BIBLICIST CHRISTIAN TRUTH

2011-07-02T23:58:00.001-07:00

Submission to what? The Christian and the Revolution

Romans 13 asks for submission to earthly government as ordained by God on the basis that the principles of human government are necessary for the suppression of evil and allowing that which is good. The immediate reason is because to not to submit may bring the wrath of government and be against the Christian conscience. It has been the classic Romanist and Reformed Romanist European interpretation that has advocated submission even when human government was obviously violating the reasons God had given authority to human government. The so called Nero context of the Romans passage does not call for submission to Nero. The passage is portraying a government with basic principles that Nero did and would violate thus releasing one from such duty. Some government entities within the Empire were still functioning for the basic good so could be submitted to.

If we are always to submit to all human authority then is there ever a time when mankind may change government? Are we doomed to passively allow those who take power first to rule in perpetuity? John Locke's two treatises of government were written to answer Robert Filbert's treatises that advocated the divine right of kings and the right of the Stuarts to rule over England and the colonies. His basis appealed to the OT Theocratic kingdom and its kings. One of the principles advocated by Locke was that Genesis the 9 Noahic covenant was the basis for God instituted government and that it placed such authority in the mediating authority of all men who become the proper basis for forming human government. Thus mankind is given inalienable rights by God. Government was to emerge from compacts made by men mediating their rights for the good of all.

There are those that view the American resistance to the English King as time established legitimate colonial governments resisting an older government out of which they had emerged and came to stand alone. Thus, we do not have rebellion against the authority of government but the organized resistance of the Colonial governments against the unrighteous authority and practices by a distant and arbitrary authority which was functioning against even its own now changed parliamentary principles. The declaration of independence, the functioning of a congress, the collection of taxation and the forming of Armies, all indicate functioning government authority as the basis for the war of independence. This was not rebellion against government that the Christian could not support but local established governments resisting the right of kings and distant unrighteous government.

The English parliament called it a revolution and the "rebellion of the Elders." They did so because so many of Washington's Colonels were Elders in the Presbyterian churches and they saw a religious foundation just like their own prior revolution of the Puritans.

In the early part of the 20th century Charles and Mary Baird led what came to be a rapidly expanding rewriting of American History. They laid the foundation for the Progressive view of American foundations in 1913. This view was the prevailing view form the 1920s on. The revised basis of American history was the prevailing view in the public schools and the universities. Many Christians went to universities and obtain their masters and doctorates in history and came away seeking to fit what they viewed as the correct view of American history in with their Christian world view. This progressive view has since been exposed and most historians acknowledge that the progressive view was filled with errors and lies. At a Christian University I was taught the progressive revised view. At a secular university I studied under a non Christian who used texts and presented material that exposed the revised view.

I would recommend that anyone interested in history get hold of the book "Telling the Truth About History," by Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, And Margaret Jacob. Norton and Co., 1994. These are professors of history at three public universities. In speaking to the broader issue of historiography they give many admissions regarding the revised view and expose the lies of the progressive view. They were professors at UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, and The New School of Social Research. Hardly conservative schools.

The American war for independence was righteous, not against biblical principles, and involved a foundation of Christianity that had emerged in the great awakening. Without the great awakening there would have been no emerging war of colonial governments for independence from a distant government. We need to consider the scriptural passages on submission carefully and in light of all of scripture. The Heroes of the faith at Hebrews 11 have several listed whose acts of faith involved resistance to human government.

2011-07-02T23:33:00.000-07:00

Romans 13, human government, the Christian, and the Fourth of July

The reasons God has appointed and given authority to human government are quite clear in the passage. If you resist a government that is carrying out the God ordained purposes you do resist the ordinance of God. That government is not to be feared if we are of good behavior. Why? Because they are a minister of God. If you do evil you should fear because this government does not bear the sword (or punish) in vain. They do not do so for an improper or empty reason. We are to be in subjection to avoid this governments wrath and because our Christian conscience should tell us to. We are then told to give taxes and honor to whom they are due. To whom are they due? The government just described in the passage. There is no duty of absolute submission to any government or to every government act. Governments that act contrary to the ordinance of God are obviously not operating within God given authority. Is a woman to submit to government police authority when a policeman acts with evil and attempts to rape her? Are we to submit to government authority when they knock on the door and ask if we are harboring Jews in our homes as they did in Nazi held territory in WW2? Did Rahab have a duty to submit to the authorities request regarding the spies? Hebrews 11 calls her very act of government disobedience an act of faith. The same acknowledgment is given for the Hebrew midwives.

There is always the question within the realm of human authority of to whom do we submit and when. Our Christian conscience is to be active in our minds with reference to the morals and values of scripture. We sometimes have a greater duty to love others than to submit to evil and put some of those others in danger.

The message of absolute submission points us first to God who is entitled to our full obedience. This is seen in the incident with Abraham and Isaac. All other duties to submit are based upon that demand being in conformity to all the morals and duties that God demands of us in His revealed word.

It should also be said that the assumed silence of scripture is not to be taken as either permission or prevention. The scripture does not speak directly to our being involved with government in every aspect. Our Lord did acknowledge that there were some things that were in the realm of Caesar such as taxes. He did treat Roman Centurions favorably and raised no objection to their service. However, there are many elements of the Christian's existence as a citizen not directly spoken to. Can we vote? Can we work for the government? Can we serve in law enforcement? Can we serve in the military? Can we obey one government entity and resist another? To these and other numerous questions the various values of scripture must be brought together by our knowledge and our conscience.

When the full panorama of scripture is considered it is very difficult to see the NT passages that speak to the Christian and human authority as demanding some absolute unquestioning obedience. It is possible to see that in light of historical context Roman 13 is very deftly classifying Emperor Nero as not exercising the ordinances of God and as operating outside of the God ordained purposes for allowing for the establishment of human government. The interpretation that Romans 13 that requires submission of the Christian to all government exercised authority at all times is not taking into consideration the direct statements of all the sentences. It also is not in accordance with the other duties placed upon the believers.

So far as the American war for independence is concerned. We do know that many Christians then living and involved saw it as a just war. It became a revolution politically in that it established the world’s first national democracy. That democracy would operate within the framework of a Republic. Those who fought did not see themselves as violating Romans 13 and many of the Pastors did not see it as contrary to scripture at all.

2011-05-10T12:07:00.001-07:00

THE CHURCH AND AUTHORITY.

SOME INDICATION OF CONGREGATIONAL AUTHORITY.

The issue of the church is off center until we recognize there are no “churches” at all in the NT. The Greek word “ekklesia” appears exactly 117 times. It was a word of the civic and political world of the NT. It was used by the Greeks for the idea of calling people together or calling to assembly. It meant an assembly of people called together for a purpose. To start out on the right foot in a discussion of the “ekklesia” we need to set aside the made up word of the Bishops Bible and the KJV and translate it into meaningful English. Translated it is “assembly.” The Lord Jesus Christ is building an “assembly” (Matt. :16-20) It will assault the very gates of hell and prevail. Just two chapters later Matthew informs us of the Lord’s instructions in dealing with a sinning brother. The end of the process is this assembly. The assembly of people gathered in name of Jesus Christ , the son of the living God, are the highest and final authority on the matter. Their authority is such that it invokes the very authority of Heaven (Matt. 18:15-20).

We should expect the assembly to have such authority. Paul will later inform us that the Lord has a very sacrificial personal relationship to His assembly (Eph.5:22-33). He is the head and the assembly is to submit to Him. No person, principle, or entity, can stand above or between this relationship. Christ is the direct head over those gathered in assembly.

We also see in scripture that those viewed as being in the assembly are the saved through simple faith in Christ. They have been Justified, Regenerated, Adopted, and placed into a royal Priesthood and made part of a living temple. The scriptures reveal many other blessings bestowed on these. They have all been placed into union with Christ and are a part of His Spiritual body (Rom. 6; 1Cor.12:12-14). They are repeatedly called saints by the Apostles because of their being set apart to Christ. Paul makes a very important point of telling each believer that no one stands between them and their Lord (1Tim. 2:5-6). The assembly of the saints is composed of those saved who gain their blessings directly from God. They each have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Therefore, their individual relationships give them authority when they meet and act together. After giving the qualifications for Elders and servant ministers of varying tasks, (Deacons?), Paul then gives the assembly of the living God, and God’s household, as the pillar and ground of the truth. The assembly, not the Elders are the highest authority entrusted with the truth of God.

In Acts we see the Apostles, who possessed special Authority directly from God, and entrusted as Jews with the continuing oracles of God, acknowledging the authority of the assembly. At chapters 6 the Apostles bring the assembly of saints into the selection process to select ministering servants for assistance in ministry. They ask the assembly to select and “the whole multitude” is involved in the process. The point is the assembly selected. Did they vote? Possibly, or probably, as it is a simple process that was practiced by the Jews in selecting city leaders and by the Romans for various things. They most likely did not throw darts. They most likely did vote. Those who claim they did not vote often focus on the Greek word “episkeptomai.” After out Greeking the Greeks by giving undue credence to word etymology, they fail to handle the entire passage and immediate context which clearly indicate the multitude was involved in the process. This passage is more likely indicating voting than not. It should also be noted that Acts indicates that the assemblies as a whole were involved in sending out missionaries (Acts 11:22: 13:1-3). At Acts 14:23 Apostolic authority allows Paul with Barnabus to appoint Elders in every city church. The Greek word allows for selection by hand raising. Perhaps the Acts 6 process was used.

The very word assembly, used to denote the entity of assembled saints makes these saints together the highest earthly authority for God on earth in this age. The assembly gets its authority from the individual saints who each have a personal priestly relationship to God. It is the believers Priesthood.

Believer Priests assembled together become the final authority. They must recognize the Elders. They must read the scriptures for themselves and determine truth. The Apostles recognized this authority. If one sets aside the assembly as the final spiritual authority they no longer have a legitimate assembly of Christ. They have bypassed divine authority and have merely a humanly constructed religious institution with a managing board and religious customers.

It should be noted that congregational government existed in the early church centuries, the middle ages among medieval evangelicals, separatist in England and among the separatist Pilgrims who came to North America.

2011-03-14T10:33:00.000-07:00

NO SUCH THING AS BAPTISM

Historical theology is interesting and can give insight. But it is often very confusing as we see just how much confusion and heresy often arises. This is so in the historical doctrine of so called "Baptism." Augustine stated that Baptism was necessary for salvation. Roman Catholicism sought to make it part of the pagan rituals necessary to obtain a salvation gained by works and ritual. Reformed theology sought to equate it with OT circumcision and made it into a covenant ritual which thus included the still unbelieving, and having benefit for babies. If one contemplates such meaning they will realize that a beautiful symbol of immersion onto Christ became but pagan ritual.

Biblically, there is no such thing as "Baptism." Thats right, no such thing. There is "Baptizo" and cognates in the Greek text which the Greek Orthodox Church recognizes by the practice of pinching the Babies nose and gently immersing it in water.

To the English speaking Christians there is "immersion" which is the translation of the Greek word. It can mean "to place into" when used in a spiritual sense such as at Romans 6.

So why all the fuss? Because the highly manipulated translation committees of the KJV were obliged to follow the Bishops Bible and thus perpetuate the pagan ritualism of the Roman and Anglican churches. But that is no reason for a discussion to be perpetuated over the mode of immersion. Immersion is immersion. Res ipsa loquitur. There really is no such thing as "Baptism" in English. Please translate the word. Translations since the KJV have played the toadies to the pressures of the KJV tradition and the semi paganized Christianity whose leaders endorsements they desire.

If I have a large pool of water and tell you I am going to immerse you, then you will expect to be all wet. If I am a Reformist (advocate of Reformed theology) and have a large pool of water and tell you I am going to Baptize you, then can expect to be but lightly touched or sprinkled with water but our theology will be all wet.

It is interesting to see the twists on history that are claimed and argued regarding so called "Baptism." But there are no possible twists on the Greek word or concept, or on the Biblical contexts. Though led away from the true Gospel, the Greek church cannot be fooled on this obvious truth. Neither should we.

Immersion is immersion and symbolizes our being Spiritually "placed into" the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6) wherein is Justification, Regeneration, forgiveness, and adoption, and all the other gracious blessings bestowed upon us at our salvation moment. Once we understand it is immersion it becomes easier to see the real symbolic meaning and that it is an initiative symbol for the believing who have been mystically united to their savior Jesus Christ. We are commanded to make disciples and then "be immersing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). We who believe have all been Spiritually "placed into" into Christ ( 1 Corinthians 12:13).

There is "immersion" into Christ. There is a symbol of water immersion proclaiming this truth.

There is also this ritual called "Baptism." As practiced by many churches and denominations it is a contrived ritual that

has been shielded by the creation of a new word, popularized by the King James Version, that is a non translated, and then Anglicized, Greek word. "Baptism" came from the Greek word "Baptizo" which if translated would be "immersion" or "placing into."

2011-02-12T23:28:00.000-08:00

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY AND HISTORY

There have been constant accusations against Dispensational theology that since it emerged in the nineteenth century it is therefore suspect because of its late appearance.

The following books speak to the relationship of the church to the Abrahamic covenant, the New Covenant, and the Kingdom. These are handled clearly and well in Dwight Pentecost’s book "Things to Come" which came out in the 1960s. The following books are also some among many that may be helpful on the subjects if they have not been read.

"Continuity and Discontinuity," Editor John S. Feinberg, Crossway Books, 1991 has some good discussions by scholars.

"A Case For Premillennialism, A New Consensus," Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, Moody Press, 1992

"A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism," Arnold D. Ehlert, Baker Book House, 1965.

"Israel and the Church, The Origin And Effects of Replacement Theology," Ronald E. Diprose, Instituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, Italy, 2004.

I would merely make the following general observations regarding the historical aspect.

First, from the standpoint of Biblical theology, which views revelation within the time and historical context, the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed the Hebrew scriptures. They are by the Jews for the Jews. We must ask how they saw the prophets when the Revelation was given them. What was the intent that God had in giving them that revelation at that time. We must seek to see the revelation through those Hebraic eyes. Then we can seek to see what the NT revelation adds to that understanding. There is a progressive history to revelation.

Second, All of the scriptures are given to us through the entrustment given to the Jews. Paul alludes to this trust given them at Romans 3:1-2. All of the "Messiah called Apostles" were Jewish. It required their authorship and/or approval for acceptance of the NT scriptures. The transition books of Luke and Acts were given through inspiration of a Gentile but accepted only because of the Apostolic relationship and approval. The NT is indeed Hebraic oracles given the assembly that was to be built by the Messiah. His selected Apostles were the foundation and the Messiah as the chief cornerstone. Ronald Diprose observed; "It is the presupposition of the entire New Testament that Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel" (p.181).

Third, from a Christian historical standpoint, Ronald Diprose makes a strong case for early Christian Premillennialism which was later replaced by integration and adaption of Hebraic ritual to the church. Prejudice against the Jews brought replacement theology which started to seriously distort Christian theology. Christian theology would be Japhetic (European) instead of Semitic.

Fourth, from Augustine on we have the gradual acceptance of a Christian theology built upon heresy. Augustine, the alleged great church theologian, was wrong on just about everything. He was wrong on Justification, Baptism, Communion, means of Grace, and the hope of the church. His triumphalism of the church was the foundation for church involvement in government, using physical force for conversion, and all sorts of Ecclesiastical imperialism.

Fifth, Medieval theology was a convergence of Paganism and Christian thought. Neo Platonism and Aristotelian thought became an integrated foundation for Christian theology. Prejudice against the Jews brought persecutions to them. The church became God's elect and the Jews were God's cast offs. European theology was pagan, wrong, and heretical in much of what it taught.

Sixth, the Reformers of the magisterial reformation, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli, brought many back to the glorious truth of Justification by faith alone. They also attempted to see the scriptures alone as authority. However, they looked at scripture through the glasses of Medieval theology. They still revered Augustine. They still saw a gentile church that had replaced rejected Judaism. They expressed strong prejudice against the Jews and saw no literal kingdom in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the small Medieval Evangelical groups, and later "radical Reformists" (Ana Baptists), did see a literal kingdom. However, the Ana Baptist endeavors to go beyond the magisterial reformation were met with extreme persecution by the Catholic church and by the those called Reformers. The "magisterial Reformers" certainly did much good but fell far short of a real Biblical theology. European Reformed theology changed quickly at Dort and morphed into even more convoluted thought in the progress of English Puritanism.

Sixth, the Christian theology of Europe was therefore far from Biblical Hebraic foundations. It was also a theology of the elite clergy. Noted Calvinist historian Alister Mcgrath has stated this in his book "In The Beginning- The Story of the King James Bible and How it changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture"( pp. 39,59) Only the clergy had good access to the scriptures. In his book "The Babylonian Captivity," Martin Luther argued that the Clergy had oppressed the laity. The scriptures were not in the language of the people. There was no mass distribution of the scriptures. The invention of the movable type press in 1450 improved things but it would take a couple centuries before there would be an adequate access to the scriptures by many Christians.

Seventh, a new land, a new mobility, and a new access to the scriptures brought drastic changes in the seventeenth century. Spiritual Awakenings in England and America brought new converts, new churches and new insights into scripture. The European Calvinism was challenged by many who wanted a restoration that was based on the scriptures alone. There was also a Bible Onlyism theology that involved many of the non Clergy believers. The Plymouth Brethren arose in Ireland and new groups emrged in America. Awakenings continued into the Eighteenth century. These awakenings changed theology.

Eighth, from the dissemination of the Bible and Spiritual awakenings there arose a new emphasis on the normal face value interpretation of scripture. Scottish common sense theology took root in America. All this brought about a more literal eschatology for the Christian churches. The Hebrew scriptures were taken less allegorical and more literally. The Kingdom was again seen as a Hebraic promise that must be taken seriously and was still a hope for Israel. This also resulted in attempting to see where the Christians fit into this. The Hebrew scriptures promised Israel a Kingdom but also tribulation. The portrayals of that tribulation in the OT were terrible and obviously have not taken place. Such a tribulation was confirmed by the Messiah to Israel in the Olivet discourse. Where would the yet future (at that time) Christian church fit in? The answers were seen in the NT last revelation in the book of Revelation and also some other NT passages such as 1 Thess. 4. The emerging result was a viewpoint that would be labelled as "Dispensationalism." It respected the covenants of God seen in scripture, endeavored to consistently interpret the scriptures literally, acknowledged progressive revelation, and put together the puzzle of present Christian hope anchored in OT Hebraic promises. The OT predicted the Messiah. He had come. Now the rest of the puzzle must be put together. Was there really some truth in those Dispensational charts?

Ninth, while there was definite Premillennialism in the early church, and some definite fragments of later Dispensationalism. The theology of Dispensationalism as a constructed theology rightly emerged in the Nineteenth century. The problem is not such a late emergence, but the long centuries of paganism and prejudice that was called Christian theology in Europe. The truth had been suppressed. Such prejudices, and even persecutions, prevented a more objective and spiritual study of all the scriptures. The Clergy theology of Europe, and also the early colonies, had much that was good but prevented that which was better. A salvation reformation occurred in the sixteenth century. A fuller Biblical perspective reformation occurred in the Nineteenth century. The questions of the Jews, the church, the kingdom and the tribulation were being asked and the answers put together.

And the fullest revelation of all is my forty foot long Dispensational Chart.

2006-04-12T08:23:00.000-07:00

CALVINISM TODAY (NEO CALVINISM)

What is Neo Calvinism?

It is an emerging emphasis on 5 point Calvinism that is highly argumentative, has a tendency to bash Dispensationalism, and has a temperament of pseudo intellectualism. Their time and efforts have little place for evangelism much to say about those who do.

Some will deny that there is such a thing. However, it is my impression that not only does it exist, but it is perpetuated by some in Pastoral ministry who endeavor to make this the great "sine qua non" of their ministry. Like the "old light" European Calvinism of the Puritans of New England, it is critical of many evangelistic efforts as having undesirable methodology and presenting an easy believism no Lordship Gospel. There is often some truth to criticism. There is some truth to their criticism. However, there is often the presentation of those they criticize with exaggeration and mis-statement of facts.

To the Neo Calvinist all scripture can be exegeted to fit into the wonderful world of the "5 points box." To them, 1Tim. 2:4 does not mean "all men" but rather "all kinds of men." Many other passages that do not quite fit into the 5 point box are given this insightful exegetical methodology. Actually, this is the same kind of methodology that is used by liberals to find monogamous homosexual relationships as approved in scripture. Approach the passage with a truth that you perceive as being true and find a way of explaining the passage according to that truth.

Neo Calvinism is not just Calvinism. Many historians do not find limited or particular atonement as that which Calvin advocated. Some would call it Hyper Calvinism because of that. But it is not just 5 point (or hyper) Calvinism. It is a mood or spirit that aggressively advocates the view against even a moderate Calvinism. American Evangelicalism (Gospel believers) have included many who would call themselves "moderate Calvinists." They believe that Calvin said much that was right about the Sovereignty of God. They also would agree with regard to the depravity of man. However, they declared the intent and sufficiency of Christ to die for the sins of all men. However, it was only applied to all who believed and were placed into Christ. They also saw in scripture a human accountability that made men accountable for behavior and choices. They were real choices. They realized that there were some inconsistent philosophical collisions in their position. However, they saw this as consistent with what God had revealed. Many good Bible teachers and Theologians of the past and of the present were and are comfortable with that presentation of Scriptural truth. The Neo Calvinist often seeks to present the moderate Calvinist as not understanding Calvinism and simply a Pelagian heretic or a universalist. They view them as philosophically ignorant because all that the moderate Calvinist states cannot be squeezed into the 5 point box.
Neo Calvinism is also a hazard to balanced Christian living and evangelism. They will show up anywhere with their "five shooters" ready for the quick draw debate. They have no time for the evangelism effort.

Neo Calvinism is not just 5 point Calvinism. It is 5 point Calvinism with an attitude! It harks back to the spirit of the last effort for a theocratic Christian government on this earth by New England Puritans. Most do not advocate a theocracy, but their spirit reflects the old lights Calvinism of those who did.

America needs another great awakening. Neo Calvinism presents a mood and spirit moving in the opposite direction.