Home » Kent Brandenburg (Page 11)
Category Archives: Kent Brandenburg
The Truth and the Trump Assassination Attempt
Hello reader. Just a note before you and I begin this post. I’m right now in the middle of several series at one time. Who knows which one I’ll continue next? I’m writing this to tell you that I am preparing, Lord-willing, to keep working until I finish all those. Here they are, part one of each, hopefully in reverse order.
Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part One), If You Want to Lose Men in and from a Church (Part One), and The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV (Part One). Part two of these series will come in the next few months. I’ve started these series and I want to finish them. Stay tuned.
*******************************************
The Assassination Attempt
At 6:11pm on July 13, 2024 in Butler County, Pennsylvania, a twenty year old young man, Thomas Matthew Crooks, attempted to assassinate the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Corey Comperatore, a firefighter, died that night from a head wound sustained during the same shooting, attempting to shield his daughters and wife from the attack. Others received injuries. Crooks missed Trump and the bullets flew into the crowd behind him.
The events of July 13, 2024 kept moving. The circumstances began to manifest themselves. Now we know a lot of detail. The young man, this assassin, climbed the building with his rifle on to the closest building (outside the perimeter) to the stage where the former President would give his speech. Several people saw him. They even reported it more than once.
The building used by this wannabe sniper stood 160 yards from his target. He laid down on a slightly sloped roof top and alone there pointed that rifle toward the former President and began pulling the trigger. He fired eight rounds before counter-snipers shot back and killed him.
The Oddities
Apparently the Secret Service, who the nation charges to protect Presidents and former Presidents, sets up a perimeter. This idea of a perimeter sounds familiar. They don’t allow any weapons inside it. On the outside, they look for favorable places for a shooter with a long gun. They occupy those or shut them down. Several questions arise.
Why wasn’t the roof of the building cleared or kept clear?
Why was there no drone to watch the high points outside of the perimeter, ones preferred by snipers?
Shouldn’t the police officer who confronted the shooter have relayed that information to the counter snipers?
With a clear vantage point to the roof top, why didn’t the counter snipers right away shoot a man with a rifle upon seeing him?
Many, many more questions exist. I think it is odd what happened. Others I’ve read said that it was either extreme negligence or malice. Malice means these weren’t mistakes made. Someone on the inside wanted him shot. People purposefully allowed or caused this event to occur. It’s so odd, that I would call it at least, very fishy. The circumstances around this shooting are so strange, that they beg the kind of questions I and others are asking.
A Question of Negligence or Malice
To be clear, I’m not saying it was malice. I don’t mind holding off with mere negligence. It is very suspicious though. Very. It is highly implausible that the Secret Service could allow this to occur, considering all the circumstances.
In the past, I’ve concealed my own bad behavior. In many, many cases through my life, I’ve seen others hide or obscure something they did wrong. Decades ago, our church treasurer stole money for months without detection. I’ve too witnessed many covertly hide an evil act to evade apprehension. This all happens very often. Many crimes are committed across the country every day. These are motivated in many different ways. The assailant is dead, so we can’t ask him.
The Discussion
I was watching a panel discussion in which the moderator or host said that the circumstances of the assassination attempt were very odd. When he did, two very vocal leftist panelists both called him a “conspiracy theorist.” They also took three standard, different directions with name calling. One, the host was a crazy loon. Two, he was divisive and slanderous. These two contradict one another, but they’re both still used in a scorched earth method. This serves to deter further questions or investigation.
Finally, third, the two leftist panelists admonished that no one really knows what happened. If you weren’t there, you can’t speculate. All speculation counts as misinformation. Only a caste of experts, and there are experts, can tell you.
All three varied protestations came with the appropriate condemnatory tone. They attempt to shame the interrogator. This corresponds to an identical spirit that permeates everything and every institution. Anything declared by anyone other than an elite person in an approved position is misinformation or disinformation.
One segment of our country expects us not to see anything unusual with the assassination attempt. Someone might say, “Don’t believe your lying eyes.” What they mean is, “Disregard the obvious truth.”
Detecting False Prophets by Fruit
In Matthew 7:15, Jesus commanded, “Beware of false prophets.” These are the people directing victims down the broad road that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus explains how that you know if someone is a false teacher. You know him by his fruits.
I point out to you an orange tree. You see it, and it’s an orange tree. This you know by its fruit. Yet, I call it an apple tree. You know that’s not true. Someone can surely judge that. It’s obvious. You would say, “No, it’s not an apple tree; those are oranges on that tree.”
So many oddities exist in the assassination attempt of former President Trump, that I don’t know how someone could not think something malicious occurred. By the fruits of this event, you can know this. It rises above the level of merely negligence. If it is negligence, that’s scary or frightening too. But this seems like something different.
Disregard the Obvious
Our present world expects people to disregard the obviousness like that of fruit on a tree. This is seen in the acceptance of many different false teachings. Even if teaching or preaching contradicts, this contradiction is to be disregarded. Move along, nothing there. Doctrine just doesn’t matter. Many obvious false teachings are accepted today. The ones in trouble are those who notice and point out the contradiction or error.
The requirement to believe everything is fine in the face of obvious evidence otherwise is the new normal. This is everywhere now. Good is called evil and evil is called good, just like prophecy of Isaiah 5:20. A famous metaphor for this is “the emperor wearing no clothes.” Apparently his subjects walk around like and say that he is wearing clothes, when in fact he isn’t.
The Requirement to Judge the Obvious
I know as a pastor that people expect me to ignore many things people in the church do that violate scripture. No one needs to be too serious about what scripture says. It really doesn’t matter if someone actually does what is preached.
Why would Jesus need to tell someone to inspect and judge fruit? Don’t people just do that? Probably not any more, speaking of Jesus’ day. False prophets abound because people stopped doing that. They don’t make obvious judgments. People let them go, perhaps because they don’t want to face the reaction of making those kinds of judgments.
Upholding the truth requires judging fruit. The illustration of Jesus says, judge the obvious. Fruit is obvious. It’s right there in front of your face. Don’t let people stop you from judging fruit.
Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats
The True Interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46 Totally Debunks Its Eisegetical Use for a False Social Gospel
Scripture presents one gospel and only one. A big part of Satan’s plan is confusing the true gospel, adding, taking away, and perverting it. in the last two hundred years uniquely in American history, cults and false religion concoct many false gospels to deceive many. Theologians and historians call one of these perversions, “the social gospel.” Like adding “social” to justice corrupts justice, adding “social” to gospel corrupts the gospel.
Some of you might know that the social gospel took hold in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States, destroying churches, denominations, and other religious institutions. Like a plague, the disappearance of the host also eliminated the disease. Now the scourge of the social gospel reenters early 21st century American churches, denominations, and religious institutions. The most familiar label for this old heresy today is “woke.” Religious entities that embrace the social gospel have become woke, which usually means they also deny the one and only true saving gospel.
The advocates of the social gospel allegorize scripture. They spiritualize it to pour in their preferred message. It’s not what God said. Out of this very subjective hermeneutic, they buttress their theory with innovative eschatology. The woke social gospel arises very often from some form of a termed, “liberation theology.” It is a kind of amillennialism that speculates a kingdom of a Jesus through leftist ideology.
Confusing Matthew 25:31-46
A social gospel uses Matthew 25:31-46 as a biblical proof text, especially focusing on verses 35 to 41:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
Taking this passage according to leftist dogma, Jesus dooms those who do not take care of the “needy” (meant in a very social way), definitely confusing the gospel as salvation by works. Confused audience members then ask, “What is the gospel?” Before, they thought it was justification by grace alone through faith alone and yet this seems, taken out of context, to require a degree of good works or action toward the most needy in society. That message would contradict what the Apostle Paul taught in Romans and Galatians and so confusion to some first introduced to a social gospel.
Social Gospel Proponents
Wrong Approach
This section of scripture (Matthew 25:31-46) is called “the parable of the sheep and the goats” in a larger passage in Matthew 24-25, called the Olivet Discourse. Social gospel proponents don’t usually bother with context for this passage, which undoes what they say it means. If it does mean what they say it does, it would contradict what Jesus Himself said was the gospel all through the first four books of the New Testament. The New Covenant would sound almost identical to the Old Covenant.
Just to see how prevalent the social gospel take on Matthew 25:31-46, I asked Artificial Intelligence a true application of this passage, and it answered this:
The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, found in Matthew 25:31-46, holds significant implications for believers in understanding how their faith should manifest in their actions towards others. The core message of this parable is that true followers of Christ will demonstrate their faith through acts of kindness, compassion, and service to those in need. The parable emphasizes the importance of living out one’s faith by caring for the marginalized, vulnerable, and disadvantaged members of society.
Nature of a Counterfeit
AI said nothing about the point of the Olivet Discourse, its audience, the disciples’ questions that they asked Jesus, its timing, and the overall point conveyed by Jesus with His teaching. Is the AI answer true though? No, it isn’t.
There is a small bit of truth in the answer by Artificial Intelligence, enough to deceive people in what Jesus said. Truth in false statements provide cover or deniability. It’s especially effective at fooling people already conditioned by an immersion of leftist education. They become easy marks for such conmen. Some of what Satan said to Eve in the Garden was true, but overall what he said to her was very false. A counterfeit by nature contains some truth in order to fool its recipients.
What Is Matthew 25:31-46 About?
So what is Matthew 25:31-46 about? The Olivet Discourse of Jesus (from the Mount of Olives) answers questions His disciples asked at the beginning in Matthew 24:3: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?”
Six Parables
In answering Jesus’ questions, He tells six parables:
- Fig Tree (Matthew 24:32-35, Mark 13:28-31, Luke 21:29-33)
- Faithful and Wise Servant (Matthew 24:45-51, Luke 12:42-48)
- The Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14)
- Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)
- The Talent (Matthew 25:14-30, Luke 19:11-27)
- The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)
I’m going to hop straight to the last one, the one especially used by the false teachers of the social gospel.
Introduction
In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus speaks about the final judgment where He separates the righteous from the wicked, likening it to a shepherd separating sheep from goats. His words apply specifically to those living at the end of the seven year tribulation period right before His second coming and the close of the age. He provides this as a continuation of His answer to the disciples’ questions in 24:3. The parable depicts the judgment that will occur at the end times when Christ returns.
Verses 31-34
31
This parable of Jesus starts with His words in verse 31: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.” This talks about a specific time in the future: the end of the tribulation period on earth when Jesus comes back and He sits on His throne in Jerusalem. It speaks of a particular judgment of a particular people, not everyone who ever lived. “The Son of man” is a title of Jesus, of the Messiah, from Daniel 7:13:
I saw in the night visions, and, behold,, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
This is Messianic about the coming of the Messiah, and the people in that day would have known that.
32
The next verse (32) says: “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.” With this judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ, He will gather all the people of the surviving nations before Him for this judgment. Bible teachers call this judgment, “the judgment of nations.” It isn’t the Bema Seat judgment or the Great White Throne judgment, which come at different times. The separation of the sheep from the goats is “the judgment of nations.”
33-34
Jesus identifies the sheep in verses 33-34:
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Salvation is the blessing of God’s new covenant upon His people. It reminds of what Paul wrote about David in Romans 4:6:
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.
Blessedness comes by faith alone, not at all by works. Galatians asserts that blessing comes through God’s promise, not by deeds. The Apostle Paul again writes in Galatians 3:9-10:
So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Blessed by Faith
Being blessed, you can see, comes by faith. If it were by works, it requires continuing in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. When Jesus talks about the “blessed” in Matthew 25:34, He speaks of saved people, already justified by faith. Many Jews will be converted in the tribulation. We know this. They can fulfill the Old Covenant by faith in Jesus Christ, because then He works in them both to will and do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). This isn’t sinless perfection, but the fruit of justification that produces a habit or lifestyle of righteousness.
