The Regular History of Clever New Interpretations, Teachings, or Takes on and from Scripture: Socinianism
One way to get a Nobel prize in something, you’ve got to break some new ground or discover something no one has ever seen. In the world, the making of a printing press or light bulb changes everything. People still try to invent a better mousetrap. It happens. The phone replaced the telegraph and now our mobile devices, the phone.
Everyone can learn something new from scripture. You might even change or tweak a doctrine you’ve always believed. On the whole, you don’t want to teach from the Bible what no one has ever heard before. The goal is the original intent and understanding of the Author.
From the left comes progressivism. The U. S. Constitution, just over two hundred years old, means something different than when it was written. Loosely constructed, it has a flexible interpretation into which new meanings arise. Hegelian dialectics say a new thesis comes from synthesis of antithesis and a former thesis. Everything can be improved.
Early after the inspiration and then propagation of the Bible, men found new things no one ever saw in scripture. Many of these “finds” started a new movement. People have their fathers, the father of this or that teaching, contradictory to the other, causing division and new factions and denominations. Some of these changes become quite significant, a majority supplanting the constituents of the original teaching.
At the time of the Reformation, it was as if the world first found sole fide and sole scriptura. Men often call justification the Reformation doctrine of justification. This opened a large, proverbial can of worms. Many could read their own Bible in their own language. Others now dug into their own copy of the original languages of scripture. Skepticism grew. “If we didn’t know this before, what else did they not tell us?” It became a time ripe for religious shysters and this practice hasn’t stopped since then.
Socinus
The Italian, Laelius Socinus, was born in 1525 into a distinguished family of lawyers. Early his attention turned from law to scripture research. He doubted the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Socinus moved in 1548 to Zurich to study Greek and Hebrew. He still questioned established doctrine and challenged the Reformers. Laelius wrote his own confession of faith, which introduced different, conflicting beliefs. They took hold of his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born in 1539.
Faustus rejected orthodox Roman Catholic doctrines. The Inquisition denounced him in 1559, so he fled to Zurich in 1562. There he acquired his uncle’s writings. His doubt of Catholicism turned anti-Trinitarian. The Reformation did not go far enough for Socinus. His first published work in 1562 on the prologue of John rejected the essential deity of Jesus Christ.
Socinus’s journeys ended in Poland, where he became leader of the Minor Reformed Church, the Polish Brethren. His writings in the form of the Racovian Catechism survived through the press of the Racovian Academy of Rakow, Poland. His beliefs took the name, Socinianism, now also a catch-all for any type of dissenting doctrine.
Socinianism held that Jesus did not exist until his physical conception. God adopted Him as Son at His conception and became Son of God when the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary, a Gnostic view called “adoptionism.” It rejected the doctrine of original sin.
Socianism denied the omniscience of God. It introduced the first well developed concept of “open theism,” which said that man couldn’t have free will under a traditional (and scriptural) understanding of omniscience.
Socinianism also taught the moral example theory of atonement, teaching that Jesus sacrificed himself to motivate people to repent and believe. His death gave men the ability to be saved by their own works, who weren’t sinners by nature anyway.
Unitarians
The work of Socinus lived on in the belief of early English Unitarians, Henry Hedworth and John Biddle. Socinian belief was helped along also by its position of conscientious objection, a practice of refusing to perform military service. This principle was very popular with many and made Socinianism much more attractive to potential adherents. The First Unitarian Church, which followed Socianism as passed down through its leaders in England, was started in 1774 on Essex Street in London, where British Unitarian headquarters are still today.
As the Puritans of colonial America apostatized through various means, Unitarianism, a modern iteration of Socinianism took hold in the Congregational Church in America. After 1820, Congregationalists took Unitarianism as their established doctrine. The doctrine of Christ diminished to Jesus a good man and perhaps a prophet of God and in a sense the Son of God, but not God Himself.
Spirit of Skepticism
I write as an example of the diversity in the history of Christian doctrine and why it takes place. When you read the beliefs of Socinians, you easily see them in modern liberal Christianity. They influence on religious cults that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
A limited amount of skepticism wards away the acceptance of false doctrine. Better is a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11), searching the scripture to see if these things are so, and what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.
