Home » Kent Brandenburg (Page 10)
Category Archives: Kent Brandenburg
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers
I already have several series going, which include one on the Antichrist and globalism, one on the way people contort Matthew 5:17-20 to eliminate the doctrine of preservation, another one exploring Christian nationalism, and the one below, which I would predict has two parts, but it might just end here. I wanted you to know, Lord-willing, I would return to some of these series as I see fit.
*****************************
Church Fathers
If you grew up in a Baptist church like I did, then you didn’t hear anything about “church fathers.” I never heard that language until perhaps college, and I actually don’t remember when I first heard the terminology. No one referred in any of my childhood Baptist churches to a church father. I would doubt that I even heard of church fathers in high school, even though I attended and graduated from a Christian high school.
At some point as a child, I heard about “Father Abraham.” Sometime soon after that, I learned that Abraham was the father of the nation Israel. I also found that Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob were the Patriarchs. The English word, Patriarch, comes from the Latin, pater, which means Father. If you asked me who the Patriarchs were, I would answer, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Still, I never ever heard about any church fathers. Because of Galatians 3:7, now I might add that Abraham is also my Father, since I too am a child of his by faith in Jesus Christ.
Who are the Church Fathers?
So who are the church fathers? As you read this, maybe still you’ve never heard of the church fathers. However, now when people say “church fathers,” I know of whom they speak. I took a course in grad school, called “History of Christian Doctrine,” which examined the church fathers. Part of the requirements for my grad degree was historical theology. Okay, so who are these people called “church fathers”? I didn’t give them that name.
A Roman Catholic theologian named Johannes Quasten systematized ancient Christendom with his book, Patrology, which discusses what ancient Christian writers said. Historians had designated this study as Patristics. The earliest I read this term Patristics is in the 18th century and in German. Quasten defined “Church Fathers” as those Christian writers from New Testament times until Isidore of Seville (636) in the Latin world and John of Damascus (749) in the Greek world.
A second century writer, Irenaeus, who himself people call a “church father,” wrote:
For what any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father.
Clement of Alexandria, also a church father, wrote:
We call those who have instructed us, fathers.
Apparently, the basis for this designation originated from Deuteronomy 32:7:
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Proto Roman Catholic Fathers
From my reading through the years, I see these men, called church fathers, as proto-Roman Catholics. I’m not saying they would surrender or acquiesce to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, if they read it. However, in general Roman Catholics embraced these men, claimed them, and then designated them as their fathers. The teachings of these fathers developed into later Roman Catholic dogma. Roman Catholics use them as credence for their false doctrine.
The earlier “fathers” were not in general as filled with error as the later ones. They show the incremental departure from true New Testament doctrine and practice. Their errors provide the basis for later and more severe error. Today men justify their own false doctrines historically by referring to something in the patristic writings. They can and do say that they have historical justification from the fathers for unbiblical beliefs and practices.
Value of the Church Fathers
I’m not saying the fathers are not without merit. You can find true beliefs and accurate exegesis of scripture in their writings. In many cases, they sound like sincere, true believers. Those writings also do validate certain doctrine and practice existed at that period of time, which is important for the history of doctrine. The patristic works show that people believed these things at this time according to these writings. They also indicate a consideration of New Testament books as the Word of God and a belief in Jesus Christ. From what they wrote, we see the reality of a love for the Bible among them.
The church fathers are very old writings, some of the oldest ancient writings that we possess. They are relevant as historical matter. They authenticate the story of Christianity. We can get from them an understanding of some what happened at that time. From the mere historical standpoint, they are very valuable.
The Church Fathers Were Not the Church Fathers
With all the above said, I don’t believe the church fathers are the church fathers. They’ve been labeled “the church fathers,” but they are not the fathers of the true church. I acknowledge the notoriety of these men called “the church fathers.” They represent a particular view of history with a trajectory toward a state church.
The best and really only evidence of the true church is scripture. One should judge the veracity of a church by what the Bible says it is. The Bible says what a church is. Then when someone examines something called a church, he tests it by scripture.
I would contend that the church fathers are better the fathers of the state church, which isn’t a true church. The state church chose the writings they would preserve. Based on biblical presuppositions, I contend that other men followed more closely to scripture. Their writings did not survive, because they clashed with Roman Catholic viewpoints. Those men represent a different trajectory of history.
Evidence for Church Fathers
Scriptural Presuppositions
You’ve heard, “To the victors go the spoils.” The victors very often also write the history books. The state church dominated most of the period of history from Christ until today. Its history and advocates of its history also dominate. For centuries, the state church had no problem destroying whatever did not support the state church, including the writings of which it did not approve. This means often leaving no historical trace of the presence of its enemies.
Based first upon biblical presuppositions, I and others believe that churches always existed separate from the state church. From some historical record, we believe they were known by different names. I think enough evidence exists to identify them by some of those names (example). Rather than a state church, these were autonomous and persecuted churches operating independent of state churches.
Churches that represent the biblically acceptable viewpoint left enough historical evidence, a footprint, to acknowledge their existence. Their trajectory leaves adequate trace of their scriptural legitimacy. Someone pictured it with a rope across a river, held on each side by men. You can see where the rope goes into the river and where it comes out. You know the rope continues in between, but you can’t see it at every point. However, you know the rope is there.
Enough of a History
The New Testament tells the story of true churches, local only. Evidence shows true churches existed then after the invention of the printing press. Some proof also indicates their presence in between. I would contend that the church fathers are the apostles and first pastors in New Testament times. The historical trajectory of those fathers does not move through those called, “the church fathers.” Therefore, the church fathers are not the church fathers. I don’t accept them as mine.
The actual fathers have little mention in church history. God did not promise to preserve their history and little of their history did survive. These are primitive Baptists first called Christians in Acts 11:26. True New Testament churches, that believed and practiced the Bible, continued through history separate from the state church.
The Horrific Distortion of the Lord Now in Matthew 5:17-20
Related Post Number One Related Post Number Two Related Post Number Three
Perfect Preservation
You required payment from me on a certain future date and I had no money except the exact change for the payment in a large jar. You needed full payment and I had it in the way of coinage. It was all in one large jar, and I said to you:
I truly say to you, until the specified future required date of payment, one dime or one penny shall in no wise pass from this large jar, till the fulfillment of the whole amount of payment.