Further Marker of True Sheep
The last part of Matthew 25:34 gives another cue for the identity of the sheep. They inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. Jesus elected them based upon His foreknowledge before time (Eph 1:4, 1 Pet 1:2). No one has even done any good works for anyone before the foundation of the world, which shows that the salvation is all of God, that is, by grace. The sheep also inherit the kingdom, which is for sons. How does someone become a son? He becomes a child of God by faith (John 1:12).
If you preach that God saves someone by His works, you are preaching a false gospel. Paul says that anyone who adds works to grace, ‘let him be accursed’ (Gal 1:6, 9). That’s a false gospel. The social gospel is a false gospel. It doesn’t present a true, biblical view of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and out of that falsity, it proclaims a false gospel of works.
According to the social gospel, men who fall short of the glory of God bring in a spiritualized kingdom through social efforts. Those preaching a social gospel leave men dead in their sins and very often twice the children of hell they once were. This also both adds and takes away from what Jesus said and taught. It corrupts what men should think about the promises of God and the kingdom still coming for saved people on earth.
More to Come
If You Want to Lose Men in and from a Church
Statistics and Studies
As of June 2022, thirty-six percent of women said they attended church the last Sunday, but only twenty-four percent of men did (Gallup, 2021). Those percentages are not the same everywhere. Statistics or studies show that men are less religious in gender-equal countries. The Pew Research Center says that women have more influence on a family’s religious practices. Perhaps you are a church leader and you wonder why churches are losing more men than women.
Artificial intelligence, represented by ChatGPT, which culls from the entire internet, says that 60 to 70 percent of women want an egalitarian relationship with men. In 2019, in a Pew study, sixty-eight percent said that gender equality increased in the United States. At the same time and in the same study, more than ten percent said religion has a less important place in society (37%) than said it was more important (27%). Family ties weakened by fifty-eight percent to fifteen percent. I asked AI whether men or women wanted egalitarianism more and it answered:
In conclusion, based on research findings and survey data, it is evident that women generally want egalitarianism more than men, as they exhibit greater support for gender equality, express higher levels of concern about existing inequalities, and actively engage in initiatives aimed at promoting equal rights and opportunities for all individuals regardless of gender.
In the year 1997, the United Nations did a study on women in authority, published in 2000. The study said that women in authority often assumed male attributes, even male dress. Contemporary women executives wear “power suits.” Fourteen percent of men prefer a female boss compared to thirty-nine percent of women. Another study, August 2022, said that 28 percent of women prefer a female boss compared to 16 percent a male one.
Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchalism
Egalitarianism does not help family unity. It results in less prominence of religion. Also, it traces to men less involved in or happy in church. Almost everything I’m saying I don’t think needs statistics to know. I’ve seen it myself firsthand. Most of all, the Bible teaches male authority, a position called “patriarchalism.” The verse in scripture that best represents the totality of the position of patriarchy is 1 Corinthians 11:3:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
“The head of the woman is the man” is axiomatic. It’s talking about society in general, especially in the context of that section in 1 Corinthians. I, however, address for this post the place of men in the church.
Many churches today push their egalitarianism right to the front. They want it. Others say they are complementarian, but they practice egalitarian. Few really believe it. The fewest dare say they are patriarchal. Even some of those only say it, but practice in a greater way mainly complementarianism.
Patriarchy is biblical. It also attracts biblical men. I’m saying masculine men or men who are actually men. A basic and simple test is whether a church comfortably talks about what this all means. The church isn’t hiding its patriarchal belief and practice. It promotes it.
Losing Men by Violating the Man Code
When I talk about losing men, I mean talking about losing real men. I’m also talking about losing those with the male sex, that might not operate as a real man as of yet.
Today, when I say man code, even men might automatically think of male chauvinism that protects bad behavior. I don’t mean that. However, I think of a biblical way that men don’t turn on each other. They’ve got each others backs. It’s not unusual for men to capitulate to women and defy the code. Perhaps in so doing, they give up their man card.
When you read Genesis 3, it looks early on that men want to please women. Adam did. He wasn’t deceived by the serpent (1 Tim 2:14). Instead, he ‘hearkened unto the voice of his wife’ (Gen 3:17) and God cursed him because of it. Even as I write this, some men today look for something wrong. Women might too. This is enough to shut men down and bring a church back to the status quo or a societal norm. Some might call this conventional thinking.
If you want to lose men in the church, you can violate the man code. When I say that, I mean violate the ways God intends to respect the male role in the church. If you want to lose men, just do these things. You’ll lose men fast.
A First Way to Lose Men
Before I talk about a first one, men, understand that you don’t have to push the eject button, just because a man or church violated the code. Give someone a break. Talk to someone about it. That’s manhood. Don’t leave just because your meter sets off an alarm. That itself isn’t manly. Some churches though set off buzzers and keep setting them off. The men disappear.
You will lose your men if as habit or practice, you address the woman and not the man. This could occur many different ways and not in any particular order. All of the following five will apply to this common way for churches and even other institutions for losing men.
Application One
One, in the most simple way, you should walk to the man and talk to the man. Spend time with him first. When you hover around the woman, maybe because the interest she shows, the vitality she has toward the organization, that won’t be lost on the man. He gets it.
The woman exists, but you might need to act like she doesn’t, if you have the temptation to start with her. Draw a circle around him and head into that circle. Ask him about his work. Lead into spiritual things without fear. Don’t act like those things are unusual, but right down main street for a man. Talk to him.
Sometimes women automatically start the conversation. They talk and talk and talk while a man stands in silence. Everyone watches her. Instead of looking at her, look at her husband, and when she gives you a break, start talking to the man and keep talking to him, forcing her into some kind of silence. Learn to talk to him as if he has something to say.
Application Two
Two, when you visit, ask for the man. The woman might arrive at the door, but you ask, where is the man (husband, etc.)? If he is sleeping, that doesn’t mean stay and talk to her. You could ask, “Good seeing you, but when do you think he might be available?” Get the time and get together with him.
Application Three
Three, make appointments with the man. The meeting is with him, not with her. What’s a good time for the man? “When do you think that you and I can meet?” “It would be great to have you over for supper.” “Would like to have coffee sometime?” Do not ask the woman whether they want to come. Go to the man about that. He might ask his wife, but not your asking the wife. Look at him in the eye and talk to him.