As I grew up among fundamentalists and independent Baptists, I witnessed regular desire to find something new in the Bible. Many sermons espoused interpretations I had never heard and didn’t see in the text. A preacher often said, “God gave it to me.” You should know God used the man because no one had seen such insights into scripture.
The same spirit of doctrinal novelty continues today in many evangelical churches. The same practice led Joseph Smith in his founding of Mormonism. Many cults arose in 19th century America under the same spirit of skepticism of established historical doctrines.
The Temptation of Novel Teaching
The temptation of novel teaching preys on anyone. Faustus Socinus accepted many orthodox doctrines of his day. He rejected Christ as fully God and fully human because it was contrary to sound reason (ratio sana). This steered Socinians toward Enlightenment thinking, where human reason took the highest role as arbiter of truth.
Warren Wiersbe wrote that H.A. Ironside, longtime pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, said, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.” Elsewhere I read that Spurgeon first said that. I don’t know. Clever new interpretations, teachings, and takes on and from scripture corrupt and overturn scriptural, saving doctrines in the hearts of men. They condemn them through all eternity.
Book Offer: “Disciplines for Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ”
After starting a church in the San Francisco Bay Area, in 1991 I wrote a thirty week discipleship manual, titled, “Disciplines for Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This proceeded from two scriptural imperatives. First, the Great Commission is to make disciples, fulfilling the word “teach,” the only imperative in Matthew 28:19-20. Second, if making disciples is the work of the ministry, a pastor should equip the saints for making disciples in fulfillment of Ephesians 4:11-12.
When I grew up in an independent Baptist church and in fundamentalism, I never heard of discipleship. I did not remember hearing of it in a fundamental Baptist college. In learning biblical exegesis, I understood Matthew 28:19-20. Because of Ephesians 4:11-12, I read some books on discipleship. The Lord gave the whole church the responsibility, but I believed the best means is one-on-one.
I first took everyone in the church through the thirty weeks. The goal was for each to reproduce themselves in another spiritual generation. Over the years, hundreds finished the discipleship. Almost all who completed it stuck in our church. People took it elsewhere and made disciples at other churches. When my wife and I went to Oregon, we started every new believer on the discipleship. The church continues with them there.
In the last three months, among other things I edited Disciplines for Disciples for printing and publication. I will send it in for printing in a week and a half. We are offering it at a pre-publication price of $8 apiece until I send it in. It is 162 pages, 8 1/2 x 11, two sided, black and white text, colored front and back cover, and spiral bound. A teacher’s edition, the answer key, will be separate for $25. The publication price later will be $11-12 each.
If you want it pre-publication in the next week and a half, let me know at this email: betbapt and then a very common ending @gmail.com. Get it as a good tool for fulfilling Matthew 28:18-20 and Ephesians 4:11-12.
Choosing Faith or Religion Like Choosing A Wallpaper Pattern
During graduate school, for a short while I worked at a paint and wall covering store. Of varied responsibilities, I performed the job of organizing the wallpaper books. They filled the tops of two large tables and I kept them in some kind of order based on style. I could at least direct someone according to the taste of a customer.
Philosopher Ernest Gellner wrote that under relativism choosing a religion is akin to choosing a wallpaper pattern. In other words, considering faith or religion you can act on personal taste or feelings, like someone picking out a style of wallcovering. In general, truth then doesn’t apply to faith or religion, not like the physics of airplane travel or the engineering of a bridge.
You can live in a house without wallpaper on the walls. Wallpaper itself is a total convenience. Are faith or religion or moral laws such a convenience?
Men have become convinced by many various ungodly means that religious knowledge, the truth as a basis for faith, is of a different, lesser quality. First, you choose what you want to believe. What you’ve chosen might be something different than mine. I like something different, and it doesn’t matter that they disagree or even contradict. People might treat scripture like it is just a vessel to conform to whatever they want, but it isn’t. However, they are doing this now.