Anyone hearing this statement could and should acknowledge a promise of preservation of every coin in the large jar until the completion of the payment. One could call this a promise of perfect preservation of the coins. Every coin and all of them will survive or continue within the jar. Of course, the fulfillment of the promise depends on the trustworthiness and veracity of my words. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That sounds like a guarantee to me, and a strong one. When you read the previous and following verses (17 and 19-20), they do not diminish from what Jesus guaranteed in verse 18.
The Veracity of Jesus
The promise of Jesus extends to heaven and earth passing away, which has still not occurred. That event will transpire, but it remains in the future. At this date in the year 2024, heaven and earth continue. With that the case, what would one expect related to the promise of Jesus in Matthew 5:18? Of course, the perfect preservation of every jot and tittle of the law. The context says the law here was (so is) all of scripture. The words “jot” and “tittle” indicate the preservation of all of scripture goes to the very letter.
In my hypothetical for illustration, I promised the perfect preservation of every coin in a large jar. I thought the illustration would enhance an understanding of what Jesus said. The major difference between the two statements, mine and Jesus’, is that what Jesus says is the truth, always. My guarantee even for one generation is not as sure as Jesus’ is. When He promises preservation, you can count on it. He always fulfills His promises.
Jesus is truth, so what He says is always true. He also can make guarantees or promises based upon His divine attributes. He has the power to fulfill what He promises. Because of His omniscience, He also knows already He will fulfill the promise. The quality of what Jesus says depends on His attributes. Since I don’t have those attributes, my promises or guarantees are of a lesser quality than that of Jesus.
Again, in my hypothetical, let’s say that I did lose a few of my coins, so I did not fulfill my promise of perfect preservation of every coin. If that happened, it does not change the meaning of what I promised. Those words continue to mean what they meant when I said them.
High View of Scripture
Perhaps you’ve heard the terminology, “a high view of scripture.” Someone has a high view of scripture when he sees scripture elevated above feelings, man’s thinking, philosophy, tradition, and all other authority. A high view fits within the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 3:4: “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” It follows that scripture is inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative, perspicuous, and sufficient.
Someone with a high view of scripture will not and does not change its meaning based on circumstances. God said it, that settles it. That kind of thing. With a high view of scripture, when he reads Matthew 5:18, he takes it at face value. He explains the fulfillment based on what Jesus said and not on what he think may happen. He conforms what happened to what Jesus said and not vice versa. This also means not later changing the meaning to have it fit with how he interprets what happened.
Adapting Circumstances to What Jesus Said
John Lightfoot first wrote From the Talmud and Hebraica between 1658 and 1674. In that book, he writes about Matthew 5:18, and he already considered the repercussions of circumstances of which I speak, saying:
A second question might follow concerning Keri and Kethib: and a suspicion might also arise, that the test of the law was not preserved perfect to one jot and one tittle, when so many various readings do so frequently occur.
Do variant readings nullify what Jesus said? Instead of conforming what Jesus said to the circumstances, which is a low view of scripture, Lightfoot explained variant readings of the text to what Jesus said. John Lightfoot was not questioning or changing the meaning of Matthew 5:18. The teaching on perfect preservation was so indisputable to him, that it need no mention. That is how it reads. Bravo Lightfoot.
What we see occur today horrifically distorts what Jesus said to deprive it of its original meaning. In so doing, men eliminate a promise of preservation in lieu of textual variants. I’ve noticed they even distort much of the meaning of what Jesus said even in the entire sermon, it seems, just to eradicate a promise of perfect preservation of scripture in Matthew.
More to Come
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Two)
Seeds of Christian Nationalism
Scripture teaches nothing about anything remotely Christian nationalism for the New Testament church age. Christian nationalism must arise at the most from principles through scripture that permit Christian nationalism. Is that possible? I think a semblance of that is. True believers in Jesus Christ, Christians, could hope for that. However, before I write about that, I will deal with the Christian nationalism movement in the United States, as I see it.
The Christian nationalist movement in the United States arises from the false eschatology of postmillennialism and a false ecclesiology of paedo baptism and communion. I suggest that several factors have contributed to this theonomist style or Christian reconstructionist postmillenial revival.
Recent Embrace of Protestant Theology
Not necessarily in this order, but, one, postmillennialism proceeds from recent new embrace of Protestant theology, some being a new Calvinism, or the “young, restless, and Reformed movement.” Many factors, I believe and have witnessed, led to the attraction to this faction of professing Christianity. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:22: “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.” The latter wisdom, one might also call, “intellectualism.” Perhaps an insipid, superficial evangelicalism swung the pendulum to theological seriousness and the greatest allure to a muscular, Puritanical determinism with heavy historical roots.
Attack on the Male Role in Society
Two, the elimination of and attack on a male role in society and growing egalitarianism pushed young men toward a more masculine view of the world. Postmillennial theonomy embraces not just complementary roles for men and women, but thoroughgoing Patriarchy. This also explains the great popularity of Jordan Peterson, who promotes the significance of the Patriarchy and a unique place for men in the culture.
Other Reasons for the Rise of Christian Nationalism Propositions
Three, men responded to the degradation of the culture. The United States slouches toward Gomorrah. The weakness all around begs for an answer or a reaction. Men don’t like what they are seeing. This corresponds with the decline of the United States on the world stage, a porous border, and decrepit leaders.
Four, the Postmillennials have some effective spokesmen, that contrast with the ineffectiveness of the alternative. I would compare Russell Moore, now editor of Christianity Today, and Douglas Wilson. The former capitulates and whine and the latter puts on the battle fatigues.
Five, even though Trump himself is not a Christian, Christian nationalism dovetails with the rise of Trump. It would take some explaining here, which I don’t think is too difficult, but I’ll leave it at that one sentence.
Premillennialism the Truth
Scripture is plain on the future or how everything will end. It is not postmillennial. Premillennialism represents a grammatical, historical interpretation of scripture. It is how the Bible reads. Premillennialism does not correspond well to a biblical presentation of Christian nationalism.
Based on this understanding of the future, Scott Aniol has written a different position than Christian Nationalism, that he calls Christian Faithfulness (he further argues here). I can’t disagree with anything Aniol says about this and generally agree with his criticism of the positions of Stephen Wolf and Douglas Wilson. I haven’t read Aniol’s new book, Citizens and Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, so I don’t know how far he goes in his vision for the nation.
