Recently, the Provisionist crowd, led by Leighton Flowers, has pushed the notion that Ken Wilson is foremost Augustine scholar to bash Augustine as introducing Manichaean, Gnostic, Platonic and other pagan beliefs into the early church to give us “Calvinism.” Central to this theme is Ken Wilson’s accusation of Augustine after 411 AD inventing John 3:5 baptismal saving requirement to replace physical birth view of water in the passage. For Wilson, such view of John 3:5 is a denial of free choice theology taught by pre-Augustine fathers, especially when that view also includes infants needing baptism for salvation.
This requires him to really abuse the pre-Augustine fathers as well as pre-412 Augustine on John 3:5. Pre- and post-412 Augustine on the passage will be dealt with in the next article. Here, the pre-Augustine fathers will be dealt with in detail.
Wilson’s dissertation in book form, titled Augustine’s “Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will” will be cited here and interacted with on pre-Augustine fathers and John 3:5.
On page 120, he wrote, “In ‘De baptismo,’ we find abundant proof of Augustine’s persistent traditional free theology.” What was that proof? According to Wilson, Augustine then in 400 AD held to “salvation can occur without water baptism” as if he denied that after 411 AD (which is false). Wilson used that to argue that “John 3:5 has not yet evolved into a proof text.” (Again, false, since the very reference Wilson referred to from Augustine’s On Baptism 2.19 actually treated as John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth text.)
Consider this point by Wilson: holding to traditional free choice theology requires rejecting John 3:5 as baptismal salvation text.
In that case, if we go by that, then the pre-Augustine fathers were anti-traditional free choice theology. To the man, they held to John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth requirement prooftext.
Yet, according to Wilson, on page 167, it was post-411 Augustine who “reinterprets John 3:5 as water baptism instead of physical birth (‘water breaking’) versus spiritual rebirth.” The irony of Wilson accusing Augustine of novelties including this based off Gnosticism and Manichaeanism is that it was the Docetist Gnostics who held to the physical birth reading of John 3:5 and were called out for it by church father and martyr Hippolytus’ Refutation of All Heresies:
“This is, says (the Docetic), what the Saviour affirms: Unless a man be born of water and spirit, be will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.”
Not to mention the likes of Tertullian condemned Cainite Gnostics for rejecting baptismal salvation in On Baptism Chapter 1: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism.”
In fact, on page 174, Wilson claimed Augustine in 420 AD “replies with his allegorized John 3:5, declaring water baptism as essential for salvation, even in sinless newborns.” He said Augustine’s view was “novel John 3:5 proof text.”
With all due respect, it’s Wilson whose view of John 3:5 water as physical birth is both novel and allegorical. And it is complete whole sale revisionist history to claim Augustine invented baptismal salvation and John 3:5 as prooftext of that out of Manicheanism and Gnosticism when 1) no father prior to Augustine denied baptismal salvation and John 3:5 view of it and 2) Gnostics were the ones who rejected baptismal salvation and John 3:5 as prooftext of that and were condemned for both by pre-Augustine fathers.
Pre-Augustine fathers on John 3:5 as baptismal rebirth and salvation include (and note both Origen and Ambrose especially seeing John 3:5 as applying to infants as well because they didn’t hold to infants are born innocent:
Justin’s First Apology, Chapter 61: “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5”
Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: “And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], seven times in Jordan. 2 Kings 5:14 It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5”
Tertullian’s On Baptism, Chapter 13: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He says, teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The comparison with this law of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized.”
Hippolytus' Discourse on the Holy Theophany: “8. But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the layer he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all you kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, says one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.”
Origen's Romans 5.9 commentary: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”
Catechetical Lecture 3 of Cyril of Jerusalem: “4. For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22 When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you can not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, Unless a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:3 Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who has declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and almsdeeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.”
Ambrose’s On the Mysteries: “20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”
Ambrose's On Abraham, Chapter 2.84: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments, but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.”
Chrysostom’s Homily 25 on the Gospel of John (3:5): “What then is the use of the water? This too I will tell you hereafter, when I reveal to you the hidden mystery. There are also other points of mystical teaching connected with the matter, but for the present I will mention to you one out of many. What is this one? In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, We are buried with Him by Baptism into death: and again, Our old man is crucified with Him: and again, We have been planted together in the likeness of His death. Romans 6:4-6 And not only is Baptism called a cross, but the cross is called Baptism. With the Baptism, says Christ, that I am baptized withal shall you be baptized Mark 10:39: and, I have a Baptism to be baptized with Luke 12:50 (which you know not); for as we easily dip and lift our heads again, so He also easily died and rose again when He willed or rather much more easily, though He tarried the three days for the dispensation of a certain mystery.”
Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Baptism of Christ: “Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:— for his visible body, water, the sensible element — for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For the Spirit breathes where He wills, and you hear His voice, but cannot tell whence He comes or whither He goes. He blesses the body that is baptized, and the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby.”
Basil the Great's De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter 15: “Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated with the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin, that it may never bear fruit unto death; on the other hand, our living unto the Spirit, and having our fruit in holiness; the water receiving the body as in a tomb figures death, while the Spirit pours in the quickening power, renewing our souls from the deadness of sin unto their original life. This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit. For baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.”
Make no mistake about it. What Wilson is offering is fake history. And no amount of claiming to be lead Augustine scholar take away from that. But if folks want to play appeal to authority card to defend this...
Note what Jaroslav Pelikan wrote on page 163 in Christian Tradition vol 1:
"Although references to the doctrine of baptism are scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, only one extant treatise from that period is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian. And the most succinct statement by Tertullian on the doctrine of baptism actually came, not in his treatise on baptism, but in his polemic against Marcion. (It was a similar polemical need that called forth Irenaeus' summary of the catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.) Contending against Marcion's dualism between the Creator and the Redeemer, Tertullian argued that none of the four basic gifts of baptism could be granted if that dualism was maintained. The four gifts were: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. All these would be vitiated on the basis of Marcion's suppositions. It is noteworthy that Tertullian, regardless of how much a Montanist he may have been at this point, was summarizing what the doctrine was at his time- as well as probably before his time and certainly since his time. Tertullian's enumeration of the gifts of baptism would be difficult to duplicate in so summary a form from other Christian writers, but those who did speak of baptism also spoke of one or more of these gifts.
"Baptism brought the remission of sins; the doctrine of baptism was in fact the occasion for many of the references to forgiveness of sins in the literature of these centuries."
And on page 292, he wrote:
"Augustine, who learned from Ambrose to draw the anthropological implication of the doctrine of the virgin birth learned from Cyprian- and specifically from the epistle just quoted, which he called Cyprian's 'book on the baptism of infants'- to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they were nevertheless held responsible. 'The uniqueness of the remedy' in baptism, it could be argued, proved 'the very depth of evil' into which mankind had sunk through Adam's fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. Cyprian's teaching showed that this view of sin was not an innovation, but the 'ancient, implanted opinion of the church.' On the basis of Cyprian's discussion of infant baptism and of Ambrose's interpretation of the virgin birth, Augustine could claim that 'what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the catholic faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by the fathers and to this time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it.' This faith he expressed in his theology of grace."
