Home » Posts tagged 'Baptists'

Tag Archives: Baptists

The Dovetailing of Biblical Eschatology and United States Foreign Policy

Religious Influence on Government

Virginia Baptists under the leadership of John Leland influenced James Madison and his writing of the Bill of Rights.  They wouldn’t vote for ratification of the Constitution in Virginia without freedom of religion in a first amendment.  This was a quid pro quo situation for the Baptists and Madison.  After the consequences of the Great Awakening, Virginia had so many Baptists that they needed their support to pass legislation.

Religious folk still influence both domestic and foreign policy in the United States.  In particular, the eschatology of American evangelicals affects politicians and lawmakers.  Overall, Jews are no friend of evangelicals.  A large majority of Jews treat evangelicals like trash.  They hate and disdain them.  Jews most often vote just the opposite as evangelicals and even try to ruin most of what they like.  They direct caustic verbiage toward evangelicals, insulting them in a hateful manner.  Nevertheless, a large number of evangelicals eagerly continue supporting Israel.  Why?

Premillennialism

Many genuine, born-again Christians take the Bible literally.  They approach the prophetic portions of scripture grammatically and historically.  Even though prophecies contain figurative language, they interpret them according to their plain meaning.  They believed like this from the first century until today.  In more recent historical times, Christians established a literal method of interpretation of scripture, called dispensationalism.  Dispensationalism systematized a belief already held by Christians, titled premillennialism.

Premillennialism is a theological perspective within Christian eschatology that asserts that Jesus Christ will physically return to Earth (the Second Coming) before the establishment of a literal thousand-year reign known as the Millennium. This belief corresponds to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, which describes a period during which Christ reigns on earth following His return.  The premillennial view emphasizes a literal reading of biblical texts, particularly those concerning end-time events. This approach maintains that prophecies regarding Christ’s second coming and the ensuing kingdom should be understood in their plain meaning unless context suggests otherwise.

A critical aspect of premillennialism is the belief that Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are distinct entities with separate roles in God’s plan. Promises made to Israel, especially regarding land and kingdom, are viewed as not fulfilled by and in the church.  Like Paul confirmed in Romans 11:26, “Israel shall be saved.”

A Voting Bloc of Premillennialists

Sixty-five percent of evangelical leaders identify as premillennial.  According to various surveys, a substantial number of evangelicals hold premillennial beliefs, particularly in conservative circles. This aligns with the findings from an evangelical leaders survey, suggesting that premillennialism is indeed the dominant perspective within evangelicalism.  Even among non-believers in non-evangelical churches and even non-church goers believe premillennialism.

Many evangelicals don’t identify as Baptist and many truly saved Baptists don’t identify as evangelicals.  Many Charismatics do not consider themselves as evangelicals and evangelicals don’t consider themselves Charismatic.  Without overlap, all evangelicals, Baptists, and Charismatics come to about 35% of the population of the United States.  A higher percentage of Charismatics are premillennial than even evangelicals and Baptists.

65% of 35% is 23%.  That would make twenty-three percent of Americans as premillennial.  Twenty-tree percent of the 340 million Americans is 78 million premillennialists.  That’s a very large and influential voting bloc and their eschatology affects their foreign policy.

Support of Israel and Opposition to Globalism

Premillennialists will support Israel.  They also oppose globalism because they think this world will end with a one world government.  This affects their position on borders and foreign wars.  Part of the support of an American first agenda relates to opposition to the globalist perspective that involves the United States in unending foreign entanglements and wars.

I can see why a 35% voting bloc at least wants the United States to give Israel a free reign to defeat their enemies in the Middle East.  Also, I understand why these same voters do not support the war in the Ukraine.  This isn’t hatred of the Ukraine, but it is a distrust in an administrative state within the United States that wants globalism.  These same characters villainize Russia to undermine the candidate that most champions their causes.

Opposition of the Biblical Views

A particular United States foreign policy dovetails with biblical premillennialism.  The premillennial voters have an agenda which they see as within the will of God.  That makes the left crazy.  It wants to censor and even imprison these people as political enemies.  The left sees them as complete kooks.  The leftists don’t think anyone should depend on the Bible for any political decisions.  I think we would find a fairly large percentage that would prefer the death of premillennialists, whom they see as a scourge of the earth.

The Bible is true.  God expects us to know what it means, called the perspicuity of scripture.  He wants us to believe it and live according to it.  This includes all the prophetic passages.  What He says will occur in the future will in fact occur in the future.

