Home » Posts tagged 'evangelicals'
Tag Archives: evangelicals
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.
Dipping Now Into Application Of American Fundamentalism And British Evangelicalism
Alistair Begg’s Interview
Popular evangelical preacher, Scottish American Alistair Begg, on September 1, 2023 revealed the following account in an interview:
And in very specific areas this comes across. I mean, you and I know that we field questions all the time that go along the lines of “My grandson is about to be married to a transgender person, and I don’t know what to do about this, and I’m calling to ask you to tell me what to do”—which is a huge responsibility.
And in a conversation like that just a few days ago—and people may not like this answer—but I asked the grandmother, “Does your grandson understand your belief in Jesus?”
“Yes.”
“Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?”
“Yes.”
I said, “Well then, okay. As long as he knows that, then I suggest that you do go to the ceremony. And I suggest that you buy them a gift.”
“Oh,” she said, “what?” She was caught off guard.
I said, “Well, here’s the thing: your love for them may catch them off guard, but your absence will simply reinforce the fact that they said, ‘These people are what I always thought: judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.’”
This didn’t seem to get on the radar of the rest of evangelicalism until an article about it on January 23, 2024 on Christian Headlines, almost four months later. Then the evangelical internet and podcasts exploded with mainly negative reactions to Begg’s interview.
Response of Begg to Criticism
In response to the criticism and hoopla over his counsel, Begg came out fighting. This is the biggest story right now in evangelicalism. He has elevated the story with his combativeness. Begg preached an entire sermon defending himself and he said a lot to crush opponents. Among everything, he said this one paragraph:
Now, let me say something that will be a little explosive. I’ve lived here for forty years, and those who know me best know that when we talk theology, when we talk stuff, I’ve always said I am a little bit out of sync with the American evangelical world, for this reason: that I am the product of British evangelicalism, represented by John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Eric Alexander, Sinclair Ferguson, Derek Prime.
I am a product of that. I have never been a product of American fundamentalism. I come from a world in which it is possible for people to actually grasp the fact that there are nuances in things. Those of you who are lawyers understand this. Everything is not so categorically clear that if you put one foot out of this box, you’ve got to be removed from the box forever.
Begg said some very, very harsh things in public about all of his critics, but in this section, he called them “American fundamentalists.” That is a pointed insult for most evangelicals. It’s essentially calling them an odious modern day Pharisee. He actually gets worse than that.
British Evangelicals and American Fundamentalism
British Evangelicals
Begg distinguished himself from American fundamentalism by referring to himself as a “British evangelical.” However, he was not attacked by fundamentalists. I would reckon that zero to few fundamentalists even listen to Begg It was in reality many, many evangelicals who had something in public to say about Begg, not fundamentalists. Out of ten podcasts denouncing Begg, close to ten on average were evangelicals. Among them, many big-named evangelicals spoke against Begg and his position. Yes, a few also came out in public support of him, but one might say, the usual suspects did that.
Alistair Begg said that he places himself within the British evangelicalism of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. For his sermon, he relied heavily on an early book by Stott, Christ the Controversialist. I’m not one to coach Begg on the ins and outs of British evangelicalism, but I do understand American fundamentalism. I lived in it, took a class on it, read books on it, functioned among historic figures of fundamentalism, and wrote about it here.
Fundamentalist Movement
The fundamentalist movement is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented movements in world history. Fundamentalism deserves a critique, but secular historians and evangelical ones of all different stripes tend to slander fundamentalism. Calling someone a “fundamentalist” becomes then an ad hominem attack for an evangelist.
In his defense, Alistair Begg is saying that he’s just being his regular old British evangelicalism, but his critics are all being their American fundamentalism. In some ways, Begg is right that this behavior among his 95% plus evangelical critics seems like a historic outlier for evangelicalism in the United States. I would also agree that it looks like at least some type of neo-fundamentalist movement in evangelicalism.
If I were acting right now as a historian, I would say that this is a new, albeit small, movement in the United States, perhaps like that of Spurgeon during the Downgrade Controversy in England, a precursor to American fundamentalism. The critics of Begg are truly acting or behaving in the militant spirit of fundamentalists.
The Biblical Doctrine of Separation
Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism
American fundamentalism was a movement in the early twentieth century within evangelicalism across denominations in defense of the fundamentals of the faith. Fundamentalists stood for doctrines that would preserve a true gospel and evangelical Christianity itself. A key feature of fundamentalism was and is separation, essentially “come out from among them and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17).
Separation is a biblical doctrine found in almost every book of the Bible. The non-fundamentalist, professing evangelical does not separate. The sine qua non of fundamentalism was and is separation. Separation is of the absolute nature of God. He is holy or separate. God separates. The goal of the original fundamentalist movement was to keep the fundamentals and thus keep the gospel. The fundamentalists understood the necessity of separation for protecting the fundamentals of the faith.
Evangelical Non Separatists
Evangelicalism itself became distinct from fundamentalism. Evangelicals would not separate. Instead, they emphasized their concept of unity, which meant toleration. In order to get along and to maintain the greatest possible coalition, evangelicals look for ways to compromise.
The non-fundamentalist evangelicals in the United States began to turn into something more in nature with mainstream evangelicalism in England. Especially characteristic of evangelicals was forming bridges with or to the world through social programs. In many cases, this turned into its own form of liberalism that today manifests itself today in rampant “woke evangelicalism.” Evangelicalism turned back toward liberalism in forms of cooperation, what many labeled a “new evangelicalism.”
Cultural Issues and Nuance
Cultural Issues
A major means by which evangelicals could sustain their idea of unity is to remove much of the application of the scripture, especially on cultural issues. Cultural issues are the most offensive teachings and practices of scripture. Examples of cultural issues are the unique identities of men and women, masculinity and femininity, the distinct roles of the man and the woman, marriage between only a man and a woman, parental authority over children, and the worship of God in the beauty of Holiness. There are many more cultural issues taught in scripture.
The defense by Begg is a case study of the nature of evangelicalism, especially represented in the above paragraph by the word, “nuance.” He calls out the lawyers in his church for their support on this thought. Yet, do we treat the perspecuity of scripture like we do that of federal, state, and local criminal and civil laws? The Bible is God’s Word. Almost his entire sermon performed nuance to defend what he did.
Nuance
Nuance allows for a multitude of possible acceptable positions on various scriptural issues. Nuance means permitting differences. Allowing for many different positions is the type of unity embraced by evangelicals. Evangelicals want to keep a large percentage of biblical doctrine and practice open to numerous positions. They tolerate many various positions on numerous different doctrines and practices for the sake of unity. This requires nuance with scripture.
Many evangelicals, I can see, understand now the damage of not practicing separation on doctrine and practice, including cultural issues. They comprehend now the connection between the gospel and same-sex marriage and transgenderism. Can you believe in Jesus Christ and accept same-sex marriage? I’m not saying that Alistair Begg would say, “Yes.” However, he values nuance and nuance goes both ways. Acceptance of same sex marriage starts with tolerance of it. This is akin to the progression one sees in Psalm 1:1:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
Lloyd-Jones, A Fundamentalist?
Compared to John Stott as a professing evangelical still in the Church of England, Martyn Lloyd-Jones himself was a British fundamentalist. He was a separatist. A British publication, the Evangelical Times, reports:
Evangelical Times was launched in February 1967, four months after the much-discussed division between Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott. . . . In 1963, Lloyd-Jones quoted the Independent, John Owen, to show ‘the duty of every saint of God’ was to withdraw from a church where ‘notorious, scandalous sins had gone unpunished, unreproved’. In 1965, Lloyd-Jones dismissed arguments against separatism as ‘sheer lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit’ in favour of ‘trusting to expediency’.
I am not a fundamentalist, but I have much more sympathy for fundamentalism and fundamentalists. I’m not a fundamentalist, because I don’t think it goes far enough. You can’t protect the faith by diminishing doctrine and practice to fundamentals. One of the fundamentals is not “marriage between only a man and a woman.” Based on that kind of thinking, a fundamentalist doesn’t need to separate over same sex marriage. It is not a fundamental of the faith. This relates directly to this issue with Begg. This presents a problem even for the fundamentalist model of belief and practice.
Stott’s Evangelicalism
John Stott was an evangelical Anglican. How could Anglicanism coexist with evangelicalism? The framework for the Church of England undermines a true gospel. Henry VIII, who started the Church of England, didn’t deny the gospel of Roman Catholicism. He just wanted a divorce. The Church of England itself does not preach a true gospel.
Stott did not believe in a literal Hell or eternal torment. He believed and preached Annihilationism. Stott went to Venice Italy to join the Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission. He denied the inerrancy of scripture.
More to Come
Right Applications of Matthew 5:17-20 and Wrong Ones (Part Three)
Jesus Is Scriptural
Everything that Jesus said in His sermon from Matthew 5:1 to 5:16 was a scriptural concept. Nothing Jesus taught contradicted God’s Word. Jesus is God. On the other hand, the religious leaders in Israel were “making the word of God of none effect through [their] tradition” (Mark 7:13). If anyone was destroying the belief and practice of the Old Testament, that is, the fulfilling of the Old Testament, it was them, not Jesus.