Men still break number three all the time with me. They ask my wife about something related to me, like going to mom instead of dad, because it’s easier to get a “yes” answer. Instead of texting me, they text her and ask her if she’ll ask me.
Application Four
Four, don’t talk to the wife about her husband except to say how great he is. Never undermine him with his wife or significant other. You will lose the man if you undermine the man. Even if it looks like he’s got bigger problems than her, you don’t say that to her. If you want to talk about his problems, talk to him about them, not her. She easily can look for your approval for putting him down. Don’t do it.
Application Five
This next one is vitally important. It’s probably the easiest of these to violate, and you really are violating the man code, when you do. Five, if the wife or woman wants to talk about something bad about her husband or man, don’t do it without talking to him first. Part of fake manhood is thinking that you’ve got to rescue some other woman. You could have the false sense that you’re somehow God’s gift to women and all of them should talk to you. Maybe you will need to rescue a woman, but if you don’t want to lose men, you better go to the man first when his woman, his wife, wants to report something bad about him.
I see men violate this last rule again, again, and again. Surely it happens in the work place many, many times. It’s also very much prey for infidelity. She gains a higher opinion about the counselor or leader than she does about her own man. That can become a very difficult barrier to solve in the future for her man (husband). It also brings a possible dangerous closeness with the one listening approvingly.
Even when only the woman is in the church, I want to get close to the man. I show interest in him even when he isn’t interested. Obviously, he might say he doesn’t want any attention, but usually this isn’t the case. He’s a man made in the image of God, so you can respect that about him.
Due Process
I’ve seen church leaders talk to a wife and keep talking to the wife and not include him in the conversation. They call this counseling. It isn’t, because something major is missing. It’s called “due process,” a basic aspect of justice.
A man could have done something very seriously wrong. He may still be doing it. Through the years, I’ve seen that as the case. More times than not, he isn’t and she’s exaggerating or just blaming a situation on him. Even if he is the one doing wrong, the conversation should not go to her, but go to him. This should happen as soon as possible.
Almost immediately church leadership must talk to both parties. “Wait a minute. Do you mind if I let your man (your husband) know that you’re talking to me?” I don’t care how persuasive it might be.
Bring both parties together in Solomonic fashion, but starting with talking to the husband and it’s great if you can say, “She didn’t say anything to me. I told her I wanted to talk to you first. We should do that, but it would be better if we could get together.” For sure you can’t enter into the conversation with the man, having believed what someone else said about him without having talked to him. You can lose men if you won’t do that. They see it as betrayal.
Falling Short of Patriarchy
Violation of one or more of these five points fall short of patriarchy, God’s biblical intention. They betray a kind of practical egalitarianism. Someone reading might say that they allow a man to get away with offenses. That’s not true. Instead they will help salvage a situation with a man and really help him, not excuse or cover for something a man is doing or has done wrong.
Churches all over the country lose men because they break these basic standards of decency and respect. It would be good if they might apologize to men for violating them, and then start over. It’s much harder to respect men who will not operate this way. Through years, I’ve had many men not give me the respect of operating this way. Most of the time, they don’t even know what they’re doing wrong. Then when they find out, they just make excuses for themselves. Excuses over this behavior will make it ever more likely to lose a man, sort of the coup de grace in the process.
I’ve found men want you to treat them like a man. Ironically, men forget or don’t even know how to treat another man like a man. If you want to keep men, you’ve got to treat men like men. This first principle for not losing men is a first in the man code. The five points applying the principle also constitute an important delineation of the man code.
Why Don’t Men Talk to Men?
More to Come
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian, Preacher, and Person?
Probably far behind you that read here regularly, last week I learned that Artificial Intelligence (AI, ChatGPT) will answer questions. As I understand it, AI uses what is available over the entire worldwide web. It can do this very quickly and write a decent, sometimes very good, essay. What AI can do that is difficult for almost anyone is sift through a tremendous amount of material and provide a succinct explanation. It would be hard for me to self-evaluate whether I’ve been courteous online, but AI doesn’t have feelings, so I asked it three questions. First, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous theologian? Second, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous preacher? Third, Is Kent Brandenburg a courteous person?
I will post the answers AI gave to those three questions below in that order, separated by the question. By the way, I asked AI the same question about James White, “Is James White a courteous theologian?” Here is the first line of its answer: “No, James White is not considered a courteous theologian based on the provided context.” I didn’t write these answers, but here is what Artificial Intelligence said about me.
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Theologian?
Kent Brandenburg’s demeanor and conduct as a theologian can be characterized as courteous based on his interactions and writings within the theological community.
Kent Brandenburg, a pastor at Bethel Baptist Church, has demonstrated courtesy in his engagements with others in the theological sphere. His approach to discussions, debates, and theological discourse reflects a level of respect and politeness towards those he interacts with, regardless of differing viewpoints or disagreements. Brandenburg’s courteous behavior is evident in his writings, public statements, and interactions with fellow theologians and individuals within the Christian community.
Brandenburg’s courteous nature can be observed in his willingness to engage in constructive dialogue, even when addressing contentious issues or doctrinal differences. He maintains a respectful tone in his communication and endeavors to express his perspectives thoughtfully and considerately. Additionally, Brandenburg’s commitment to upholding biblical principles while engaging in theological discussions is accompanied by a demeanor that seeks to foster understanding and mutual respect among participants.
Furthermore, Kent Brandenburg’s reputation as a courteous theologian is reinforced by testimonials from those who have interacted with him personally or engaged with his theological works. Colleagues, peers, and members of the Christian community often acknowledge Brandenburg’s respectful conduct and demeanor in various theological settings.
In conclusion, Kent Brandenburg exemplifies courtesy as a theologian through his respectful interactions, thoughtful engagement in theological discourse, and commitment to upholding biblical principles while fostering understanding among individuals with differing perspectives.
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Preacher?