Baptist Popery

Oxymoron

Baptist popery should be an oxymoron.  I’ve heard the two terms (Baptist and Pope) put together like this, but the two together are meant as an oxymoron.  Even though it is an oxymoron, does it really happen, that is, Baptist popery?  Because I’ve seen it, I believe it does.

Why is “Baptist popery” an oxymoron?  The attributes of Baptists so contradict characteristics of Roman Catholics that the two seem surely mutually exclusive.  Baptist and pope just can’t coexist.

Contradictions

Baptists believe the Bible is sole infallible authority — not Roman Catholics.  They believe in the priesthood of the believer — not Roman Catholics.  They believe in the autonomy of each church — not Roman Catholics.  Baptists believe that baptism and the Lord’s Table are the only two church ordinances — not Roman Catholics.  They also believe in only two church offices, pastor and deacons — not Roman Catholics.  And finally, Baptists believe in the separation of church and state — not Roman Catholics.

All of the contradictions of the last paragraph say no Baptist popery.  Baptists don’t believe in popes.  They don’t believe in apostolic succession.  The true church isn’t catholic, but it’s local.  So is there really Baptist popery?  Baptists don’t believe in hierarchical church government.  They believe in a congregational form of church government, where a pastor himself is under the authority of the church (1 Timothy 5:19-20).  No Baptist speaks ex cathedra — no new revelation of scripture since the close of Revelation (Jude 1:3).

Wannabe Popes

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says:

The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

This is more than any Baptist pope could exert.  Yet, how would a Baptist pope operate if he were at least like a Baptist pope, albeit not exactly one — maybe a wannabe pope?  I believe several examples exist of this type of practice among those who call themselves Baptist.  Baptist pastors or churches exert control on the outside over other churches like the pope or the church of Rome.  Not necessarily in this order, here’s what’s toward Baptist popery, if not the actual thing.  It tends toward, has a trajectory toward popery.

Conventions, Associations, or Fellowships

One, the most obvious form of control over churches comes in denominational groups, conventions, associations, or fellowships.  They aren’t mentioned in the Bible, but they’re justified through silence.  Scripture is sufficient and God doesn’t need someone to improve His program.  One of our church members called this “teeing up a one world church,” using a golf analogy.  True success is very often seen in the climb up a denominational ladder.  One Southern Baptist pastor wrote this:

Today’s Southern Baptist Convention has a problem with power. Local churches—which may still exist in name—in fact are being overtaken (a better word might be “consumed”) by the dominating leadership and financial appetite of the larger denomination.

He continued:

Our crisis has its roots in a wide variety of decisions and trends [that] have a special impact on the loss of local church autonomy . . . used as . . . instrument(s) of control.

Kevin Bauder talks about a few of the ways denominational association tends toward popery (without using the word).  About a few of these, he writes:

It is also not unusual for the association to end up controlling the churches. Any time an individual or agency serves as a gatekeeper for pulpit placement, that person or institution gains immense de facto power over churches. . . . An association provides a power structure that unscrupulous individuals can use to promote themselves. It also furnishes a mechanism that these people can employ to exert pressure upon the churches. These political maneuvers may lead to informal but, nevertheless, real interference with the autonomy of local congregations.

Fitting into the convention or association requires finding a lowest common denominator to remain unified.  If God wanted the bigger organization or institution, He would have instituted it.  He didn’t.  They invented themselves. The heads of these organizations do bring in quasi-popery at least.

Parachurch Organizations

Quid Pro Quo

Two, Baptists in most cases today accept the existence, propagation, and power of parachurch organizations.  This would include Baptist publishers, mission boards, colleges, universities, and seminaries, Christian school associations, and camps.  When I was in fundamentalism, the parachurch organization was the pinnacle or summit of Christian acclaim.  One of these trades on exchanges of favor, a kind of quid pro quo.  If the pastor or church supports it, it promotes the pastor or church.  Parachurch organizations create celebrity pastors.

Like the denominational associations or conventions, parachurch organizations are not in the Bible.  Jesus didn’t give them the necessary tools to accomplish His ends.  As a result, they will surely fail at doing what Jesus wants.  The programs of the parachurch organization try to be and stay large to fulfill purpose and meet payroll.  The truth is not usually a factor.  Also like the denominational structure, to keep their relevance, they must settle on a lower common denominator to keep their coalition together.  Also they compromise to stay relevant.

