the New Covenant). The Spirit will infact show you all things pertaining to God (even without the devine text if needed).

Please don't limit an infinite God as well as the workings of an infinite Spirit.


----------



## Texas Aggie

Joshua,

No, those who He has chosen from the foundation have the Spirit (both old and new).

Faith can be given in an infinite number of ways as well. Faith comes by hearing... hearing the word of God. But you first need the ears to hear.

Unregenerate man can not and will not hear the things pertaining to God. God has given His elect eyes to see and ears to hear.

There is more to faith than just "hearing" the word of God. He gives His chosen a means to accept His word (eyes to see, ears to hear... as well as a new heart to know Him).

Hearing the gospel is just one way to receive faith (and this is a gift). A gift that can be given to you in an infinite number of ways by an infinite God.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Either way you wish to view this is fine with me. An infinite God may reveal Himself in an infinite manner... otherwise, you (man) limit God and His capabilities to save His elect. This is scriptural logic 101.
> 
> If He so chooses to use the stars than so be it. If He chooses to use a burning bush or even a jack ass to reveal Himself to His elect then so be it.
> 
> The gospel declares that Christ died and was raised from the grave in three days according to the scripture. We have the scripture; however, we also have the Spirit (as partakers of the New Covenant). The Spirit will infact show you all things pertaining to God (even without the devine text if needed).
> 
> Please don't limit an infinite God as well as the workings of an infinite Spirit.



Matt, one problem with that logic is that it misses the heart of the question: We all equally agree that God, because of both His infinite nature as well as His omnipotence, is _able to_ reveal Himself through infinite means if He would so choose - but that does not mean that He will, and in fact it does not even mean that He has not revealed to us specific ways He will (and will _not_) do so. In other words, the question is not, "Can God...?" but rather "Has (or will) God...?" and the issue of whether or not we definitively know the answer to that latter question from Scripture.

Otherwise, by your logic, an inclusivist or even a relativist, Muslim or agnostic could say, "You Christians say that God is infinite - therefore, you have no right to limit the infinite ways in which He may choose to save people. If He wishes to save people through faith in the power of nature, or faith in the aspects of Zeus that parallel His own, or even without faith at all, then so be it. Please do not hypocritically limit the infinite work and possibility of your own God by telling me I can't be saved apart from Christ." I'm guessing that in response to that you're thinking, "But I _can_ say that Christ is the only means by which God saves people, since God, though infinite and omnipotent, has specifically revealed that particular aspect of His plan to us." Well, that truth about God's chosen means of justification is precisely the same truth Bruce, Scott and Fred are highlighting with regard to God's chosen means of revelation.

I do not want to go into the whole issue of cessationism from Scripture, as I think that would be beyond the intended bounds of this thread, but for some more in-depth thoughts and treatment of mine on that issue, do a search for "cessationism" with my username as the author.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...the same truth Bruce, Scott and Fred are highlighting with regard to God's chosen means of revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ahem..._
> 
> J/K
Click to expand...


Hehe...actually, I had started typing my post before your second one was posted.  (And the reason my post is after Josh's now is that in trying to edit something else I had said in mine, I ended up deleting it, but fortunately had it copied!)


----------



## Texas Aggie

Josh asked: From whence cometh the "ears to hear" then?

He (God) gives His chosen a means to accept His word (eyes to see, ears to hear... as well as a new heart to know Him). This is why there is more to one's faith than just "hearing." God has to provide the means for His elect to "hear" in the first place as well as give them a heart transplant.

God is not limited to saving His people via divine text. He can bring a cock roach to your door to preach the Gospel.... or you may even see something in the sky. I am not saying you will, I'm saying you may.... because God is infinite.

As for me, I simply use the devine text and the Spirit because I have access to both (and this is what God has shown me). Moses was shown something else.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Either way you wish to view this is fine with me. An infinite God may reveal Himself in an infinite manner... otherwise, you (man) limit God and His capabilities to save His elect. This is scriptural logic 101.
> 
> If He so chooses to use the stars than so be it. If He chooses to use a burning bush or even a jack ass to reveal Himself to His elect then so be it.
> 
> The gospel declares that Christ died and was raised from the grave in three days according to the scripture. We have the scripture; however, we also have the Spirit (as partakers of the New Covenant). The Spirit will infact show you all things pertaining to God (even without the devine text if needed).
> 
> Please don't limit an infinite God as well as the workings of an infinite Spirit.