Second, many varied religions compare in what’s important. It’s better just to look for common ground. Everyone has free will and you won’t convince anyone by trying to force them. These similarities, kindness, treating other people like they want to be treated, the golden rule, are what’s important. Those are the common ground, hence the truth. The Bible says nothing like this either.
Third, the truth is really just what you feel in your heart. Follow your heart. That feeling that you feel is something God wants you to know. Are you going to deny that God doesn’t want you to know what you need to know? God’s Word says to try these feelings, this intuition, using God’s Word.
Fourth, the very existence of so many religions says that it’s near to impossible to be certain on the truth. So many people couldn’t all be wrong. It’s proud to think you do know.
Fifth, two plus two equals four. That’s knowledge. Faith is categorically different, not knowing in the same way as math. Math is real. Twelve divided by three equals four. If religion was the same as math, then you could say that you know it. Religion, faith, has much more variation, because it isn’t so sure. Whatever someone happens to feel or think about religious matters is as good as what anyone else says. It’s very personal, unlike math. Two plus two means the same thing to everyone. Religion and faith are different, more like choosing a wallpaper pattern.
None of the reasons or explanations I’ve given here are true. Man walks according to his own lust and his view of faith, religion, knowledge, and the truth conforms to that. What’s real is what’s out in the world, the people he knows, his dreams, what he wants to do. Faith and religion can be modified to fit that. In the end though, God will still judge them to fall short of a biblical plan of salvation.
Burk Parsons tweeted yesterday (Sunday): “Saying you’re a new kind of Christian with a new kind of Christianity is basically saying you’re an old kind of heretic.” You can want people to include you in Christianity, but your new kind of Christianity isn’t really or truly Christian.
Not just the world, but churches today in rapidly growing fashion coddle relativism.
WORD OF TRUTH CONFERENCE 2021
In 1987 my wife and I, having been married for two weeks, took a U-Haul truck to the San Francisco Bay Area, and we started a church in the San Francisco Bay Area. I pastored it thirty-three plus years. In 2009, I started the Word of Truth (WOT) Conference.
Besides helpful edification of our church, Bethel Baptist, a plan for the conference from the morning sessions was the writing and publication of books. A Pure Church came from the first three years of the conference. A short book on apostasy, Lying Vanities, is coming soon from the next three years. From the following four years will come a book, The One True Gospel, not yet published. We covered the doctrine of sanctification the last three years, and a book, Lord-willing, is also forthcoming, which will be titled, Salvation That Keeps On Saving.
Past conference audio is still available at the Word of Truth Conference website. You can also watch video. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and the church is local only. It was our goal with the conference to propagate and preserve the truth. God has given churches this responsibility.
This year will be the first every WOT conference I will miss. It’s occurring this year again and you can watch it on livestream through the links below. I’m sure it will be very helpful. I believe the sessions could be watched later as well upon its completion. The theme of this years conference is Why Is The Bible True? Here is the schedule. You can also click on each one of the links to get to the location of the livestream at youtube.
Wednesday Evening Service, November 10, 7:00pm—Preaching (One Sermon)
Thursday Morning, November 11, 9:30am-12:00pm—Two Sessions
First Session: “The Testimony of the Spirit through the Scriptures and through the Saints”—There is the witness and self- attestation of the Bible being the truth, by the witness of the Spirit in the words of Scripture and in the heart of believers. This session will also address the notion of circular reasoning and of its failed application to the Bible.
Second Session: “The Attack from Satan and Sinners”—Satan seeks to discredit the authority of God’s words; and sinners, in boldness against God’s rule, receive Satan’s lies and play along his cryptic plan.
Thursday Evening, November 11, 7:00pm—Preaching (Two Sermons)
Friday Morning, November 12, 9:30am-12:00pm—Two Sessions
First Session: “The Issue of Biblical Manuscripts”—This will address the argument of manuscript apparent disparities, not only behind the entirety of the text issue, but also behind the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus.
Second Session: “Archaeology of the Old Testament”—This will cover the general proof of archaeology, as well as hone in on a particular, factual, archaeological proof regarding the Old Testament Scriptures.
Friday Evening, November 12, 7:00pm—Preaching (Two Sermons)
Saturday Morning, November 13, 9:30am-12:00pm—Two Sessions
First Session: “Archaeology of the New Testament”—This will cover the general proof of archaeology, as well as hone in on a particular, factual, archaeological proof regarding the New Testament Scriptures.
Second Session: “The Proof of Prophecy”—An unfailing proof to the truth of the Bible being of the mouth of God is the voice of biblical prophecy and its harmony with the real past and the real present. This session will show biblical prophecy to be of God alone.
Sunday School, November 14, 9:45am
“The Realness about the Bible”—This session will walk through the stories and facts of the Bible and expose the simple fact of its realness to our world, rejecting and abandoning the notion that the Bible is mere myth, legend, fable, fantasy, or a compilation of moral stories. It will also include final exhortations to believers and unbelievers, considering the instruction and impact of all the previous sessions.
Sunday Morning Service, November 14, 11:00am—Preaching
Sunday Evening Service, November 14, 6:00pm—Preaching
Postmodern “Grace”
The author of Hebrews in 12:15-17 warns:
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
C. H. Spurgeon wrote concerning the failing of the grace of God:
Under the means of grace, there are many who do “fall short of the grace of God.” They get something that they think is like grace, but it is not the true grace of God, and they ultimately fall from it, and perish. . . . [I]n church fellowship we ought to be very watchful lest the church as a whole should fail through lack of the true grace of God, and especially lest any root of bitterness springing up among us should trouble us, and thereby many be defiled. We must remember that though we are saved by grace, yet grace does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action. Though salvation depends upon the merits of Christ, yet those who receive those merits receive with them a faith that produces holiness.
Spurgeon explains that this “failing” is “falling short,” and then “falling short” is not getting “the true grace of God” but “something that they think is like grace.” He says the true grace of God “does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action.” The placebo for the true grace of God does not produce holiness.
The true grace of God saves us. Most people want salvation, but they also don’t want the holiness true grace produces. Hebrews uses Esau as an example. He allowed his fleshly desire to keep him from true grace, replacing it with something short of it. God’s grace produces holiness.
Root of Bitterness
Through the years, I’ve read many different opinions about the “root of bitterness.” In the context, it causes a failing of the grace of God. Some say that the root of bitterness is an apostate in the church, like Esau, who then brings about further apostasy from others. Others say that it is sin, which is bitter and defiling. Rick Renner writes:
“It” pictures a person who is continually troubled, harassed, and annoyed by thoughts of how someone else wronged him. The offended person is now so troubled that he is almost emotionally immobilized. Instead of moving on in life, he gets stuck in the muck of that experience, where he wallows day after day in the memories of what happened to him. If that person doesn’t quickly get a grip on himself, he will eventually fulfill the next part of the verse.
Tozer explained it the same way:
The sad and depressing bitter soul will compile a list of slights at which it takes offense and will watch over itself like a mother bear over her cubs. And the figure is apt, for the resentful heart is always surly and suspicious like a she-bear!
Perhaps the preceding verse, verse 14, gives a clue:
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
Esau lacked peace between he and his father, Isaac, and his brother, Jacob. So many especially today allow the slights, real and otherwise, and even actual sins against them to keep them from the grace of God. They also often use these temporal affronts to justify their lusts, incongruous with the true grace of God. It ultimately reflects on their view of God and His goodness to them.
Postmodern Grace
Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God. I’m titling what I believe is the most common contemporary replacement for true grace, “postmodern grace” (Jesus Loves Me with postmodern lyrics). It isn’t the grace of God, because it is short of the grace of God.
Postmodern truth is your truth. Postmodern grace is your grace. It doesn’t follow peace, because it allows a grudge and resentment to keep it from that. It doesn’t follow holiness, because it sells holiness for temporal, carnal appetites, like the morsel of Esau. Adherents though count this as the grace of God. They remain bitter with those who reject their failing of the grace of God. The bitterness fuels further rejection of true grace, accompanied, like Esau, by tears of grudge-filled resentment.
Postmodern grace isn’t about pleasing God, but about pleasing self. Postmodern grace self-identifies as grace, which is in fact moral relativism. It doesn’t follow after holiness, but after its own lust.