Believing and practicing the Old Testament was letting light shine before men. Jesus did that and He called upon kingdom citizens of His to do the same. Proof that He didn’t arrive to earth to destroy the scripture He inspired, Jesus promised perfect preservation of every letter of it.
If Jesus would preserve every letter of written scripture, surely He also expected His people to do all of it too. His teachers would also teach men to do everything scripture said. One could say at this point: in other words, you’ve got to be better than the Pharisees. The righteousness of the Pharisees is not saving righteousness. It is their own version of righteousness that comes from human effort. They couldn’t produce the righteousness that would get them into heaven. That righteousness comes from above.
Righteousness and Saving Faith
Righteousness, which is from above and by the grace of the Lord, exceeds the faux righteousness arising only from man’s works. It doesn’t rank scripture into majors and minors, because it can’t keep everything that He said. Like Jesus, it fulfills written scripture. James in his epistle later says the same. True believers are both hearers and doers of what God said.
Saving faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Someone is begotten by the Word of Truth. It would follow that He would also be a keeper of scripture, like Jesus said. That supernatural righteousness of God produces obedience to scripture. You can detect the unrighteous servant of unrighteousness by His diminishing of scripture.
Here is a professing teacher of God. Someone disobeys scripture. He doesn’t want to offend that person by saying something. He lets it go. This is not doing the least of the commandments and teaching men so.
Ranking Doctrines or the Triage Approach
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day ranked doctrines. Their unity revolved around a triage approach. Instead of following the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, they pervert into just the opposite of what He taught. Unity on the least commandments, what they call, non-essentials or minors. These teachings are not a “hill you want to die on.”
Left-Winged Legalism
Professing Christians especially today practice a left-winged legalism more often than the more commonly highlighted right-winged type. The left wing calls its legalism, “grace.” It is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Since you can’t keep everything scripture says on your own, reduce its teachings to what you can keep. This is left-winged legalism.
Those practicing left-winged legalism relish pointing out more consistent practice of scripture than theirs as legalism. They do it all the time. How you know they aren’t legalists in their estimation is by their inconsistent practice of scripture. People who try to follow everything like Jesus taught and teach others to do likewise, they aren’t the greatest in the kingdom to left-winged legalists. Instead, they’re “legalists.” Again, it’s in reality just the opposite.
As Jesus moves on in His illustrations in chapter five, you can see how much a truly righteous person strives to love God and His neighbor. It’s not the get-by-ism of the Pharisees and modern evangelicalism, so they can keep their crowds. They’ve dumbed down scripture so that it is unrecognizable as Christianity. This follows the same tack of the Pharisees. There is nothing new under the sun.
Church Perpetuity, Sola Scriptura, and Roman Catholicism Versus Protestantism: Candace Owens Show
Many political conservatives and conservative Christians appreciate Candace Owens and Allie Beth Stuckey. Until one recent show, the subject of this post, I had never seen a whole Candace Owens program, just clips here and there. I had seen whole interviews by Allie Beth Stuckey on her podcast. She deals with some unique subject matter. Both are very popular, the former on Daily Wire and the latter with Blaze.
For a show episode included on youtube, Candace Owens invited her husband, George Farmer, a Roman Catholic, to debate Allie Beth Stuckey, a Protestant. I watched all of part one and thought it would be helpful and informative to provide an analysis of their interaction. Farmer grew up in England and attended Oxford. He tells this story in the episode. His dad converted to Christ from atheism, became an evangelical, and raised George this way.
Under the influence of a Roman Catholic scholar, George doubted the veracity of evangelicalism for Roman Catholicism. Before he married Owens, he became a Roman Catholic. Owens claims still to be a Protestant evangelical, leaning now Roman Catholic, attending Catholic church with her husband and children.
Allie Beth Stuckey grew up Southern Baptist, told the story that her family traces back Baptist in America for 300 years. She remains Southern Baptist, but now claims to be a Reformed Baptist. She considers herself a Protestant, Reformed, Baptist evangelical.
Perpetuity of Christ’s True Church
The Question
Farmer communicates his greatest conflict for staying Protestant and evangelical, a historical matter. To remain Protestant, he would say that Christianity was lost before 1500, essentially no one was converted or a true Christian when the Reformation began. In part one, Stuckey never addresses this seminal concern of Farmer. Farmer never explains this conflict. To start the debate, Candace Owens directed the debate by asking Stuckey what bothered her the most about Roman Catholicism, so they never doubled back to deal with the perpetuity of the church.