Oxford graduate and renown historian JND Kelly wrote in Early Christian Doctrines:
“From the beginning baptism was universally accepted rite of admission to the Church; only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may partake of the eucharist. Whether or not administered originally in Christ’s name only, as numerous New Testament texts appear to suggest, in the second century it was administered in water in the threefold name. As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins, but the earlier Pauline conception of it as the application of Christ’s atoning death seems to have faded. On the other hand, the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general. Clement appears to have had this in mind in his reference to ‘one Spirit of grace poured out upon us,’ and this is clearly what lies behind the description of baptism as ‘the seal’ or ‘the seal of the Son of God,’ which the baptized must keep unsullied, in 2 Clement and Hermas. According to the latter, we descend into the water ‘dead’ and come out ‘alive’; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit. In ‘Barnabas’ it is the remission of sins which is emphasized; we enter the water weighed down and defiled by our transgressions, only to emerge ‘bearing fruit in our hearts, having fear and hope in Jesus in the Spirit.’ The Spirit is God Himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism, he remarks, our heart was the abode or demons; and Ignatius develops this idea, suggesting that baptism supplies us with weapons for our spiritual warfare.”
Philip Schaff explained it well in his History of the Christian Church:
"Pious parents would naturally feel a desire to consecrate their offspring from the very beginning to the service of the Redeemer, and find a precedent in the ordinance of circumcision. This desire would be strengthened in cases of sickness by the prevailing notion of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practised it, and were not censured for it. The apostolic fathers make, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; for they hardly touch upon baptism at all, except Hermas, and he declares it necessary to salvation, even for the patriarchs in Hades (therefore, as we may well infer, for children also). Justin Martyr expressly teaches the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by baptism; and his “all” can with the less propriety be limited, since he is here speaking to a Jew. He also says that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age have been from childhood disciples of Christ. Polycarp was eighty-six years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil and a faithful bearer of Johannean tradition, Christ passed through all the stages of life, to sanctify them all, and came to redeem, through himself, “all who through him are born again unto God, sucklings, children, boys, youths, and adults.” This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment not only of the idea of infant baptism, but also of the practice of it; for in the mind of Irenaeus and the ancient church baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and almost identified. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would imply conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will, an exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infant is not capable. In the churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been practised from the first. For, aside from some not very clear expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origen distinctly derives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with the practice of the church in his time. The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and intrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property. Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception. On the same ground he advises healthy adults, especially the unmarried, to postpone this sacrament until they shall be no longer in danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing adultery, murder, apostasy, or any other of the seven crimes which he calls mortal sins. On the same principle his advice applies only to healthy children, not to sickly ones, if we consider that he held baptism to be the indispensable condition of forgiveness of sins, and taught the doctrine of hereditary sin. With him this position resulted from moral earnestness, and a lively sense of the great solemnity of the baptismal vow. But many put off baptism to their death-bed, in moral levity and presumption, that they might sin as long as they could. Tertullian’s opposition, moreover, had no influence, at least no theoretical influence, even in North Africa. His disciple Cyprian differed from him wholly. In his day it was no question, whether the children of Christian parents might and should be baptized—on this all were agreed,—but whether they might be baptized so early as the second or third day after birth, or, according to the precedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. Cyprian, and a council of sixty-six bishops held at Carthage in 253 under his lead, decided for the earlier time, yet without condemning the delay. It was in a measure the same view of the almost magical effect of the baptismal water, and of its absolute necessity to salvation, which led Cyprian to hasten, and Tertullian to postpone the holy ordinance; one looking more at the beneficent effect of the sacrament in regard to past sins, the other at the danger of sins to come."
Facts are against Wilson and real scholars are against Wilson on the John 3:5 baptismal regeneration novelty from Augustine claim.
Here we stand.
6/10/20
6/6/20
Jesus, Antifa, and Trump
I have pondered, and hesitated, to write this blog. Sure, the title of the blog is perhaps an eye catcher. It's going to involve some American politics and issues, but mostly, this will be about how we Lutheran Christians should respond in times like these. To lay my cards on the table at the outset, I am first and foremost a Confessional Lutheran. Secondarily, I am a Constitutional Conservative.
Times of trail have come upon us American Christians. We are used to the easy life, where our religion goes on unhindered and we joyfully meet every Sunday to receive Christ's gifts. But things are drastically changing, and fast at that.
