Home » Posts tagged 'modernism'
Tag Archives: modernism
The Fundamental Root of Division in the United States
United States History
In 1607, English settlers landed on the East Coast of America and formed the Jamestown colony. That began a colonial period until 1776 and a Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen colonies from England. They became states of the United States of America. After those states ratified the Constitution in 1788, they seated the first Congress in 1789. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the Bill of Rights.
Before states ever united under one Constitution and Bill of Rights, division began according to ideological positions termed, federalist and anti-federalist. The Federalists were a political party and supported a strong centralized government. On the other hand, another party, the Anti-Federalists argued against expanding national power and advocated individual liberties, states rights, and localized authority.
Before the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay debated federalism versus anti-federalism in the Federalist Papers, first published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and May 1788. Division along the lines of these two general positions continued in the early history of the United States. With the addition of other issues, like slavery, this division grew and then fomented into a Civil War.
Since the Civil War
The completion of the Civil War in 1865 did not end division in the United States. That continued. Some of the disunity founded by the early disparity between Federalists and Anti-Federalists persisted. Those seeds still germinate and rise in various iterations of the original ground of division.
The United States is no kingdom of Jesus Christ under the unifying power and discipline of the words of Christ. Its form of government cannot sustain oneness like that between God the Father and the Son expressed in John 17. The superstructure of this nation doesn’t portend toward biblical unity. Discord is baked in. The United States doesn’t possess the tools or instrumentation necessary to ward off significant division, even though United is its first name.
Paul taught Timothy to pray for rulers and those in authority so that the church can live peaceably (1 Timothy 2:1-3). Peaceably stands for a manifestation of unity. The government agrees not to imprison and kill believers for merely practicing scripture. It doesn’t mean the government supports the church or its positions, just allows it to operate freely.
Greater Division
Out of the soup of Federalism and Anti-Federalism comes the present and even greater division in the United States. It stems to a certain degree from the original division, but it grew in magnitude. The founders of the United States did not, maybe would or could not, put in the necessary preventatives against massive division in the country. They compromised at the beginning to hold everything together, which meant not providing the crucial deterrents for division that first turned into a Civil War and now we’re where we are.
A popular Democrat and media talking point is that Donald Trump is the number one cause of division in the United States. Their point argues that Trump operates in conflict with established political norms, which creates chaos and a very uncomfortable environment. People will describe this situation dividing families, making for an uncomfortable time at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Cause of the Division
Trump didn’t cause the division seen in the environment heading into election on November 5, 2024. Very often today people will call this clash a culture war. It already existed before Trump, but his rise reveals its existence. Trump embodies the division in the country, doesn’t cause it. It represents two completely diametrically opposed views of the world. Not everyone voting for Trump falls neatly into one of the two sides of this dispute. Some just like his policies better. The heatedness and underlying threat of war emanates from the fundamental root of the division.
The separation between the two major factions goes back a long ways, even preceding the time of the founding of the United States. It relates to epistemology, how that we know what we know. The printing and publication of scripture in people’s language took nations out of the dark ages. Arising from this was modern science and a return to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, especially seen in Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. True science started on a good trajectory, but splintered finally for various reasons (important ones to understand) into modernism first in Europe and then on to the United States.
Modernism arose in the United States after the Civil War parallel with the industrial revolution. Instead of God and scripture as a starting point, modernism shifted to human reason, rationalism, or “evidence.” Premoderns began with a bias toward God, what Stephen Meyer calls the “God hypothesis.” They believed in a transcendent, which is objective, basis for truth, goodness, and beauty. Modernism came into major institutions, influenced their leaders, and changed the culture.
Further Explanation
The insufficiency and inadequacy or failure of modernism finally led to a total rejection of objective truth, goodness, and beauty. This transformed the culture. Pragmatism in churches led to compromise, capitulation, and then cooperation with the cultural changes in the United States. The right side of the two major factions does not necessarily embrace the reality or necessity of objective truth, but it understands the suicide of not living or acting like it exists.
Many if not most would ask, “Why Trump?” That requires a long answer that many won’t accept even if it is the right answer. The country is divided and taking Trump out of the equation will not change that. It comes from deep philosophical and even theological differences and an unwillingness at least for now with either side to accept the other. Some still won’t vote for Trump even though they also don’t accept the other side.
Over a year ago, I called this a “slow moving car crash.” The cars have about arrived now. We’re days away.
How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology (part three)
Somebody kicked a field goal from the fifty yard line. That’s a sixty yard field goal, except that someone moved the goalposts to the thirty. In the same manner, evangelicals say, “This is scriptural bibliology,” but it isn’t. The goalposts were moved. Evangelism has moved on bibliology, first on the doctrine of inspiration.
Ipsissima Verba and Ipsissima Vox
Precise Words
Ipsissima verba, Latin, means, “the precise words.” On the other hand, ipsissima vox is more Latin, meaning, “the very voice.” Ipsissima verba says that the words of Jesus in the gospels were recorded verbatim. Vox says that the gospels capture the concepts of what Jesus said.
Vox says that when the gospels say, “Jesus said,” these are not necessarily the words of Christ. He probably didn’t say them according to many evangelicals, just the essence or general content of what He said. The gospels say, “Jesus said,” 65 times. Many times, speaking of Jesus, in the gospels, “the Lord said.” Sometimes, literally the gospels say, “these words spake Jesus.”
Who dares say that Jesus did no speak the words that scripture says He spoke? The Holy Spirit would not inspire a “Jesus said” and not provide the very words of Jesus. Matthew 24:35 says:
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
That statement by Jesus about His own Words is false if the gospels do not record His Words. Several years ago now, a blogpost here said:
God’s people must hear the Words of the Son (John 12:47), receive His Words (John 12:48; 17:8), keep His Words (John 14:23), have His Words abiding in them (John 15:7) and remember His Words as from the Father (John 14:10).
Concepts
Daniel Wallace in his “An Apologia for a Broad View of Ipsissima Vox,” paper presented to the 51st Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Danvers, Mass., November 1999, wrote:
[T]he concepts go back to Jesus, but the words do not—at least, not exactly as recorded.
I wrote these lines on this blog in the not too distant past:
His colleague, Darrell Bock, wrote a chapter in Jesus Under Fire [ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995):73-99], defending the vox position, entitled, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex.” Bock’s chapter tries to defend the historical reliability of the Gospel writing of Jesus’ Words from the destructive criticism of the Jesus Seminar. He writes, “The Gospels give us the true gist of his teaching and the central thrust of his message,” but “we do not have ‘his very words’ in the strictest sense of the term”. . . .
Wallace and Bock approach Jesus’ Words in the Gospels from a naturalistic viewpoint. The apostles forgot the Words like historians often do and so presented the Words the best they could, considering their shortcomings.
Verbal Inspiration
Donald Green in an essay on this subject, published in The Master’s Seminary Journal (Spring 2001), wrote:
Jesus’ promise of the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit placed the Gospel writers in a different realm in which different standards of memory would be operative. They would be supernaturally enabled to recall Jesus’ words in a manner that freed them from the human limitations of secular historians.
The great high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 17, begins with the words: “These words spake Jesus.” Ipsissima verba, a high view of scripture, says that Jesus said these very words in His prayer to His Father. Later in the prayer itself, Jesus says in verse 8:
I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them.
This is what Jesus says, that He has given to the New Testament writers through inspiration very words, not just concepts or ideas.
Redaction Criticism
Is redaction criticism acceptable or accommodated by evangelicals? Timothy Berg, a member of an evangelical group called the textual confidence collective, says, “Yes.” Redaction criticism says that several biblical authors were very often if not most often mere editors of source material. This clashes with the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Berg in an article, “Matthew 5:17-20 and the KJV,” published on his kjbhistory.com website, writes:
It would be irresponsible to deal with any text in Matthew without at least briefly mentioning the synoptic problem and its relation to the exegesis of the text. While there are some recent dissenting voices, the majority of evangelical scholarship today holds to Marcan priority. That is, that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark. Further, because Matthew and Luke have a large amount of material that they share in common yet which is not present in Mark, it is likely that they had both had access to a source Mark was unaware of. This source is referred to as “Q.”
He writes then specifically about Matthew 5:18:
The passage at hand in verse 18 is clearly “Q” material, or material which Matthew and Luke draw from a common source unknown to Mark. It is worth noting how Matthew has uniquely shaped this material for his Jewish audience.
Redaction criticism says that biblical authors reworked an already written text, taking it and putting it somewhat in their own words. This is not either a biblical or historical view of the doctrine of inspiration. It acquiesces to modernism or theological liberalism in a denial of verbal inspiration.
More to Come
A True View of the World: Inside or Outside?
Anthony Kennedy and Casey
In the Supreme Court decision “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Robert P. Casey” in 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Is that statement by a Supreme Court justice true? Can someone define his own concept of existence, of meaning? Everyone defines his own meaning? I say “no” to that, but it relates to how anyone obtains an accurate understanding of the world.
Anthony Kennedy wrote that personal preference, which originates from a person’s feelings or opinions, arising from the inside and not the outside, would override objective meaning. Therefore, objective truth contradicted freedom and essentially then America itself. Something is true as long as it corresponds to someone’s desires.
Authenticity and Relativism
Even more so, when truth is your truth, then it’s also authentic. Count that for goodness and beauty too. Stephen Presser writes about Kennedy’s line:
It undoubtedly owes a lot to Freudian psychology, to Rousseau’s notion that civilization places us in chains, and, most of all, to the concept usually associated with Abraham Maslow, “self-actualization.” The core of this philosophy seems to be that each of us has an authentic “self,” and the goal of life ought to be to maximize individual opportunities to express and develop it.
I read someone, who called the statement, “the epitome of relativistic thought.” Obviously, when applied to abortion, to which the Casey law was written, a baby is anything the person feels it to be, who wants the abortion. It is an invader of the mother or just a clump of cells or cancer.
Outside, Not the Inside
Before the 19th century in the United States, almost everyone saw truth as received from the outside, not the inside. God was separate from His creation. Truth, goodness, and beauty, which came from Him, outside of His creation, were transcendent. Hence, people called them the transcendentals.
On the outside was evidence. Revelation is the declaration of God. This is premodernism. Everything starts with God. But even modernism said evidence on the outside was necessary. As Ben Shapiro very often says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Man’s observation falls below revelation though. Modernism assumed that absolutes existed, but their testing came through man’s reasoning.
Predmodern, Modern, Romanticism, Postmodern
Between Christ and the 19th century, this very long period is premodern. Sure, 1500 to 1800 is an early modern period. I don’t want to get into when modernism started. It depends on how you define it. Theological modernism started in the 19th century. That’s the time of the worldview shift reflected also in the Romantic Movement of the 19th century.
Modernism connected truth to man’s experience, his observation. Romanticism moved modernism all the way to the inside, where truth, goodness, and beauty were not longer transcendent, but completely immanent. New religions exploded in the 19th century. Truth lost objectivity. People’s opinion, their feelings, increasingly become more important to decide truth, goodness, and beauty. The movement toward truth is your truth is postmodernism.
God’s Word is the final arbiter of truth, but it isn’t the only one. 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church the pillar and ground for the truth. Still, however, that’s outside of your opinion, your thinking, and your feelings.
Even modernism depends on man’s thinking or reasoning. This continues to influence even conservatism in the world. Modernists confirm God’s revelation to man’s thinking, what one could call, rationalism. Scripture stands above man’s reasoning, what Peter calls the pure mother’s milk (1 Pet 2:2). It circumvents man’s observation and reasoning, coming directly from God, that is, from the outside. What it says is true, good, and beautiful.
Modernism Is Not an Acceptable Alternative to Postmodernism: Jordan Peterson
Early Experience with Modernism
Growing up in small town Indiana, no one exposed me to modernism. Without anyone telling me, I read the Bible as literal. Everything happened in it just like it read. When I was twelve, my dad took us all off to Bible college in Wisconsin when he was thirty-five years old, but he was never some theologian.
I interacted very little with modernism in college or graduate school. When I wrote papers, I provided alternative views to my position, so I read a little modernism then. Faculty did not assign modernist books to read in a fundamentalist college. The modernist books, I must admit, I used to pad my bibliographies, quoting them in selective fashion.
My theological separation divided the saved from the unsaved. People either received or rejected Jesus Christ. I did not categorize someone a modernist. He just rejected the truth, an unbeliever. Modernism held no attraction to me. If someone was a modernist, through my lens he was just an unbeliever.
More Mature Understanding of Modernism
In graduate school, I took a class, History of Fundamentalism, taught by B. Myron Cedarholm, because the normal teacher, Richard Weeks, was ill. In that class, I heard how that fundamentalism began as a movement in response to modernism or liberalism pervading and then controlling religious institutions. Modernism invaded Southern Baptist seminaries and the Presbyterian, Princeton Theological Seminary. None of this still mattered much for me. It registered as something written on paper, because I had no experience with it.
After marriage and a move to the San Francisco Bay Area to evangelize and then start a Baptist church, I came into recognition of modernism in a personal way, listening to a liberal radio talk show. I listened to the Ronn Owens Show and his interview with Uta Ranke-Heinemann, a female liberal theologian from Germany. She wrote, .Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith.
On a regular basis, I then encountered modernists in the San Francisco Bay Area. They went to modernist churches in almost every religious denomination. They often didn’t reject the Bible. Instead, they viewed scripture in a mystical way, not taking it literally. Modernists likely denied the supernatural aspects of scripture. Many times they allegorized the Bible to make it more malleable for their liberal cultural and social causes.
The Arrival of Postmodernism
As years passed, progressivism turned from modernism to postmodernism. Now postmodernists can make modernists seem at least moderate, if not conservative. Postmodernists rejected modernism. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I ask that you consider what I wrote in 2021:
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Dangerous New Acceptance of Modernism
Jordan Peterson
Modernists today very often stand with conservatives on certain principles. When I hear him talk about the Bible, and he does very much, Jordan Peterson sounds like a modernist. In recent days Peterson appeared in a new series on the Book of Exodus and apparently he wrote a book soon published on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He talked about that in a podcast. In his conversation on Exodus, his interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in a talk about the book of Jonah, Peterson in recent days pushes his modernist position on tens of thousands of especially young men.
What excites many about Peterson’s talks is that he even talks about the Bible at all. He acts enthused about scripture. Peterson thinks the Bible is very important. He puts great effort into communicating his modernist position and interpretations of the Bible. Almost five years ago, I already warned about Peterson, still hoping he might change. He hasn’t and today he’s doubling down on his modernistic approach.
Modernism Versus Divine Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Jordan Peterson does not comment on the Bible like God inspired it. When I say inspired, I mean verbal plenary inspiration. God breathed out every word and all of them in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Perhaps I will put more time into exposing the false interpretations and teachings of Jordan Peterson sometime in the future. In the meantime, please know that Jordan Peterson does not expose what Genesis, Exodus, or almost anything in the scripture actually says. He leads people astray with his false doctrine.
Don’t get me wrong. Peterson says many good things. You and I can rejoice in that. I’m happy he agrees with freedom of speech. He rejects a cancel culture. Peterson accepts a patriarchy. He does not, however, proclaim an orthodox view of God or the Bible, even though he refers to scripture all the time.
Textual Criticism Related to the Bible Bows to Modernity
Christianity is old. There is no new and improved version of it. It is what it started to be. Changing it isn’t a good thing. Let me expand.
Modern and Modernity
Right now as I implement the term “modern” I am using it in the way it is in the word “modernity” or “modernism.” I think modernism is a perversion of something good that occurred, which is the advancement proceeding from the printing and vastly greater distribution of the Bible after 1440. It fulfilled a cultural mandate lost with the domination of Roman Catholicism, “subdue and have dominion.” Feudalism went by the wayside. Quality of life improved.
In Judges in the Old Testament, Israel turned away from God, which resulted in bad consequences both indirect and direct from God. Israel cried out to God. God delivered and Israel then prospered again. Prosperity led back to turning away again, the bad consequences, and the cycle begins again.
The prosperity brought by the printing, distribution, and reading of the Bible brought the modern life. With all the massive new amounts of published material to read, people saw themselves as smarter than they were. They thought they could take that to God, the church, worship, and to the Bible. In essence, “let’s take our superior knowledge and apply it now to the Bible.”
Evidentialism
Modernism included evidentialism. Something isn’t true without exposure to man’s reason and evidence. No, the Bible stands on its own. It is self-evident truth, higher than reason and evidence, at the same time not contradicting reason or evidence.
Modern textual criticism arose out of modernism. The prosperity from the fulfillment of the cultural mandate proceeding from publication and distribution of scripture brought this proud intellectualism. Like in the days of the Judges, it isn’t even true. It isn’t better.
People have cell phones today, but who right now thinks that we are superior to when men believed the transcendentals? Objective truth, objective goodness, and objective beauty? We have a 60 inch television with a thousand channels, but we lost the greater transcendence. Modernists put the Bible under their scrutiny, undermining its objective nature.
Sincere Milk
The Apostle Peter called the Word of God “the sincere milk,” which is “the pure mother’s milk.” Like James wrote and identical to God, the Word of God is pure with neither “variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). This is why true believers of the gospel message of scripture are begotten “with the word of truth” (James 1:18). God inspired His Words and He preserves His Words using His means, His churches.
Modernists came to the Bible to improve it with their humanistic theories. They would say, textual variants prove its corruption. They would restore it to near purity using modernistic means of the modern academy.
The text of true churches, they believed “God . . . by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.” They received that text. The modernist academy came along saying, that text is not the oldest, so not the best. The better text is shorter for ideological reasons. Therefore, everyone has a basis only for relative and proportional confidence, not absolute certainty in the Words of God. Scripture became subject to modern intellectual tinkering.
Proud Intellectualism
Even in an evidential way, the critical text, a product of critical theories, is not superior. It allured the proud intellect of modern academics. It shifted scripture into the laboratory of the university and outside of the God-ordained institution of preservation.
Textual critics cherry pick words and phrases, attacking the text received by the churches, saying, this is found in only one late manuscript. Meanwhile, 99% of their text comes from two manuscripts. A hundred lines of text have no manuscript evidence. They admit themselves educated guessing. They elevate the date of extant manuscripts above all criteria, including scriptural presuppositions.
Call to Consider Former Things
I ask that we reconsider the spoiled or poison fruit of modernity, arising from a corruption of the prosperity of the printing and wide distribution of the Bible. God through Isaiah in 41:21-22 says:
21 Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
“Former things” relate to the present and to the future, “the latter end of them.” To understand the present and the future, we need to look to the past. When did we go off the rails into modernism and now postmodernism? I call on churches to turn back the clock to former things in a former time. See the cycle of the Judges, repent and cry out to God. Like James wrote later in chapter one (verse 21):
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Trail of Blood and Landmarkism
Men use the terms “Trail of Blood” and “Landmarkism” as a kind of mockery, almost never with evidence. They use them in the same manner as calling someone a “Flat Earther.” If I said I was “Trail of Blood” and “Landmark,” what would I mean? Should I embrace those terms in light of potential derision?
Trail of Blood
“Trail of Blood” refers to a booklet written by James Milton Carroll in 1931. Carroll did not originate the words “trail of blood” as referring to the persecution of churches. Others before used “trail of blood” to describe the ongoing record of atrocities of Roman Catholicism through the centuries in its opposition to the truth. I like the metaphor of Carroll, which is saying that you can detect true churches in the historical record through findings of state church persecution.
Carroll would say that the trail of blood started with the Lord Jesus Christ and that suffering marks the trajectory of true churches. I use this exact language all the time, “There have always been true churches separate from the state church.” I also ask this question, “Do you believe the truth was preserved in and through Roman Catholicism?” Men find it difficult to answer “yes” to that question. If they answer, “No,” then they essentially take a Trail of Blood position. I say, “Well, then we take the same position, don’t we?”
Whitsitt Controversy and English Separatism
Opposition to the Trail of Blood started with a liberal president of the Southern Baptist Convention, William Whitsitt (read here, here, here, and here). The work of Whitsitt is less famous than Carroll’s Trail of Blood, but if someone does not accept the Trail of Blood, his other option is called, “English Separatism.” Can we mock someone as “English Separatist”? The Trail of Blood position predates the English Separatist one. If someone rejects Trail of Blood, he is left with the Roman Catholic position on church perpetuity or succession. He denies the promise of Jesus, “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
Whitsitt took from his European training a modernistic view of truth. He wrote and said that if it does not have primary source historical evidence, it isn’t true. From this, Whitsitt said that the earliest Baptist churches trace from 1610 in England.
A split occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention over Whitsitt. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary under the presidency of B. H. Carroll started in a major way because of the Whitsitt controversy. Most Southern Baptists then distinguished themselves from Protestants. Carroll’s brother wrote Trail of Blood.
The Application of Modernistic Historicism
Did you know a historical gap exists between the completion of the New Testament and the doctrine of justification? With that historical position, justification did not exist until after the Protestant Reformation. No primary source evidence exists for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. I’ve been to Bethlehem in the Palestinian West Bank area, and the best historical evidence outside of scripture for Jesus’ birth is secondary and vague. It starts around 325 with Constantine’s mother Helena visiting there.
The mockery designated for Trail of Blood reminds me of the mockery by scientists of a God Hypothesis and intelligent design. Trail of Blood is true, but it is institutionally inconvenient. Intelligent design or a God Hypothesis puts people out of business. Trail of Blood is a strict ecclesiological position that undermines free-floating free agents, who function outside of church authority, like for instance, Alpha and Omega ministries. “Ministries” function outside of a church, not something we read in the Bible, and cross denominational lines on a regular basis.
Landmarkism
The attack on Landmarkism dovetails with the one on Trail of Blood. Landmarkism did not originate local-only ecclesiology. The Landmark movement began in the Southern Baptist Convention because of an ecumenical drift in the Convention. Modernism began affecting the Convention. Compromise grew. Baptist churches began allowing Presbyterians in their pulpit and accepted their “baptism” for transfer of church membership. The Landmarkers stood against this.
The Landmarkers believed local-only ecclesiology like most of the Southern Baptists in the middle 19th century, but they stressed and influenced a stronger practice. They rejected what they called, “alien immersion,” baptism without proper authority. They were saying, “Don’t accept Presbyterian baptism,” or any other Protestant baptism. The Protestants arose from Roman Catholicism with a continuation of state church doctrine. Baptist churches should reject their baptism, Landmarkers claimed, practiced, and encouraged all Baptists to join that.
Many today define Landmarkism with a giant falsehood. They say Landmarkism is chain-link succession of Baptist churches. Furthermore, they say that Landmarkism requires proof of a chain-link succession of Baptist churches all the way to the Jerusalem church. That is not what Landmarkism is.
In a more simple way, you should understand Landmarksim as, first, since Christ, true New Testament churches always existed separate from the state church. Second, churches start churches. Third, baptism requires a proper administrator. Authority is a matter of faith, but scripture recognizes the importance of it. It does not proceed from Roman Catholicism, so it also does not come from Protestantism.
Authority isn’t arbitrary. It is real and it is somewhere. We should not eliminate it. This arises from the rebellion of men’s hearts. Men don’t want authority, especially church authority. I see this as the primary cause of the controversy over Landmarkism and the Trail of Blood.
Machen, Liberalism, and the Language of Liberalism Now So Common
J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) is not a name, I would think, most readers would know, even though Wikipedia gives him a long biography. It’s worth reading. He’s an outlier in that he went to Germany for post graduate education and rejected liberalism for conservative theology. He was a professor for 23 years (1906-1929) of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, then led a revolt against liberal theology there, and left to start Westminster Theological Seminary. He was a Presbyterian and usually called a fundamentalist Presbyterian.
As you would know, I am Baptist, and reject Presbyterianism and Protestantism in general. I respect though what they mean for history. I am happy about a conservative Presbyterian. I like him obviously better than a liberal Baptist and even a moderate Baptist. Sometimes I like a conservative Presbyterian more than a conservative Baptist, who is pragmatic, revivalistic, and a soft continuationist. Enough of those comparisons. I’m in part writing this because of a quote I read from Machen. Here it is:
In order to maintain themselves in the evangelical churches and quiet the fears of their conservative associates, the liberals resort constantly to a double use of language.
It comes from his classic book, Christianity and Liberalism. Carl Truman, Presbyterian historian, wrote this summary of the book:
The thesis of the book is devastatingly simple: Christianity, built on the authoritative, divinely-inspired, inerrant revelation of God in Scripture, embodying a robust supernaturalism, and focused on the exclusivity of salvation in the person and work of Christ, is a different religion to that liberalism that repudiates each of these things.
Machen uses as an example, a liberal saying, “I believe Jesus is God,” but the words meaning something entirely different. He uses the words to comfort the heart of a young one who has questions. Machen says he “offends against the fundamental principle of truthfulness in language.”
I see more offense than ever against this fundamental principle of truthfulness in language. People want to play both sides. They want acceptance from liberals and still maintain an audience with the conservative, bridge that gap.
Talking to a woman in evangelism, I said that Jesus wasn’t a rorschach ink blot, that we can look into and see whatever Jesus we want to see. She said she believed in Jesus, but she also believed that He really was like that ink blot. He was intended to be whatever people needed Him to be. This was what she meant by ‘she believed in Jesus.’
Perhaps with regard to truth, men still believe a large percentage of orthodox doctrine at least on paper, but they cave on beauty and goodness. They say they follow Jesus, but they don’t like what He likes. They do something different than what He did. They love the world.
Ambiguous words become vessels for whatever meaning someone wants to give them. They give liberty to those who hold them. They can live what they want, expecting in the end to play a word game. “That is what I really meant, what you said.” No, you didn’t.
When I took ethics, we imagined casuistry, which was called Jesuit casuistry. Casuistry comes from the Latin casus, which means “case.” It started out being a means of evading a difficult case of duty. “Were you there?” I was. It is the Clintonian, it was all a matter of what “there” means. I was “there,” just not where you’re talking about.
False religion is full of imprecision and fuzziness. The hermeneutic is speculative and mystical. With this use of language, man easily worships and serves the creature rather than Creator. The creature still calls it Creator though. Machen called it “the double use of language.”
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory
People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.
Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.
Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible
May 17, 2024 / 10 Comments on Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible
Does it matter if one adopts a belief in “Q” and rejects the historic belief that the synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–are independent accounts? What happens if one rejects this historic belief for the theory, invented by theological liberalism and modernism but adopted by many modern evangelicals, that Mark was the first gospel (instead of Matthew), and Matthew and Luke depended on and altered Mark, using a (lost) source called “Q” that just happens to have left no archaeological or historical evidence for its existence? What happens if we adopt source, tradition, and redaction criticism? Let me illustrate with the comment on Matthew 25:46 in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1034–1037. Nolland is discussing how to go behind the text of Matthew’s Gospel to what the historical Jesus said (which he assumes is different); he is discussing what Matthew added and changed from what Christ originally said, which, supposedly, was handed down in little bits of tradition here and there, and which Matthew used, along with his dependence upon Mark and Q. I have added a few comments in brackets within Nolland’s commentary.
Nolland-who is considered “conservative,” not a liberal, by many, and his commentary in the NIGTC series representative of a broadly “evangelical” commentary series–makes the common and unreasonable assumptions that Matthew, who would have been there to here Christ teach and who was controlled by the Holy Spirit, needed to depend upon tiny fragments of tradition passed down here and passed down there by who knows who, and also borrow from Mark (who was not there, like Matthew was). Through this whole process what Christ actually said got changed, and so we need to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus Christ actually said by going behind Matthew’s Gospel to the hypothetical, reconstructed words of the historical Jesus.
This anti-inspiration nonsense affects evangelical apologetics. When I debated Shabir Ally he could not believe that I denied that there was a “Q” document and that the gospels were dependent on each other. Other Christians that Shabir debated accepted that these lies were true.
This sort of anti-inspiration and anti-historical nonsense about Q, sources, and redaction is all over evangelicalism and just about completely controls theological liberalism. It even infects portions of those who call themselves fundamentalist, chiefly among those who deny the perfect preservation of Scripture and so are not King James Only. Beware of “evangelical” commentaries on the Gospels and “evangelical” leaders who adopt critical methods and deny the Biblically faithful and historically accurate view that the synoptic gospels are independent accounts and give us eyewitness testimony.
–TDR