Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke
The genealogies in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both record the family history of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew traces the Lord’s genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke traces the geneology back to Adam. Critics have argued that there are insoluble contradictions between the two genealogies. This blog has looked at other alleged contradictions in the Bible in other posts. (Also see here, where a video discussing a different attack on these genealogies is referenced; see also the videos here.) Are they correct?
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke
Matthew wrote:
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1-17)
Luke wrote:
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?
There are a variety of options Christian scholars have offered to reconcile these two accounts. Gleason Archer, for example, proposes that Luke records the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. Thus, the Lord Jesus would be part of the line of David through both of His human parents–both His adopted human father, Joseph, and His human mother, Mary, were descendants of king David:
Matthew 1:1–16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat [egennēsen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”
Luke 3:23–38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16). Mary’s line of descent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chron. 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. (Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982], 316).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?
Other scholars have offered other solutions. For example, Smith’s Bible Dictionary argues:
The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies:—
1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.
2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David’s son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David’s and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.
3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat Father of Jacob, Heli Jacob Father of Mary = Jacob’e heir was (Joseph) Heli Father of Joseph JESUS, called Christ. (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering (Luke 3:23) thus: Jesus “being (as was suppposed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli.” In this case Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary’s name was omitted because “ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.” So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given. (“Geneology of Jesus Christ,” in William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1884).
The Geneologies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History
The early church historian Eusebius records a fascinating option for reconciling the geneologies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Eusebius reproduces information from the Christian writer Africanus, who was born in the second half of the 2nd century A. D. What is this explanation of the two geneologies that derives from the A. D. 100s?
Africanus … [was born] AD 170, or a little earlier, and died AD 240, or a little later. … [He] ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers. … His great work, which was intended to give a comparative view of sacred and profane history from the creation of the world, demanded an extensive range of reading; and the fragments that remain contain references to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. … his letter to Aristides, of whom nothing else is known, [comments] on the discrepancy between our Saviour’s genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. … Africanus insists on the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and … proceeds to give his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus), having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan’s son, took his wife and raised up seed to him; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli’s son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob’s son as stated by St. Matthew. (George Salmon, “Africanus, Julius,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines [London: John Murray, 1877–1887], 54-55)
Eusebus, in his Ecclesiastical History, records the words of Africanus:
1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
2 “For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law,—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—
3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8 By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her, as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12 And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune, was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
16 And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”
17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here. (Ecclesiastical History 1.6.1-17, cited in Eusebius of Caesaria, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890], 91–94)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?
This post has looked at three explanations for the differences in the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew and Luke. Are they sufficient to set aside the claim of contradiction? Certainly the answer is “yes.” The critic alleging contradiction must prove that there is no possible way of reconciling the two genealogies. He must not only prove that the three explanations given above are unsatisfactory, but that there is no other explanation that ever has been, or ever will, be able to reconcile the two accounts in a satisfactory manner. Such genuine contradictions abound in uninspired religious texts that claim to be from God, such as (for example) the Mormon religious books, which unambiguously teach monotheism in the Book of Mormon and just as unambiguously teach polytheism in the Pearl of Great Price, although both texts are allegedly unchanging truth from the Mormon god (or gods). Unlike such texts, no proven contradictions are found in God’s infallible Word, the Bible.
The three explanations above for the genealogies also illustrate another important fact. There may be simple options, such as the one offered by Archer and the second one offered by Smith, while the truth itself may be a more complicated option that we would not easily think of. Until I read Africanus’ explanation I do not believe it ever crossed my mind–yet, as a very old explanation that claims to have been received from the descendants of Mary and Joseph themselves, it deserves to be taken seriously. Thus, even if we cannot think of a good explanation for an alleged contradiction at the moment does not mean that one does not exist.
So which explanation is correct? I am not sure which explanation is correct, but I am sure that there is an explanation, because God does not contradict Himself or lie. I lean towards the explanation of Africanus as recorded in Eusebius because it seems reasonable that the children of Joseph and Mary would know their own family history and it likewise seems probable that Africanus has reliable information. However, the most important point is not which explanation is correct, but that there is an explanation, for God does not lie or contradict Himself.
–TDR
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Four)
Even though the Constitution protects against a state religion, it nevertheless projects a Christian nation. The God about which Jefferson referenced in the Declaration was the God of Christianity, who is the true God. The founders wrote a Constitution for a Christian nation. The Constitution envisions a Christian nation.
The Constitution limits the power of government based on the truth that rights come from God. Government does not give the rights that the Constitution protects. God does. This puts the true God, the God of Christianity, above the government of the United States. It also places the people of the United States under God, like the pledge reads: “one nation under God.”
The people or government of the United States cannot replace God with something else and succeed. The framework still stands and hinders a significant decline, but by replacing God the nation then essentially opposes itself. True believers will tell the truth about this, so not stay silent.
God blesses only nations whose God He is (Psalm 33:12). That is axiomatic. But I’m writing something here even more than that. The United States started as a Christian nation under the one and true God. To cease from that would make the United States a different nation than how and what it began. It would eliminate Americanism, the true nature of the nation according to its founding.
Declaration of Independence
Laws of Nature and Nature’s God
The United States declared its existence on the following self-evident truths. First,
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.
This nation began with the dissolution of political bands to England. It declared that the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled it. This God is not some arbitrary God. In the context of the history of England and the United States, this was the Christian God.
All Men Are Created Equal and Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights
Second,
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.
This nation declared that England did not give their rights. It was endowed with those rights by their Creator, who is the Christian God. The United States could rightly abolish the former colonial government and institute a new government on the rights the Christian God gave. The Christian God possessed higher authority than England and the new nation under Whom it stood. He gave them these unalienable rights and the right of independence.
Gettysburg Address
Dedicated to the Proposition That All Men Are Created Equal
Unless the nation made a new declaration, the United States continues a Christian nation. The founding principle of the Declaration of Independence faced a challenge during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863 and he attached that time to its founding with his words in that speech. First,
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
To start, he didn’t use the name, “God,” like Jefferson did and the Founders signed their John Hancocks. But he agreed that “our fathers” were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” referring to the Declaration of Independence again. By saying, “created,” he alluded to the Creator, the same Christian God of 1776.
Nation Dedicated to a Proposition
If I were to choose a key word in Lincoln’s address, I would pick, “dedicate.” His speech had three paragraphs and he used the word “dedicate” as crucial in all three. This connected the following two paragraphs to the first. The founders dedicated themselves to the proposition that God created men equal, so God gave men their rights by His creation. Even if the United States did not live out that proposition, they remained dedicated to living out that proposition. Second,
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Civil Laws and Rights
A civil action is a legal dispute based upon laws. Old Testament Israel functioned according to civil laws. Civil rights essentially means the rights God gave according to His laws, having created mankind. The term comes from the Latin, jus civis, “right of the citizen.” The North and the South fought over a disagreement about the rights of citizens.
Lincoln said the Civil War was a test to see if a nation, dedicated to the proposition that God created men equal and gave them their rights, could endure. A Christian nation cannot endure if it rejects the Christian God. I believe this nation is in another struggle right now of the same nature as 1863. Lincoln uses “dedicate” twice. Was the nation dedicated to the proposition that it received its rights from the Christian God? Lincoln expressed that the nation could live because of those who gave their lives, a very nice turn of phrase. He came to dedicate a portion of the former battlefield as their final resting place.
Paragraph Three of the Address
Abraham Lincoln memorialized the cemetery at Gettysburg, the most crucial battle and turning point in the Civil War, according to the nation’s dedication to the Christian God. Third (this is one paragraph in the speech, but I’m dividing it into two),
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Hallow or Sacred
In general, people today don’t use “dedicate,” “consecrate,” and “hallow.” “Hallow” is a form of “holiness.” Almost nothing is sacred anymore. No one wants hallowed ground. They don’t want to acknowledge anything as holy. More important are their own conveniences and privileges, living not for anything greater than themselves.
Lincoln would not use “consecrate” and “hallow” without reference to the Christian God. The ground at Gettysburg was not hallow because of a Lincoln speech. Hallow ground goes back to Exodus 3 and Moses’ encounter at the burning bush. The ground at Gettysburg was hallow because the reason that justified these men’s death. A great proposition, dedicated to the Christian God, hallowed their deaths. They didn’t die for self, for their own rights, but for rights vindicated by a biblical proposition. These were true rights that proceed first from Genesis 1 and God’s mandate.
Christian Nation
Consider again that Lincoln says, “we can not dedicate” and “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work” and “to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us.” What is the increased devotion the living were to take from the dead’s last full measure of devotion? He implied the dead at Gettysburg would die in vain without dedication to the proposition of a nation under the Christian God. The Christian God gave everyone their rights.
For a government to protect the rights of the people and be a government for the people, it must submit to the highest authority: the Christian God. This nation as a whole loses its dedication when it denies that God. It rejects its purpose for existence. No principle holds it together. How does it do that? Many, many ways that every Christian at least should understand.
I hope I’m expressing a legitimate idea or concept of Christian nationalism, based upon natural laws ordained by God, scripture, and history. Christians should not apologize for these laws, scripture, and history. It is the truth about the United States. May the one and true God, the Christian God, be praised!
More to Come
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)
Tucker Interview
After already publishing parts one and two in this series, Tucker Carlson teased an interview with Douglas Wilson. This is a boon for he and his brand. Immediately Wilson wrote a post to welcome the Tucker audience with links to his numerous ventures. This gives even greater importance to exposure of Wilson. The content of the Tucker trailer also dovetails closely with this series, because Wilson mentions the gospel.
Wilson surprised me with his representation of Christian nationalism (another still ongoing series here, here, and here). It differed from his norm (see my part three). He gave no hope for Christian nationalism in the United States, except through gospel preaching. In many expositions of Christian nationalism, I don’t remember his saying that. Maybe I missed it. Postmillennialists and theonomist-types like Wilson, who envision their bringing in a physical kingdom on earth, don’t usually convey utter hopelessness remedied only by hot gospel preaching.
Perhaps the whole interview (presently behind the Tucker paywall) will reveal more. Wilson sounded good about the gospel, but he left out infant sprinkling and child communion, something he mixes with the gospel. Shouldn’t he urge Tucker’s audience also to sprinkle its infants? It’s important in his vision of Christian nationalism.
Roman Catholicism
Not Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholicism passed down infant sprinkling among many other scriptural perversions. It condemned maybe as many people to Hell as any false doctrine. Protestants continued in a system of false interpretation and doctrine, albeit better than Roman Catholicism, yet still misleading.