Is God Not Being Obvious Enough, Proof That There Is No God?
I’m not saying that God isn’t obvious, but that is a major reason in what I’ve read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism. It’s also something I’ve thought about myself. God doesn’t go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed. God doesn’t show Himself in a manner that people expect.
Outside of earth’s atmosphere, space does not befriend life. Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth. No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else.
No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth. Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space. That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God’s beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.
Another angle I hear relates to suffering. God doesn’t show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God. Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago. Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.
According to scripture, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means you can’t see Him. John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 say, “No man hath seen God at any time.” One reason God isn’t obvious is that no one can see Him. That does not mean He doesn’t reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us. In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us (John 1:18). 1 Samuel 3:21 says, “the LORD revealed himself.” Romans 1:19 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people. They want, what I like to call, the crown performance. The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. People want more from God, but God doesn’t give that. God deserves the crown performance. He wears the crown. He doesn’t give the crown performances.
Seek God
I believe there are four main reasons God isn’t as obvious as people want Him to be. One, God wants to be sought after. I often say that God doesn’t want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot. Five times scripture says, “Seek God,” twenty-seven times, “seek the Lord,” twice, “seek his face,” and thirteen times, “seek him,” speaking of God. A good example of God’s desire here is Deuteronomy 4:29:
But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Believe God
Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.Hebrews 11:13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Men Rebel
God’s Glory
Does Lordship Salvation Proceed from Calvinism Like Many Say?
I believe what is termed, “Lordship salvation,” and don’t believe there is any other kind. I’ve read articles meant to expose Lordship salvation as false, that say it proceeded from the Calvinism of 17th century Post-Reformation Puritanism. Puritanism also brought the Westminster Confession of Faith. When I think of the five points of TULIP, I don’t get the connection. Lordship salvation is what I read in the Bible. Before I dig into that, I want to clarify some points.
No one is saved by works. Scripture not only does not teach salvation by works, but it instructs against salvation by works (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). The Bible does teach salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not a grace or a faith like the Mormons, their vital doctrine of salvation found in the Book of Mormon, a man-made, uninspired book (2 Nephi 25:23):
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
The Bible not only teaches nothing like that statement, but it teaches that when one adds even one work to grace, Christ becomes of no effect unto him. He also becomes a debtor to do the whole law (Galatians 5:2-4).
On the other hand, “believing” must be what scripture shows is “believing.” “Jesus Christ” must be who scripture shows is in fact Jesus Christ. These aren’t arbitrary, “believing” and “Jesus Christ.” Both must be what scripture teaches. I’m not attempting to be difficult. I don’t want truly saved people to think they’re not saved. “Believing” and “Jesus Christ” are both simple to understand. They go wrong when someone adds to or takes away from what the Bible says.
Also, when someone professes to believe in Jesus Christ does that mean he is truly saved? Is that what scripture teaches about the assurance of salvation? It doesn’t. The Bible teaches the opposite. Merely professing to believe in Jesus Christ does not mean that someone has believed in Jesus Christ. Just because someone even continues to profess faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that he is saved.
The ones that I have read that critique Lordship salvation as Calvinist or Reformed, say that the original Reformers, Calvin and Luther, taught that faith was only acceptance of the Word of God. I could agree with faith being acceptance of the Word of God if it really was acceptance of the Word of God, which means that someone truly accepted in a genuine fashion what the Bible said about Jesus Christ.
As a matter of history, Melancthon in the 16th century defined faith with three Latin words in his Loci Communes Theologici: Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia. Those three in order bring in intellectual, emotional, and volitional. From that, I would argue that the volitional aspect of faith arose before the 17th century. Among writers, these three divided into two, notitia and assensus representing the mind and fiducia, the heart, so that genuine faith involved the head and the heart, not only the head.
I’m not going to do this here, but if one were to follow through with a study of faith in all theological literature, one can see that this volitional or heart aspect goes very far back as an understanding of faith. As an example and before the printing press, Irenaeus in the early 3rd century wrote:
The Law which was given to bondmen formed men’s souls by outward corporeal work, for it coerced men by a curse to obey the commandments in order that they might learn to obey God. But the Word, the Logos who frees the soul, and through it the body, teaches a voluntary surrender.
Clement in the early second century writes:
Called by the will of God in Christ, we can be justified, not by ourselves, not by our own wisdom and piety, but only by faith, by which God has justified all in all ages. But shall we, on this account cease from doing good, and give up charity? No, we shall labor with unwearied zeal as God, who has called us, always works, and rejoices in his works.
This is how men have understood faith not to be mere intellectual assent to facts.
I divide the salvation issue into two parts, “believing in” and “Jesus Christ.” “Faith in Christ” is four times, “faith in the Lord Jesus” once, some form of “believe on” Christ, fifteen times, and “believe in” Christ, eleven times. There are more examples than these, but “believing” must be believing and some faith does not save (James 2:17-26; John 2:23-24). Saving faith includes more than intellect. Repentance means something more than just sorrow (2 Corinthian 7:8-11). Intellect and sorrow without volition falls short of believing.
Taking in all the parallel passages, saving faith must include repentance, which must be volitional. One could say that saving repentance must include faith. Jesus said that if anyone comes unto Him, salvation language, he must deny himself, which means losing his life or his soul (Luke 9:23-25). Scripture describes salvation as the restoring (Psalm 23:3) and converting of the soul (Psalm 23:3). To be restored or converted, a sinner relinquishes his soul to the Lord. This is repentance. Jesus said, I am the way (John 14:6). Someone relinquishes his own way, if he believes in Jesus Christ.
The second half says, “Lord Jesus Christ.” If someone believes Jesus is the Christ, which is necessary for eternal life (John 20:31), then he believes Jesus is King. This fits with Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s preaching to “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” One could say the meaning of this is “repent because the King is here.” The New Testament presents Jesus as King. Someone does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, as the King, and remain in rebellion against Him. He relinquishes His will, becomes subject to the King. This can be proven over and over in the New Testament.
Just as an example, one should read the parable taught in Luke 20:1-19. It’s obvious, Jesus the Son was sent to people, having authority over them. His audience was to receive His authority and ownership, Lordship, if they believed in Him. They didn’t. They killed him, so they were in big trouble. This kind of teaching is all over the New Testament. I understand the popularity of non-Lordship teaching. They walk after their own lusts and don’t want someone as a Boss (2 Peter 3:1-4).
Everything that I’ve written about believing in Jesus Christ does not require being a Calvinist or Reformed. I haven’t read anything that makes that connection. It’s an assertion without proof. Just because Calvinists did believe it doesn’t mean it originated with them. It is what the Bible teaches.
When one reads the early Baptist confession, the Schleitheim Confession (1527), written by Michael Sattler, not a Protestant confession, he reads not a full confession of faith or explanation of the Baptist doctrine. It reveals the distinctions between the Baptists and those not, who claim salvation by faith. Sattler’s statement does not disagree with Protestants on what is “faith in Christ.” One of the few statements in the Confession, however, is the following:
Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves.
This defined for Baptists who believed in Jesus Christ. Repentance and true faith in Christ, including Lordship, did not arise from Calvinism.
Which Is True? Restoration, Reformation, or Perpetuity?
Two experiences dovetailed for me to write this post. As to the first, while working out I watched a documentary on Martin Luther. Does Luther’s Reformation represent the truth? Is the true church a reformed one?
The second, I took my dad to a podiatrist in Layton, Utah. As a diabetic, he goes in for his feet every three to six months. In my conversation with the LDS doctor, I gave a short gospel exposition and explained Baptists and the perpetuity of the truth and a true church. Rather than perpetuity or reformation, the Mormons believe in restoration of a true church gone apostate.
I see at least six possible historic positions on the truth. One, we never ever had it. Two, we received it, lost it, and have never restored it since. Three, false teachers corrupted the truth to the degree that some needs reformation. Four, men reformed the corrupted truth (but not likely to its original state). Five, men restored lost truth to its original condition. Six, it was never lost or corrupted. Those six positions find themselves in restoration, reformation, or perpetuity. Someone could add total apostasy to the three to take in the six.