The Likelihood or Unlikelihood of Christian Nationalism
Without having read Aniol’s book, I’m certain I would go further than Aniol and propose something toward Christian Nationalism without actual Christian Nationalism. I explained some of this in part one. In a refreshing way, Aniol calls himself a Baptist. I am a Baptist. Baptists as one of their distinctives claim the separation of church and state, even if the United States Constitution does not claim that. Baptists have taken strongly a very anti church state doctrine. The Baptists promoted and ratified the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Aniol has coined a new position related to the Christian Nationalism debate: Christian Faithfulness. My thinking has not yet congealed into a position. Maybe it won’t get to that and I could hold some version of Christian Faithfulness. I want to and will explain where I am right now.
More to Come
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism
Probing Christian Nationalism
The mainstream media now uses the words “Christian nationalism” as a political cudgel against Republicans. Rob Reiner, the former “meathead” of Archie Bunker fame produced a documentary against his caricature of “Christian nationalism.” The left labels new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a “Christian Nationalist.” This last week, Politico writer, Heidi Przybyla, made news herself with this statement on television, attacking Christian Nationalism:
The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God. . . . The problem with that is that they are determining, men, are determining what God is telling them.
Apparently this is news on the left, that people believe that rights come from God. This was, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence (1776) by the apparently Christian Nationalist, Thomas Jefferson:
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.
Not long ago in 2018, professing conservative commentator, Jonah Goldberg, wrote something akin to Przybyla in National Review:
Let’s begin with some somewhat unusual assertions for these pages.
Capitalism is unnatural. Democracy is unnatural. Human rights are unnatural. God didn’t give us these things, or anything else. We stumbled into modernity accidentally, not by any divine plan.
Christian Discussion of Christian Nationalism
As much as the left picks Christian Nationalism as a talking point, Christians are discussing it. Here are important books in the debate:
The Case for Christian Nationalism, by Stephen Wolfe
Citizens & Exiles: Christian Faithfulness in God’s Two Kingdoms, by Scott Aniol
Also several have written many articles on Christian Nationalism, both pro and con. I understand the rise of the terminology. I’ve written posts here with a consideration of Christian Nationalism, but the very idea of consideration drew fierce opposition for even broaching the subject. Never have I said I agreed with Christian Nationalism. However, I have questions that did not and do not relate to the popularization of the concept of Christian Nationalism.
Basis For Considering Christian Nationalism
My questions and then thoughts, perhaps answers, arise from the following.
One
One, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights and to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights starts with this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Analysis sees two clauses: (1) no establishment of state religion, and (2) free exercise of religion. I contend there is already the establishment of a state religion and that free exercise is at least abridged. The latter proceeds from the former. I like saying, “If there is a state religion, then it matters which one.” There is a state religion and it is against God, not even for God. Everyone does already subjugate to the anti-God state religion.
Two
Two, if the United States functions according to God-given rights, then it should not ignore the one and true God. All truth comes from God and it is a lie when the state will not acknowledge this. Going back to number one, it is a religion that rejects this, not neutrality.
The vacuum from great desire not to establish state religion acquiesces to false state religion. God is truth. The Bible is truth. The one God and His Word, the Bible, are not some tier of religion, which is separate from reality. This is our Father’s world. A nation cannot and will not function according to truth and laws without the acknowledgment of the true God.
Three
Three, God wants application of His Word to everything. The Bible is sufficient. God wants application of scripture to employment, to culture, to art, to government, yes, to everything and everywhere. To occur, this must be open, welcome, and purposeful. It should not be a process incessantly hidden or camouflaged, so as not to reveal its occurrence. Let God be God.
Four
Four, free exercise requires openness in conversation about everything in God’s Word. It requires quoting scripture like scripture is in fact authority. This means saying, we’re going to do this because God wants us to. God founded government. It isn’t matter and motion. Truly discussing rights, since they do come from God, requires including God in the discussion.
Opening the Can of Worms
I believe I can give more than the above four, but that’s enough to percolate thinking and expressing on this matter. The closing of the Constitution of the United States does not mean the end of discussion on the Constitution. It is not inspired. It is not God’s Word. Did it fail in the first amendment and really throughout the Constitution because of that failure?
Before the completion of the United State Constitution, Hamilton and Madison spent hundreds of pages discussing these ideas. Did that yield a perfect masterpiece? Is any kind of correction over? Questioning it is not akin to challenging the Word of God. I believe it is just the opposite. The Bible requires someone to prove it and even go back to the drawing board.
More to Come
The Real Dovetailing of Future Antichrist Agenda and World Power Now
PART FOUR
Separation of Powers
Whom we call the founding fathers of the United States designed into the government checks and balances and separation of powers. They also formed a system of federalism that divided power between the states and the federal government. Their understanding of man’s sin nature grounded their desire to limit the concentration of power in one entity. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in Federalist 51 wrote:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The states could impede the nation and one branch could obstruct another in the tendency of consolidating power. Even within the legislative branch, the Senate could thwart the House of Representatives and vice versa.
Private Property Ownership
God founded private property ownership. Even though He owns everything, He designed the concept of ownership itself. When Israel entered the land, God divided up the property among twelve tribes. Then among the tribes, families received their own pieces. God also established with laws rights of private property.
Dividing land by boundaries could separate and check evil. You can see this in the concept of landmarks in the Old Testament. Proverbs 22:28 says:
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Fathers set these landmarks, which is a smaller governing unit. Under fathers were sons and grandsons. Bigger than fathers were clans and larger than clans were tribes.
You probably notice how that globalists attack the family unit. When Hillary Clinton said, “It takes a village,” she sees the elimination of basic separation. Heavy taxation inclines toward government ownership of property. You hear this in a statement, like President Obama famously said, “You didn’t build that.” The government has ownership of what it contributed toward building.
Globalist Agenda
Public Education
The fathers of public education, Horace Mann and John Dewey, saw educational reform an efficient mechanism for social control. Public education standardized curricula and centralized the disbursement of funds. It restricted competition. Public schools seized on the influence of making children wards of the state. Education then became a department of the executive branch of the federal government.
Common Language
Nations have languages. God confused the languages at Babel to cause separation. The United States is an English speaking country. Requiring English represses globalism.
Obscure Sex or Gender
In a rudimentary way, obscuring differences in gender eliminates a significant substructure of separation. On the way to one world is one sex or gender. Each sex has a role and eradicating those roles also erases a God-ordained boundary.