Protestants point to the Latin, sola scriptura, scripture alone, as their heritage. Yet, tradition still guides much of Protestantism. Infant baptism isn’t scripture alone and this challenges the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura. Keeping significant aspects of Roman Catholicism, Protestants also point back to the Catholic fathers as theirs too. Wilson has pieced together a patchwork of belief and practice that required the beginning of a new denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Jesse Nigro in The North American Anglican writes in his analysis of Wilson:
[H]is trajectory has led him into the broader pool of “Reformed Catholicism” that Anglicans occupy.
Catholic Church
Nigro was praising Wilson. Protestants fork off the Roman Catholic line or trajectory, not in the succession of New Testament Christianity or true churches, separate from the state church, since Christ. Roman Catholicism and its stepchild Protestantism resembles little the belief and practice of the church of the New Testament. Scott Aniol writes in his review of Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom::
I am aware that Wilson’s church recognizes Roman Catholic baptisms and welcomes them to the Lord’s Table, but this Baptist considers Roman Catholicism a false religion.
In his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, Wilson wrote (pp. 73-74):
The visible church is also Catholic in an earthly sense, meaning that it is no longer confined to one nation, as it was before under the law. The visible Church is composed of anyone in the world who professes (biblically) to believe in the Christian faith. When they make this profession by means of baptism their children are attached with them. The visible church is to be understood as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the household of God, and outside of this Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Baptism and Salvation
Later in his section on sacerdotalism, he writes:
Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked, and we are to speak of them as though they are.
Furthermore, Wilson writes (p. 111):
By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect.
Paedocommunion
Wilson and Child Communion
In addition to the heretical practice of infant sprinkling, Wilson endorses and practices child communion, inviting the toddlers to the bread and the cup. Wilson writes:
At the very center of the strong family emphasis that you will find in our churches, you will also find our practice of communing our children at the Lord’s Table. This is unusual in Protestant churches, and in some places it is even controversial. . . . [I]n our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.
What do Wilson and others imply by children partaking of the Lord’s Supper? They can partake worthily because they have repented, believed, and received forgiveness of sins. Children who cannot believe, do not have the capacity to do so, are said to make a profession of faith through the Lord’s Table. However, the Lord’s Table is a table of examination. A man examines himself and then eats the bread and drinks the cup.
The Wickedness of Child Communion
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 say:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
So much contradicts clear scripture and biblical teaching with participation of children in the Lord’s Table. Wilson argues that paedocommunion follows paedobaptism, when he writes:
[T]he apostle Paul compares the entire congregation to one loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And it is our conviction that all who are bread should get bread.
This is a typical turn-of-phrase or rhetorical flourish intended to persuade in some doctrinal or practical position. Wilson sounds interesting, but he’s false. His teaching confuses the gospel. It brings God’s judgment down on unworthy partakers of the table. Finally, it corrupts the true nature of the church. One can truly say that paedocommunion is false worship. It is not an act of faith in God, but man-ordained, human innovation.
More to Come
New Testament Greek, Bill Mounce, 1st Semester Videos Online
I am thankful to announce that all the videos teaching the first semester of Biblical Greek are now online! The main textbook used is William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek. Either the 3rd or the 4th edition of that text works well. (I prefer some features of the 3rd and some other features of the 4th edition; overall, they are similar enough that either one will work with the class.) The entire playlist is on YouTube, and the videos are also being put up at Faithsaves.net and on Rumble. We thank God for the work that has been done. Lord willing, the second semester videos will also all be made available. If you are interested in helping to edit videos and so help train spiritual leaders for the kingdom of God, or you know someone who can help with this ministry, please contact me. You can also pray for us. Learning the Biblical languages is very valuable, and it is our prayer and hope that these videos will not only help those who have physical teachers, but also enable God’s people to learn Greek all around the world, even when they who do not have the privilege of a physical teacher. A physical teacher is very helpful–and, Lord willing, I will offer the class personally again in the future, as I have offered it in the past–but I believe a dedicated student can teach himself Greek with the textbooks and answer keys here, although it is not as easy to do as it is if one has a professor to help. I also want these videos to help people learn Biblical Greek from a Biblical, separatist, militant Baptist position, instead of from the point of non-separatist evangelicalism–the doctrinal position of Bill Mounce, who is a great Greek teacher, but not so great in his doctrine and practice. Furthermore, we use the Textus Receptus and support the King James Version in the class, rather than utilizing modern Bible versions and their inferior Greek text, the Nestle-Aland.
If you want to help people get Biblical, Baptist, separatist training in the Biblical languages and theology, please feel free to recommend and send links about my class to the various websites where online Greek classes are compared and offered. I don’t have time to look into all of those, but the more places that link to it, the better. I would be fine if evangelicals learn Greek from someone with Biblical Baptist convictions and get moved towards that position. Thanks!
–TDR
Government Intimidation Now In the United States Related to Persecution
While working on something else, yesterday I listened to portions of the Supreme Court arguments for and against the January 6 protestors. Elizabeth Prelogar, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued to the nine justices, representing the present government of the United States and its Department of Justice. I have to say, I would use the term “justice” loosely as it applies to the present government of the United States.
Fischer Versus United States
This case in the Supreme Court arose to a challenge of the prosecution of one particular January 6 protestor, Joseph Fischer, trying to defend himself against a federal statute applied by this Department of Justice against him. The law this justice department scoured from its laws to sweep up hundreds of protestors for significant and selective harsh prosecution was U.S. Code 1512 (c) (1) and (2), which reads:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
This particular law hasn’t been used ever against protestors until this justice department selected it for use against January 6 protestors, which, as you know, were all Trump voters, perhaps in the realm of most extreme MAGA supporters.
I’m not defending what Fischer did. However, I believe these protestors, who represent the incorrect side of the political spectrum, do not receive equal justice. The other side gets away with such activity and even worse. The Democrat Party right now is afraid of what their own voters might do at their Convention if they don’t stop Israel from extricating Hamas from Gaza.
Selective Prosecution
I thought most of the conservative justices, six of them, did a good job at exposing the government and its prosecution. A majority of them will probably overturn the charge against Fischer and then all those against whom they used this law. If applied as Prelogar argued, this law would cover many transgressions of protestors on the Democrat side through the years, who did not see a whiff of possible prosecution. Even when I read the law, I think of Hillary Clinton hammering and acid-washing her hard drives to destroy evidence against her.
Justice Gorsuch asked Prelogar this question:
Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?
He referred to Representative Jamaal Bowman, Democratic Congressman from NY, who used a fire alarm in a Capitol office building, causing its evacuation last year, but he was not charged under the statute.
Apparently the federal government of the United States passed 1512 as a response to the Enron scandal in 2002, that involved massive document shredding and fraud. It’s original intent was never for prosecution of protestors of government policy and actions. Several Supreme Court justices exposed this transparent attempt to use the law and the government to single out these protestors to enact even more severe penalties. Even if they deserved some punishment for their actions, this type of prosecution results in a chilling affect on a large portion of American citizens.
Prosecution and Persecution
I write this post to use this prosecution as an example of government persecution. This government more than I’ve ever seen looks for laws to prosecute in more severe fashion political enemies. They might use another or various set of laws to prosecute something else for which they want their chosen outcome. This seems very easy to see.
The government protects, defends, and encourages vile and immoral activity. In many cases, it is not a terror to evil, but to good. Prosecution could equal persecution, when it proceeds from the government. It terrorizes a message that does not support its view of the world.
Equal Justice
The idea of “equal justice” is a bit redundant. Justice is equal. It reminds me of 2 Peter 1, where Peter uses the terminology “like precious faith.” No true faith is superior or inferior to another. It’s faith from above, all the same.
Lady justice portrays justice with two manifestations of equal justice. One, her scales are equal. On one side is the crime and on the other is the punishment. They are equal.
Two, she is blindfolded. She does not judge based on sex, religion, race, or socio-economic level. Everyone gets treated the same. The generally poor, blue collar Trump voters, whom Hillary called “deplorables,” receive uniquely harsh punishment because they support the wrong leader. The message is sit down and shut up. If you speak up, we will find a way to prosecute you.
When God said, “eye for an eye,” that’s equal justice — not “life for an eye,” but “eye for an eye.” The punishment meets the crime.
Christians Versus the United States
Christians do foresee the government selecting Christians for unique unequal prosecution and then punishment. Prosecutors “have it in” for Christians. Even if they do not win the prosecution, they bankrupt the Christian and damage him for the rest of his life. They make an example of Christians, sending the message to all other Christians, that they could do the same to them.
Our unique bubble in history, a time of freedom, could come to an end. This government, like the one Jesus and the Apostles faced, could make it harder to function as a true Christian in society. This is what Jesus said would occur to Christians, so this does not mean, cease from preaching and stop serving in public. No, it means that this bubble moment in the history of the world could end. Be thankful for the freedom you have. Use it. But also understand that it could end and it could end soon. Take advantage of the freedom now, while you have it.
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part two)
Over a decade ago I read a book by Douglas Wilson, that described a philosophy for his writing, represented in the title: A Serrated Edge. His and the Moscow, Idaho mood is portrayed by a serrated edge and the use of satire. Let me again announce that I accept Wilsonian written serration. It’s more interesting at least and sometimes more effective writing. Someone else once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Maybe for Wilson, “His pen is equally mighty to a serrated knife.” Many of the targets of Wilson’s writings deserve their serration from his satirical analysis.
Strict Adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism
Douglas Wilson and his posse in Moscow, Idaho get attention with the style or mood of their writing and other operations. A focus on mood neglects serious problems, most notably their confusion on the gospel. Wilson and Moscow are strong adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which says this (Article 28):
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ . . . . to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.
Furthermore, the WCF says (Article 28) that “by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants).” That is all salvific language applied to baptism. Wilson takes this very seriously in his view and preaching of salvation.
John Calvin, the Protestant and Reformed Forefather
Calvin’s Institutes
From what I read of Wilson, he does not believe that baptism guarantees future salvation for the one baptized. Neither does any Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics would say faith is necessary for salvation. They would reject “faith alone.” To clarify his position, Wilson wrote: “Baptism is an effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers.” John Calvin, whose theology Wilson follows, wrote (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4):
God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism.
Calvin’s “Antidote” to the Council of Trent
Calvin also published (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session):
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made . . . by baptism . . . the guilt is effaced [and] it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
In the same publication Calvin continued:
We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.
Wilson doesn’t distinguish himself from the teaching of his spiritual father, Calvin.
Thomas Ross’s Statement
Thomas Ross wrote in his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?:
Those who think that infant baptism was the instrument of their receiving forgiveness, those who think that they received the sacrament as confirmation and evidence that they were already regenerated in the womb, and those who think they had water applied to them in infancy as evidence that they were certain to be regenerated in the future unless they consciously rejected the “sacrament” and its efficacy are underneath a terrible spiritual delusion. They will certainly be damned unless they recognize that their unbiblical religious ceremony did nothing beneficial for them, admit they are still lost, and then repent and believe the gospel.
With the Protestant or Reformed Catholics, this very serious problem relates to what Paul writes about adding circumcision to grace in Galatians 5:1-6. The Protestant or Reformed Catholics see infant sprinkling as New Testament circumcision. This does not proceed from the Bible, but from allegorization of scripture and tradition.
Galatians
The Galatians added circumcision to grace, which was enough for Paul to say in Galatians 5:2-4:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
No one should come close to what the Galatians did. Paul uses very strong language, saying, “Christ shall profit you nothing” and more. This is how they perverted the gospel to the degree that Paul wrote in 1:6-9 that it was “another gospel.” Those who preached it, he said, “let them be accursed.”
Infant Sprinkling and John Gill
Wilson wrote a defense on infant sprinkling, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God. He wrote: “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism” (p. 9). And yet, not one verse in scripture mentions infant baptism or sprinkling. Consider what 17th century English Baptist preacher or pastor John Gill wrote about infant sprinkling:
The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain;
I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition.
Cultural Stands Don’t Undo These Problems
Wilson may take a position closer to the Protestant or Reformed Catholics than his contemporary Reformed fellows do. He could argue that he is more consistent than them with the doctrine and practice. I respect the teaching of Wilson on many cultural issues. He helps on cultural and social ones. These are attractive to many evangelicals and even professing Baptists, their not hearing this in their own churches. Those, however, cannot undo the problems with the unscriptural doctrine I’m addressing. However, the Moscow troubles don’t end with infant sprinkling.
More to Come
Agora to Areopagus: Paul on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17)
We are glad to be back! We were in Greece with Tutku Tours, seeing the Biblical sites there, such as the Areopagus (which I will say more about shortly), and are just catching up after getting back. (That is why I had not written any Friday blog posts recently.) We got to visit Biblically-related places including Athens, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Berea, and Cenchrea. We arrived in Greece a bit before the tour started and were able to visit some archaeologically and Biblically significant cities that the tour was not going to have time to see, such as Nicopolis, and places the tour was not able to get to, such as Acrocorinth, the ancient fortress overlooking the city of Corinth:
We were thankful for the opportunity, and recorded some videos that relate to the Bible and archaeology.
At this point we have one live on Rumble and on YouTube discussing the Apostle Paul’s visit to the Areopagus or Mars Hill, as recorded in Acts 17, where Dionysius the Areopagite (whom Eusebius identifies as the first pastor of the church at Athens) and others were converted:
Dionysius was an Areopagite because he was a significant official at the Areopagus, of course.
We went to Mars Hill when in Athens in the evening and recorded a video, but the hill was full of people and it was windy; the conditions were less than ideal. We returned the next day at sunrise and had the entire hill to ourselves (it seems most in Greece do not rise early, but stay up late). We also had good conditions to both record a Biblically related video and see a beautiful sunrise at the Areopagus. (You can see the Parthenon in this picture from Areopagus / Mars Hill.)
From Mars Hill you can see the agora or marketplace where Paul began his evangelistic preaching and disputation and the Parthenon, where Athena was worshipped, along with other pagan gods.
We have added the video to the YouTube playlist on Archaeological and Historical Evidences for the Bible. Lord willing, we will get some more of the videos posted. There are other posts here at What is Truth? that relate to archaeology, of course.
We were thankful that we were able to significantly reduce the cost of our trip by signing up for the Capital One Venture X Business and Capital One Venture X personal credit cards, using the opening bonuses to greatly reduce our out-of-pocket cost. The opening bonus of $1500 + $750 reduced the cost of the trip by $2,250 for opening one of each card (and there are two of us, and each can open cards). We took care of our own airfare by using points as well, and so were able to fly out to Europe in first class for almost free instead of in economy. Interestingly, it was much cheaper for us to fly to Greece from Mexico, instead of the USA, using points–we were on British Airways, which charges crazy fees on its miles-purchased flights if they originate in the USA, but is not allowed to do that for flights originating in Mexico. So we flew down to Cabo San Lucas for a few days and then took our flight across the pond to Greece from Cabo. The flight went back to San Francisco, and then from San Francisco over to Europe, but cost much less than if we had just started in San Francisco. We stayed at the absolutely beautiful Waldorf Astoria Los Cabos Pedregal using free night certificates from our Hilton Aspire cards and some Hilton points, a wonderful deal for an amazing hotel (cash prices were around $1,800 a night, so staying for free instead was very nice–our Aspire cards also got us free breakfast-and they have a great breakfast–and other nice benefits).
We could see whales playing in the Pacific Ocean from our room’s window when we were reading our Bibles in the morning. Also, the ocean currents make swimming unsafe on the hotel beach, so we didn’t have a problem there with immodest people. You could enjoy seeing God’s beautiful creation without having to constantly look the other way. We were thankful to be able to attend the Iglesia Bautista Monte de Sion in Los Cabos on the Lord’s Day. The pastor asked me to preach through a translator for the Sunday evening service, and I was able to preach on God’s holiness and Biblical sanctification. If you visit Cabo San Lucas, I would encourage you to worship God there, at least if you can speak at least some Spanish (this is a native Mexican church where everything is in Spanish).
So we thank the Lord that we were able to visit Biblically related sites in Greece and also spend a few days in Mexico, all for a minimal cost, thanks to miles, points, and free night certificates. (By the way, the credit card links are refer-a-friend links–if you are interested in the cards and open one, we get some points, so thank you if you want to use them. But do not open any credit cards unless you are aware of their dangers.)
–TDR
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO
Several months ago now, popular reformed evangelical leader Kevin DeYoung wrote an article warning his proponents against Douglas Wilson and its “Moscow Mood.” Evangelicals in general would call “mood” a tertiary or secondary issue and let it slide. Apparently Wilson, his enterprise in Idaho, and supporters across the United States, don’t qualify for the same pass given for non-essentials. Evangelicals for certain have not historically punished the mood of institutions or figures.
Mood matters, but DeYoung and those agreeing with him are veering out of their normal belief and practice to punch at Wilson and his people. For that reason, it reads as a kind of “correctness” in the spirit of “political correctness” to modulate their norms in such a manner. Maybe it’s because Wilson strikes a popular note among a growing segment of evangelicals who are tired of leaning further left in capitulation to a declining culture.
Douglas Wilson takes stronger stands on cultural issues than popular evangelicalism, what some call, “Big Eva,” and lays down firm boundaries in ways that most evangelicals do not. He especially makes men feel more welcome in his orbit, speaking up on issues that rank-and-file evangelicals care about.
As DeYoung, I don’t want the influence of Wilson either, but for different and what should be obvious reasons that miss or avoid DeYoung and his constituency. I wouldn’t be writing this if Wilson wasn’t making headway. Folks like myself at least need to have an answer as we reach out to our areas for the Lord. Is Wilson style professing Christianity acceptable? Is it true? I contend in the main ways of discerning such questions, the answer is “No.” It isn’t. Why not though? Wilson and Moscow have a mood, but their mood is not the main issue.
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW AND THE WILSONIANS?
A biblical position will completely reject Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism represents total apostasy. Some Roman Catholics genuinely received Jesus Christ and have not left that ungodly institution. The institution though is absolutely apostate. Biblical Christianity does not trace itself through Roman Catholicism.
Neither is the Roman Catholic Church even a church. It has no authority. Whatever such authority it projects through its historical record also is faux authority. The trail of truth does not traverse through Roman Catholicism and yet for Douglas Wilson and the Moscowites, it does. Wilson takes his trajectory through Roman Catholicism.
Douglas Wilson calls himself a small “c” Catholic. He would distinguish himself from Roman Catholicism with his small “c.” What Wilson understands is that if you call yourself a Protestant, you are taking a line and trajectory through Roman Catholicism, so he embraces Roman Catholicism. That is easy to see. One Roman Catholic, who agrees with this assessment, calls him a “crypto-Catholic.”
Wilson wants to be consistent. He’s Catholic, but he’s reformed Catholic. He attempts to thread that needle as much as anyone out there. This depends then on a form of Roman Catholic and Protestant tradition, a unique hybrid of the two.
SACRAMENTS AND THE GOSPEL
Nothing illustrates Wilson’s Catholicism and its strain on the gospel and sola scriptura than his position on the sacraments. Moscow sprinkles infants and then welcomes children to the Lord’s Table. This bleeds over into the thinking on the gospel, because what’s the point of these sacraments for children? A recent trouble for Wilson was a decade or more controversy called “Federal Vision” and “Auburn Avenue” that looked very much like works salvation. Wilson since attempted to extricate himself from these theological movements he helped found and brought confusion on the gospel.
Wilson, since the federal vision fiasco, in public voiced a few times his loyalty to salvation by grace alone through faith alone. However, his own teaching had confused the gospel in a much greater way than Peter not eating meat with the Gentiles in Galatians 2:11-13. Wilson’s doctrine and practice continues to lead people astray on the gospel. He doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on it. The gospel is far too important to obfuscate it. Many of his positions give strong association with Roman Catholicism and he considers himself a Catholic theologically and historically.
Don’t get me wrong, Wilson rejects many present components of Roman Catholicism and says so. However, his Roman Catholic-light takes a form of Catholicism before Roman Catholicism went even further off the rails. He doesn’t reject it wholesale. In that way, Moscow kowtows to Roman Catholicism.
VERSUS PERPETUITY OF TRUE CHURCHES
As part of the mood of Moscow, Wilson and his followers would mock Baptists in exactly what I’m addressing here. He would argue against a true line of separatist churches since the time of Christ, separate from the state church. He embraces the Roman Catholic Church as his mother church with a form of either evidentialism or historicism. Rome tells its own story of its own history that Rome preserved. The satire and mockery he uses very often becomes the substance of what he says.