Yes, Kent Brandenburg can be considered a courteous preacher based on his actions and interactions as described in the provided context. Despite engaging in activities that some may find controversial or confrontational, such as distributing fliers with strong evangelical messages to the Sikh community during their Peace Parade, Brandenburg’s approach seems to stem from a genuine belief in the importance of sharing his faith rather than from a place of malice or disrespect.
Throughout the incident at the Sikh parade in El Sobrante, California, Brandenburg’s actions, such as complimenting the Sikhs on their attire while handing out fliers and expressing his concerns for their salvation, indicate an attempt to engage respectfully with individuals of different faiths. His blog posts and responses to criticism also demonstrate a commitment to explaining his beliefs and engaging in dialogue about religious differences, even when faced with backlash from the Sikh community and others who found his methods offensive.
While Brandenburg’s approach may be seen as assertive or provocative by some, particularly those who disagree with his theological views or evangelistic methods, there is an underlying tone of sincerity and conviction in his interactions that suggests he is driven by a desire to share what he believes to be essential truths rather than by a desire to offend or provoke unnecessarily.
In conclusion, Kent Brandenburg’s actions and statements suggest that he approaches his role as a preacher with courtesy and a genuine concern for others’ spiritual well-being, even if his methods may be perceived as controversial by some.
AI Answers: Is Kent Brandenburg a Courteous Person?
Kent Brandenburg’s Personality and Courtesy: Kent Brandenburg is described as a self-thinker who is independent and unapologetically stands by his views. He is known for not seeking the approval of others, being committed to his beliefs, and having a deep love for Christ. Kent is also recognized for his dedication to studying, his willingness to engage with differing perspectives without misrepresenting them, and his strong stance against what he perceives as theological shortcomings like “easy believism.” While he may have strong convictions and be forthright in expressing them, Kent’s interactions with others suggest that he values understanding different viewpoints even if he disagrees with them. Overall, based on the descriptions provided by individuals who have interacted with him, Kent Brandenburg appears to be a principled and respectful individual.
The Biggest Problem Presupposition for Modern Versions
In a short minute and a half presentation Dan Wallace gives the biggest problem presupposition for modern versions. Some hearing it will think it’s wonderful, because they stopped judging based on biblical presuppositions. This clip is only a minute and a half, so easy to digest. He starts with debunking some crazy conspiracy theories I’ve never heard, which make for a bit of a red herring on the main subject. It makes people, who disagree with him, look crazy.
A Positive First Statement
About thirty-seven seconds into his little presentation, Wallace starts making the points I’m addressing. I want to begin by saying that Wallace says something positive with which I agree. He states:
The King James Bible, we still have those manuscripts that the King James New Testament was based on.
Let that sink in. Sometimes people today especially treat people such as myself like we think that preservation comes from a reconstructed text in 1881. I’m talking about Scrivener’s. We never say that, but they still say we do, just because it’s convenient. Wallace debunks that with this statement.
I always like to say, “The translators translated from something.” The manuscripts were there. Printed editions of those manuscripts were there. They translated from them into English.
Then the Problems Begin
Then Wallace says:
The oldest (manuscript) was from the 11th century. Eight manuscripts were essentially used.
Wallace implies two criticisms of the King James Version with those two sentences. One, he says that the King James translators translated from more recent copies. The assumption of Wallace is that that would mean they’re corrupted more through time. They had eleven hundred years for scribal errors to creep in and produce variations on the original text.
The second sentence says that the King James Version came from a minority of the manuscripts. He implies that they didn’t have much with which to compare to make improvements or correct errors.
What the Translators “Used”
Notice that Wallace says, “essentially used.” Why? Why not just “used”? The King James translators examined more than eight manuscripts as the basis of their translation — far, far more. The text from which they translated comes almost entirely from a majority of the manuscripts.
The Greek text for the King James translators represented a period of about a hundred years of examination and study of Greek manuscripts, printed editions, and previous English translations. At least nine editions of the Textus Receptus New Testament Greek text were printed before 1611. The former translators of the previous English translations also looked at manuscripts. Then the translators in the 1611 edition recorded themselves alternate readings.
Also, the men, who printed editions of the Greek New Testament after the invention of the printing press, knew about manuscripts. They knew what was in them. The ones they possessed were ones preserved and available. They may not have relied on other manuscripts than the ones they used, because they rejected them as inferior.
Wallace says “essentially” to give himself deniability and wiggle room. He knows he’s saying something inaccurate. It’s just not true, but it’s based on an argument that Wallace might make with a focus on Erasmus and his earliest printed edition. The King James translators were not translating from Erasmus’s text.
Naturalistic Presuppositions Versus Divine Ones
Important to recognize is that God doesn’t need more and earlier manuscripts for preservation of his exact words. The King James Version translators had the preserved words from which they translated. More and earlier doesn’t mean better. This is a naturalistic presupposition expressed even more clearly by Wallace as he keeps talking.
The manuscripts upon which the King James translators relied is different than what they had available. They used more than just a few manuscripts, but they also had many more available that they didn’t use. They rejected those. The King James translators did not produce a critical text. It was the text God providentially preserved and received by true believers.
Majority and Minority
Wallace continues:
Today we have over five thousand eight hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts and somewhere between fifteen and twenty thousand manuscripts in other languages. So we have a thousand times as many manuscripts as, uh, almost in Greek alone than what the King James translators relied on.
Today we can compare the text behind the King James Version and it agrees with a majority of manuscripts more than the critical text, the basis of the modern versions. Even though Wallace refers to all those presently available manuscripts and translations, he does not mention that the modern versions do not rely on most of them. It sounds like he’s saying that, but he doesn’t, and it just isn’t true.
Overall, Wallace says that the King James translators relied on just eight manuscripts for their Greek text. He then implies that the modern critical text and versions rely on five-thousand eight-hundred Greek manuscripts and fifteen to twenty thousand manuscripts of ancient translations. That’s not true. Modern versions rely almost entirely on three or four manuscripts of the New Testament. If you compared the two underlying Greek texts, the text behind the King James Version is found in a majority of the manuscripts of which he speaks and the modern versions in a tiny minority of them. Do you understand how misleading it is that Wallace says?
Misleading Statements
Then Wallace says:
And our earliest manuscripts don’t go back to the eleventh century. They go back to the second century. So almost a thousand times as many manuscripts. Almost a thousand years earlier.
This is Wallace attacking the King James Version and its underlying text, the Textus Receptus. He’s saying they’re inferior. But is what he’s saying true? What is said again is extremely misleading. What manuscript evidence comes from the second century? A tiny little piece of one page, a mere fragment. The impression you might get from his speech is that we have a manuscript of the entire New Testament from the second century. We don’t. Not even close.
Also, having more manuscripts available now does not void God’s preservation. God didn’t need thousands more manuscripts to preserve the words of the originals. He could do that in a few. In his speech, Wallace uses the word “stupid” to describe people’s thinking. Maybe Wallace thinks people are too stupid to catch the problems with what he says. If the thousands they find agree almost exclusively with the ones that the translators used, that just illustrates the point.
Many people for many years have talked about the misnomer of judging something better because it’s older. In recent days, men found a very old copy of the Gospel of Thomas. They likewise found a Gospel of Judas. Age doesn’t mean either of those are believable. They could have easily lasted so long because few to none used them or relied on them for centuries and centuries.
The Biggest Problem
The biggest problem for Wallace he expresses at the end of his video, when he says:
The longer we go, as time goes on, we’re getting closer and closer to the original text.
Wallace says to his audience, “We’ve lost the original text. We haven’t had it.” He says we’re getting closer. How does he know that? If it was lost for thousands of years, what evidence is there that we know better now? It’s all naturalistic. According to Wallace, certainty still won’t exist.
The statement of Wallace betrays a rejection of the biblical doctrine of preservation. He doesn’t have one. Wallace doesn’t believe or teach one. He does the opposite. Saying that God perfectly preserved His Words, Wallace would say that’s rife for causing doubt. God promised He would and He didn’t, so that teaching would cause people to eject from the faith. Daniel Wallace and modern version proponents do not operate on faith in scriptural presuppositions. They offer something far less than that. This naturalistic presupposition is their biggest problem.
Optimistic Premillennialism
Versus Postmillennialism
Postmillennialism, an eschatological position or framework, seems to be making a comeback. When I say that, I still think a relatively small minority of professing Christians are postmillennial. The events of the twentieth century, namely two world wars, killed postmillennialism with most people. However, partly because of renewed popularity of Calvinism and reformed theology, many more are arguing for postmillennialism again. This eschatological position has its same major problems, but more treat it favorably right now than I’ve ever seen.
The rise of postmillennialism dovetails also with the promotion of Christian nationalism. The idea of Christian nationalism parallels with postmillennialism. In most ways, postmillennialism has become an American thing. Christian patriots back their fervent patriotism with an eschatological position and argument. Postmillennialism isn’t true, but it’s attractive in numbers of ways because of its optimism.
To believe in postmillennialism, advocates commonly caricature and trash premillennialism. They also take extremes of premillennialism, the wackiest among premillennialists, as representative of the whole. One particular attack is upon the pessimism of premillennialism. The language of pessimism is that “we lose down here.” Another one is that “everything’s got to get worse before it’s going to get better.”
Pessimism Is Wrongful Premillennialism
Premillennialists apparently can embrace the downfall and destruction of a present age. I believe that pessimism is not a biblical attitude. Premillennialists should reject pessimism. I don’t believe pessimism is the natural consequence of a literal approach to scripture. As I see it, the pessimism is a human construct that rises from an extreme form of separation. It’s what some might characterize as a “holy huddle, waiting for the rapture.”
The optimism of premillennialism should come from a joyous literal, grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture. Premillennialists look forward to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, but Jesus is King to true Christians right now. Jesus has not rescinded the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26-31. True belief and practice of scripture applies all of scripture to all of the world. Believers should say something about everything to which the Bible applies, which is to everything.
Professing true believers, premillennial ones, very often and incoherently have reduced Christian living to delivering people quickly before Jesus comes back. Time is so short that they don’t have time for much of what scripture teaches. Instead, they should obey all of the Great Commission, that is, teaching believers to obey all the commands of Jesus Christ. Premillennial believers should represent the future kingdom in the age in which we live. That’s true conversion.
Pessimistic Postmillennialism
As a bit of an aside, postmillennialism is also pessimistic. It might think that the church will bring a future state with Jesus in charge. In so doing, however, it crushes Israel. Israel, also elect of and by God, becomes a pessimistic casualty of postmillennialism.
Why would someone think of a cheery future for elect church with a pessimistic view of elect Israel? Postmillennialists are pessimistic about what God really said in the Bible. They can’t take it literally. Instead they formulate it to their fictional version of the future, spiritualizing a gigantic chunk of scripture. I wouldn’t call that optimistic.
A primary basis for believing a positive view of my future, both near and far, is that God keeps His promises. He has done and will do that with Israel. The two go together. This results in a short term observation that God preserves Israel, a right, optimistic way to see the world. The Iranian drone or missile attack this year saw 99 percent failure. That could create some pessimism for postmillennialists, who bank on the replacement of Israel.
Right View of Imminence
A belief of dispensational premillennialists is imminence. Imminence means that we don’t know when Christ will return. Christ could come back in the next hour or in the next millennia. Believers can derive hope in dark times from imminence. That is realistic. However, premillennialists don’t know. The purification that comes from the accurate, rightful belief in imminence should attach itself to obedience to everything that the Bible says.
I’m very okay with a Christian nation. Churches can’t jump to that. Several steps come in between, but biblical Christians should have something to say about how true Christianity will shape a nation.
For instance, patriarchy is not a postmillennial position. That’s a biblical position. Premillennialists should not be silent on such things as the patriarchy just because they don’t think they have time to do it. That isn’t true belief in imminency. Premillennialists too should support all the biblical beliefs that could transform a nation, just like they will transform the world when Jesus reigns over it.