Common Currency and Free Trade
On a larger scale than federalism and the separation of powers, nationalism checks globalism. The elimination of borders portends the loss of God-designed natural separation. Even if it is not physical boundaries like the line between the United States and Mexico, it is economic ones like separate currencies and cultural ones like unique ways of life based on founding principles.
Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:21), “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Globalists pour their efforts into a life of physical things. They are materialists who prioritize the natural universe and the planet. Most of them don’t care about national boundaries. They don’t want separation of powers.
National boundaries prevent greater wealth. Globalists don’t want trade protectionism and economic isolationism. They want unfettered ability to have and take. Free trade means buying and selling across borders with little to no intervention or inhibition. Worldwide companies grow more powerful making it more difficult for solely national, state, and local businesses to compete. Fewer companies control more until only a few men can control everything, like an Antichrist and his handpicked, loyal subordinates.
To gain more power and stay in power, globalists gladly offer limited security to the masses. They market protection and a very basic quality of life. Adherents trade freedom and opportunity for safety. Greedy globalists also play on greed by offering a certain stipend and free education and healthcare. Without compliance, occupants or residents lose privileges and finally life.
Censorship
To keep safety and security means control of communication. Censorship becomes the rule with few exceptions. Censorship says “no” to preaching the gospel. Jesus said the truth shall set you free indeed. The Antichrist will round up and destroy those speaking the truth.
Antichrist Versus Christ
The human leader of a future one world government is the Antichrist. He’s called the Antichrist (1 John 2:18). In that way, he has something in common with Christ. Christ will rule the world. The Antichrist wants this just as the power behind him, Satan, wants this. Globalism fails because of sin.
On the other hand, Christ saves from sin. He brings world peace. Everyone lives in harmony one with another with safety and security. However, the kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth comes only through Christ, not the Antichrist. Until Jesus sets up His kingdom on the earth, all globalism rebels against His plan.
Are the Doctrines of Crucification and Mortification the Same?
Crucification Not an English Word
As you read the above title, you read a word that doesn’t seem to appear in the English language, that is, crucification. No one used crucification in the history of theology either. Men used the concept of crucification, but not the word itself.
You have the English words crucify, crucified, and crucifixion. You find those in a dictionary. However, the words “mortification” and “vivification” do occur, which are in the spirit of crucification. I’m still going to use “crucification,” because no one has a word to represent a separate doctrine, that is a definite unique feature of salvation in scripture.
Crucifixion and Crucification
Crucifixion is a kind of death. Someone dies physically on a cross. Apparently either the Assyrians or the Babylonians invented crucifixion as a means of execution, but the Persians then used it regularly. It finally got to the Romans, who are most famous in history for crucifixion. When Jesus died on the cross, it was Roman crucifixion. The Lord Jesus made the cross a symbol and then the Apostle Paul took it further in Romans and Galatians.
If I say, the doctrine of crucifixion, that doesn’t mean anything. If I say, the doctrine of mortification, that means something. However, is it the same as, bear with me, a doctrine of crucification? I use that “word” because crucification as a doctrine is different than mortification, as I see it in scripture. Both crucification and mortification involve death, but mean something significantly different. You can see that by the usage of “crucified” and “mortify” in the New Testament.
“Crucified,” “Mortify,” and “Dead”
“Crucified”
Galatians 5:24 says,
And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
To clarify and summarize everything that he said in Galatians 5, Paul wrote Galatians 5:24. He had written earlier in Galatians something similar in 2:20:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
The only other place you see this is again by Paul in Romans 6:6:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
We should add Galatians 6:14, because it fits here too:
But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Paul uses the word “crucified” (sustauroo or stauroo). The word “cross” is the noun, stauros. Galatians 5:24 is aorist active. Galatians 2:20 is perfect passive. Romans 6:6 is aorist passive. Galatians 6:14 is perfect passive. All four of these verbs mean completed action in the past. The active is the subject doing something. The passive is the subject having something done to it. The perfect means completed action, yet with ongoing results.
“Mortify”
Before I dive back into crucification, that non-word in the English language, consider the references that mention mortification.
Romans 8:13, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”
Colossians 3:5, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
Those are the only two times “mortify” appears in the King James Version. They are actually two different Greek words. Romans 8:13 is thanatoo, which is present indicative active, continuous action. Colossians 3:5 is nekroo, which is aorist imperative active. That is aorist, which is not continuous action. However, both Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5 describe something occurring post-justification, that is, after the point of someone’s conversion.
“Dead”
The New Testament also uses the word “dead” in the verb form, describing a completed condition at the moment of justification. For instance, Romans 6:2 says:
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Peter also writes in 1 Peter 2:24:
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Both of those are the Greek word, apothnesko, and both aorist indicative active. They are again completed action.
Crucification and Mortification, Different
From all the scriptural data, crucification and mortification are different. Crucification occurs at the moment of salvation. It’s completed then. One could also say that it occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, since Paul uses the language, “crucified with Christ.” Crucification occurred with Christ at His crucifixion and occurred at the moment of conversion.
On the other hand, mortification occurs after conversion or after justification. It keeps occurring. Mortification will not stop in the life of a believer until his glorification. He keeps putting to death the deeds of his body and his members until he sees Jesus.
Maybe you’re already asking some good questions like these: “Why does someone need to keep putting to death something that is already dead? If I am crucified, past tense and completed action, why more ongoing putting to death of apparently the same thing? If true believers are dead indeed unto sin at the moment of conversion, why does God require further putting to death or mortification?”
What Is Crucification?
The questions of the previous paragraph are good questions and they relate to the doctrine of crucification.
Jesus died by crucifixion. Crucifixion is a particular kind of death, a slow death. This helps those in Galatia and Rome to understand why they still struggle with sin. Jesus hung on the cross for hours.
The flesh is crucified at the moment of conversion, the instance of justification, but he necessarily keeps dying a slow death of crucifixion. As a result, he must continue dying. He becomes more and more dead to the flesh and its affections and lusts and to the world. He becomes more alive then as well. The latter is the doctrine of vivification.