Before I move to what bothered Stuckey the most and Farmer’s answer to that concern, let me address perpetuity. I would like to know how Stuckey would answer Farmer’s perpetuity conundrum. I would join him in finding a problem with Protestantism or for Baptists, an English Separatist view. Is Protestantism a restorationist movement, like the Church of Christ, Latter Day Saints, Apostolics, and Charismatics assert?
The perpetuity question also becomes one of authority. How does the authority of God get passed to state church Protestants with their rejection of Roman Catholicism? If Roman Catholicism represents an apostate body, how do they call themselves Reformed or Protestant? Shouldn’t they make a clean break and repudiate Roman Catholicism as a true church?
The Answer
Protestants receive their authority from Roman Catholicism. They must see Roman Catholicism as a true church through which God passed His truth. By doing so, Protestants, including professing Baptist ones, also affirm a state church. I couldn’t be a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. Farmer exposes a major flaw in Protestantism. There is a better way, really a biblical, right way — the only way. Stuckey either doesn’t know it or doesn’t believe it.
The biblical, right way says true churches always existed since Christ, separate from the state church and known by different names. The true church is not a catholic church. It is a local, autonomous one. Those churches did exist and passed down the truth. They became known as Baptist churches. By not taking that position, professing Baptists and Protestants play right into Roman Catholic hands.
Baptist perpetuity is mainly a presuppositional position. Scripture teaches it. The gates of hell would not prevail against Christ’s ekklesia, His assemblies (Matthew 16:18). No one should expect a total apostasy until the saints of this age are off the scene, snatched up into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 & 2 Thessalonians). Until then, only some depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). True believers should just believe this happened. They did until modernism crept into the Southern Baptist Convention and invented a different view of history for Baptists.
Sola Scriptura
What Verse?
Stuckey says her biggest bother with Roman Catholicism is the pope and the authority issue. She asserts sola scriptura, the Bible as the only or final authority. How does Farmer answer her? He asks her for a verse or passage to prove sola scriptura. She can’t do it. She gives Farmer zero scriptural evidence.
I sat chagrined watching Stuckey’s non-scriptural support for her biggest bother. Ironic. Roman Catholicism doesn’t rely on scripture for its only authority and Stuckey has no scripture saying that’s wrong. She said she recognized the circular reasoning with providing scripture for sola scriptura. No way.
Farmer put Stuckey on the defensive and she tried to weave together some poor argument for sola scriptura from history. Was Stuckey right? Was there no answer to Farmer’s challenge?
Biblical Arguments for Sola Scriptura
What verse would you use? I thought of four arguments instantly. First, I thought 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture (1) throughly furnished unto all good works and (2) is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Every good work comes from scripture, no more or no less. It is sufficient, that is, profitable for all of what verses 16-17 mention. Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness should come only from the Bible.
Second, nothing should be added to scripture. It is the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). Revelation 22:18-19 commands to add nothing to God’s Word. Adding to scripture brings severe warnings of terrible judgment from God.
Three, only faith pleases God and faith comes only by the Word of God (Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10:17).
Four, man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). The converse is true. Man will not live from something not the Word of God. That includes the pope, tradition, what someone might call the wisdom of men.
I don’t know why Stuckey could not give this as evidence to Farmer. She says she grew up in church and that the Bible is her authority, yet she couldn’t produce one scriptural argument about what bothered her the most about Roman Catholicism.
The Canon
As part of his argument against sola scriptura, Farmer used canonicity. He said the canon came from Roman Catholic Church authority in a late fourth century council. Stuckey sat there nodding, like she agreed. Conservative evangelicals are not today agreeing with that assessment of canonicity. I can say, however, that it was a typical Bible college and seminary presentation of canonicity thirty or forty years ago, maybe still today.
Farmer includes a separate church authority, making room to add the Pope and tradition as authorities with the Bible. He uses this view of canonicity, an unscriptural presentation of canonicity. Stuckey though sits and accepts this, by doing so encouraging viewers to turn Roman Catholic. Owens should have recruited a better representative for evangelicalism than Stuckey. She fails at her task, leaving viewers in greater confusion than when they started.
God used true churches, biblical assemblies after the model of His first church in Jerusalem and the early churches that one spawned, for recognition of the canon. They immediately recognized the true, authoritative New Testament books, even as seen in Peter’s endorsement of Paul’s epistles in 2 Peter 3:15-17. They hand copied those manuscripts and only those as a plain indication of their faith in them. Councils were not necessary. Today evangelicals often give too much credence to the Catholic councils as a perversion of biblical ecclesiology.
The Roman Catholic canon includes the apocrypha. When someone sits silent to these additional books, that helps undermine true scriptural sufficiency and authority. Accepting that Roman Catholic position of canonicity hurts sola scriptura.
Recent Comments