Home » Posts tagged 'false worship'
Tag Archives: false worship
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)
Tucker Interview
After already publishing parts one and two in this series, Tucker Carlson teased an interview with Douglas Wilson. This is a boon for he and his brand. Immediately Wilson wrote a post to welcome the Tucker audience with links to his numerous ventures. This gives even greater importance to exposure of Wilson. The content of the Tucker trailer also dovetails closely with this series, because Wilson mentions the gospel.
Wilson surprised me with his representation of Christian nationalism (another still ongoing series here, here, and here). It differed from his norm (see my part three). He gave no hope for Christian nationalism in the United States, except through gospel preaching. In many expositions of Christian nationalism, I don’t remember his saying that. Maybe I missed it. Postmillennialists and theonomist-types like Wilson, who envision their bringing in a physical kingdom on earth, don’t usually convey utter hopelessness remedied only by hot gospel preaching.
Perhaps the whole interview (presently behind the Tucker paywall) will reveal more. Wilson sounded good about the gospel, but he left out infant sprinkling and child communion, something he mixes with the gospel. Shouldn’t he urge Tucker’s audience also to sprinkle its infants? It’s important in his vision of Christian nationalism.
Roman Catholicism
Not Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholicism passed down infant sprinkling among many other scriptural perversions. It condemned maybe as many people to Hell as any false doctrine. Protestants continued in a system of false interpretation and doctrine, albeit better than Roman Catholicism, yet still misleading.
Protestants point to the Latin, sola scriptura, scripture alone, as their heritage. Yet, tradition still guides much of Protestantism. Infant baptism isn’t scripture alone and this challenges the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura. Keeping significant aspects of Roman Catholicism, Protestants also point back to the Catholic fathers as theirs too. Wilson has pieced together a patchwork of belief and practice that required the beginning of a new denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Jesse Nigro in The North American Anglican writes in his analysis of Wilson:
[H]is trajectory has led him into the broader pool of “Reformed Catholicism” that Anglicans occupy.
Catholic Church
Nigro was praising Wilson. Protestants fork off the Roman Catholic line or trajectory, not in the succession of New Testament Christianity or true churches, separate from the state church, since Christ. Roman Catholicism and its stepchild Protestantism resembles little the belief and practice of the church of the New Testament. Scott Aniol writes in his review of Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom::
I am aware that Wilson’s church recognizes Roman Catholic baptisms and welcomes them to the Lord’s Table, but this Baptist considers Roman Catholicism a false religion.
In his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, Wilson wrote (pp. 73-74):
The visible church is also Catholic in an earthly sense, meaning that it is no longer confined to one nation, as it was before under the law. The visible Church is composed of anyone in the world who professes (biblically) to believe in the Christian faith. When they make this profession by means of baptism their children are attached with them. The visible church is to be understood as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the household of God, and outside of this Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Baptism and Salvation
Later in his section on sacerdotalism, he writes:
Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked, and we are to speak of them as though they are.
Furthermore, Wilson writes (p. 111):
By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect.
Paedocommunion
Wilson and Child Communion
In addition to the heretical practice of infant sprinkling, Wilson endorses and practices child communion, inviting the toddlers to the bread and the cup. Wilson writes:
At the very center of the strong family emphasis that you will find in our churches, you will also find our practice of communing our children at the Lord’s Table. This is unusual in Protestant churches, and in some places it is even controversial. . . . [I]n our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.
What do Wilson and others imply by children partaking of the Lord’s Supper? They can partake worthily because they have repented, believed, and received forgiveness of sins. Children who cannot believe, do not have the capacity to do so, are said to make a profession of faith through the Lord’s Table. However, the Lord’s Table is a table of examination. A man examines himself and then eats the bread and drinks the cup.
The Wickedness of Child Communion
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 say:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
So much contradicts clear scripture and biblical teaching with participation of children in the Lord’s Table. Wilson argues that paedocommunion follows paedobaptism, when he writes:
[T]he apostle Paul compares the entire congregation to one loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And it is our conviction that all who are bread should get bread.
This is a typical turn-of-phrase or rhetorical flourish intended to persuade in some doctrinal or practical position. Wilson sounds interesting, but he’s false. His teaching confuses the gospel. It brings God’s judgment down on unworthy partakers of the table. Finally, it corrupts the true nature of the church. One can truly say that paedocommunion is false worship. It is not an act of faith in God, but man-ordained, human innovation.
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.
Worship Is God’s Priority for Men: The Case of 2 Chronicles 25
The impression from an overview of scripture is that worship is God’s priority for men. Jesus said to the woman at the well, God is seeking for true worshipers (John 4:23). Jesus said this. David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14). What was David’s priority? The worship of God. 1 Chronicles 25:14-16 provide another example:
14 Now it came to pass, after that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them. 15 Wherefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Amaziah, and he sent unto him a prophet, which said unto him, Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand? 16 And it came to pass, as he talked with him, that the king said unto him, Art thou made of the king’s counsel? forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten? Then the prophet forbare, and said, I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this, and hast not hearkened unto my counsel
Amaziah, king of Judah, conquered the Edomites based on a prophecy from God. God gave his mercenary army the victory over Edom, which had rebelled against his great-grandfather, Jehoram (verse 14). He obeyed God in slaughtering the Edomites. However, as you can read above, he brought Edom’s gods and bowed down to them and burned incense to them. How did God react to that?