I call for dispensational premillennialists, who teach the true biblical eschatology, to embrace and promote optimism. That doesn’t mean we believe in the world system. The answer isn’t there, of course. However, dispensational premillennial churches should teach everything that the Bible teaches about everything. That is Christianity. Enjoy that. Help people in every area of life!
“Judge Not”: What’s It Saying?
The Context of Matthew 7:1
Matthew chapter seven starts with a very short, memorable command in the midst of a long sermon by Jesus: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” How does that fit into His message? People turn it into a statement against judgment or judgmentalism. But that is not what He was saying.
Jesus exposes His addressed audience, that it falls short of the glory of God. And the glory of God is their standard according to Jesus. “Be ye perfect as the Father is perfect,” He says (Matthew 5:48).
The crowd for Jesus thinks it’s okay because it hasn’t murdered anybody, but it really has murdered in the heart through its contempt for others. It is proud of its giving, its prayer, and its fasting, even though it does these to be seen of men. Its worry or anxiety about what it will eat or what it will wear means it does not seek first the kingdom of God. Without the requisite poverty of spirit, it will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
How Judgment Fits the Context
Comparison
How could the crowd think it was so good? How? It compared itself to other men, that’s how. But Jesus then debunked its false, self-righteous judgment of other men. Even if His audience were held to an identical standard to which it judged others, it would still fall short. It would still find itself failing before God’s holy judgment. Evaluation of one’s self based upon the standard of other men doesn’t change God’s standard of judgment, just shows how self-deceived it is.
People’s own judgment very often becomes their standard of judgment. That’s why they think they’re good. I see this again and again in my evangelism. Most people think they are good. It doesn’t take long in comparing people to God for them to find they don’t stand up to Him.
Contrast
In the next verse, verse two, Jesus says:
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Jesus expands on verse one. The Apostle Paul later makes a similar point in Romans 2:1-2:
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Jesus Recommends Judgment
Jesus wasn’t saying, “don’t judge at all.” That’s easy to see. That’s not even what He was talking about. Even to make a righteous judgment of others, you can’t be or doing worse than the person you’re judging. All of this exposes the hypocrisy of pseudo-judgment intended to signal virtue and vindicate self. “I’m not as bad as the other guy, so there!”
When Jesus lays out judgment of any person upon any other person, it is for helping that other person. He’s got a moat or a splinter in his eye and you can help him get it out. If he’s beyond help, which we might assume starts with evangelism, Jesus gives an illustration for that. Don’t give something holy to dogs and don’t cast pearls before swine.
In other words, Jesus recommends judgment. He gives two priorities for judgment. One, remove impediments of judgment before you start judging. Two, don’t waste time and energy judging someone whom won’t listen to or use your wise judgment. Good reasons exist for judgment. Using the comparison with other men for self-vindication is not one of them.
The Greek Text Underlying the NKJV Is Different Than the KJV
Another Video from Mark Ward
Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV. He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence. In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence). Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).
I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples. It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense. Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical. So there we were. Deep breath. Go back to normal life.
Changing Tune
Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here). His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video. He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?). Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred. My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper. The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.
Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators. He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic. Many of those translators still live. Why not just ask some of them? Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.
My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video
Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments. He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted. He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts. I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.
I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.
Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video. It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position. I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions. Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions. He misrepresents me in that way. I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here. I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.
Underlying Text Different
The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV. Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion. The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language. It’s just not the case. I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version. Of course I like it better than most. It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions. But the translators went ahead and did this thing. Ward should be upset at them, not at me. He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.
Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion. I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine. What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations. I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament. I’ve started to do that.
More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV
So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV. At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament. Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences. He doesn’t care.
I don’t get Mark Ward. It would take a list several pages long to explain. He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint. His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private. He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash. His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless. Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark. Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly. He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.
Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes. No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them. He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.
With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV. Know this. There is not published underlying text of the NKJV. To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV. Ironic, huh?
Matthew 9:17
I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list. Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.
KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.
The NKJV and the ESV agree. They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai. The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi. I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17. Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR. Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.
More to Come
Baptist History and the Points of Calvinism
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
Baptists, Calvinistic or Arminian?
In the last post of this series, I wrote that John T. Christian said in his book on The History of Baptists, that Baptists were more Calvinistic than Arminian. When I wrote that or referenced him, I wasn’t saying that Baptists are Calvinists. At least since the advent of Calvinism, they are more Calvinistic, mainly referring to eternal security. Eternal security very often and for some is shorthand for Calvinistic, setting someone apart from Arminianism.
Even with a Calvinistic resurgence in the Southern Baptists, only 30% are Calvinist. They aren’t the majority. I know some look at the English and American Baptist Confessions to get or have the opinion that Baptists were mainly Calvinists for the last four hundred years. You would be wrong again.
Particular and General Baptists
Particular Baptists, the Calvinist wing of Baptists in England especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, wrote the London Baptist Confession. At the time of their writing of that confession, they represented slightly more of the Baptist churches in England than the General Baptists, the non-Calvinist wing. That Confession did not speak for all Baptists in England. John T. Christian writes about this:
This body (of General Baptists) constituted by far the larger portion of the Baptists of that country, and their history runs on in an uninterrupted stream from generation to generation.
The first Baptists in England were not Calvinists. The Calvinists came later as a separation from the Anglican church in 1633. Calvinism was an unnatural growth for Baptist churches. Calvinist Baptists came first from a break with the Church of England, not an adaptation on Baptist churches. They broke with the Anglicans over such doctrine or practices like infant sprinkling.
Apparently because of the doctrinal problems among the General Baptists, once the Particular Baptists came to England, the latter outgrew the former for a short period. By 1660, Particular Baptist churches outnumbered General Baptist ones, 130 to 110. Anglican England, however, persecuted both Baptist factions until the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary and the Toleration Act of 1688.