If your head has been buried in the sand, a lot has been happening in the United States. Beginning earlier this year, we were hit with the covid19 pandemic, which was exploited by government leaders to impose draconian measures against their citizens; in many cases depriving people of their livelihoods, destroying businesses, and trampling on our right to assemble and freedom of religion. To top it off, the brutal and heinous treatment by Minneapolis police resulted in the death of George Floyd, who happens to be African American. From there, the activist group Black Lives Matter sprung into action, and rightfully so. Peaceful protest is an American right enshrined in our Constitution. From there, all hell broke loose.
Many have opined, and I'm inclined to agree, that what has transpired after this has been fueled by Marxist rage whipped up by the far left. We have been here before in history, states scholar Gary Saul Morson, professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University. In the June 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Morson states, "To me it's astonishingly like late 19th, early 20th century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary." We have not arrived at a revolutionary situation, says Mr. Morson, but we certainly have arrived at a spot where well intentioned liberal people will not call lawless violence wrong. Of course, very few on the left in general is calling anything out because politics. And stuff. If they are, it's very muted. What began as peaceful protesting with some looting (which is always wrong), has turned into a full fledged, nationwide riot, that has little to nothing to do with George Floyd anymore. Hijacked by the openly Communist and Anarchist group Antifa, the nation has turned into a battle zone. In the wake, President Trump has declared Antifa a domestic terrorist group and has deployed the military to oppose the rioting and massive destruction of property. This has evolved in to an ideological war, to put it bluntly. We have a far left movement hell bent on destroying the country from within, and a President who is deploying troops against his own country. The whole thing is very dystopic and messed up, to say the least.
So how should we, as Christians, look at all this? There are a few things to be said.
First and foremost, it is imperative for us as Lutherans to keep the gospel the gospel. Difficult situations are nothing new for Christians. We've had it easy in the United States for the most part. We've had a good run, so to speak, with our Constitution protecting freedom of religion and assembly, and speech. Now with Constitutional rights under attack, we must stick to what Christ has given us. Amending the gospel is not an option.
Second, why are we surprised? Didn't Jesus say that we will be hated for his name sake? (Matt 10:16-25) Scripture also talks about us suffering quite a bit, especially in the New Testament. (Rom 8, 2Cor 1, Col 1, 2The 1, 2 Tim 2, etc.) I'm not saying we are there yet, but the possibility exists, and indeed, is given to us as a gift in Scripture. This does not mean that we should go looking for persecution and suffering, of course, as many Christians are wont to do, but that these trials will build us up (Rom 5).
Third, we must be cautious not to abuse Romans 13. "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval." (Rom 13:3) To put it precisely, this does not mean to obey government no matter what they say. It does however mean that we ought to be lawful citizens as much as we possibly can, provided they are not demanding bad conduct from us. "We must obey God rather than men," (Acts 5:29) St. Peter and the Apostles answered before the council. This is a legitimate answer to the government as well, if it comes to that.
Fourth, there are certain things that Christians simply must oppose, and must obey God and not men. We must oppose a state that prohibits free Christian fellowship and freedom of religion, to the extent that they are punishing those who gather and worship, or have made Christianity illegal. Communist states are notorious for this. (This is far left ideology. Hint hint) The Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Union are a great example. This revolution and state was atheist and persecuted Christians harshly. The Russian Orthodox Church was silenced.
Fifth, we must equally oppose a state that interferes in the church's business, changing the church to be something it is not. A good example of this is Nazi Germany, in which the state basically interjected itself into the church and indoctrinated National Socialism into its teachings. Many notable Lutheran pastors opposed this. Hermann Sasse was a strong voice, as was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Sixth, we must avoid confusing the gospel and the Christian faith with the American dream. Jesus is not the poster boy for the Republican party. Nor for the democrats. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) Our political stances may not be God's. Keep the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world separate. But, keep in mind Isaiah 5:20. Calling evil good is never good.
Seventh, there are certain practices the church must denounce as evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20) We simply cannot, as Christians, call good evil and evil good. To do so is against God and puts a person in a state of unrepentant sin. This goes for any issue. As an example, calling abortion good would be to call murder good, and hence to call evil good. We cannot do that as Christians. There are many more issues which we could write volumes about, but for now this one will suffice. As I have argued in the past, there is no such thing as a liberal Christian, precisely for this reason. A liberal Christian is a Christian who makes Jesus out to be a cultural socialist hero and calls evil good.
Unrepentant Christians?
Sin, Repentance, and Theological Liberalism
Eighth, and I include this one separately from the seventh, is racism, because it is a huge issue today. This one should be a super easy one for Christians, but we too carry around our sinful nature and commit racist thoughts and acts. The bottom line regarding racism is that Christ died for each and every single individual person ever conceived on this Earth. He died for the Pharisee. He died for the Philistine. He died for the Jew. He died for the Indonesian. He died for the German. He died for the African American. He died for the Native American. He died for Christians. He died for Muslims. And Atheists. And everyone else.
If Christ died for everyone unilaterally; each individual, how can we ever think that we are superior to another person based on our race? Jesus' blood was shed for us equally. The solution to racism is not sociology. It's theology.
Let us then take heart, for the world will hate us, but Christ has overcome the world.(John 16:33, 1Jo 4:4) Let us pray for the things that are dividing us as a nation. Let us grieve with those who are grieving. For both the family of George Floyd to the families of the slain in the streets in the riots. Let us be bold to call evil as it is and to also call good as it is.
Most of all, let us be even bolder to proclaim Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins, for everyone. From Donald Trump to Antifa to Black Lives Matter to White Supremacists. The same Christ has died for all of them, and the world needs to hear it now more than ever.
+Pax+
Times of trail have come upon us American Christians. We are used to the easy life, where our religion goes on unhindered and we joyfully meet every Sunday to receive Christ's gifts. But things are drastically changing, and fast at that.
If your head has been buried in the sand, a lot has been happening in the United States. Beginning earlier this year, we were hit with the covid19 pandemic, which was exploited by government leaders to impose draconian measures against their citizens; in many cases depriving people of their livelihoods, destroying businesses, and trampling on our right to assemble and freedom of religion. To top it off, the brutal and heinous treatment by Minneapolis police resulted in the death of George Floyd, who happens to be African American. From there, the activist group Black Lives Matter sprung into action, and rightfully so. Peaceful protest is an American right enshrined in our Constitution. From there, all hell broke loose.
Many have opined, and I'm inclined to agree, that what has transpired after this has been fueled by Marxist rage whipped up by the far left. We have been here before in history, states scholar Gary Saul Morson, professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University. In the June 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Morson states, "To me it's astonishingly like late 19th, early 20th century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary." We have not arrived at a revolutionary situation, says Mr. Morson, but we certainly have arrived at a spot where well intentioned liberal people will not call lawless violence wrong. Of course, very few on the left in general is calling anything out because politics. And stuff. If they are, it's very muted. What began as peaceful protesting with some looting (which is always wrong), has turned into a full fledged, nationwide riot, that has little to nothing to do with George Floyd anymore. Hijacked by the openly Communist and Anarchist group Antifa, the nation has turned into a battle zone. In the wake, President Trump has declared Antifa a domestic terrorist group and has deployed the military to oppose the rioting and massive destruction of property. This has evolved in to an ideological war, to put it bluntly. We have a far left movement hell bent on destroying the country from within, and a President who is deploying troops against his own country. The whole thing is very dystopic and messed up, to say the least.
So how should we, as Christians, look at all this? There are a few things to be said.
First and foremost, it is imperative for us as Lutherans to keep the gospel the gospel. Difficult situations are nothing new for Christians. We've had it easy in the United States for the most part. We've had a good run, so to speak, with our Constitution protecting freedom of religion and assembly, and speech. Now with Constitutional rights under attack, we must stick to what Christ has given us. Amending the gospel is not an option.
Second, why are we surprised? Didn't Jesus say that we will be hated for his name sake? (Matt 10:16-25) Scripture also talks about us suffering quite a bit, especially in the New Testament. (Rom 8, 2Cor 1, Col 1, 2The 1, 2 Tim 2, etc.) I'm not saying we are there yet, but the possibility exists, and indeed, is given to us as a gift in Scripture. This does not mean that we should go looking for persecution and suffering, of course, as many Christians are wont to do, but that these trials will build us up (Rom 5).
Third, we must be cautious not to abuse Romans 13. "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval." (Rom 13:3) To put it precisely, this does not mean to obey government no matter what they say. It does however mean that we ought to be lawful citizens as much as we possibly can, provided they are not demanding bad conduct from us. "We must obey God rather than men," (Acts 5:29) St. Peter and the Apostles answered before the council. This is a legitimate answer to the government as well, if it comes to that.
Fourth, there are certain things that Christians simply must oppose, and must obey God and not men. We must oppose a state that prohibits free Christian fellowship and freedom of religion, to the extent that they are punishing those who gather and worship, or have made Christianity illegal. Communist states are notorious for this. (This is far left ideology. Hint hint) The Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Union are a great example. This revolution and state was atheist and persecuted Christians harshly. The Russian Orthodox Church was silenced.
Fifth, we must equally oppose a state that interferes in the church's business, changing the church to be something it is not. A good example of this is Nazi Germany, in which the state basically interjected itself into the church and indoctrinated National Socialism into its teachings. Many notable Lutheran pastors opposed this. Hermann Sasse was a strong voice, as was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Sixth, we must avoid confusing the gospel and the Christian faith with the American dream. Jesus is not the poster boy for the Republican party. Nor for the democrats. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29) Our political stances may not be God's. Keep the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world separate. But, keep in mind Isaiah 5:20. Calling evil good is never good.
Seventh, there are certain practices the church must denounce as evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20) We simply cannot, as Christians, call good evil and evil good. To do so is against God and puts a person in a state of unrepentant sin. This goes for any issue. As an example, calling abortion good would be to call murder good, and hence to call evil good. We cannot do that as Christians. There are many more issues which we could write volumes about, but for now this one will suffice. As I have argued in the past, there is no such thing as a liberal Christian, precisely for this reason. A liberal Christian is a Christian who makes Jesus out to be a cultural socialist hero and calls evil good.
Unrepentant Christians?
Sin, Repentance, and Theological Liberalism
Eighth, and I include this one separately from the seventh, is racism, because it is a huge issue today. This one should be a super easy one for Christians, but we too carry around our sinful nature and commit racist thoughts and acts. The bottom line regarding racism is that Christ died for each and every single individual person ever conceived on this Earth. He died for the Pharisee. He died for the Philistine. He died for the Jew. He died for the Indonesian. He died for the German. He died for the African American. He died for the Native American. He died for Christians. He died for Muslims. And Atheists. And everyone else.
If Christ died for everyone unilaterally; each individual, how can we ever think that we are superior to another person based on our race? Jesus' blood was shed for us equally. The solution to racism is not sociology. It's theology.
Let us then take heart, for the world will hate us, but Christ has overcome the world.(John 16:33, 1Jo 4:4) Let us pray for the things that are dividing us as a nation. Let us grieve with those who are grieving. For both the family of George Floyd to the families of the slain in the streets in the riots. Let us be bold to call evil as it is and to also call good as it is.
Most of all, let us be even bolder to proclaim Christ crucified for the forgiveness of all of our sins, for everyone. From Donald Trump to Antifa to Black Lives Matter to White Supremacists. The same Christ has died for all of them, and the world needs to hear it now more than ever.
+Pax+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)