Judicial Death and Ethical Death
Galatians 5:24 says true believers at the moment of their conversion “have crucified the flesh.” Thomas Ross is the only one in church history that I read who refers to Romans 6:6: “the body dominated by sin when the Christian was still unconverted, has been judicially destroyed.” That language, judicially destroyed, I believe Ross coins. Ross writes:
Judicial and Ethical Destruction
The “body of sin,” the body dominated by sin when the Christian was still unconverted, has been judicially destroyed. This destruction is associated with positional sanctification. In terms of progressive sanctification, the flesh, the ethically sinful “body of sin,” has received its death blow, and its ultimate destruction at glorification is certain, as a man who is on a cross is certain of ultimate death, although he still can struggle and fight within certain limits.
The flesh within the believer is certain of utter destruction at death or the return of Christ, but during this life, although crucified and growing weaker, it can still influence the Christian to sin. These remnants of sin in the believer are to be mortified, put to death, to bring the legal and judicial truth and the ultimate certainty of glorification closer to practical reality in this life.
Glorification
This crucifixion with Christ in the believer has the result “that the body of sin might be destroyed.” This destruction, judicially completed at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, and positionally and legally declared for the believer at the moment of his regeneration, will take place ultimately at glorification, when the remnants of sin in the Christian are entirely removed, finally and completely destroyed.
However, the beginnings of this utter destruction are already set in motion, even as the crucifixion of the old man with Christ, which took place legally at the time of the Savior’s own crucifixion and begins experientially in the life of the elect at the point of their regeneration, progressively removes the life and strength from the old man, the body of sin.
Negative Mortification and Positive Vivification
The negative aspects of the progressive mortification of sin in this life, is the converse to the vivification, the progressive cleansing, sanctification of the believer, and growth of the new man, produced by the Triune God and especially the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures. This vivification culminates in glorification, when the Christian will be entirely without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:26-27).
I broke his one paragraph into five paragraphs, which are still hard to read. I encourage you to read it again to get a grasp of (what I’m calling) “crucification” versus mortification. Crucification, mortification, and vivification are all three necessary.
The Slow Death of Crucifixion
Strong
Augustus Strong agrees with this position on crucification, that it is a slow death. He wrote in his Systematic Theology:
The Christian is “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20), but the crucified man does not die at once. Yet he is as good as dead. Even after the old man is crucified, we are still to mortify him or put him to death (Rom. 8:13, Col. 3:5).
Fraser
James Fraser in his The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification wrote speaking of Romans 6:6:
The expression . . . is not, that the old man is put to death. Persons may live a considerable while, yea, some days on the cross. Crucifixion is not a state of death, but a state of pain, and torment, tending to death.
Fraser also saw Paul for a specific purpose use “crucified” rather than “put to death.” “Crucified” is a slow death akin to the reality of sanctification. It could harmonize with the completed action of “crucified” and the ongoing action of “mortify.” He never called a separate doctrine. I am.
Henry
Matthew Henry in his commentary through the Bible on Romans 6 wrote:
The death of the cross was a slow death; the body, after it was nailed to the cross, gave many a throe and many a struggle: but it was a sure death, long in expiring, but expired at last; such is the mortification of sin in believers. It was a cursed death, Galatians 3:13. Sin dies as a malefactor, devoted to destruction; it is an accursed thing. Though it be a slow death, yet this must needs hasten it that it is an old man that is crucified; not in the prime of its strength, but decaying: that which waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Ross differentiates what occurs when one has crucified the flesh with mortification by characterizing the former as “judicial” and the latter as “ethical.” This is a good differentiation.
Evidence of Crucification
As a part of crucification in Galatians 5:24, Paul says “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” Let’s call “affections” in this case, “feelings,” and “lusts,” “desires.” “Feelings” and “desires” come along with “the flesh.” A believer does not operate characteristically, habitually, or as a lifestyle according to his feelings and desires.
A believer crucified “feelings” and “desires” when he became “Christ’s.” He does not function according to his feelings and desires, but Christ’s will, because he is Christ’s. In Galatians, Paul says he “walks in the Spirit.” He no longer fulfills the lusts of the flesh, which produce the works of the flesh.
The crucifixion of the flesh at the point of conversion is reality. How does someone know it occurred? He doesn’t see the works of the flesh in his life in a characteristic or habitual way or as a lifestyle. He sees instead fruit of the Spirit.
In addition, someone with a crucified flesh will continue mortifying his members and the deeds of his body. He will not allow sin to reign in his mortal body (Rom 6:12). He lives in the Spirit.
The Real Dovetailing of Future Antichrist Agenda and World Power Now
PART THREE
Homogeneity
Many agree today the world is a much more homogenous place. Tremendous oneness also existed at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. That Babel represents the original Babylon, how the Bible also explains the world will end with a final Babylon. It makes sense that we are looking at the iterations of a final Babylon, based upon the spread and influence of one world everywhere.
When I was a child, I never heard of homosexuality. Even with it in the Bible, I would not have known what it was. It never arrived at least in public in my tiny Indiana town. That kind of information did not travel easily to small, rural American communities.
The world since removed barriers to information that brought more conformity and similarity everywhere. Satellites and the coverage of optic fiber all over the world connect everyone. The natural impediments of my childhood disjoined people from one another. Almost everyone has a phone that interconnects through many forms of communication and image.
The easiest microcosm of globalism is a big city. Urban areas condense people into such close proximity that spread and disseminate thinking and views. The greatest distinctions in the United States delineate the rural country from the urban. Many blue cities populate red states. These dense convocations of population percolate into one petri dish of characteristic customs and conventions.
World System
The world system campaigns and propagandizes against rejection of immorality. It institutionalizes the faith of secularism in its one world religion with tolerance its prime directive. The goal seems a herd mentality with the flock, pack, or fold moving unwittingly down the broad road. Everything once unacceptable becomes the new norm and now anything not the new norm becomes unacceptable. The world plays its own soundtrack like elevator music signaling this new normalcy, keeping everyone treading toward the abyss.
The citizens of the world system look for the mirror image of Paradise, a form of utopianism. They promulgate this utopia through what they call “progress” and “progressivism.” You can see what they see as the end of a naturalistic and humanistic process in something like Star Trek. Gender gone. Patriarchy gone. Everyone wears the same uniform or dress. No more roles and if roles exist, they do through a role reversal. Women replace men.
Everyone knows they need something beyond the natural. The supernatural offered, however, is sensuality, passion, or ecstasy. It poses as the supernatural and an out of body experience. The feeling replaces God. This affords the god of this world the sovereignty as God. People submit to him as if he is God.