God’s anger was kindled against Amaziah, because of the false worship. There’s more. God was the one who delivered the Edomites, and these new gods could not deliver them. So, God sent a prophet to confront Amaziah.
False worship doesn’t make any sense. God gives every good thing and yet people worship another god and in numbers of different ways. What is it? It doesn’t explain the insanity of this, but we know it still occurs. The true God is not worshiped in a true way. He’s ignored. He’s refused. What causes men to choose a different god or worship the true God in a way He would never accept? Why do they do it?
Maybe it doesn’t matter why. Maybe all that matters is that they do it. In the end, the judgment will come for what, but why still matters. It doesn’t say, but I think we know. We’re supposed to know. God gives everyone every good thing, but God expects something from His worshipers. False gods don’t have the same expectations as God. It’s like doctor shopping. You shop for the god of your choice and have him be your god, and then you get what you want.
Another avenue today is to keep the God of the Bible but conform Him so much to your own preferences and your own style, that He’s not even the same God. He’s god, not God. That’s all over “evangelicalism.” People are important to evangelicalism, and evangelicalism’s god conforms to people. That’s who he is.
The wrong worship and the wrong god merge into one another. They become indistinguishable at some point. Keeping the same “God” is just a masquerade. And then people are so self-deceived, they just don’t know anymore. God knows and He’s angry.
In many ways, people again in a self-deceived way are thinking they can fool God. He won’t know. Or He’ll understand and accept. 2 Peter describes apostasy and in the most rudimentary way, it is not wanting accountability or authority. This does challenge the goodness of God and redefines goodness. Goodness becomes the object of man’s lust, and man doesn’t want a God who doesn’t give him what he wants. Reader, God knows. You won’t get away with it. His worship is His priority.
God is angry with false worship as described in the previous four paragraphs. On the other hand, someone who prioritizes that worship, as flawed even as he may be personally, is a man after God’s own heart. He prioritizes the true worship of God. That doesn’t excuse His flaws, but it’s helpful to know God’s priority.
Amaziah’s worship story is an amazing one. Do you agree? But let’s move on.
God sends a prophet to warn about false worship. True prophets warn against false worship, preach true worship. Practical, successful living matters to God, but worship is the priority. Today that would be to worship the right God the right way, which is in His church, regulated by scripture. Church growth is not the priority, except for more true worshipers. If there isn’t true worship at all, God doesn’t want church growth. He wants church disappearance or elimination.
The message from God through the prophet is not to seek after other gods. Don’t seek them in whatever way anyone may seek them. On the other hand, seek the true God. People don’t know Him, because they don’t seek Him. He must be sought to be known. This relates to a lot about believing the Lord. He is available and can be known, but we must seek Him. Sure, we can’t seek Him without His seeking us, but we must seek Him. It’s crucial.
The first half of verse 16 accounts of the threat by Amaziah to the prophet. That sounds serious, threatening someone who impedes your false worship. I’ve stood at the door arguing about worship for hours. A lot of people would say, let it go. It’s not important, the gospel is important. Except for the gospel is about worship (see John 4:23 again).
When doing spiritual warfare with someone about worship, it is emotional. People don’t want their worship rejected. If it is, something isn’t wrong with them, the false worshipers, it’s you the prophet. It was so serious for Amaziah that he threatened the prophet in one of the most mafia like threats in scripture. There were two components. First, there was a veiled threat of his job as the king’s counsel, a job he would have lost anyway if, second, he was killed by Amaziah.
I want to emphasize that false worshipers want to defend their false worship. I contend that it’s not about their god. It’s about them. They want what they want, and their god is allowing it. God gave the victory. He deserved to be worshiped, but whatever the gods of Edom offered Amaziah, he preferred it.
Not allowing the false worship is like taking food from an animal. I’ve found this to be the reaction. The false worshiper attacks the prophet to keep the worship. I’ve experienced dozens of personal attacks in similar situations with people angry over the challenge of their worship. Cain is an early example in scripture, challenging God and killing his brother over this same issue.
The prophet addressed both threats in an economy of words and in reverse order. Getting straight to the point, God is going to destroy you, implying that you are not going to destroy me. Second, you didn’t listen to my counsel anyway, so you really can’t threaten me with my job. The prophet stood up to the false worshiper and his false worship. He did not back off. This is God’s will, to confront false worship.
Modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism attack those who confront false worship. If you are reading this and you’re one of them, you’re probably defending your attacks with bad arguments. They call it a tertiary issue. You will be canceled by them for confronting false worship. Love is love after all according to the leftish value list. Love would accommodate false worship. God will kill over it. The prophet actually was saving Amaziah’s life. That is actual love, not the toleration of the leftist values now foremost in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. I face those values every week and almost every day.
2 Chronicles 25 is another case for worship as God’s priority for men.
Recent Comments