Roman Catholics trace their lineage a long ways with a very visible history. They especially point to the “church fathers.” Those like myself, who see the true church through history in complete separation from the state church, possess less visible evidence for that line. Still, New Testament churches separate from the state church do have visible evidence, only less than Roman Catholicism. Those rejecting perpetuity of true churches point to examples of traceable error among those autonomous churches, separate from Roman Catholicism.
Christ’s Church Is Not a State Church
The primary basis for the true church, which is separate from the state church, is presuppositional. No one is neutral. Everyone has presuppositions from which he views history. The biblical presupposition is that, first, Christ’s church is not a state church. Wilson may deny that his church is a state church, but he takes his lineage through a state church. His eschatology and ecclesiology depend on state church doctrine.
The Gates of Hell Would Not Prevail Against True, New Testament Churches
Second, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His assembly [ekklesia means “assembly”] (Matthew 16:18). An assembly is not Catholic, but local. Jesus’ churches were and always would be local churches, not a Roman Catholic (universal) one. The truth was not preserved by the state church, but by Christ’s churches, which were always separate from the state church.
If the Roman Catholic Church was the true church, as Wilson believes, then where was the gospel for centuries? Jesus said He would build His church on the gospel profession or declaration: Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. The “Christ” of Roman Catholicism does not save to the uttermost. He does not provide full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. It is not a true church.
The presupposition from scripture, from the promise of Jesus Christ of the perpetuity of the true church, is the evidence. That church is not Roman Catholic, which is a false church.
INFANT SPRINKLING, THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, AND THE GOSPEL
Douglas Wilson wrote an entire book defending infant sprinkling, so he pushes that unbiblical doctrine on the world, treating it like it’s in the Bible. I know he would say he does not attribute salvation to infant sprinkling like Roman Catholicism, but where did he get infant sprinkling? He got it from Roman Catholicism. He didn’t get it from the Bible. It’s not in there.
More to Come
The Real Dovetailing of Future Antichrist Agenda and World Power Now
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
PART FIVE
The Antichrist could live on this earth right this moment. I’m not speculating. It’s just possible. If he is alive, he sees a world that dovetails nicely with his agenda. That’s not good. But how is it happening?
USEFULNESS OF DENIAL
One way it happens is by sheer denial. Men come here anonymously and take potshots with the language of “conspiracy theory.” Guess what? Satan has a conspiracy against God and it shows up on earth. Earth is where almost all of it occurs, say ninety plus percent. Humanity is the target, but even that ultimately opposes God as the target.
Denying the Satanic and Antichrist agenda even occurs is part of the conspiracy. Satan wields his useful idiots to keep people in their lemming-like condition. It isn’t just naturalists following the pied piper. It’s also aggressive amillennialists and postmillennialists, who spiritualize the Antichrist and prophetic passages, and minimize globalism.
REMOVAL OF BARRIERS
The Lord Jesus, the Christ, the true Messiah, will rule the world some day and maybe soon. Outside of the future rule of Jesus Christ with His might and elimination of most of His enemies, the design of God is division and separation, not something “one world.” The Antichrist will rule a short one-world government until Jesus returns.
The plan of God to impede apostasy in this age requires boundaries. It observes the era before the worldwide flood where the imagination of mankind was evil continually. Post-flood, when the world began in the same trajectory, God confused languages and set boundaries between peoples as an impediment to a fast spread of wickedness. What are the boundaries that create the barriers against the proliferation of a one world government and religion? What are the indicators that world power now under the ruler of this world undoes these restraints?
Not necessarily in this order, but these are instruments of Satan by which he advances his goals through the world system that dovetail with the future agenda of the Antichrist. Genuine, biblical Christians shouldn’t support them. They contradict the plan of God.
OPEN BORDERS
God wants borders. He doesn’t say how many, but borders hold back the expansion of Satan’s plan. The federalist system of the United States creates more of these borders between states. Even within the states, counties and then towns allow more distinction and possible protection. Within the states, they model the national federalist system.
Only with borders and protecting those borders does a nation keep out corrupting influences. Maybe the invaders are in fact more pure than the country they invade. That doesn’t make sense, because it would say that they are leaving somewhere better for somewhere worse. Alternative categories of intruders might have other motives than melting into the melting pot. They come with the purpose of wreaking havoc.
If a nation does not consider its way of life worth preserving, maybe it isn’t worth preserving. Maybe it can’t keep itself well, because it doesn’t understand its own values and purposes. It doesn’t know what it stands for anymore. This makes it “easy pickins'” for predatory or parasitical people.
TRANSWORLD MEDIA
As much as states or nations keep their borders, the media gets into homes through the airwaves in many different capacities. You know this. A person could control the media.
Organizations propagate lies and moral filth easier than ever. Satellites and the internet are two inventions that make this far more effective. Everyone can have their receivers with them at all times, the cell phone. New technology already exists that could make it even easier for the whole world to hear and see the same sounds and image all at once.
DIGITAL ECONOMY
People more than ever don’t use cash. They use cards and their phones. Everyone could lose all their money all at once. With computers, perhaps artificial intelligence, someone using something could control the entire economy all at once.
Perhaps you’ve swiped a card and it doesn’t work. You call on your cell phone to reinstate your card. One person could shut it all down at once unless you cooperate with a certain agenda. I understand that now you have some recourse, but that could easily change.