Matt,

Your argument is not logical. You are assuming the conclusion. This is known as begging the question (_petitio principii_). 

Further, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. 

1. God is omnipotent (as I and others have said, this is not at question)
2. God might reveal himself in the stars
3. Therefore God has revealed himself in the stars.

The conclusion does not follow. 

Implied in your argument is, I think, a hidden premise that God is bound by no limits whatever. This is a false premise. 

Certainly there are limits inherent to being God. He cannot cease to be or to be God. That's a limit. I don't think it bothers him a bit. He cannot be anything other than he is. That's a limit. He cannot contradict himself. That's a limit.

You are also overlooking the distinction between the _potentia Dei absoluta et ordinata_. We have always distinguished between what God can do absolutely and what he has willed or ordained to do. We only know what he has ordained or willed to do and we only know his revealed will in Scripture. 

God could make any number of remarkable things happen, but that doesn't mean they will or do happen. This potentials are contingent upon the ordained will of God. 

Where does Scripture teach that God has revealed the gospel, that sinners are justified sola gratia, sola fide in Christ alone?

What do you make of WCF 1.1? Were the divines in error? Should we revise the WCF? 

Have you any evidence that it is God's revealed moral will to reveal the Gospel in the stars?

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> God is not limited to saving His people via divine text. ... I simply use the devine [sic] text and the Spirit because I have access to both (and this is what God has shown me). Moses was shown something else.



Are you suggesting that Moses did not have access to special revelation? I think you shall have a hard time proving that, given that he was an ordained prophet through whom the Lord revealed the Torah. See at least Luke 16:27.

As to whether Moses knew the Gospel by special revelation, see Luke 24:27ff; John 5:46. These passages (see also Hebrews 11) clearly say (at least as clearly as anything that can be found in the stars concerning the mystery of the incarnation!) that Moses knew the gospel and trusted Christ before the incarnation.

rsc


----------



## Texas Aggie

I have no evidence that it is God's revealed moral will to reveal the Gospel in the stars no more than His revealed will is written in divine text. Both are a matter of faith not fact. The scripture is fact only if God has shown you that it is fact (and this is the faith given to you only by God).

I personally do not see the Gospel in the stars because I have been shown the divine text and have heard the word of God. This is how He revealed Himself to me. I was given eyes to see, ears to hear as well as a heart transplant to delight in the things pertaining to God (this can all occur without even hearing His word or reading His text).

The text is God's revealed will for man and it is nice that we have it. The Spirit has been given for many reasons.... teaching is just one. God is not bound by His text for revelation. Daniel did not have this problem.


----------



## Texas Aggie

rsc,

I am saying that Moses did not have text from the start. Naturally He had the Spirit since the Torah was written after God revealed Himself.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Chris,

Read the language of the WCF again slowly:



> Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation...



The "light of nature" and "the works of creation" and "providence" are parallel expressions. These are all ways of saying "natural revelation." The "light of nature" is also the language of the Belgic Confession. 

Natural revelation does accomplish something. It manifests certain divine attributes. To what effect or end? It leaves man "unexcuseable." This is the langauge of conviction before the bar of the law. 

The function of the law in nature is privative. It deprives man of the right to say to God: You did not reveal your moral standard. God says, "Nonsense. It's there plain as day. You chose not to obey it."

Unlike the Barthians (and some theonomists) the divines were very careful to affirm the existence of natural revelation but (in contrast to much Modern theology) also to limit what natural revelation can accomplish. 

Here they were following Paul very closely in Rom 1-2 and Gal 4:3 and Col 2:8. The "stoichea" there amount to natural law: "do and live" to which the Judaizers were trying to enslave the congregations.

I realize that it's fashionable among theonomists (not that this is true of you) to deny natural revelation or natural law. When they do this they are quite out of accord with the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture. On this see David Van Drunen's essay in the latest _Calvin Theological Journal_. I've written on this years ago. You can get these by inter-library loan.

As to whether natural revelation is law or gospel, I am presuming for the sake of this discussion that readers are aware of our extensive discussions in the past on this board about the differences between law and gospel. In brief, these are hermeneutical categories in Scripture. Law says "do and be justified." The gospel says, "Christ has done. Whoever believes is justified." 

These are categorically different messages. One is justifying and the other is not.

See: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/LawGospel.html

See also: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/CovResources.html

This distinction is exactly what the divines are teaching when they say, "...yet are they [natural revelation and law - rsc] not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation..." 