The False Prophet
Crucial to the one world agenda of Satan and Antichrist is the work of the cooperating figure, the false prophet. Revelation 16:13 says:
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
In the end, Revelation 19:20 says:
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.
Globalism encompasses political and religious Babylon, both. God created man to worship. Ultimate control of men necessitates more than the political power, but also religious. The largest part of world history chronicles the combination of church and state in nations and empires.
Universal Church
The false prophet works toward one world religion. On the other hand, the New Testament church is local. Ekklesia, the word translated “church,” means assembly. An assembly is local only. Individual churches create a division, which provide a necessary check and balance against world power.
An important aspect of globalism is the idea of a one world church. This formed out of the paganism of Greek philosophy. Plato emphasized the idea as reality rather than the substance. The church of Rome inculcated this philosophy into its understanding of church and the kingdom, spiritualizing the meaning of both. Out of this came the Roman Catholic Church, “Catholic” meaning universal. Roman Catholicism originated the concept of the universal church, which correlates to the one world church.
The Reformation did not reject the universal church, but embraced it. As a result, the universal church became the predominant belief of Protestants and then evangelicals. They say, the true church is universal and mystical. The local church is only a visible manifestation of the one, true church. This substantiated a one world church.
A one world church accords with “ecumenism.” “Ecumenism” is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian Churches.” Even further than ecumenism is “interfaith dialogue,” which pushes further for a one world religion, akin to the goal of the false prophet.
Crucial to ecumenism and interfaith dialogue is the devaluing of doctrine and especially doctrinal differences. Scripture teaches one doctrine. Ecumenism requires the acceptance of many different doctrines or practices as acceptable. To do this, religious institutions or churches put the emphasis somewhere else, such as experience and community.
More to Come
The Real Dovetailing of Future Antichrist Agenda and World Power Now
PART TWO
Globalism and God’s Opposition
As you open to the first chapter of the Bible and then read it to its last book, you see God’s opposition to globalism. On the other hand, Satan’s plan as the prince of this world is bringing the world system into a cohesive, homogenous whole. These two ideas combat each other in the Bible and so world history as part of the conflict of the ages between God and Satan.
Early, Satan could think he’s got all of mankind against God. Adam and Eve take his bait in the garden. God says in essence, Not so fast. But everything is ruined by Genesis 3. It was two people, a small group, but Satan angled for their alignment with him against God.
Biblical, Historical Markers
Some simple historical markers against globalism are (1) the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel. Before the global flood (Genesis 6-9), mankind banded together and only eight people stood against that. On the other side of the flood, the same situation began to repeat at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), so God confused the languages. In line with this outcome is the statement in Genesis 10:25, “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided.”
Another perhaps less considered aspect of God ordained division on the earth is (2) the reality and history of plate tectonics. Biblical evidence shows that all the land was once connected (Genesis 1:9). Both secular and Christian geologists agree that what are several continents look to fit like a jig-saw puzzle. At one time these several continents were one big continent. These divisions of land provide natural separations that long time impeded globalism.
Acts 17:26 reveals that (3) God founded nations on the earth:
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Rise, Fall of Nations and Boundaries
God determined the rise and fall of nations and the boundaries where they would live. After man’s fall, God intended boundaries that separated men from one another. Genesis 10 records the first ever table of nations that chronicles the fulfillment of God having done this. Genesis 10:5 says:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
God also started the separate nation Israel (2 Samuel 7:23):
And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?
Genesis 18:18 says:
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Each nation functions under the following axiomatic truth expressed by God in Psalm 33:12:
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.
Globalism Ends the World
First World and the Next
Just like the first world ended with globalism, the next world will end with globalism. The Book of Revelation calls the Antichrist, the final one world leader in opposition to God, “the Beast.” Revelation 13:3 says about that world:
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
He will draw the whole world together around him and his and Satan’s plan. Revelation 13:8 continues:
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Satan Wants Globalism
Concerning Satan’s part in this, Revelation 12:9 says:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
He will deceive the whole world.
The hunger and thirst for globalism dovetails with the purpose of Satan and the future Antichrist. One of the ways the Antichrist can succeed at this complete cohesion and convergence of the whole world is by controlling everything economic. Revelation 13:17 says:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Eliminating Boundaries to Globalism
This requires a common currency, probably a digital one in a cashless society. Anyone who will not succumb to globalism under the Antichrist will not buy or sell. More than ever economy exists across national boundaries. Whatever you may say about the United States relationship with China, much of what you buy probably still comes from there.
The globalists oppose nationalism. They continue to strive to break down the boundaries and barriers. This occurs through the media, communication, and finance. The state schools teach this globalist agenda.
Social media eliminates boundaries and crisscrosses the world. Companies are worldwide. Just three companies, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta, control half of the advertising market and revenue for the whole world. Five Big Tech companies dominate business, adding to the previous three, Apple and Microsoft. The five account for 25% of the entire S & P 500. Like Big Tech dominates, just three companies dominate investment banking: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and J. P. Morgan.
Almost every religious denomination now reduces doctrine and practice to its lowest common denominator, endeavoring to diminish the differences that divide. Whatever does differentiate is minimized. Agree to disagree.
Rather than have biblical doctrine guide people, it’s instead a common experience. Church growth depends more on relationships and shared activities.
More to Come
Dipping Now Into Application Of American Fundamentalism And British Evangelicalism
PART TWO
The Quality of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
What Justifies Separation?
The recent Alistair Begg story provides a teaching moment for comparison between American Fundamentalism and British Evangelicalism. It also gives pause for judging the credibility or quality of these movements. Were the participants believing and practicing scripture?
Many evangelicals consequently gave their take on attending a same-sex or transgender wedding ceremony. The circumstance gave rise to some right teaching on the scriptural and true nature of marriage. Some usually weaker men offered strong reasons for not attending the wedding, grandma or not. They exposed Begg with their words.
Begg justified his bad counsel with the context of British evangelicalism. British evangelicalism does “nuance.” Actually, American evangelicalism and fundamentalism also both do and have done nuance in the same spirit. However, something is happening or changing in American evangelicalism for these evangelical men to turn against Begg in the manner they are. Perhaps they foresee the demise of evangelicalism without their putting a stake in the ground on more of these issues. I don’t see the dust as having settled yet either on further strong stands on cultural issues.
Fundamentals of the Faith
Earliest fundamentalism, what some call paleo-fundamentalism, did not separate over cultural issues. It did separate over gospel-oriented ones, especially what became the five fundamentals of the faith:
(1) the literal inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, (2) the virgin birth and full deity of Christ, (3) the physical Resurrection of Christ, (4) the atoning sacrifice of His death for the sins of the world, and (5) His second coming in bodily form to preside at the Last Judgment.
The fundamentals really are an arbitrary list of beliefs. Nothing in scripture says these are fundamental. Yet, fundamentalists believed they should not fellowship, that is, separate from institutions that deny one of the fundamentals.
On the other hand, evangelicals might believe the five fundamentals, but they would not separate over them. Fundamentalists separated over five more issues than evangelicals would. With greater degradation of doctrine and practice across the United States, a greater gap grew between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Even though fundamentalism started with separation over just the fundamentals, the list of reasons for separation grew. Fundamentalists chose to grow that list and also began to separate over cultural issues. They didn’t separate over everything, but they separated over much more than five fundamentals.
New Separation
Not Biblical
Evangelicals who never practiced separation now will do that. They do not teach biblical separation. However, they now separate. You can see that with the cancellation of Alistair Begg from the 2024 Shepherds Conference in Southern California. This separation does not follow the various formulas of separation of the New Testament. Scripture explains why and how to separate (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, ! Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3, 2 Timothy 2, Titus 3).
Scripture explains that a church can keep or preserve biblical doctrine and practice through separation. Without separation, false teaching and practice will profane or corrupt the true. True doctrine and practice goes by the wayside. The false teaching and practice destroys institutions. This is a strong reason why God says not to allow false doctrine into your house nor to bid it Godspeed (2 John). Those who will not separate are not standing with God.
No Mention of Doctrine of Separation
Right now conservative evangelicals will separate, but they will not mention the doctrine of separation. Begg preached at the Shepherd’s Conference in 2015 and 2023. He was slated again this year, 2024. Christian Headlines reports the following:
A spokesperson for Grace To You, the ministry led by Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, told Religion News Service that Begg has been dropped from this year’s Shepherds Conference, which is slated to take place in March.
“After Begg’s comments became public, he and MacArthur talked and decided the controversy would be “an unnecessary distraction,” the spokesman said.
“Pastor MacArthur’s counsel on that issue would be completely different from the counsel Alistair Begg said he gave an inquiring grandmother,” Phil Johnson, executive director of Grace to You, told Religion News Service in an email. “So both agreed that it was necessary for Pastor Begg to withdraw.”
This is not the biblical method of separation. Separation is right, but adherents should practice it according to scripture. Grace Community Church does not treat it as separation. It’s a “distraction.” That’s it. This continues to show a reticence for evangelicals to separate. It actually fits more with a model of what people today call, the cancel culture. Shepherd’s Conference cancelled Begg.
Separation and Cultural Issues
Same sex marriage rises to the level of a fundamental, worthy of separation. Furthermore, it’s not just participation in a same sex marriage, but attending the wedding and even encouraging someone else to go to one. As a kind of thought experiment, what about a cultural issue like nudity? Is it permissible for Christians to get naked in public? At what point is someone practicing nudity?
As another example of a cultural issue, for a long time, evangelical churches accept nudity to some degree. They would deny it They show little to no inclination to define the boundaries of nudity. They will not separate over it. It’s a non-essential. You can lay in public on the sand wearing something less than underwear without any repercussions. Evangelicals won’t cancel pastors of churches that allow for nudity.
The determining factor for an evangelical church on cultural issues is not scripture. Evangelicals now latch on to the definition of marriage and practice a crude, non-biblical form of separation over it. They cherry pick this one issue. Many others they give almost complete liberty to practice however people want.
Confusion Over Separation
In the last few years, John MacArthur did a Q and A with seminary students of his seminary. Someone asked about this very subject, trying to figure out when and when not to cooperate with someone else in ministry for God. MacArthur was very ambiguous in that he pointed to one qualification of true faith in Christ, yet also someone shouldn’t accept woman preachers. On the other hand, baby baptism is not a deal breaker. Someone, like R. C. Sproul, can sprinkle infants — no line drawn there.
God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). No. Does scripture give the guidelines necessary for biblical separation? It does. American evangelicals and even fundamentalists offer confusion. Begg defers to British evangelicalism, which brings even greater confusion. He references John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who separated from each other.
Stott continued in the Church of England his whole life. The Church of England helps explain the difference between American and British evangelicalism. Stott saw leaving the Church of England as an institutional loss. Separation meant losing all of the infrastructure and resources to the large majority liberal faction. It is sheer, unscriptural pragmatism, also explained as compassion.
More to Come
Dipping Now Into Application Of American Fundamentalism And British Evangelicalism
Alistair Begg’s Interview
Popular evangelical preacher, Scottish American Alistair Begg, on September 1, 2023 revealed the following account in an interview:
And in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of “My grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this, and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do”—which is a huge responsibility.
And in a conversation like that just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, “Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?”
“Yes.”
“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?”
“Yes.”
I said, “Well then, okay. As long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.”
“Oh,” she said, “what?” She was caught off guard.
I said, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’”
This didn’t seem to get on the radar of the rest of evangelicalism until an article about it on January 23, 2024 on Christian Headlines, almost four months later. Then the evangelical internet and podcasts exploded with mainly negative reactions to Begg’s interview.
Response of Begg to Criticism
In response to the criticism and hoopla over his counsel, Begg came out fighting. This is the biggest story right now in evangelicalism. He has elevated the story with his combativeness. Begg preached an entire sermon defending himself and he said a lot to crush opponents. Among everything, he said this one paragraph:
Now, let me say something that will be a little explosive. I’ve lived here for forty years, and those who know me best know that when we talk theology, when we talk stuff, I’ve always said I am a little bit out of sync with the American evangelical world, for this reason: that I am the product of British evangelicalism, represented by John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Eric Alexander, Sinclair Ferguson, Derek Prime.
I am a product of that. I have never been a product of American fundamentalism. I come from a world in which it is possible for people to actually grasp the fact that there are nuances in things. Those of you who are lawyers understand this. Everything is not so categorically clear that if you put one foot out of this box, you’ve got to be removed from the box forever.
Begg said some very, very harsh things in public about all of his critics, but in this section, he called them “American fundamentalists.” That is a pointed insult for most evangelicals. It’s essentially calling them an odious modern day Pharisee. He actually gets worse than that.