All of this technology is very convenient. I love mobile banking. But I also know what it means for the future. I can’t tell you what to do, but the world went from gold to paper to digital currency. Each of these steps made it easier for a future Antichrist to control the whole world.
CORPORATE MEDICINE
The government controls the healthcare in many countries. It starts with incredible amounts of regulation that become much easier during Covid in 2020-21. Governments all over the world required little and short tested vaccines. Some might call this a dress rehearsal for future times. Can a centralized power make everyone wear a mask?
Doctors study long and at great sacrifice to get their license. Sometimes doctors pay with student loans. They need employment to pay them back. They have pressure not to lose their jobs. It’s easy to fit into a medical conglomerate that toes the line of correct medicine. If they resist, they lose their job and inherit a record that inhibits finding another job.
The establishment punished doctors who spoke up during Covid. They lost good jobs, high paying ones. This exerts top down control over medicine.
Corporate medicine effects the consumer. The customer of medical care many times needs it. Or someone in his family really needs it. When someone you love is dying, you might do things you would not ordinarily do.
More to Come
The Relationship of the 2024 Total Eclipse to the End Times
Eclipse and Path of Totality
My wife and I live in the path of totality. Yes, that’s right. We live in the path where for three or four minutes we will see a total eclipse. For that reason, this rural area with a relatively small population will grow in population over the next few days with people who want to be here too. For those coming into our parking lot, our church will offer eclipse glasses through which to look at the eclipse when it shows itself in the most significant fashion.
Many people think the eclipse is an eschatological sign. Even unbelievers around this area speak in a wary way about what’s happening in the sky and what it means for their future. I’m happy that it has them thinking about their lives.
Signs of the Times Are Everywhere?
I grew up in a small Baptist church in rural Indiana, and I’m not endorsing the song, but I have the words in my mind of one we sang then:
Signs of the times are everywhere,
There’s a brand new feeling in the air,
Keep your eyes upon the eastern sky,
Lift up your eyes, redemption draweth nigh.
For many, that sounds about right. Signs of the times are everywhere. Except they’re not. Signs won’t appear until after the Antichrist reveals himself (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10). On April 8, if you keep your eyes upon the eastern sky, you better at least be wearing your eclipse glasses.
I know people are writing and producing youtube presentations about the eclipse as a sign of the end times. I have not read any of these works but just have heard people asking and talking about it as such. So here goes. The total eclipse on April 8 is not a sign of the end times. It isn’t.
Seeking After Signs
What gets people’s attention, I believe, is the weird or earie astronomical nature of the eclipse. It’s obvious and odd. Jesus’ own birth provided a star, a sign in the sky for that event. People who followed Him around also wanted astronomical signs from Him, but He said He wouldn’t give them. He said in Matthew 16:4:
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
The sign of the prophet Jonas was Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. So He says, besides that, He would give no more signs to that generation. The message of Jesus was that scripture was sufficient. “But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Blessing came to those who believe the word of God without having or seeing signs. Signs are not for them who believe, but believe not. Believers don’t need signs. They believe, and faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17), not from signs.
Era of Astronomical Signs
Jesus in Luke 21:25 says that during the Tribulation period on earth, Revelation chapters six through sixteen, God will give astronomical signs:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.
Peter references these occurrences in Acts 2:20 on the Day of Pentecost:
The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
This references Joel 2:31, which also also says this is when “the great and terrible day of the LORD come(s).” These signs mark the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when He opens the seals of His judgment. People on earth will know they have little time for salvation at that point.
None of us need signs, because nothing needs to occur for the rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Neither do unbelievers need signs for sufficiently knowing they’ll be left behind for God’s judgment. Not just that, but it is already appointed unto man once to die (Hebrews 9:27), and no man knows when that will occur (Proverbs 27:1, James 4:14). In the next second, eclipse or no eclipse coming, the Lord could descend through the clouds to meet true believers in the air.
Signifying Nothing
This total eclipse signifies nothing. Eclipses happen. The fact that we could predict this one indicates that God created astronomical bodies with mathematical precision. Ships navigate by the movements of celestial bodies. This testifies already to the glory of God, eclipse or no eclipse.
Eclipses testify to man’s helplessness and the immensity of God’s creation. The sun is just one star of many, not even the largest. It is a fiery, hot mass that God created just the right distance away for enough heat without burning up men. It’s not always going to be this way though. Everything in the future will burn with a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10), annihilating everything, and God will create a new heaven and a new earth. Only those who believe in Jesus Christ will make it to the other side and a whole new and eternal and blessed era.
Reminder of Opportunities
Man does not have interminable opportunities for salvation. If the eclipse helps him remember this, the eclipse offers a great blessing to him. No doubt an eclipse gets people’s attention and makes them think. If men continue in their sin, never listening to God’s Word, then the eclipse serves very little purpose for them. Perhaps it just makes men more proud, because they saw it with their special glasses. Now they can say they’ve done another thing that makes them more special.
The total eclipse does provide an opportunity. It parallels with future astronomical events that will be signs. They provoke men to think about the last times. On April 8, 2024 and even before and after that day, let everyone consider what Jesus warned in Matthew 24:44:
Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
The eclipse is not a sign, but Jesus said always to be ready. Be ready for His return. Paul says that it will occur in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:52-54). Behold now is the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Recent Comments