Historic positions on the truth relate also to the church. The preservation of the truth pertains to the preservation of the church. God gave the truth to the church to preserve (1 Timothy 3:15). Applying the same views to the church, one, did the true church end? If it ended, was it restored? If forces corrupted the church, submerging it in various degrees of darkness, was it reformed? Or, was the church never lost, the truth never lost, but both were preserved? These viewpoints of truth and of the church can’t all be true. Only one of them can be true, because each of the three or four contradict the others.
Another important facet to this discussion or question is, how do we know which of these four is true? Only one of them can be true, but how do we know which one? Philosophy of history revolves around the question, what happened? Many other questions, however, arise, important of which is whether a person can report on historical events accurately with his personal interpretation. In this discussion, this is the crux of the issue. From a biblical perspective, God didn’t promise to preserve history. History can be and is slanted by those recounting.
If perpetuity of the truth and the church is true, that truth and the church were never lost, how do we know? What is the proof? Most historical evidence is on the side of corruption and reformation. Is there proof for perpetuity?
As I listened to the introduction in the Martin Luther documentary, the makers presented a very dark world out of which the reformation began. That segment began with an illustration of the painting by the Dutchman, Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights. The producers posited a world as Bosch did. The church was corrupt with few exceptions, John Wycliffe and John Hus.
Hus apparently means “goose” in Bohemian. Hus is reported to have said while being attached to the stake for burning, “You can kill the goose, but one day soon a swan will come that no one will be able to silence,” and Luther came a hundred years later. Luther’s pulpit had a swan engraved or painted on it, asserting himself the fulfillment of Hus’s prophecy.
With the reformation view of history, Luther becomes important. He becomes the vessel of the Reformation, it’s veracity attached to him. Was that true? Luther retained many Roman Catholic doctrines, including a state church. He was better than the Catholics, no doubt. Based on his own writing, I don’t think Luther was converted. A reformation viewpoint embraces Luther and then adapts him to provide the proof.
The Bible is true. What Jesus said was true. The reformed view isn’t much different than that of the restorationists in its reliance on scripture. Jesus and the Bible teach perpetuity. As I watch a Luther documentary, it is easy to see a reformed view of history as a matter of personal interpretation through a convoluted lens.
The Mormon podiatrist asked me when the Baptists started. I didn’t provide him a hint to ask that question. It was important enough for him on his own. How did I answer? I said that Baptists started with Christ, and I added, “Of course I would say that, right?” I revealed that there have always been true churches separate from the state church. That’s what Jesus prophesied and He couldn’t be wrong (Matthew 16:18-19).
I hear the reformed say, “The Reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the doctrine of justification had been lost. I have often asked men, “Do you believe the truth was preserved through Roman Catholicism?” People have a difficult time answering that. It’s easy to see why. Roman Catholicism was an apostate institution that had departed from the faith, when the Reformation started. The Reformed or Protestants trace themselves through Roman Catholicism, a viewpoint incompatible with a scriptural position on the truth and the church.
A perpetuity view starts with scripture and then gives the most complete historical evidence that corresponds to what the Bible says. In every century since Christ and the founding of the church, churches exist separate from the state church that embrace scripture as authority. With a scriptural presupposition of perpetuity enough historical evidence exists to support that viewpoint. Many historians vouch for this.
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous.
The famed Quaker commentator, Robert Barclay, said (The Inner Life of the Societies of the Commonwealth, London, 1876, pp. 11-12):
We shall afterwards show the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church.
Annaeus Ypeij (1760–1836) and Isaac Johannes Dermout (1777–1867), Dutch Reformed theologians and historians, in their Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk wrote:
We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who, long in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and, as a Christian society, has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.
I include these only as samples. There are many more quotes that back the hypothesis that assemblies existed separate from Roman Catholicism, which believed and practiced the Bible. They long predate the Reformation, substantiating a perpetuity viewpoint.
Modernism of the nineteenth century brought a solely empirical basis for truth. The nature of knowledge brought the necessity of rational justification for faith. Traditional beliefs that proceeded from scripture alone were questioned and criticized. The empiricist claimed knowledge through the senses alone. The only reasonable view of the world comes by scientific discovery. Sufficient evidence for perpetuity could be questioned next to the massive documentation of Roman Catholicism. This clashes with the doctrine of scripture.
Faith is the basis of pleasing God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Faith isn’t contradictory to reason, but it is superior to reason. I like to say that faith bypasses our lying eyes. Revelation exceeds, transcends, or eclipses discovery.
At the same time, perpetuity is reasonable because scripture is reasonable. This fits Romans 12:1, “reasonable” (logikos). Enough history exists either direct or indirect to corroborate the scriptural presupposition of perpetuity. Saying that the truth was lost and the church ceased as an institution is not reasonable. It’s like saying that the world got here by accident.
You know the conclusion. Restoration and reformation are false, but perpetuity is true. What does that mean for authority, the truth, or the church? It has repercussions worth exploring. If you joined something Protestant, Reformed, or Restorationist, you’re in something false. What does that leave you? Pleasing God requires living by faith, which means obeying scripture. This is why I believe in perpetuity and I’m a Baptist.
The Meaning of “Done” and the Work of Christ
I didn’t hear language until recently both in preaching and in reading of the existence of only two religions, one “do” and the other “done.” This nice turn of phrase might help someone who thinks salvation is by works. A popular leader in “new revivalism,” comparable to the label “new Calvinism,” wrote a book titled, “Done.”
In a sense, depending upon the explanation, the “done” versus “do” aphorism is true. With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous. What I read, very often it is. Many who emphasize “done” and not “do” are wrong, mainly in their watery, pliable definition of “done.” The ambiguity provides for doctrinal perversion.
It makes good preaching to turn to the words of Jesus, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive), the work of salvation done by Christ on the cross. With the popularity of a new and false view of sanctification, many Christian leaders now say that since salvation is done, when you sin, just preach the gospel to yourself, so you won’t feel burdened down by the guilt. Tetelestai is perfect passive (not to get super Greeky with you), not the aorist tense, completed action. With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing. Jesus works, but His work doesn’t stop working.
Paul wrote in Philippians 2:13, “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” He’s not done working in you. “It is finished,” but the results are ongoing. How do you know your salvation is done? Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew7:21). “He that doeth.” That’s not “done;” that’s “do,” “doeth.” For the one who is really “done,” he will “do.” When someone isn’t doing, then his salvation isn’t done.
The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived. Some of the “done” people say, Jesus lives it, and you just claim what He did as if it was you. Some reading this may say that you’re not believing that. You are when you lump sanctification with justification. How you know you’re saved is that He keeps saving you. Evidence. It shows up. God provides measurables.
Partly why Jesus’ righteousness doesn’t show up in the the “done ones” is that they did not repent, unless a deconstructed, dumbed down repentance. They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did. They repented of depending on self. This is the so-called repentance of the Pharisees that diminishes righteousness, what Paul called, ‘establishing your own righteousness and not submitting unto the righteousness of God’ (Romans 10:1-4).
Salvation is “done,” don’t get me wrong. What does “done” mean? When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature (2 Cor 5:17). Sin doesn’t dominate him any more (Roman 6:14). The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life. The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one (1 John 1:1,2, 5:11), what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
Very often, modern purveyors of “done” mean, even if for only practical purposes, their salvation is all set regardless if they practice sin as a lifestyle. Any hint that a life is going to change and salvation means “do” and not “done.” As a consequence of this false view, he becomes cemented in sinning, because he sin with no repercussions.
The apparent, albeit wrong, alternative to “done” says receive salvation through Christ’s death after trying to be a good person and living a righteous life. A biblical alternative is that salvation isn’t done until the believer is glorified, and when his salvation is truly done, Christ indwells Him and continues saving him. When God doesn’t indwell someone and transform him, he can only still “do,” except in a dangerous way, fooled in thinking the Lord saved him, when He hasn’t.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory
People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.
Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.
Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Recent Comments