Why is natural revelation insufficient to salvation? Because natural revelation is law and not gospel. Nature only condemns, it does not justify. 

The law does not work faith. The Holy Spirit works faith by the preaching of the holy Gospel. 

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco

Dr. Clark,

Given your law/gospel dichotomy, what is your opinion of Kevan's thesis in _The Grace of Law_?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> Given your law/gospel dichotomy, what is your opinion of Kevan's thesis in _The Grace of Law_?



Well, it's not _my_ dichotomy at all, as if it were some peculiarity. 

It belongs to those Lutherans  Calvin, Ursinus, Theodore Beza, and William Perkins! 



> But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Galatians 3:11, 12. For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Romans 10:5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith (Institutes, 3.11.14).
> 
> The Law, he says, is different from faith. Why? Because to obtain justification by it, works are required; and hence it follows, that to obtain justification by the Gospel they are not required. From this statement, it appears that those who are justified by faith are justified independent of, nay, in the absence of he merit of works, because faith receives that righteousness which the Gospel bestows. But the Gospel differs from the Law in this, that it does not confine justification to works, but places it entirely in the mercy of God (Institutes, 3.11.18).
> 
> For the words of Paul always hold true, that the difference between the Law and the Gospel lies in this, that the latter does not like the former promise life under the condition of works, but from faith. What can be clearer than the antithesis "” "The righteousness of the law is in this wise, The man who doeth these things shall live in them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh thus, Whoso believeth," etc. ( Romans 10:5.) To the same effect is this other passage, "If the inheritance were of the law, faith would be made void and the promise abolished. Therefore it is of faith that in respect of grace the promise might be sure to every one that believeth." ( Romans 4:14.) As to ecclesiastical laws, they must themselves see to them: we acknowledge one Legislator, to whom it belongs to deliver the rule of life, as from him we have life (Antidote to the Council of Trent, 1547).
> 
> Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83). Q.36 What distinguishes law and gospel? A: The law contains a covenant of nature begun by God with men in creation, that is, it is a natural sign to men, and it requires of us perfect obedience toward God. It promises eternal life to those keeping it, and threatens eternal punishment to those not keeping it. In fact, the gospel contains a covenant of grace, that is, one known not at all under nature. This covenant declares to us fulfillment of its righteousness in Christ, which the law requires, and our restoration through Christ's Spirit. To those who believe in him, it freely promises eternal life for Christ's sake (Larger Catechism, Q. 36).
> 
> Theodore Beza (1534-1605). We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings...Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity (The Christian Faith, 1558)
> 
> William Perkins 1558-1602). The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it....A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them.... By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works (The Art of Prophesying, 1592, repr. Banner of Truth Trust,1996, 54-55).



The law/gospel dichotomy is the classical Reformed view. The fact that it seems to be a novelty to us today is a commentary on the state of Reformed theology today.

In my chapter on this, I am quite critical of the Kevan volume as it misrepresents the tradition on this. In fairness, he did write another volume where he was better on this question.

rsc


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> I have no evidence that it is God's revealed moral will to reveal the Gospel in the stars no more than His revealed will is written in divine text. Both are a matter of faith not fact. The scripture is fact only if God has shown you that it is fact (and this is the faith given to you only by God).
> 
> I personally do not see the Gospel in the stars because I have been shown the divine text and have heard the word of God. This is how He revealed Himself to me. I was given eyes to see, ears to hear as well as a heart transplant to delight in the things pertaining to God (this can all occur without even hearing His word or reading His text).
> 
> The text is God's revealed will for man and it is nice that we have it. The Spirit has been given for many reasons.... teaching is just one. God is not bound by His text for revelation. Daniel did not have this problem.



From what you have written thus far, I'd peg you as an existentialist.


----------



## Craig

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> From what you have written thus far, I'd peg you as an existentialist.




Though I'm a bit of an existentialist in my tendencies...you rely on the Word of God (the means of Grace He has ordained)...occasionally one might gain an insight via nature...but honestly, even when you come to a certain truth, it is ultimately guided by Scripture. That is the standard for our faith. The Spirit works with and through Scripture. Our regenerate senses more accurately understand God through nature. I do not believe a man can know God through nature apart from regeneration and Scripture.

[Edited on 1-1-2006 by Craig]


----------



## Texas Aggie

Matt,

Not sure how you can derive existentialism in my posts. Please elaborate.

Thanks.


----------



## Craig

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Craig...is everything ok? What are you talking about?


Huh?


----------