British Evangelicals and American Fundamentalism
British Evangelicals
Begg distinguished himself from American fundamentalism by referring to himself as a “British evangelical.” However, he was not attacked by fundamentalists. I would reckon that zero to few fundamentalists even listen to Begg It was in reality many, many evangelicals who had something in public to say about Begg, not fundamentalists. Out of ten podcasts denouncing Begg, close to ten on average were evangelicals. Among them, many big-named evangelicals spoke against Begg and his position. Yes, a few also came out in public support of him, but one might say, the usual suspects did that.
Alistair Begg said that he places himself within the British evangelicalism of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. For his sermon, he relied heavily on an early book by Stott, Christ the Controversialist. I’m not one to coach Begg on the ins and outs of British evangelicalism, but I do understand American fundamentalism. I lived in it, took a class on it, read books on it, functioned among historic figures of fundamentalism, and wrote about it here.
Fundamentalist Movement
The fundamentalist movement is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented movements in world history. Fundamentalism deserves a critique, but secular historians and evangelical ones of all different stripes tend to slander fundamentalism. Calling someone a “fundamentalist” becomes then an ad hominem attack for an evangelist.
In his defense, Alistair Begg is saying that he’s just being his regular old British evangelicalism, but his critics are all being their American fundamentalism. In some ways, Begg is right that this behavior among his 95% plus evangelical critics seems like a historic outlier for evangelicalism in the United States. I would also agree that it looks like at least some type of neo-fundamentalist movement in evangelicalism.
If I were acting right now as a historian, I would say that this is a new, albeit small, movement in the United States, perhaps like that of Spurgeon during the Downgrade Controversy in England, a precursor to American fundamentalism. The critics of Begg are truly acting or behaving in the militant spirit of fundamentalists.
The Biblical Doctrine of Separation
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
American fundamentalism was a movement in the early twentieth century within evangelicalism across denominations in defense of the fundamentals of the faith. Fundamentalists stood for doctrines that would preserve a true gospel and evangelical Christianity itself. A key feature of fundamentalism was and is separation, essentially “come out from among them and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Separation is a biblical doctrine found in almost every book of the Bible. The non-fundamentalist, professing evangelical does not separate. The sine qua non of fundamentalism was and is separation. Separation is of the absolute nature of God. He is holy or separate. God separates. The goal of the original fundamentalist movement was to keep the fundamentals and thus keep the gospel. The fundamentalists understood the necessity of separation for protecting the fundamentals of the faith.
Evangelical Non Separatists
Evangelicalism itself became distinct from fundamentalism. Evangelicals would not separate. Instead, they emphasized their concept of unity, which meant toleration. In order to get along and to maintain the greatest possible coalition, evangelicals look for ways to compromise.
The non-fundamentalist evangelicals in the United States began to turn into something more in nature with mainstream evangelicalism in England. Especially characteristic of evangelicals was forming bridges with or to the world through social programs. In many cases, this turned into its own form of liberalism that today manifests itself today in rampant “woke evangelicalism.” Evangelicalism turned back toward liberalism in forms of cooperation, what many labeled a “new evangelicalism.”
Cultural Issues and Nuance
Cultural Issues
A major means by which evangelicals could sustain their idea of unity is to remove much of the application of the scripture, especially on cultural issues. Cultural issues are the most offensive teachings and practices of scripture. Examples of cultural issues are the unique identities of men and women, masculinity and femininity, the distinct roles of the man and the woman, marriage between only a man and a woman, parental authority over children, and the worship of God in the beauty of Holiness. There are many more cultural issues taught in scripture.
The defense by Begg is a case study of the nature of evangelicalism, especially represented in the above paragraph by the word, “nuance.” He calls out the lawyers in his church for their support on this thought. Yet, do we treat the perspecuity of scripture like we do that of federal, state, and local criminal and civil laws? The Bible is God’s Word. Almost his entire sermon performed nuance to defend what he did.
Nuance
Nuance allows for a multitude of possible acceptable positions on various scriptural issues. Nuance means permitting differences. Allowing for many different positions is the type of unity embraced by evangelicals. Evangelicals want to keep a large percentage of biblical doctrine and practice open to numerous positions. They tolerate many various positions on numerous different doctrines and practices for the sake of unity. This requires nuance with scripture.
Many evangelicals, I can see, understand now the damage of not practicing separation on doctrine and practice, including cultural issues. They comprehend now the connection between the gospel and same-sex marriage and transgenderism. Can you believe in Jesus Christ and accept same-sex marriage? I’m not saying that Alistair Begg would say, “Yes.” However, he values nuance and nuance goes both ways. Acceptance of same sex marriage starts with tolerance of it. This is akin to the progression one sees in Psalm 1:1:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Lloyd-Jones, A Fundamentalist?
Compared to John Stott as a professing evangelical still in the Church of England, Martyn Lloyd-Jones himself was a British fundamentalist. He was a separatist. A British publication, the Evangelical Times, reports:
Evangelical Times was launched in February 1967, four months after the much-discussed division between Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott. . . . In 1963, Lloyd-Jones quoted the Independent, John Owen, to show ‘the duty of every saint of God’ was to withdraw from a church where ‘notorious, scandalous sins had gone unpunished, unreproved’. In 1965, Lloyd-Jones dismissed arguments against separatism as ‘sheer lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit’ in favour of ‘trusting to expediency’.
I am not a fundamentalist, but I have much more sympathy for fundamentalism and fundamentalists. I’m not a fundamentalist, because I don’t think it goes far enough. You can’t protect the faith by diminishing doctrine and practice to fundamentals. One of the fundamentals is not “marriage between only a man and a woman.” Based on that kind of thinking, a fundamentalist doesn’t need to separate over same sex marriage. It is not a fundamental of the faith. This relates directly to this issue with Begg. This presents a problem even for the fundamentalist model of belief and practice.
Stott’s Evangelicalism
John Stott was an evangelical Anglican. How could Anglicanism coexist with evangelicalism? The framework for the Church of England undermines a true gospel. Henry VIII, who started the Church of England, didn’t deny the gospel of Roman Catholicism. He just wanted a divorce. The Church of England itself does not preach a true gospel.
Stott did not believe in a literal Hell or eternal torment. He believed and preached Annihilationism. Stott went to Venice Italy to join the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission. He denied the inerrancy of scripture.
More to Come
Recent Comments