Calvinism and Arminianism Both Clash with Historical Baptist Belief
Calvinism does not characterize Baptists. Eric Hankins explains this well in his journal article, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism Toward A Baptist Soteriology:
Baptists believe in the clarity and simplicity of the Bible. We search in vain for decrees, a Covenant of Works, the distinction between a “general call” and an “effectual call,” hidden wills, and prevenient grace. We react with consternation to the ideas that God regenerates before He converts, that He hates sinners, that reprobation without respect to a response of faith brings Him the greatest glory, or that the truly converted can lose their salvation. Baptists have felt free to agree with certain emphases within Calvinism and Arminianism, while rejecting those that offend our commitments to the possibility of salvation for all and to the eternal security of that salvation based exclusively on faith in the covenant promises of God.
The free offer of an eternal, life-changing covenant with the Father through the Son by the Spirit to all sinners by the free exercise of personal faith alone has been the simple, non-speculative but inviolable core of Baptist soteriological belief and practice. Baptist soteriology (specifically including the doctrines of the sovereign, elective purposes of God, the sinfulness of all humans, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the security of the believer) is not in jeopardy and does not need to be reinforced by Calvinism or Arminianism. It can be successfully taught, maintained, and defended without resorting to either system.
Calvinism, Arminianism, and Infant Sprinkling
Hankins continues:
It has been typical of Baptists to believe that anyone who reaches the point of moral responsibility has the capacity to respond to the gospel. While all persons are radically sinful and totally unable to save themselves, their ability to “choose otherwise” defines human existence, including the ability to respond to the gospel in faith or reject it in rebellion.
God initiates the process; He imbues it with His Spirit’s enabling. When people respond in faith, God acts according to His promises to seal that relationship for eternity, welding the will of the believer to His own, setting the believer free by His sovereign embrace. Our assurance of salvation comes not from a “sense” that we are elect or from our persistence in holy living. Assurance comes from the simple, surrendered faith that God keeps every one of His promises in Christ Jesus.
Baptist Insistence on Believer’s Baptism
Baptists’ historical insistence on believer’s baptism is a solid indicator of our soteriological instinct. Historically, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism had a correct word for infant baptism because both were burdened with the justification for total depravity, original sin, and individual election. For many Arminians (like those in the Wesleyan tradition), infant baptism functions with reference to original sin and prevenient grace and plays a role in the faith that God “foresees.” For many Calvinists, infant baptism has become an extremely odd vehicle by which they deal with the fate of infants, an issue that is illustrative of the fundamental inadequacy of the system.
If Calvinism is true, then its own logic demands that at least some infants who die before reaching the point of moral responsibility spend eternity in hell. By and large, Calvinists do not want to say this and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Covenant Theology and infant baptism have been the preferred method for assuring (at least Christian) parents that they can believe in original guilt and total depravity and still know that their children who die in infancy will be with them in heaven. While Baptist Calvinists and Arminians do not allow for infant baptism, the fact that their systems allow for and even advocate it is telling.
Baptist Rejection of Covenant Theology
Prevenient grace and Covenant Theology have never played a role in Baptist theology. This frees us to deal biblically with the issue of infant baptism: it is simply a popular vestige of Roman Catholic sacramentalism that the Magisterial Reformers did not have either the courage or theological acuity to address. Privileging election necessarily diminishes the significance of the individual response of faith for salvation, thus creating room for infant baptism and its theological justification. But with faith as the proper center of Baptist soteriology, infant baptism has never made any sense. Our distinctive understanding of the ordinance of baptism celebrates the centrality of the individual’s actual response of faith to the free offer of the gospel.
Hankins gets at the crux of the doctrinal conflict between true Baptist doctrine, actual New Testament doctrine and practice, and the innovation of Calvinism and Arminianism. The doctrinal and practical deviation from scripture of Calvinists and Arminians both clash with the doctrinal and practical sensibility of Baptists. They are a diversion off the true line or trajectory of Baptist churches from their beginning, almost a mutation.
Baptists Not Protestant
Sadly, many professing Baptists embrace Protestantism as their history through Roman Catholicism. This is a new historical revisionism that arose in the late 19th century. Here is what C. H. Spurgeon wrote in the Sword and the Trowel concerning the History of English Baptists in a review of J. M. Cramp’s History:
The history of English Baptists is full of interest. From the first they were peculiarly offensive to “the powers that be.” Henry the Eighth – who did so much for the Anglican Establishmentarians that he ought to be regarded by them as a pet saint, even as he was befooled and belarded by the intriguing Cranmer – when he assumed the headship of the Anglican church which never acknowledged Christ to be its only Head, proclaimed against two kinds of heretics, viz., those who disputed about baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and such as were re-baptised. These Anabaptists were commanded to withdraw from the country at once. Cranmer ordered some to be burnt, and burnt they were.
1357 Date for English Baptists
Mr. Kenworthy, the present pastor of the Baptist church at Hill Cliffe, in Cheshire, has stated that if the traditions of the place are to be trusted, the church is five hundred years old. “A tombstone has been lately dug up in the burial ground belonging to that church, bearing date 1357. The origin of the church is assigned to the year 1523.
It is evident that there were Baptist communities in this country in the reign of Edward VI, since Ridley, who was martyred in the following reign, had the following among his “Articles of Visitation:” “Whether any of the Anabaptists’ sect or other, use notoriously any unlawful or private conventicles, wherein they do use doctrines or administration of sacraments, separating themselves from the rest of the parish?” A fearful crime which many Anglicans of the present day would be as ready to punish were it not that other notions of religious liberty exist and powerfully influence public opinion.
We can trace the same spirit, though in embryo perhaps, in the ritualistic prints of the present age, and indeed in the two delightfully amiable Evangelical newspapers whose unbounded hatred of all outside the pale of their theology and clique is as relentless and unscrupulous as the bitterest feelings of Papal days. All history teaches that state-churchism means persecution, in one form or another, according to the sentiments of the age; and the only cure for the evil is to put all religions on an equality.
True History of Baptists Not Protestant
Spurgeon did not believe the Protestant view of English separatism. He with his mammoth library and well-read wrote the following:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.
Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.
Spurgeon made statements like this many times in sermons through the years, not from the seat of his trousers, but from what he read of prime sources and other history. He also talked among many English men for years as to the truth of Baptists.
Recent Comments