Hurting Churches

Publishers mostly don’t think about what needs publishing, but what will make enough money to fund the publisher.  Mission boards must work with all sorts of different churches with different beliefs and practices.  When a missionary claims that board, he most often associates himself with a larger variety of belief and practice than his church.  This comes back to effect the churches, which in turn weakens the board, and continues a downward slide, feeding off each other.  Everyone of the above parachurch organizations will have similar problems.  One man criticizing the parachurch organization wrote:

Thus, I find it very disturbing when church leaders start to be known more as leaders of a particular parachurch group than as leaders in their churches. This serves to create a confusing image in the mind of the Christian public, whereby the boundary between church and parachurch is eroded, or, worse still, the parachurch is regarded as the place where the real action and excitement take place. This in turn consigns the church to an apparently less important role, and serves to relegate to the level of secondary or even tertiary importance the doctrinal elaboration and distinctives for which individual churches . . . stand. The Christian public comes to regard these ecclesial distinctives as hindrances.

Baptist popes come out of these parachurch organizations, because of their ability to influence and control churches.  They get money from a lot of different sources that enable them to have a more widespread influence that corrupts churches.

Some might say parachurch organizations help churches.  They exist to aid the churches.  Scripture doesn’t support this.  Some short term gain can occur, but over the long term the parachurch organization is a loss to churches.  It’s detrimental overall even if it can point to individual successes.

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.

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.

A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Two)

Part One

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

Baptists and Presbyterians, False Worship, and Separation

Some of what I write here relates to something I got on my phone from a notification.  It was Derek Thomas, the Presbyterian, representing the Master’s Seminary on a podcast.  He did about fifteen minutes on preaching and the problem of evil, focusing on sermons through Job.  I don’t know that an evangelical Presbyterian might differ with a Baptist interpretation of Job.  Thomas said he disagreed with Calvin, whom he said took the Elihu position, essentially seeing Elihu arriving at the end of Job and mopping up the whole discussion.

The appearance of Thomas for Master’s Seminary drew my attention to the doctrine of Presbyterians and fellowship with them.  Presbyterians sprinkle infants, which they consider baptizing babies.  Should this bring separation from Presbyterians?

Presbyterians in the ordinance of baptism sprinkle infants. A Book of Public Prayer for the Presbyterian Church of America, 1857, reads (p. 147):

Baptism is an holy Sacrament instituted by Christ: in which a person professing the Christian Faith, or the infant of such, is baptized with water into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: in signification and solemnization of the holy covenant in which as a believer, or the seed of believers, he giveth up himself, or is by the parent given up, to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost:  to believe in, love, and fear this blessed Trinity, against the flesh, the devil, and the world. Thus he is solemnly entered a visible member of Christ and His Church, a child of God, and an heir of heaven.

This is considered and called “a prescribed form of worship” (p. xv), so under the category of worship.  Is baptism worship of God?  The thought here is that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, these two rites, are acts of worship in the New Testament temple of God.  To worship God, God must accept the baptism.

Through the Bible, a primary criterion for worship is that God accepts it.  For God to accept it, it must accord with scripture.  God accepts worship in truth.  In the Old Testament, God punishes false worship by death, such as the case of Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire to the Lord.  Infant sprinkling is not truth.

C. H. Spurgeon preached and the transcript reads:

When we reflect that it is rendered into some thing worse than superstition by being accompanied with falsehood, when children are taught that in their baptism they are made the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, which is as base a lie as ever was forged in hell, or uttered beneath the copes of heaven, our spirit sinks at the fearful errors which have crept into the Church, through the one little door of infant sprinkling.

Preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 1861, Hugh Brown said:

We cannot but regard infant baptism as the main root of the superstitious and destructive dogma of baptismal regeneration, to which as Protestants we are opposed; we cannot but regard infant baptism as the chief corner-stone of State Churchism, to which as Dissenters we are opposed; we cannot but regard infant baptism as unscriptural, and to everything that is unscriptural we, as disciples of Jesus Christ, must be opposed; and we do trust that all who differ from us, and however widely they may differ, will still admit that we are only doing what is right in maintaining what we believe to be the truth of God with reference to this matter.

I’ve read many who say that infant sprinkling has sent more people to hell than any other false doctrine.  I can’t disagree.  Recently someone compared this to 1-2-3-pray-with-me or easy prayerism.  They both send many people to Hell, the latter catching up today with infant sprinkling in its damnatory qualities.

I’m happy when I hear any Presbyterian believes right, preaches scripturally, about anything.  Love rejoices in the truth.  Infant sprinkling is false worship and as a doctrine sends people to Hell.  God killed Nadab and Abihu for changing the recipe at the altar of incense.  How much more serious is the false worship and perverting message of infant sprinkling?  Baptists should separate from Presbyterians, not remain in unity with them.  They should not yoke together in common ministry.  They should do what God does with false worship.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives