Fundamentalist Conservatives: Stop Apologizing For Being One

It’s amazing how few churches and “Bible Belt” fundamentalists truly are conservative. Of course the term “conservative” is a comparative term, so please allow me to define it.

When I say fundamentalist conservative, I mean what some might consider “old fashioned” but not quite. There are several key aspects to conservative fundamentalism.

I mean someone who holds to a high view of scripture–meaning they believe in not only inspiration but preservation. Many would say they take this view, but limit it to the original manuscripts. This is double talk. We know none of the originals still exist; therefore the preserved copies allegedly no longer exist and all existing copies and bible translations are by de facto unpreserved. This view is descended from apostate liberals such as the English clergymen Wescott and Hort and has been propagated sadly by many fundamentalists  and religious institutions.

The propaganda is so vast yet so wrong and frankly ludicrous. It is a direct attack on the authority of scripture, the person of Christ and I believe Satan’s  greatest assault on the church from within. This war of truth is rampant, overwhelming and waged by religious elites who use  dishonest and deceitful tactics. It highly resembles political mudslinging. (for more on this topic, see David Sorenson’s “Touch Not The Unclean Thing.”)

Another characteristic of a fundamentalist conservative is they take the proverbial high ground towards religious worship. The Scriptures are clear and emphatic that God is to be worshipped in a reverent way that places the focus on Him and not us; it does not resemble the style and methods of the world, but is sacred and reserved for God.

Of all the issues in this discussion, this is the most heated and most sensitive among younger believers. Music is important in worship, but is nowhere near the importance of preaching; but those on the fundamentalist left love to bring music up to the level of preaching or even above it.

As if that flawed idea wasn’t enough, the music of choice is decreasingly that of hymns, but CCM and the emerging power house of Sovereign Grace Music (SGM). Besides their obvious imitation of worldly styles and blasphemous “worship,” I have real difficulty understanding how a fundamentalist could advocate using music of a new evangelical – charismatic organization which attempts to use worldly styles to market their product. It’s absolutely impossible for me to reconcile such a dichotomy. Simply ignoring the issue of SGM is not enough; there is an increasing number of churches and organizations that refuse to name SGM and stand against it. This is weakness and perceived as consent.

The younger generation cries out for that style. And sadly, some of the older generation are all too ready and willing to give it to them. No wonder students come out running to SGM and CCM. The Old Testament shows time and time again where the younger, foolish generation demands the old generation to give in to their whims and fancies toward worldliness. The older generation needs to step up and do the hard, but right thing and hold firm to the ancient landmarks. As a young man, I plead that they would choose the latter over giving in to foolish young people, who historically have been attracted to the world. Wisdom must prevail over whims; principle must trump preference.

Music is a sensitive issue that permeates deep into our person–and is therefore a natural weak spot. Music is often. Trojan horse by which liberalism can sneak in so deeply it is almost impossible to root out.

I have said this in the past and will again reaffirm that once people give in to the modern bible version lie, music is next.

The final issue could also be considered the underlying issue of conservative fundamentalism: separation. If fundamentalists get this one right, it is very likely they will get the rest right. If we understand that biblical separation is mandated and is clearly explained, we would not have to with Wescott, Hort or SGM.

The number one complaint, or as I call it–cop out–is this: “we need to have more love and less focus on externals.” This is such a lame attempt towards liberalism. We know God looks on the heart, but He also commands external obedience and separation.

The funny thing, at least to me, is the people crying loudest are ones who should just admit they are liberals and new evangelicals. Why pretend to be a fundamentalist? Just save yourself the grief and leave the camp. Quit playing games and pick your side. People like that will jump all over me for saying this, but at least I am openly a fundamentalist conservative. Don’t play the liberal game of pretending and being a chameleon.

In closing, we need to do three things:

1. Acknowledge the battle exists and is here to stay.

2. Understand the liberals vastly outnumber the conservatives and will use every lame excuse and tactic imaginable and that we are fighting those who truly don’t believe our current bible is inerrant and preserved. (Why should we be surprised at anything they believe and push?)

3. Boldly draw the line between liberal and conservative and stand. Call liberals out for who they are and quit the chameleon games. The first thing they will say is “we are being divisive and causing division in the church.”

I end with this: such a charge is a lie and ludicrous. Such was the charge Ahab made to Elijah. Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel. Elijah pointed out correctly and without playing the word game that Ahab was the one trolling Israel because he had departed from the Word of God, His commandments and led the people in a way of worship that replaced God and offended Him.

So there it is. We as fundamental conservatives must stop apologizing for being conservative and stop tiptoeing around liberal fundamentalists and call them out on what they are and what they are pushing.

Fundamentalism Could Die With My Generation

Fundamentalism is an intriguing term. It once referred solely to the universal group of believers who held to and defended certain fundamental beliefs and doctrines that could not be removed or compromised without repudiating true Christianity. Now the term “fundamentalist” could refer to Muslims, Hindus, etc. For the purposes of this post, I am speaking of the historic, Christian fundamentalists or Fundamentalism.

Now that we know what we are focusing on, another issue is this: “Is Fundamentalism a group or a set of beliefs?” To save us some time, I borrow from former BJU Science faculty Dr. Henson when he said, “Fundamentalism is Biblical truth.” Understand that he made the statement after four weeks of explaining exactly which doctrines were Fundamental and after giving a detailed history of Liberalism and its ties with Modernism and Humanism.

To be a Fundamentalist is primarily to identify oneself as a believer that holds to the historic and traditional cardinal doctrines of Scripture and make it known that he will not compromise on or depart from those doctrines. The prime example is the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As Dr. Henson confirmed, the chief goal of theological liberals is to make Christ less God-like and more human. After all the lame excuses and double-talk is over, that is what they are doing, and have been doing since their movement began.

Fundamentalism is certainly not perfect. Being an Fundamentalist preacher, writer, church or school does not mean infallibility. We certainly are all aware of mistakes made on all those named levels. However, it is Fundamentalism overall in the grand scheme of history that has been the primary beacon of Biblical truth and fundamental doctrine in the United States and Europe.

Many young people today are leaving Fundamentalism. It is a sobering reality, but we had better face facts. Many college grads who were in Fundamentalist churches and homes before enrollment leave either as a liberal or uninterested in religious matters altogether. Why? I humbly submit the following possibilities:

1. They were never Fundamentalists to begin with. It is quite possible they received little to no direct training in the home or their church on the issues of Fundamentalism and Liberalism. The Bible stresses in numerous places the need of educating children and young people in the way of godliness and the fundamentals of the faith; this makes the teen and young adult years much easier. However, many parents find themselves to busy or I fear negligent to really drive in to their children’s minds the fundamental doctrines of Scripture. Perhaps this is credited to the parents’ belief that weekly church services and Christian education are somehow sufficient. The failure of the church and the school is irrelevant; the parent is primarily responsible. Maybe the parents did a decent job but the church or school did not back them up. This happens often, sadly too often. One way or another, the vast majority of Christian youth grow up spiritually deficient of Scriptural soundness and firm foundations in Biblical truth.

2. They were changed at college or during their college years. Because of the attractiveness of secular institutions, many young people flock to them–only to become brainwashed with humanism and atheism. We know from the case of Daniel that we do not have to be products of our environment. Daniel was captured by the most wicked kingdom of his day and was still the most bold and loyal man to God in his day.

On the other hand, perhaps they attended a sound, Fundamentalist university. It is entirely possible, though scary, for a student to go through four years of rigorous spiritual instruction, chapel services, evangelistic meetings, peer relations and church attendance and come out as apostate as the pope. Although this is not the norm, it does happen–much to the distress of Christian educators and pastors. Pastors and teachers can only do so much. They cannot force someone to believe something and live accordingly. Each person must and will choose to either accept or reject.

Perhaps they were introduced to new philosophical or religious influences outside of the class room; the dangers are vast and rampant.

 

So having these possible explanations before us, what can we do to prevent our youth from flocking out of the Biblical and just camp of Fundamentalism?

I assert foremost that we teach them to respect and  trust the authority and accuracy of the Word of God. This in my mind is the primary avenue of danger for Fundamentalist young people today. The danger lies in the Satanic strategy of planting seeds of doubt in one’s mind of the Bible’s accuracy or authority that leads to a devaluing of the Word of God and will be followed by a devaluing of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith altogether. The Psalmist tells us that “if the foundations be removed” the righteous can do nothing. Satan is a crafty and brilliant tactician. He does not need to attack every area of the Christian faith to prove effective, he only needs to assault the Word of God. That was the first tactic he used in the Garden of Eden; and as you can probably tell, it worked! “Hath not God said?” was the first assault on the Christian faith; and make no mistake, it was on Scripture itself.

Every time I hear a preacher or teacher say something like “the Bible translators goofed here” or “a better translation would be….” it only hurts me in the knowledge that whether they realize it or not, they are aiding God’s archenemy in his evil plot to undermine Scripture. On a side note, I realize the Authorized Version is not the Greek and Hebrew text, but it is the best and most faithful to the original Received and Masoretic texts. (My position on the TR and MT are made perfectly clear on this blog.) So, know that I am not at all teaching a KJV only position, but a TR position. My motive is not to cause strife or attack those who uphold the Critical (Alexandrian) Text, but is rooted in fierce loyalty to the accuracy and authority of Scripture–by the way that God promised it would have until the end of time. God inspired every single word and not merely the concepts. I am passionate about the Scripture and the manuscript issue because IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR FAITH and if we can’t get that right, then we are men most miserable and most doomed. I am not making accusations or causeless charges, I only remember too well the terror I once felt when I heard someone teach me that the Bible had some “minor mistakes” in it. I am a highly analytic person and could not put such a statement behind me. There can be no such thing as a minor mistake in God’s Word.

So I reiterate the great trust we as spiritual leaders have to the Word of God. We must not, willingly or through ignorance, cast doubt upon the authority and perfect preservation of each “jot and tiddle” in the Scriptures.

When the Bible is attacked, the standards and music will shortly follow. And before we know it, our entire generation could be lost to theological liberalism. This is why the Bible issue is foremost.

 

There are many other things we can do to prevent mass departure from Fundamentalism, but this is my heart’s primary burden and the reasoning and motive behind my defense of the preserved, inerrant Word of God.

 

Sincerely,

KW

 

 

What I Believe: A Series-based Doctrinal Statement (Part II)

About Scripture

God has spoken to His creation (man) through His holy word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that every single word of Scripture was breathed out by God, though penned by human authors and was verbally, plenarilly inspired without error. The Scriptures also say that it is completely without error and has been preserved inerrant. The Scriptures are the words of God, not men. He preserved each word, not mere concepts as erroneously taught in many religious institutions.

God has providentially preserved the original words of Greek into the English language through the Textus Receptus and NOT through the heretical and apostate work of men such as Wescott and Hort and their Critical Text used in popular translations such as the NIV and the NASB (Alexandrian Text.) While a King James Only position is erroneous, because the only two translations from the Textus Receptus are the KJV and the NKJV, the best English translation has been and still is the King James (Authorized) Version. I believe the KJV is God’s preserved choice for the English-speaking people.

Sadly, textual critics and opponents of the Received Text attempt to slander and defame the intelligence and scholarship of the TR crowd by accusing them of being King James Only–which states that the KJV can be used to correct the original manuscripts. This is an obviously flawed position, but it is used as a brand to rid the TR crowd from credibility.

Also sadly, most proponents of the Critical Text (of course it is no longer referred to as such) or the Alexandrian text do not realize that Bible translations come from either the CT or the TR.

So I conclude with this confident proclamation that in the Authorized Version, we have the entire, inerrant, preserved Word of God! Hallelujah! Let us never doubt or question the promises of God in the eternal preservation of His precious Word, and let us resign ourselves to defend it against all foes.    I quote the Psalmist: “If the foundations be removed, what can the righteous do?”

The Textus Receptus is backed by Scriptural promises of inerrancy, preservation and eternal endurance and by history. It is the text that was accepted by the Church without question until the 1800′s when the modern methods of textual criticism and humanism introduced the Alexandrian text–mainly produced by the English apostates Wescott and Hort.

To ignore the overwhelming evidence for the authority and authenticity of the Textus Receptus and the apostate and humanistic Critical Text would be to ignore historical facts, Scriptural truths and to enter very dangerous ground.

The Sovereignty of God: Part II

Before we define the word “sovereignty,” it is important to note that Scripture does not use the word, at least not in the Authorized Version. “Sovereignty” is a word referring to a theological truth taught throughout the Bible.

The English word “sovereignty” came from words like “chiefly above, supreme and reign.” 1 The definitions of “sovereignty are “supreme power, dominion, undisputed rule and absolute rule.” 2  Some synonyms are “supremacy, all-powerful, overwhelming authority.” 3

So, how does the Bible define “sovereignty?”  The Scriptures teach us four aspects of God’s sovereignty. First, He is over and above all creation and creatures. He is in complete control of the universe He created. Second, He is absolute and autonomous. He needs nothing and no one. He is self-sustaining. Third, He is omnipotent and omniscient. He can do anything and everything; He knows no limitations. He also knows everything. Nothing exists or occurs that He is not aware of. Finally, He is the supreme ruler who rules without error and in perfection. God makes no mistakes; nothing takes Him by surprise.

These four truths are illustrated clearly in passages such as: I Timothy 6:15; Rev. 19:16; Daniel 4:34-35; I Chronicles 29:11-12; Psalm 103:19 and more.

It is crucial that we notice where the Bible definition leaves “sovereignty.” The Scriptures leave us with a God who is all knowing and all powerful, yet does not predetermine all events. While He does predetermine some events, we see in general that He leaves choices up to men and does not predetermine all things as to lead to fatalism. This is where the Bible definition of God’s sovereignty ends and anything more becomes man-made.

1. Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.

2. Webster’s Dictionary

3.  Roget’s Thesaurus

Replacement Theology: Antisemitism at its Best.

All three services today at Agnew Road Baptist Church, Greenville, S.C. were taught by Dr. Bob Shelton. Dr. Shelton is an expert and life long student of Bible Prophecy. During two of the services, he made reference to a theological concept known as “replacement theology” – which says,  “the Church and the Nation of Israel are virtually and practicably the same organization. That the Church was not founded in the New Testament but was in fact Old Testament Israel. Therefore the Nation of Israel is no longer dealt with by God but has transformed into what we know as the New Testament Church and all promises and prophecies concerning Israel have or will be fulfilled through the New Testament Church.

I am writing this article because some friends of mine were not really sure about what this “replacement theology really was. I am guessing that there were many others present who also did not know much about it. I hope this little blurb helps bring some light on the subject.

First of all, here is a link to the Dave Hunt’s website in regards to the topic: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/841

Dave Hunt is an extremely knowledgeable Church Historian and Theologian who holds the Scripture above all human thought and opinion. At the link location, you will find commentary, verse references and a downloadable mp3 on the issue of replacement theology.

Back when I was into Reformed theology, I heard very much and read very heavily on the idea that God had used the New Testament Church to fulfill the Old Testament promises to national Israel. I once believed such claims, but now see a very different message from Scripture alone.

To believe in replacement theology, one must twist Scripture and lift verses out of their proper context to make the “doctrine” work. The entire Bible is quite clear that the Church was not in existence in the Old Testament but was founded by Jesus Christ in at the close of His ministry on Earth. Jesus told Peter that upon the rock of Christ He would build His Church. He did NOT say that He had been building His church since the Old Testament and that the New Testament believers would be an addition to the previous construction. Again I would like to emphasize the clarity of the language which says plainly that the Church was a new thing founded personally by the Lord Jesus.

To suggest that God has ended His dealings with the Jews and turned the Church for Israel’s OT promises being fulfilled requires one to ignore Old Testament prophecy, mar the character of God, exclude Romans 11 and to embrace antisemitism.

I have met people who believe in replacement theology and have found them extremely antisemitic. It is no surprise to me, for it is quite hard to embrace replacement theology without already being antisemitic or without failing to soon become antisemitic. History tells us that such replacement theology had its place in the Protestant Reformation with Martin Luther as well. Luther wrote and said unprintable things about the Jews, who he said “murdered the Messiah and deserved to die for it.” It is commonly reported in secular Historical records that after Luther’s or his followers “sermons” against the Jews, the people listening would often run from the church and do violence and even murder to local Jews out of hatred for the ones who had murdered Christ. [On a side note, and I hope this shocks you; guess whose writings were used as the foundations as Adolf Hitler's Holocaust against the Jews in the 1940's? Martin Luther's. Hitler took Luther's 16th century writings and put them into 20th century practice. Denial of property, land, rights, marking with the star, extermination; all those things were derived by Hitler and the Nazis from Luther's writings.]

May God pity those who embrace replacement theology and engage in antisemitism against His chosen people. Yes, Israel is in darkness and rejection, but there are many who believe in Christ and in the Tribulation Millions will turn in a national revival! God will wipe out the enemies of Israel, He will give them there entire land title, and will solemnly judge all who made war or trouble against her, whether by weaponry or poor theology.

They are the apple of His eye. Love them, pray for them, reach them, weep for them; and at the end of time you will rejoice with them.

Please don’t fall for another trap of human opinion usurping the bounds of Scripture. Beware of replacement theology. The only thing replaced in that theology is Scripture.

A Grim Hour For Young Fundamentalists

1 Timothy 4

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I have written many times on subjects where I give a verse and then exegete or explain it and add comments in regard to it. Today, I come to the blog to simply lament what I believe is the darkest day yet for Fundamentalism and young Fundamentalists. I am a student at Bob Jones University–the great bastion of Fundamentalism–yet I see the vast majority of students as those who care very little about the great doctrinal battles for which the school was founded to combat.

Most students, as in any Christian school, are  unconcerned with the core Fundamentals of the faith; they either don’t care or don’t wish to engage in debate over them.

My heart’s burden is for the young men and women of Fundamentalism, yet is even more attuned to the young preacher boys of Fundamentalism, for they have more to fight today than ever, and they have to fight it in college–before they even get out into a ministry situation.

The “Christian Church” is overrun with worldliness, worldly music, worldly worship and worst of all, leaders who are pulling their followers away from Fundamentalism and into New Evangelicalism and Neo-Calvinism.

My heart breaks and aches at the reality of these threats; they are no fantasy, no exaggeration, no overstatement; they are here knocking at our doorstep. What is most saddening to me is that so few are resisting and fighting, and so few are caring.

Even today, I was rebuked by a peer for standing so adamantly against these above listed new trends. What I told him is what I say again now; “I hate writing on such topics, but so few are and so few care.” I pray that God will awaken His children and help them see the great dangers and false doctrines being hurled at our youth and our next generation of preachers and church congregations.

To the young preacher boys, I humbly beg you to search out the Scriptures and remain true to the faith preserved by God and paid for in the blood of our forefathers. You have a goodly heritage, don’t betray it for new doctrines and for worldly worship.

To those who are our elders and veterans in the faith: Please don’t ignore these battles; help ground us in the Scriptures and in the pure doctrines of Scripture. Pray for us, that God would keep us unspotted from the world and the new doctrines of the modern church.

To those in Christian education and especially those who serve at BJU, I pray that you will have courage and never give into modern trends and new doctrines and worldly methods and worship. It is my prayer and desire to see BJU and other Fundamentalists remain firmly in the faith and in pure obedience to the Scriptures.

I hope and cry in prayer that God will spare my generation from ruin and compromise; I know not how people may feel about this post; some will be annoyed or even angry, but if that is the price I must pay, so be it. May God preserve a remnant for His name’s sake. I know I am young, inexperienced and even perhaps too bold at times, but I am bound by conviction to contend earnestly for the faith. Though no one join me, I will go on if God preserves my life.

May we as a generation of young Fundamentalists turn and repent from the influences of New Evangelicalism and Neo Calvinism and remain true to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hated For His Sake – by Ken Willis

In Acts 4, verses 1-21, we are presented with an account of the disciples teaching and preaching in the midst of the religious leaders of Israel. As people were hearing the sound of the gospel, getting under conviction, and being illumined unto the light of salvation, these religious leaders are filled with anger and lay hands on, [or seize] the disciples. Why the anger? Why the violence? Why seize these men of God? They were not teaching heresy or errant doctrine, and the scribes knew this; the disciples were simply preaching Christ to the unsaved people of Israel. After they held them in captivity for a time, they questioned them saying, “by what authority do you teach these things?” This question has to be taken for the significance it presents. By asking whose authority, the leaders revealed their knowledge that the message was not man made. The Lord Jesus has been ascended into heaven for approximately 2 or 3 days; He had been crucified around 45 days earlier. The whole of Jerusalem knew this, and they knew he had died. Not many believed in his resurrection, except the disciples, the remaining eleven, and the soldiers and Pharisees involved in the cover up over the tomb. When the religious leaders hear the disciples preaching Christ, the resurrected Savior, they must have felt some perplexity. Now, given some may have been in this previous category, many of them knew Christ had risen, but refused to believe on Him and accept Him. Their hearts were hardened unto damnation; hardened to the point of no hope.

Now, when Peter is asked this question–by this hostile bunch of hypocritical gurus–he does not simply give the simple answer “Jesus” he begins to preach with the bold power of the Holy Ghost. The Book says “Peter, being filed with the Holy Ghost.” I believe that this phrase “filled with the Holy Ghost” is significant, I’ll show you why in just a few moments, but let us see that it was the Spirit of the LORD empowering and emboldening Peter in the face of great rejection and possibly even death. These same men just plotted against the LORD Jesus; surely this is going through Peter’s mind. But what does Peter do? He proclaims the gospel of Christ with power, with clarity, with fervor, knowing he may be ending his own life. When he preaches to them the message of Christ, they immediately marvel because even though Peter and John are laymen, they have authority and boldness and the religious leaders recognize that they were Jesus’ Disciples and that they spent time with the LORD. Now here is a sermon within itself. The scribes were not astounded by Peter’s rhetoric or by his logic; they knew he had authority that could only come from having been in Christ’s presence and from sitting at His feet. Oh that preachers would preach, having sat at Jesus’ feet! Would to God that people would hear our message and know that we had been with the LORD!

After hearing Peter’s miniature sermon, the leaders conferred with each other on how to silence these men whom they knew were telling the truth. This goes to show the hardness of their own hearts to the gospel of Christ. They charged Peter and John not to preach the name of Jesus again. Peter and John then give a wonderful response. “Whether it be right to obey men than God, decide ye, but we must preach what we know to be, for we have heard and seen it for ourselves.” They are saying in essence, regardless of what you think, we know this is the message of the Son of God; we are witnesses of it and therefore we must proclaim it as such. Praise God for men who are deeply grounded in the message of truth, who know and are convicted of it and therefore fear not man, and proclaim it regardless of the consequences. Peter and John were faced with deadly opposition and chose instead of folding under pressure, to stand firm and be counted for the name and cause of Christ. Their example should be the same as our lives.

Now, after that rather long introduction, I would like to come to the main thrust of the message: that is, How did these disciples arrive at such boldness and loyalty in the midst of this opposition and even danger? We find the answer in the latter half of Matthew 10. Starting in verse 17 and reading through verse 28, we have an intimate lesson from the mouth of the Savior to the Disciples. Christ’s words in verse 17, I believe are prophesies of his disciples of every generation, but also of the disciples sitting at His feet then and there. I can’t help but imagine Christ seeing Peter and John before the scribes, even as He teaches. In verse 18, the LORD gives a simple, yet profound promise that is the greatest comfort to the preacher and the greatest terror to the enemy of the Gospel: “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” It’s not your words, but mine. The Spirit of God will speak through you. When preachers speak from the pulpit, the Spirit of God is using them as mouthpieces for His message. Never fall into that trap of thinking that the preacher is preaching his own message. The message is the LORD’s. This puts quite a different level of importance to the preaching of the Word, because it is not man’s message, but God’s.

Then Christ goes on to point out a very solemn fact: “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.” If they hated the LORD, the God of heaven, how much more will they hate those that follow Him and worship Him. We can expect no better treatment than Christ was given, which was rejection, mockery, blasphemy, beating, and murder. We read about persecution as if it were a foreign and unnatural, heinous thing. It is simply to be expected. Now Christ does not end the sermon there. He goes on to say
“Fear not.” “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.” These are loaded verses. Christ tells us that we are not to fear, but to preach, to witness, to proclaim boldly what He has told us. Preach it in the open, even on rooftops. The idea here is that we are not to be fearful and ashamed of the message. We are to shout it out in a world of darkness. Fear not the enemies of God; Christ is teaching us to be more afraid of Satan, the one who will destroy the lost if we preach not the gospel of Christ. Fear not those human enemies of God who can only destroy our bodies. Preach boldly that men and women and children may escape the one who really can destroy them in Hell. This is why preachers must be bold and refuse to be silent. The eternal state of millions hangeth in the balance. The consequence of fearing men is the eternal damnation of souls! When we are rejected, scorned, and even abused, we are not the target of aggression, our LORD is. It is not us the world hates, but Christ whom dwells within us. Let’s get this down. They hate the God that lives within us. We have given them no reason to hate us. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood.” It is rather a spiritual conflict that we physically feel the repercussions of. When we get this fact that Jesus himself presented His disciples, we will be bolder, more courageous, and more passionate in living the Gospel before the lost world.

So fellow brothers and sisters, take great comfort in the promise of Christ that because the world hates us, we are identified with Him and are lifted up before the throne of the Father. Be not shocked when the world rejects you and despises you; be not amazed when men falsely accuse you and spread lies about you. It happens to those who stand and proclaim the Word of the LORD. From non-believers and believers, we will face opposition. Don’t be afraid of this rejection. It is the norm for the believer. Even as the insults, accusations, and stones fly, you are faithfully representing the King of Kings and the LORD of Lords. May the Lord impart the message of His holy Word to each of our hearts, Amen

KW

My Experience With Calvinism

I would like to preface this article with two main statements: First, I desire to speak humbly and as a young man who is seeking the truth; secondly, I would like to say that I am in no way attempting to cause unnecessary strife or attack people who hold to Reformed theology, I am simply stating historical facts and my own personal experience.

John Calvin

My Initial Discontentment

I have wrote many times on this subject, over the last year or two; I truly was seriously distressed as a young college freshman. I saw a Fundamentalist church–in the broad sense–that was often shallow in the pulpit and in practical living. Discouraged by the lack of depth, I began to wonder if there was something deeper. It was during the climax of my discontentment with shallow doctrine and preaching that I found the Free Presbyterian Church. I had never had any experience with or true knowledge of the Presbyterian denomination, but was overwhelmingly taken by the Free Church’s deep preaching, deep doctrine and reverent worship. I began attending a local Free Presbyterian Church and fell in love with everything about it. Soon after beginning to attend there, I was introduced and immersed in the system of theology known as Calvinism.

The Appeal Of Reformed Theology

Even after coming out of Calvinism, I still vividly remember the intellectual and irresistible appeal of Calvinism. After all, Calvinism clearly and logically could explain the often ignored issues of election, and absolute sovereignty of God. I had not heard these things preached or discussed in such clarity and detail; I felt as if I had truly come to understand many hard things of Scripture I had never understood before.

On top of the intellectual appeal, I am also a great fan of history; it is only natural that I would love the association of Reformed theology with the Protestant Reformation. I became infatuated with Luther, Calvin, Geneva, Worms, reformation! I began to idolize these historic reformers.

Calvinism’s Effect On My Life

After genuinely believing I had been divinely introduced to a higher level of Biblical understanding, I began to struggle with feeling spiritually and intellectually superior to those who did not hold to Reformed theology. I began to interpret all of Scripture and life in general through the grid defined by the TULIP–the acronym for the five key points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

I found extreme difficulty in witnessing to the lost, primarily because I was taught that man’s salvation is predetermined before he is even born, and if someone is reprobated by God, there is no hope for salvation even amid the most fervent prayer and witness. On the other hand, if a man has been chosen as one of the elect, my failure to witness will not keep him from being called unto repentance. While Calvinists will argue that their system does not promote a lax  in their witness and prayer lives, the inevitable result is a failure to witness and pray to and for the lost. I remember going on a tract distribution in downtown Greenville; the people just stood around and waited for “one of the elect” to simply walk up and take a tract–which was one that simply presented the Gospel with the hope that an “elect” reader would be drawn by God’s irresistible Grace unto salvation. What’s my point? It is my firm opinion that the Calvinist system discourages one from witnessing with the same fervor one might if they believe that people are not eternally damned to Hell before birth. This entire concept of predestination has been proven to be heretical–both by Scripture and by close examination of Church History. (More on this later.)

Doubts and Struggles

Even while embracing Calvinism, promoting it and preaching it, there were many things that truly bothered  and vexed me on the deepest levels. Mainly, the issue of irreconcilable words of Scripture that conflicted with the doctrines of Calvinism. While Calvinism told me to believe that men are predestined to Heaven or Hell in eternity past and that Christ’s death was only for the elect, and not the whole world–verses kept coming up that bothered me. For example, I would read things in Scripture like “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Or ones like “Who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” How could God desire to save all but not send Christ to die for all?

I continued to doubt and struggle within my soul…until I turned to History.

Turning To History

I had taken a class on John Calvin at a Reformed Seminary here in town about one year ago; it was there that I had my first in depth education on John Calvin and his theology and life. I mention this fact because while in that class, the issue was addressed that some had accused John Calvin of brutality and murder of many people in Geneva, Switzerland. The professor brushed off those accusations and even said that Calvin had tried to save those lives and was simply unable to keep the mobs from killing those people.

When I read the history of Calvin and those killed in Geneva, I found that the truth was a far cry from what I had heard in that seminary classroom. It is documented (as I have shown in previous posts) that Calvin made sure that those who opposed him were either abused, exiled or killed. He burned people, beheaded children and had many people killed by encouraging the populace to do so. The seminary lecture had been a failed attempt to cover up for the murder of many at the hands of one whom historians call the “Pope of Geneva.”

I read more and more and became increasingly disturbed and mortified to know that I had  promoted the writings of one who was a fatalistic murder of those who disagreed with him.

What truly disturbed me was the fact that John Calvin’s hero was Augustine–the founding father of the Roman Catholic Church; Augustine believed one’s salvation lied not in Christ, but in his or her infant baptism. Augustine held on dearly to his infant baptism–as would John Calvin–and Augustine also made sure he received the “Last Rights” at his death. Augustine was clearly not a saved man; he was Calvin’s hero and model–and Calvin followed in Augustine’s footprints with great mimicry. Like Calvin, Augustine believed in using force to deal with those who disagreed with his teachings.

Even more disturbing was that I discovered that neither Augustine or Calvin ever truly converted from the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine. While Calvin may have desired to purify the RCC, he formed his theology out of the cardinal doctrines he learned while in the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrines of predestination, infant baptism and allegorical interpretation of Scripture are neither protestant nor Biblical; they are doctrines from the Roman Catholic Church which Augustine taught and Calvin elaborated upon. Calvinists use the verse that speaks of God loving Jacob and hating Esau while they were still in the womb as evidence for divine election and reprobation. However, Genesis 25:23 says

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

We see from this verse that such a reference speaks not of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, but of two nations and the dominance of Israel over the other–because of God’s covenant with Abraham.

I am humbly telling what history records and Scripture confirms.

Determined to Preach Truth

Based upon the truth of Scripture and the record of history–religious and secular–Calvinism is not the gospel; it never was and never will be. It is a perversion of the gospel and according to Jude, should be opposed and exposed as such.

I regret with all my heart that I was so ignorant of the truth about this blasphemous, bloody cult.

I am sorry  if I have offended you, but Scripture and History hold Calvinism as such as I have described it; to excuse Calvinism or to embrace it is to go against Scripture and the record of History–both things I am not prepared to do.

It is my desperate hope and plea that people would go search the Scriptures and even history and see the truth about this horrible misrepresentation of Almighty God.

I am not interested in causing division or strife, but I cannot in good conscience, remain silent to proclaim what I have been most solemnly convinced of by God’s Word and history.

Augustine: Saint? or Manichean Neo-Platonism Gnostic?

The Sins of Augustine

 by Chuck Fisher

Augustine Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, arguably is considered the most influential theologian after St. Paul. As a pastor and bishop in North Africa, Augustine was one of the most prolific church writers, dealing with the many theological issues that faced the Church in his day. As a teacher, he influenced the course of the Church, and as a bishop, he influenced the politics of Rome. Without a doubt, Augustine it is considered a great man. But does he deserve this reputation?

Facts

The history of Augustine’s life is pretty straightforward and well-known. Son of a pagan father and Christian mother, Augustine grew up knowing the truth of the gospel, but led his own life, his father taking delight in his son’s sexual escapades. Augustine became a well-known orator and studied the pagan philosophies of Plato. Augustine became a Christian at age 32, after discussions about Christianity with a friend, and hearing a child’s voice telling him to pick up a scroll and read it. This conversion story is one the most famous in Christendom.

After being baptized, in 387, Augustine moved back to his hometown of Tagaste, in North Africa, to found a monastic community and become a monk. In 391, the church at nearby Hippo pressed him to become a priest, and five years later, he was made Bishop of Hippo. As a Church leader, he became an active pastor, not only for his congregation and diocese, but for his Faith. His life is best known for his doctrinal fights against Donatists and the followers of Pelagius.

Perverter of the Church?

Augustine has been called the Great Teacher of the Church, and the Doctor of Grace, because of his influence on the doctrines of the Church. His voice was so powerful that a simple “Augustine Dixit,” “Augustine says ,” settled all arguments. Augustine is still beloved theologian of theologians, studied in seminaries and schools of philosophy around the world. However, there are a few things that those who sing Augustine’s praises neglect to tell us, things which, if widely known, would call into question his supposedly great contributions to philosophy and theology.

First of all, believe it or not, Augustine couldn’t read Greek! It is not required, in ministers, that they be able to read Greek. Many, many ministers have been to Bible schools that did not required them to learn Greek. This does not mean that they’re not qualified to pastor churches, to preach and teach the gospel. However, for a theologian to not be able to consult the original languages of the Word of God, this is a critical failure.

This means that Augustine was not able to understand what Paul or Peter or John wrote, without relying on the sayso a translator. Which Augustine did. Augustine relied on the translation of his close ally, Jerome of Palestine. Jerome was the man who translated the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek, into Latin. Unfortunately, Jerome was an extremely biased, didactic theologian, and in at least one theological area, that of justification, made an unfortunate translation that has affected the Church ever since. Augustine took a word from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and gave us a Roman court model for justification, rather than the model that Paul presented, in the original Greek, that of a king declaring a subject in right standing with his/her king. Robert Brow, in his article, “Did Paul Teach Law Court Justification?” wrote:

The words in the original Greek might allow, but they never require a judicial interpretation. Since the time of Chrysostom it has been pointed out in the Greek Church that dikaioo could equally well be translated “make upright or righteous” …. If this Greek Orthodox reading of the Epistle is correct then it would seem that it was the legal minds of the first Latin translators and Jerome’s Vulgate which introduced the forensic virus into the western church. Augustine did not know Greek, and he set the Roman law court model in stone. Anselm and Calvin clarified that logic with ruthless perfection. http://www.biblical-theology.com/salvation/justific.htm

A second problem with Augustine is where he got much of his theology from. Before becoming a Christian, Augustine studied two different religions/philosophies, that he allowed to influence him, and brought their doctrines with him into the Church.

For nine years, Augustine was a Manichean, a devotee of of the teachings of Mani, founder of a Persian moral cult. Like the Gnostics of the first century, Mani and his followers were dualistic, teaching that the flesh was sinful and impure, while the spirit was light and life. As a Manichean, this teaching was a comfort to Augustine, as it let him blame his continued sexual sin on his lower fleshy nature, but still be moral by emphasizing the separateness of flesh and spirit.

Augustine’s years with the Manicheans left its impact on the Church, as he brought this teaching into the the Church through his teaching on Original Sin. A. T. Overstreet, in his on-line book, “Are Men Born Sinners?, The Myth of Original Sin,” notes:

Augustine’s nine years with them [the Maniceans] accustomed him to regard human nature as essentially evil and human freedom as a delusion. Augustine next fell under the influence of Neo-Platonism, and his theological views were strongly influenced by this philosophy as well. However, his doctrine of sin shows the obvious influence of the Gnostic teachings of Manichaeism, in which he assumes the most ridiculous teaching of all the heathen philosophies the teaching that matter can be sinful. And this is the source of his doctrine that sin can be passed on physically from one person to another.

Harnack says:

We have, finally, in Augustine’s doctrine of sin a strong Manichaean and Gnostic element; for Augustine never wholly surmounted Manichaeism.

and…

Augustine’s doctrine of sin, with his belief in the inherent sinfulness of the physical constitution, is wholly Manichaean. His idea that sin is propagated through the marriage union, that sexual desire is sin and that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin is also Manichaean. Augustine built his doctrine of original sin upon this premise that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin.

As mentioned in the quote above, Augustine studied the teachings of pagan Greek philosophers, the Neo-Platonists. In fact, Augustine was ” converted ” to Christianity through Neo-Platonist philosophy! “World Book Encyclopedia” had these two comments to make about the influence of pagan philosophy on Augustine:

“The writings of the Neo-Platonists and sermons of Saint Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, convinced Augustine to accept Christianity. ”

and

“Augustine’s study of neoplatonism convinced him that God existed in the soul of every human being.”

The following is from the “Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” article on Neoplatonism:

“Neoplatonism, ancient mystical philosophy based on the later doctrines of Plato, especially those in the Timaus…. Neoplatonism, widespread until the 7th cent., was an influence on early Christian thinkers (e.g., Origen) and medieval Jewish and Arab philosophers. It was FIRMLY JOINED WITH CHRISTIANITY BY AUGUSTINE, who was a Neoplatonist before his conversion.” (emphasis mine)

Did you get that last line? Augustine brought the pagan philosophies, learned before his conversion, into the church and much of our doctrine today is based on this.

What is generally not known about Augustine is that he favored his philosophers more than the Old Testament revelation. Bishop Ambrose, who was instrumental in converting Augustine, had to help him overcome his problem with the Old Testament : it seems that Augustine felt that the God of the Old Testament was capricious and vindictive, and at odds with the God of the New testament.

So how did Ambrose and Augustine overcome the apparent contradiction ? By using a method of interpretation called allegory. The teachings of the Old Testament, according to Augustine, could only be understood by taking the Old Testament as allegory. Augustine spiritualized the Old Testament, teaching that the histories of the Old Testament had nothing to do with God, in reality, that the stories about God in the Old Testament only taught about God in pictures, like parables. According to Augustine, the Old Testament was not a perfect revelation of God and his character, but contained bits and pieces about God that we had to figure out with allegorical interpretation. Augustine’s influence was so great that, for a thousand years, his method of interpreting the Bible was the official method of interpretation used by the Church.

Here is what James J. O’Donnell wrote in his on-line article, “Augustine the African”

Here Christianity began to appear to him in a new, intellectually respectable light. As before, his most pressing personal problem was his sense of evil and his responsibility for the wickedness of his life; with the help of technical vocabulary borrowed from Platonic philosophy Ambrose proposed a convincing solution for Augustine’s oldest dilemma. Augustine had besides a specific objection to Christianity that only a professor of belles-lettres could have: he could not love the scriptures because their style was inelegant and barbaric. Here again Ambrose, elegant and far from barbaric, showed Augustine how Christian exegesis could give life and meaning to the sacred texts.

How did Augustine’s philosophical background affect Christian doctrine ? His neo-platonic views affected his view of God, which is passed on to the Church, at large.

Augustine bought into the Platonic beliefs about the Perfect Ideal. Plato taught that everything that existed was merely a mirror of the one true thing that was perfection, and this Perfect Ideal was unchangeable. If it could change, it wouldn’t be perfect. With that as his philosophical presupposition, Augustine brought in an un-biblical definition about God’s immutability that survives as orthodoxy to this day. This is from Chapter Two of Bob Moore’s on-line book, “Calvinism — Ten Little Caveats”:

From Plato comes the concept of “the forms” or perfect ideals. This gave students of philosophy (one being Augustine) the notion that God does not change in any way because he is perfect. What is perfect, it is argued, does not change because by definition “perfect” means the level beyond which nothing can exceed. Nothing is more perfect than flawless, A+, or 100%. For a Platonist, things which change are inferior to things which do not change.

The Bible presents God as changeless, but the Christian tradition being shaped by Augustine and others, had to interpret what that meant. They had to decide if it meant that God did not change in character or if it meant that he did not change in some stronger sense.

Don’t believe that our Christian orthodox doctrine relies on Greek philosophy? Then read these quotes from “The Providence of God,” by Benjamin Writ Farley, as cited in Bob Moore’s book:

the rudiments of a reformed doctrine of the providence of God lie deeply embedded in the western philosophical tradition. There is little point in debating this. Wisdom and truth consist in acknowledging the fact and in showing how Christian and later Reformed doctrines differ significantly from the older, inherited, philosophical views.

Farley reflects further,

Has Reformed theology wed itself too closely to the classical world’s concepts of God’s perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability in its attempts to witness to the God of Scripture? To be certain, such concepts have their place in guiding the church’s reflection on the biblical God of providential activity. They enable the church to avoid the pitfalls of defining God in ways that make him subservient to other factors in the universe; they call the church’s attention to glaring inconsistencies in its assertions about deity. But they need not ‘control’ our understanding of God’s interaction with his world.

A third problem with Augustine that is not discussed often is his tendency to develop doctrine based on his experience rather than scripture. I have heard it said, “A man’s philosophy is dictated by his morals.” The same is true for his theology. Augustine wrote an autobiography, considered to be a classic, Confessions, and in it, he discusses his problems with sin. He spends a great deal of time dealing with an incident (as a young teenager ) in which he stole pears from a neighbor’s tree, and uses this event to develop and teach the doctrine of Original Sin.

Because Augustine had a problem with promiscuity and lust, and even as a churchman and bishop, had problems with his thought-life, he concluded that no one is able to choose to do good. His problem with the settings and formed the basis for the doctrine of the other depravity of man. This experiential theology, based on his own moral failures, caused him to attack the Biblical theology of Pelagius and Celestius and Julian of Eclanum, who taught man’s responsibility to choose to follow God.

A fourth problem area with Augustine is an area that, while well-known among scholars, is not widely discussed, but is absolutely critical in evaluating the truth of the doctrines that he developed and foisted on the Church. This last area deals with Augustine’s method of dealing with those who disagreed with his teachings. Since Augustine’s teachings became the touchstone for church doctrine, both Catholic and Protestant, it is vital that we examine the process by which Christian doctrine became settled, and was handed down to us.

Augustine was born in 354, in the time of a Christian Roman empire. Augustine did not have to live through the time of persecution that had been on the Church for 250 years, and so did not know the powerlessness that the meek followers of Christ had experienced. Instead, Augustine came into a Church with politically well-connected bishops, who had direct lines of communications to authorities on all levels, including the Roman Emperor. And Augustine, as a bishop of his time, used his resources well.

Early in Augustine’s Christian career, a controversy arose over the views of Donatus. Do not be deceived by classical theologians into thinking that Donatists were heretics. They were not. Instead, Donatists were basically Christians who believed in holiness. Coming out of the time of the great persecution of Diocletian, Donatus and his followers refused to accept the leadership and ministry of priests and bishops who had shown cowardice in the face of persecution. The appointment of a minister who had handed over scriptures to be burned was a rallying cry of the Donatists.

As an opponent to the Donatists, Augustine was a vigorous fighter for the Catholic Church. He weighed in with sermons and writings condemning them, which, given his perspective as a Catholic, is understandable. After all, as Christians, we’re called to contend for the faith, and if we believe that people are teaching false doctrines, heresies that endanger the faith of weaker Christians, we’re to expose the error and preach the truth. However, Augustine took the fight one step further. Ignoring the lessons of the history of the early Church and its experiences with bitter, angry men who sought to destroy it with persecution, Augustine advocated the persecution of the Donatists.

in Aurelius of Carthage and in Augustine the catholics at last had leaders who were a match for the Donatists. Augustine issued exhaustive historical and theological counter-arguments and a justification of coercion, while Aurelius’ organizing ability produced effective action. Yet it took legal sanctions to check Donatism–especially the Edict of Unity (405) and the proscription which followed the convention in Carthage in 411. Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity.

Did you get that? Augustine wrote justifying the legal “coercion” of Christians who disagreed with him. Since when do we resort to legal courts and edicts to decide Christian practice?

It is in the last battle of his life, with the Pelagians that Augustine really distinguished himself as a man willing to use the methods of the world, and not the Bible, to achieve his purposes.

Pelagius, by all accounts (including Augustine’s) a godly man, was appalled at Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin, and taught differently than Augustine, thus earning Augustine’s enmity. He did not believe that all were tainted with the sin of Adam, and opposed Augustine’s teachings.

Pelagius also merited the anger of another so-called Father of the Church, Augustine’s compatriot, Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin. It seems that there was a monk whose name was Jovinian, who taught that it was alright for priests to marry, that there was no great virtue in remaining celibate. Jerome, along with Augustine, was one of the leaders of the teaching that married saints were of a lesser class than celibate saints. Jerome was a vicious man, known for his disgusting attacks on opponents, and his characterization of Jovinian was no different. Jerome depicting this saint as a Bacchanalian orgyist. Pelagius took Jerome to task for such a rotten manner of arguing, thus earning the hatred of Jerome.

Finally, Pelagius was a holiness preacher. Living in Rome, he condemned the loose morals of the Emperor’s court, thus earning the enmity of Emperor Honorius.

As many did when it looked like the barbarians might overwhelm Rome, Pelagius left Rome for other parts, specifically, Palestine. While living in Palestine, several of Augustine’s followers in Palestine brought charges of heresy against Pelagius, and Jerome joined in the accusations.

There were two trials/synods held in Palestine, and at both of these examinations, Pelagius was declared to be orthodox. He was present to defend himself and explain what he taught. Not content to have Palestinian bishops try Pelagius, Augustine had two more trials/synods held to “examine” Pelagius’ teachings, both in North Africa, in Augustine’s own home town. To no one’s great surprise, these two kangaroo courts declared Pelagius to be a heretic. Mind you, these two trials were held in North Africa, under Augustine’s direction, and without Pelagius there to defend his teachings.

The results of these four trials were sent to Pope Innocent of Rome, who sided with Augustine. But Innocent had been lobbied hard by Augustine ahead of time. And Pelagius had not had a chance to defend his teachings. Knowing that Augustine was working to have him declared heretical, Pelagius prepared a defense of his teachings and sent it to Rome.

Now, here is the rub. Innocent died before Pelagius’ defense arrived, and a new pope was selected, Zosimus. Zosimus received Pelagius’ written defense, and after reading the defense, reopened the case. After examining both sides, Zosimus declared Pelagius orthodox. This is not widely known. Pelagius was declared by an impartial bishop to be orthodox in his doctrine.

This gave Augustine and his party fits, and so they decided to enlist a little more help. Remember how Augustine supported using legal force to settle church matters in the matter of the Donatists? Augustine decided to enlist the Emperor in this matter of doctrine. Augustine and his party decided to appeal to Emperor Honorius to join in on this matter of doctrine. In addition, a fellow bishop and friend of Augustine, Alypius, sent a bribe of 80 stallions to Honorius to use his influence on Zosimus. Again, to no one’s surprise, the following year, Zosimus bowed to Imperial pressure and declared Pelagius a heretic.

The church, after the death of Augustine and Pelagius, and under the sting of Imperial pressure and Jerome’s hatred, went on to declare all of Pelagius’ teachings heretical and all of Augustine’s as orthodox.

It is due to the ungodly efforts of Augustine and his party that we owe the spectacle of church doctrine being decided by political power and chicanery.

Summary

Doing the research we can see that Augustine, far from being a saint, was responsible for much bad theology being introduced into the Church. Because of him, we have the teachings of Gnostics and Pagans masquerading as Christian doctrine. Because of Augustine’s appeal to force, we have a Christian history marred with the image of a blood-stained church willing to kill to enforce its positions.