Home » Posts tagged 'Scott Aniol'

Tag Archives: Scott Aniol

THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)

PART ONE     PART TWO

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.

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

Part One      Part Two

Teach All Nations

Matthew 28:19-20 say:

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I ask you to notice above, “teach all nations.”  The Great Commission requires teaching all nations.  We want entire nations to follow Christ.  Will that always occur?  No, but it is a goal.  It is a holy ambition for true churches and believers in those churches following Christ.  How does this relate to Christian nationalism?

In verse 20, part of teaching all nations is “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”  Christians should wish the nations in which they live would observe all things Christ commanded.  God’s Word is still the standard for all of mankind.  God will judge everyone based on His rules or laws.

True Christians and their true churches should repudiate all the ways that a nation does not follow the Lord.  They should strive for a nation that follows the Lord.  What Christian would not want a “Christian nation”?  Would that not be a nation that follows Christ in all things?  When Christians go to judge their nation, they should judge it based upon scripture.  They should vote for representatives with the greatest opportunity or possibility of their nation following the standards of God.

Imagining a Christian Nation

What I’m writing so far in this essay is not a form of amillennialism or postmillennialism.  I’m not talking about someone other than Jesus bringing in His kingdom.  Romans 13 says there is “no power but of God” (verse one).  It goes on to say that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil” (verse three).  Good works are not arbitrary.  They are only biblical good works.  Evil is as God defines it.  People have liberty only in the context of scriptural regulation or accurate interpretation and application of the Bible.

Rulers in a Christian United States would terrorize evil and elsewise “minister . . . for good” (verse four) only in a biblical or Christian fashion.  Making disciples of the nation requires observing everything Christ wants observed.  Right before His commission in Matthew 28, Jesus said that He possessed all authority for all of heaven and all of earth.  Jesus will judge the world like He owns it and always has owned it.  If we want His judgment to go well for everyone, we must let them know in no uncertain terms.

For sure, Christians of a nation start with the gospel.  No one observes whatsoever Christ says without surrendering first to the gospel.  A nation won’t be Christian without Christians, but when they are Christians, that means what some people have said, “All of Christ for all of life.”  This means Christ rules in the home, at work, and in government.  The words of Christ apply to every earthly institution if Christ will rule.

Jesus and the Christian Nation

Will Christ rule over this world?  Yes, He will.  He will begin a rule with a rod of iron (Psalm 2) when He returns to set up that kingdom on the earth for a thousand years.  So is that it?  Is that all anyone could hope for?  Mainly, yes.  Jesus said in Matthew 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.”

When Jesus said what He did in Matthew 18:36, one could take it as the following:

Look around.  Does this look like my kingdom?  Of course, not.  This is not anything like my kingdom.  My kingdom is not of this world.

Jesus’ plan was not to force everyone into His kingdom.  He does not coerce people into His kingdom.  His subjects would subject themselves to Him voluntarily.  That’s His plan for His kingdom.

Internal Rule First

External rule of Jesus proceeds from internal rule of Jesus.  The spiritual precedes the physical.  It isn’t mere conformity.  It is transformation.  If a nation skips this transformation step, it’ll probably get something like the seven demons possessing the swept out house (Luke 11).

Kingdoms of this present world, the one Jesus talked about in Matthew 18, as a whole would not come to Him.  That’s why in Matthew 7:13-14, He said the broad road leads to destruction and the vast majority go down that road.  Jesus did not since rescind that statement.  He has not said:  “At some point the broad road would be full of true believers on their way to heaven.”  If Jesus said that, then it is true, no matter what your desires.

Yet, anyone following Christ will follow Him in every arena of life.  A Christian nation can come, but it will come through faith in Christ.  The way to a Christian nation is faith in Christ.  Before nations behave in their governments as if He rules, they will receive Him to rule their own personal lives.  One should expect that true Christians in a government would function like Christians.

Christians don’t want a pagan government.  They don’t want an idolatrous government.  True Christians as much as possible want a Christian government.  To the degree that it is one, it can be a Christian nation.

How a Christian Nation Might Occur

If churches are barely Christian, and if all of Christ is not even all of the church, no one should expect that of the whole nation.  This is a simple less than and greater than — not about what is most important, but sheer population size of the institution.  Jesus should rule each Christian — one.  Then He should rule each family — two to fifteen (let’s estimate), then each church — ten to five thousand, and then each government or nation — several thousands to a billion.  The order matters.  The latter won’t occur without the former.  You can’t get to a Christian nation without getting to quite a few single Christians, who received a true gospel.

No Christian should hope to see a Christian nation without making one disciple.  Yet, Jesus commanded, “Teach (make disciples) all nations.”  In other words, “Make all nations disciples.”  He didn’t command, “Make disciples of, as in part of, all nations.”  The goal is whole nations.  BDAG says concerning the Greek term translated “nations”: “a body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions.”

What Christ Would Have It

The goal, all of Christ for all of life for all of the world, must envision whole nations.  Scripture must get to every institution God instituted.  Scott Aniol, who has written a book on this subject (that I have not yet read), it seems, would call this position, “Christian Faithfulness.”  Scripture does envision a kingdom of Christ on earth to come and tells us what it will be.  Anything that might call itself a Christian nation should not be something less than what Christ would have it.

Christians can’t skip steps to get to Christian nationalism.  It starts with internal rule, spiritual transformation.  Anything else would essentially say, “Christians fight.”  Get armed and loaded and ready for when the pagans who saturate our government take our power away.  Without true Christians, what would that nation or government look like on the other side of that fight?  Christ has us here now as pilgrims and strangers.  Anything beyond that, that might come before the kingdom Christ sets up, will come in an organic way.  It will be obvious, which right now, it’s not even close to obvious.

More to Come

 

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

Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury, pt. 3

Part One     Part Two

Religious or Spiritual Ecstasy, Soft Continuationism

Again and again through the years, I wrote on religious ecstasy, a perversion of true spirituality experienced in Corinth (1 Corinthians 12:1-3) [see here, here, here, here, here, and here].  In 1 Corinthians 1, when Paul said that the Jews seek after signs (1 Cor 1:22), they were seeking for some experiential means of authenticating their spirituality.  God settled the faith once and for all (Jude 1:3) with the completion of scripture.  God chooses to use the oracles of God and that glorifies Him (1 Peter 4:11).

With true signs not available, except for something demonically manufactured to impersonate them, men use cheap, superficial counterfeits.  Usually these are a form of what some termed, “soft continuationism.”  What Paul confronted in Corinth was ecstatic experience.  Ecstasy means:  “an emotional or religious frenzy or trance-like state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence”  More than any other way, to give this mystical feeling that the Holy Spirit is working, what is religious ecstasy, comes through music.

Asbury “Revival”

A Description

Someone seeking to justify the recent Asbury, Kentucky experience as revival, challenged what I wrote in part one in the comment section, to which I wrote on March 2:

I watched the earliest posted meeting at Asbury and zoomed through a very long period of Charismatic style emotionalism, repetitious, rock rhythmed, sentimental, superficial, doctrinally ambiguous, led by women, ecstatic music before getting to the “sermon,” which was nothing like Edwards or Whitefield. Maybe the aesthetic and spirit of the so-called worship means nothing to you, but it clashed with the biblical nature of God. It more reminded me of a Corinthian style revival.

If Charles Finney were alive, he would likely be proud of it. Everyone appeared in the egalitarian, postmodern casual, sloppy, and disordered dress (ripped blue jeans, etc.), giving no indication of anyone in authority. The man I heard used a few verses from a modern version, but at best you would be unsure what salvation was. It sounded more like Jesus as therapist. His list of sins that you put into your makeshift cup to give to Jesus included racism and terrorism. No one would even know who Jesus was, why or what it meant to believe in Him.

In Contrast

I continued.

I heard no biblical exposition. This is an updated kind of revival for today’s generation, like one of those Bibles with a hippie cover, to show how relevant the Bible could become. All of what I saw and heard conformed to the spirit of the age, would not dare distinguish itself, probably could not do that and be acceptable to that crowd.

It seemed that people in the audience were stirred to a certain degree. They were affected. I saw some emotion. Is that indications of the Holy Spirit? I have seen the same spirit, aroused by music in Charismatic settings, giving the impression that something spiritual is going on, but it choreographed by the feelings led by the music.

Similar Comments at the Shepherd’s Conference on March 8-10

After I wrote that on March 2, in the Q and A at his Shepherd’s Conference (the conference was March 8-10), someone asked John MacArthur about the Asbury so-called “revival.”  The host referenced Jonathan Edwards and his historic and biblical teaching on the marks of revival.  If it is revival, Edwards would say it must bear certain marks, or else it is fraudulent, a kind of impersonation like I said above.  He said one assesses a true work of God based upon the Word of God and not emotion or feelings.

John MacArthur and Scott Aniol

MacArthur commented then on the Asbury Revival:

For most of those kids, it was not about Christ, but about the chords.  It was about singing the same words for twenty minutes in a row in some kind of mesmerizing pseudo-spiritual experience that had no relationship to sound doctrine, to the depth of the gospel.  I would like to know if that same revival would have occurred without the music.  Shut the music down and find out what God is really doing.

I’m glad to hear MacArthur say essentially the same thing I said.  Scott Aniol also picked up on this with an excellent article, you all should read, written on March 13, entitled, “Christ or Chords? The Manipulated Emotionalism of Hillsong, Asbury, and Pentecostalized Evangelical Worship.”  He picked up on the comment by MacArthur, “not about Christ, but about the chords.”  This is such an important theme for today.

Strange Fire?

MacArthur in the past gave a pass to contemporary style worship, using it in his own conference again and again.  If anyone, like myself, criticized it, the MacArthur allies came out of the woodwork to attack me vehemently.  In his now renowned Strange Fire Conference, MacArthur said the following, actually in contradiction of much of his own historic practice:

The contemporary evangelical church has very little interest in theology and doctrine, so you’re going to have a tough sell. It’s about style. And style is the Trojan Horse that lets Charismatics in the church. Because once you let the music in, the movement follows. It all of a sudden becomes common.

We sound like the Charismatics, sing like they do, have the same emotional feelings that they have. It’s a small step from doing the same music to buying into the movement. So the tough thing is you’re going back to a church that is thinking like that. It’s hard to make sound doctrine the issue when style is much more the interest of the leaders of the church.

Later he said:

I don’t think it has to do with what the teachers are saying. I think it’s the music. It’s like getting drunk so you don’t have to think about the issues of life. If you shut down the music, turn on the lights, and have someone get up there and try to sell that with just words, it’s not going to work. You’ve got to have some way to manipulate their minds.

Consistency and Discernment

The people MacArthur used in the Shepherd’s Conference in the past use a Charismatic style of worship, led by women very often, and giving the same kind of trance-like ecstatic experience.  I believe he’s changing on this, and Scott Aniol latches on to that in his article.

Independent and even unaffiliated Baptists regularly produce their ecstasy in a kind of soft continuationism.  It is a huge lack of discernment and it is very often ignored completely as a matter of fellowship.  In other words, they encourage false worship through these forms of strange fire.  Let this be a serious warning to us all and for the glory of God.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives