This assumption about the prophetic significance of the modern nation state of Israel and its DIVINE claim to the current lands is held by so many that to even question it risks being accused of being either un-Biblical or anti-Semitic.  Thus, before we go any further in this discussion, let us be clear; in no way does the discussion which follows condone, support or encourage ANY form of anti-Semitism. The author does not subscribe in any way to any conspiracy theory that sees the Jews as being behind most (or any) of the world’s problems. We unreservedly affirm that Jews ought to have the same rights as any other people to live their lives and practice their beliefs without interference from oppressive governments or racist neighbors. Finally, clearly Israel has a right to exist in security and that as an American ally the United States has made a covenant that morally binds us to fulfill our obligations to defend them against unwarrented agression.

However, all the above is DIFFERENT from the issue of whether the modern nation state of Israel has any DIVINE claims to the land they presently possess or if the establishment of that state has any relevance to Biblical prophecy. The question that is seldom raised is whether the modern nation state of Israel is special to God (in a way that other national entities are not) and therefore must be protected and defended.

Eschatology is that branch of theology dealing with the “end of time.” There are several different positions held by sincere believers, the pre-millennial, the post-millennial and the a-millennial. There are two different forms of pre-millennialism, historic and dispensational. The dispensational pre-millennial position appears to be the most prevalent understanding today in broad evangelical churches of how God intends to wrap up things in history. In this view, God has two people in history, Israel and the church. It is stated that when Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, He essentially  put them on a back burner until the end of time while he worked in and through His other people, the Church. However, as the end of time approaches, it is asserted that He will “rapture” the Church OUT of history, making Israel His earthly people again, putting them and the world through seven years of terrible tribulation.  Just when it appears that Israel (now largely converted to faith in Christ) is about to be obliterated, Jesus returns to destroy the Antichrist and his legions, establishing an earthly kingdom based in Jerusalem from which He then rules the world for a thousand years.

Now, this essay is NOT intended to be a critique of dispensational pre-millennialism or an advocate of some other eschatological system. Here, we are simply concerned with one basic issue;  whether or not the modern nation state of Israel has any claim to God’s special blessing or any relevance to Biblical prophecy. And our answer is, “no.” Regardless of which eschatological view one believes to be the most faithful to Scripture, we will argue that Christians who affirm some special pleading for the modern nation state of Israel have not dealt adequately with the Biblical texts.

Our case can be summarized as follows;

• 1. The promises of the Land to ethnic Israel (the Jews) are conditional based upon obedience to the Divine covenant.
• 2. The Modern State of Israel does meet the conditions of that covenant
• 3. Therefore, the present existence of a nation called “Israel” and populated by Jews does not require unconditional support from Christians.

First, let us ask a basic question; do modern day Jews have a Biblical right to the land of Israel? Now that is quite different from whether or not Israel has a right to exist as a nation. Modern Israel came into being as a result of international treaties.  After the defeat of the Ottoman, Turkish Empire in World War 1, most of the modern nation states of the Mideast were carved out of its former provinces by the League of Nations. Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt (etc.) were territories that the Ottoman Empire had conquered in previous wars (mostly from other Islamic nations who had in turn conquered them from Christians). After the World War I, Western Jews had been promised that a portion of this land would be reserved for a Jewish state. This had been the culmination of the Zionist movement which had been working for a national homeland for Jewish people since the late 19^th century.

After World War II, Britain finally turned over portions of what was then called Palestine to Jewish groups and the nation of Israel was born. Immediately after British withdrawal, the new state was attacked by various Arab nations intending on “driving them into the sea.” Israel won that war and then fought subsequent ones in 1954, 1967 and 1972 against her Arab neighbors: in the process conquering other territories such as the Golan Heights and the West Bank not included in the original United Nations mandate.

Now, in one sense, the reconstitution of the state of Israel can be regarded as one of the most remarkable events in history. The Jews lost their homeland in the Roman-Jewish war of 67-70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed and most of the population deported as slaves throughout the Empire. The Bar Kobar Rebellion in the early second century essentially finished the job. So, for a people to retain their language, religion and culture while being dispersed throughout the known world is indeed, something amazing. For them then to RETURN to their ancestral homelands and build a new nation, seems, well, miraculous!

However, a strong argument can be made that part of the motivation for the creation of a home-land for the Jews in the Middle-East came from SOME Christian activists who had adopted some form of dispensational pre-millennialism.  In other words, the Zionist movement was aided by Christians who believed it was necessary that the nation of Israel be re-established for the next phase of what they believed to be Biblical prophecy. Thus, in one sense, the creation of modern Israel was a self-fulfilling prophecy. In effect, some Christians, misreading Matthew 24 and other passages, concluded that the nation of Israel HAD to be established, a new Temple rebuilt and for the new nation then to undergo persecution and tribulation BEFORE Jesus could return. Thus, they endorsed and actively supported the re-establishment of Israel as a nation so that history could unfold, as their preconceived theological paradigm required.  Added to this was Western guilt over the holocaust and the motivation was found to give European Jews especially a home-land of their own. Thus, perhaps it is not quite so miraculous after all; if people believe something to be a “prophecy” and then work to bring that prophecy to fulfillment, maybe it is not really supernatural? The issue of course, is whether or not God actually promised that He would first disperse and then return the Jews to the Promised Land and if the event in 1949 was a fulfillment of that prophecy.

Many people have been conquered by other nations, dispersed throughout their empires and other peoples taken possession of their lands. Every nation on earth has seen waves of conquerors, settlers and immigrants invading their traditional homes. Thus, it must be asked, what gives Jews any more right to return to the land of Israel that they LOST to conquerors two thousand years ago, than any other group that might have settled on it since then?

The usual answer is that since God Himself gave the land of Israel to the Jews, then they, unlike any other people group in the world, have a divine title to that land. After all, God did not specifically promise in His Word that the Scots should have Scotland, or the Britons, Angles and Saxons have a divine right to England, or the Gauls to France or the Germans to Germany. However, God DID promise the land of Israel to the Jews and therefore they literally have a divine right to live there-right? Most Christians implicitly argue this way; God gave this land to the Jews and therefore they have a divine right to reclaim it.

However, this assumption fails to deal with the fundamental fact that God’s promise of the Land of Israel to the Jews was ALWAYS conditional to their faithfulness to the covenant! Jews, just because they are Jews do NOT have a divine right to the land of Israel apart from the conditions that God Himself set. Perhaps this is the reason why Christians would rather not think through this issue; the Jews have suffered terribly during the past twenty-five hundred years; first by the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, then the Greeks, until dispossed by the Romans. After that, they suffered oppression and  perseuction under various “Christian” princes until finally, the Nazis tried to exterminate them. Even mentioning the fact that the Jewish claim to the “Holy Land” is conditional may seem to be harsh, judgmental and adding even more burdens to a people who have already suffered so horribly.

Yet to be faithful to God’s revelation in Scripture, Christians MUST acknowledge that Israel’s right to live in the Land is conditional. These conditions are clearly stated in Deuteronomy 28. Here Moses reminds the people, shortly before entering the land to begin the conquest, that their right to live in the Land was dependant upon their faithful obedience to God. Furthermore, He specifically warns them that if they refuse to obey His covenant that He will REMOVE them from the land (Deut 28:63ff).

“And it shall come about that as the Lord delighted over you to prosper you and multiply you, so the Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you shall be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. Moreover, the Lord will scatter you among all the peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth…”

The list of trials and travails that Israel will suffer in Deuteronomy 28 if they break God’s covenant makes gruesome reading; yet a reasonable knowledge of history demonstrates that EVERY SINGLE CURSE God predicted there eventually happened to the Jews. In fact, these prophecies are so precise and so accurate that many secular scholars insist that they MUST have been written after the fact!

Nevertheless, Deuteronomy, written before 1200 BC has been literally fulfilled on at least three distinct occasions in Israel’s history. In 721 BC, God judged the 10 Northern Tribes for apostasy and idolatry  by allowing the Assyrians to conquer and then depose them from the land, replacing them with the people who would later become the Samaritans. Please note that these 10 Northern tribes for all intents and purposes have ceased to exist. Despite those who want to claim that they eventually became the English (a heretical position called British Israelitism), these people, all descended from Abraham and circumcised, are gone! In 586 BC, God judged the remaining two tribes of Judah (which is why today we call them “Jews”) and Benjamin by the Babylonians, removing them from the land for 70 years. Then, because they repented, God brought them back to the land under Ezra and Nehemiah. The Babylonian Exile was supposed to be a final warning of what God would do if the people violated the covenant.

With the return from Babylon, Biblical history is silent for the next four hundred years which saw Israel being conquered by the Greeks and then later on, the Romans. It was during the Roman occupation that Israel was dispossessed from the land for the third time. Matthew 24 (for context, please carefully note Matthew 23:34-24:3) is VERY clear that the end of Israel’s possession of the land, the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora in 70 AD was God’s judgment on the nation for rejecting Jesus as the promised Messiah (Matt 23:36-38). Thus the land was taken away from the Jews because of their lack of faith.

Now just because God warned of tribulation, adversity or persecution for the Jews does not in ANY way endorse or support Christians (or anyone else) treating them unjustly or unlawfully (a point which seems to have escaped certain “Christian” princes in the past). The curses of Deuteronomy 28 are something in the providence of God, NOT something Christians should try to bring about. The Moral Law of God requires us to treat ALL men with justice and equity (Gal 6:10). It is a sad commentary on our times that such a caveat as the one given above needs to be explicitly stated; but some will object to acknowledging the application of the curses of Deuteronomy 28 because they fear they will be misused to justify persecution or oppression of the Jews. However, we cannot let the fear of what some wicked men MIGHT do, to blind us to what God said HE would do.

Either there is a sovereign God who governs all of history according to His divine will, or we are the simply the victims of random events. As distasteful as some may find it, SOMETHING brought about the destruction of Israel, the dispersion of its people and the end of the Temple and the sacrificial system. If Christians are willing to face certain hard truths, they can find an explanation in Deuteronomy 28 (and many other passages); King Jesus, judging the nations with His rod of iron found Israel wanting. And modern Christians in America, England, France, Germany, etc., may also want to consider the implications; if God judged Israel so severely, a people for whom He had a special love, how much MORE harshly will He judge US if we do not repent of our national sins (cf. Rms 11:19-21)?

Granted, orthodox Christian theology has ALWAYS seen a time of great national revival for ethnic Israel (Romans 9-11) wherein, at the end of time, Israel WILL acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and will receive great blessings, which in turn will greatly bless the entire world (cf. Rms 11:12). However, our point here is that the Jewish claim to the land of Israel was ALWAYS dependant upon their repentance and covenant faithfulness.

Thus, according to Deuteronomy 28, for modern Jews to have a divine claim on the land of Israel would require also acknowledging that the need for repentance of the sins that lost them the land in the first place. From a Christian perspective of course, we would see this as requiring them to acknowledge Jesus as the promised Messiah. Romans 11 especially, predicts just such a future awakening among the Jews. Thus orthodox Christian theology MAY see a national restoration of the Land to the Jews IF they repent of refusing Jesus as their Lord.

Yet, it is no secret that the modern nation state of Israel is a secular humanist nation. Granted, there are many sincerely religious Jews living in modern day Israel; yet even the ultra-orthodox ones insist that only the Messiah has the right to establish Israel as a nation (which is why the modern nation is sometimes called “Ersatz-Israel” or “Pseudo” literally “inferior replacement” -Israel”-a pun on “Eretz Israel” which means “land of Israel”). Modern day Israel even oppresses Christians, to some extent, by denying “Messianic Jews” the right of return. You can be a atheist Jew and return to Israel, you can be a religious Jew and return to Israel, but you cannot be a CHRISTIAN Jew and return to Israel!

Now, some may argue that our view above is being too “Christo-centric” and that if Jews simply practice their religion sincerely, this would be all that is necessary to obtain God’s renewed blessing. However, it is not being anti-Semitic to acknowledge that most Jews are more Jewish in culture, rather than religion. In other words, they value their customs, traditions, dietary regulations, etc., BECAUSE it connects them with their past and gives them a cultural identity; and there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that. Not for a moment are we casting any aspersions on the sincerity of individual Jews nor criticizing their lack of religious beliefs. However, for the purposes of claiming a divine right to the Land which must be predicated on individual and national repentance and covenantal obedience, clearly, modern day Israel does not qualify. They are for the most part, a secular humanist society with all that implies.

And, there is an even bigger problem; even if ALL of modern day Israel were sincerely religious, it would STILL not qualify as true repentance so that they could lawfully reclaim the land. Even Christian leaders, who SHOULD know better, confuse the beliefs and practices of modern Judaism with ancient Hebrew religion. However, no matter how sincere the modern Jew may be in his faith, what he practices is NOT what God required in the Old Testament.

For example, at the center of Old Testament Hebrew religion, going back to Able, Noah and Abraham, was the necessity of a blood sacrifice. The laws governing the tabernacle (later applied to the Temple) encoded these required rituals (rituals which Christians believe were typological of Christ). Hebrew religion DEMANDS animal sacrifices to atone for sins, both individually as needed and at least once annually for the entire nation (”Yom Kippur” or “Day of Atonement”). Yet, no Jew has been able to offer a sacrifice in over two thousand years since the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

Without the Temple where the REQUIRED sacrifices could take place, Old Testament Hebrew religion underwent a dramatic transformation into modern Judaism; the synagogue, not the temple is the center of religious Judaism. Many Christians assume that modern day Judaism is simply a continuation of Old Testament Hebrew religion. However in reality, both Christianity and Judaism ought to be considered as outgrowths of Old Testament religion. Christianity took the sacrificial system and adapted it by the Lord Jesus’ command, into the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Modern day Judaism however had to set it aside altogether.

In fact, the religion practiced by the most religious Jews today ought to be called “Rabbinic Judaism” because the heart of their faith is the teachings of the rabbis contained in the Talmud and Mishna Torah. Essentially, this faith believes that along with the written Law, God also established a tradition of oral commentary passed down by the rabbis. This oral commentary is in effect, “higher” or more authoritative than the actual Old Testament. Modern day religious Judaism focuses on studying, discussing and debating this oral tradition. The emphasis then is on the traditions of the elders. If this sounds familiar, it should; Judaism has its roots in the religion of the Pharisees, the people with whom the Lord Jesus had the most controversy during His earthly ministry (e.g., Matt 5:43 wherein Jesus contrasts the teaching of the rabbis with His own divine authority). Hence, even the sincere, well-meaning Jew who “religiously” practices Judaism is in fact being faithful to a religious system that the Lord Jesus condemned! This hardly qualifies as repentance necessary for national restoration!

This creates an insolvable dilemma for Christians defending the modern Jewish right to the land. Possession of the land is conditioned on obedience to the covenant. Most modern day Israelis are secular and non religious; hardly qualifying as convenantly faithful. Yet even the most “religious” Jews fail to practice the heart of true Hebrew religion (the sacrificial system) and emulate the Pharisees! Therefore neither secular nor religious Jews qualify as “repentant” and therefore they can have no divine claim to the land.

Now, again, we are not saying that Jews do not have a right to practice whatever religious beliefs they want, in any way they want. Remember, our main purpose here is NOT to criticize the Jews, but rather analyze a widespread assumption amongst Christians - that Jews have a divine, unconditional right to the land of Israel. However, basic Biblical theology insists that the divine claim on the land can only be made when the Jews repent of the sins that lost them the land in the first place. However, such repentance has NEVER occurred, and even the ones who are faithful and sincere in their religious beliefs (as opposed to the majority who simply embrace some of the cultural manifestations of being Jewish) have adopted a system that was judged deficient by the Lord Jesus. Therefore, they can have NO divine claim to the land, and there can be no prophetic significance to the reestablishment of the modern nation of Israel.

Some have argued that we MUST protect Israel because the present nation state, though secular, is STILL Israel and God will bless those who bless His chosen people. Leaving aside for a moment the theological issue of whether the Church (composed of both Jew and Gentile) is in fact the “new” Israel, there is a distinction between treating people humanely and justly, and whether we are bound to support a particular nation, REGARDLESS of how it acts in the world. If the Jews have a right to the Land ONLY after they repent, then therefore the people living in modern day Israel are only there on God’s sufferance. Thus, their national policies, actions, wars, etc., must be judged by the same standard that every other nation’s actions must be judged - the impartial, unchanging moral law of God. When Israel does what is right as a nation, they ought to be commended, defended and supported. When they break the Law of God, they should be condemned.

Some support Israel because they believe that we must be living in the last days and if anything happens to Israel it would somehow mess up God’s prophetic time clock. Leaving aside the issue of limited men interfering with the providential acts of a sovereign God, just consider this; if some horrible tragedy happened (say a nuclear war with Iran) and the entire population of Israel were destroyed, God COULD repopulate the land with Jews overnight because until fairly recently, there were more Jews living outside of Israel than within it! More Christians ought to meditate on Psalm 2 wherein God and His Anointed LAUGH at all the foolish conspiracies of wicked men. His will, WILL be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. If the nation of Israel needs to be established to fulfill Biblical prophecy, there is NOTHING in Scripture that requires the CURRENT nation of Israel to be THE nation of Israel God will work with. It is only the preconceived belief that we ARE living in the last days that sees the modern Israeli state to be so important. But those who assert this are assuming what needs to be proved (i.e., are we in fact living in the “last days?”).

Do you see the problem here? Christians who already BELIEVED we were living in the “last days” asserted that the nation of Israel needed to be reestablished before the Lord could return. They then worked with Zionists and International groups to create a Jewish state in the Mid-East. When successful, they then cry “See, we were right, we ARE in the last days because Israel is now a nation!” Yet if in fact the nation of Israel is to be reestablished before the Lord’s return, what is to say that THIS “incarnation” of Israel is the one that God intends to use? Maybe the current nation will cease to exist and God intends to bring OTHER Jews back at some OTHER time in the future?

The point of this essay has not been to in any way deny the right of the modern nation-state of Israel to its peace and security. Rather, it has been our purpose to demonstrate that American Christians in particular have allowed a sub-Biblical theological blinder to influence our understanding of both God’s Holy Word as well as its application in the real world. As long as this discussion was simply an “in-house” debate, we could disagree amongst ourselves with no harm, no foul. However, now Christians are finding themselves in greater and greater positions of influence in the world. We really DO have the opportunity to influence national policy (on some level). Thus, before we speak to the world, “Thus sayeth the Lord” we had better make sure that WE are not being false prophets, claiming things that God never actually said.

While it is a tangent, perhaps part the problem goes back to the way that evangelicals have done Bible study now for more than a century. Too many of us have taken a “proof-text” approach to Scripture wherein we tie unrelated passages together because it fits our preconceived theological constructs. This has led many sincere men to be misled. Rather than allow the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the more complex, some Christians have built entire eschatological systems from complicated, difficult, prophetic passages that have stumped some of the greatest minds in Christian history. And in the process, somehow, all the books, prophecy conferences and television specials on the “end times” have missed that the modern state of Israel has NO divine rights to ANY land in the Mideast according to the conditions under which God GAVE them their land originally (Deuteronomy 28) and dispossessed them from it in 70 AD.

Personally speaking, I have always had a great deal of sympathy for the tiny nation of Israel surrounded by vicious enemies, taking on all comers and winning war after war. Furthermore, modern Israel IS a western style democracy as opposed to the Islamic dictatorships of most other middle-eastern nations and therefore deserves if nothing else our moral support. We have made a covenant with Israel and in so far as they keep their end of the treaty, we are  accountable before God to support our ally. Yet, at the same time, if they commit an atrocity (such as murdering US military forces) we should not fear to hold them accountable.

An argument can even be made that by conquest, Israel has obtained land in excess of the original United Nations treaties and they have a right to keep it; much the same way that we gained land in our wars against the British, Spanish and Mexicans. Wars are fought, peace treaties are signed, and the loser usually pays with lost land. Every nation in the world has had its borders changed through wars. Hence, both the legality and the morality of that ownership must be established by international law as well as whether the reasons for the war are justifiable under God’s Law. Thus, whether Israel retains the West Bank, Golan Heights or Gaza strip or chooses to give or all of them up are matters of pragmatics, not prophecy.

Finally, Christians are often inconsistent in their support of Israel. If evangelical supporters of a divine right of Israel to her historic lands actually worked out the consequences of their view, than significant portions of the nations of Turkey, Lebanon, Syria Iraq and parts of Egypt could ALSO be claimed by Israel! God promised Abraham that all of the land from the Euphrates to the Nile would belong to his descendants (Gen 15:18)!

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates; the Kenite, and the Kenizite and Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorie and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”

It does not take a geographer to look at the atlas in the back of his Bible and compare it with a map of the modern Mid-East. Clearly, the land promised to Abraham, greatly exceeds the current boundaries of the nation established by the United Nations. Therefore, if Israel has a divine right to the land BECAUSE God promised it to them, then logically, they have a divine right to ALL the land from the Euphrates (modern day Iraq) to the West bank of the Nile (Egypt) all the way to the borders of the Hittites (which extended down from modern day Turkey, through Lebanon and parts of Syria). Historically, because of lack of faith, Israel never conquered ALL the land that God had promised to her, even under the reigns of David and Solomon. But if modern day Christians insist that the present nation state of Israel has a divine right to the land they currently occupy, then logically such people should also be supporting a policy of aggressive expansionism so that Israel can possess ALL the land that God promised to Abraham!

Yet, most Christians who write or preach on these issues simply equate the modern nation state of Israel with God’s promises, never acknowledging that those promises were ALWAYS conditional on covenantal obedience; and that her United Nations established borders were always arbitrary. Worse yet they bind the consciences of other Christian to require unconditional support for Israel or risk God’s judgment.

The modern nation of Israel was a creation of international treaties and as such has a right to self-determination, freedom from foreign invasion and security from terrorism. I have a great deal of sympathy for a tiny nation forced to balance their own national security with the constant pressures of the rest of the world; a world whose economic and military support is vital to their own national survival.

Yet, God is a God of truth and only the pursuit of truth honors Him. Pious untruths, no matter how sincerely held, cannot lead to His blessing. The assumption that the modern day state of Israel is somehow related to Biblical prophecy is a position that cannot sustain scrutiny. What God has given He CAN take away. And what He has taken away, cannot be restored, unless sinful men meet His conditions.

“If my people who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven, forgive their sins and heal their lands.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
 

The kind of internal, humanistic reformation attempted by the Religious Right has been tried before, by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536). Erasmus is credited with laying the egg that Luther hatched. While his scholastic contributions were significant, (especially his work on the Greek New Testament) he was handicapped by his own personality and presuppositions. Theology has implications. What we believe, really does affect what we do and how far we will go. Current efforts, just as was his, are doomed to failure unless we deal with the fundamental presuppositions behind the issues. While the Religious Right (like Erasmus) could criticize the excesses and abuses of our culture (or the mother church), they are neither willing nor able to take the steps necessary to bring about real reformation of Christianity or our culture. Perhaps if we remember why he failed, we will also realize why the Religious Right’s battle, though valiantly fought, is also doomed unless they return to basic Biblical principles.

Erasmus and Personality
Erasmus as a reformer cannot be separated from Erasmus as a person. His attempts at reformation were inadequate because his early background education derided scholasticism and emphasized piety and personal religion (Spinka, PG 281). Thus, religion for him was a simple, un-dogmatic thing. He disliked and distrusted theology and his own religious convictions were such that he really had nothing to die for. Un-dogmatic people make great friends (and better enemies!) but do not lead great movements. In our age, privatized, pietised religion also makes a great placebo for the stresses and trauma of modern living, but it is no source of strength to fight spiritual wars. One pastor I heard preached passionately that the gospel gave peace in a troubled age. Thus, the cross of Christ was reduced to a divine form of Diazepam (i.e. Valium), helpful for getting through trials and tribulations, but of no use in changing the world. In the same way, without a consistent worldview tied into a sound grounding of orthodox Reformed theology, the Religious Right is fighting the battle without their biggest and most effective weapon.

Likewise, Erasmus’ own personality was such that one has the impression that he was a theological dilettante; he abhorred messy controversies, had a smug, superior and supercilious attitude and one can envision him with a slight curl of distaste at those he considered his intellectual or moral inferiors. He was a brilliant scholar with little time or patience for those not on his same level. He intensely disliked unsettling things or excessive argument. He wrote in a letter “I have never liked clamor (Murray PG 72).”

Thus, his personality directly affected his whole approach to reformation. Erasmus was more than willing to criticize the scholastics and sacredotalists for their inconsistencies, absurdities and ritualistic excesses. But he does so not in a spirit of reform, but rather to humiliate. Luther protested his tactics of “…making fun of the faults and miseries of the church of Christ instead of bewailing them before God with deep sighs” (Murray PG 71). This kind of criticism was no brave act of a stalwart reformer, but merely something found acceptable to every right minded, educated person. (Murray PG 71). Erasmus stated “More is gained by well mannered modesty than by storming” (Murray PG 73)

Granted, sarcasm and ridicule have their place, even in Biblical revelation. Some things are so ridiculous that they demand ridicule. But sarcasm is no substitute for truth, and in fact has more in common with a debater’s tactic than true Biblical reformation. An old adage concerning lawyers says, “When the facts are against you, use the law. When law is against you, confuse the facts. When the law and the facts are against you, attack the person…” But Christians are not out to win a debate, but the world! And our weapons, “are not the weapons of this world, they have divine power to tear down strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ that we might make every thought captive to Christ…” (2 Cor 10:4-5). Because our God is sovereign, our job is to preach the truth. He and only He, through His own divine will, can change hearts. Winning points in a debate and winning a soul are two different things.

Erasmus Humanist Presuppositions
Erasmus was also unable to achieve significant reformation because he was a Humanist, and the Christian adjective normally applied not withstanding, his thinking was more significantly influenced by Greek humanistic philosophy than Biblical theology. In the Enchiridon “he reduces the practical duties of religion to certain ethical requirements, the first of which he defines in Platonic fashion as that of knowing oneself (Spinka, PG 287)”. Thus man need not yield to vice, he can control his passion by reason. Ignorance was to be overcome by self-mastery, scholarly endeavor and an appreciation of the classics (Spinka, PG 287).

If it is argued that the worst features of the Roman church were the results of its eventual accommodation of man-centered religion, classic Christian humanism is simply an intellectually more palatable form of the same religion! His handling of the issue of free will demonstrates that when it came to fundamental first principles, he accepted the Roman Catholic’s claim to ultimate authority over interpreting the Scriptures (Spinka, PG 292). Thus, he has no authoritative, objective stand upon which to make the fundamental types of changes needed.

Furthermore, since Erasmus began with an unbiblical view of man, and attempted to reason on natural ground, unregenerate man rejected his reformation. A quote by James Henly Thornwell seems appropriate here: “The Word of God uniformly represents man as blind and ignorant, incapable of seeing afar off, perverted in his judgment, warped in his understanding, seared in his conscience and misguided in his affections and therefore requiring a heavenly teacher and a heavenly guide at every step of his progress… ” The Religious Right, in failing to deal with the nature of Man as taught in Scripture, shows pretty pictures to blind men and plays beautiful music to those who are deaf.

In a related vein, Erasmus humanist presuppositions worked against analyzing the root problems of the excesses he so laudably critiqued. Murry states that Erasmus did not join the Lutherans because by 1524 his own criticism and scholastic endeavors had mainly cured the diseases he had written so passionately about (PG 80). Yet, one can argue that his efforts could not cure the disease, but that he was merely successful in suppressing certain symptoms. Codeine does an excellent job of suppressing the symptoms of a cough, but it does not deal with the cause (and the “cure” can be worse than the disease since codeine is an addictive narcotic…). Suppress the symptoms without dealing with the disease and the disease is likely to grow worse.

Erasmus thought that literary culture was the great weapon to be used against the inner rot of the church (Murray PG 80). Reason and education were the answers to ignorance and superstition (Spinka, PG 286). But it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Information, reason and scholastic excellence are no substitute for repentance. Thus, he is certainly within the tradition of Aquinas who believed that total depravity did not extend to the mind, but he stands outside the teachings of the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:18ff).

Finally, the humanist attempt at reformation was doomed to fail because Erasmus did not have the courage of his convictions. “For all his biting criticisms of the clergy and monks and of the whole hierarchical regime, he was not inclined to become a martyr or schismatic” (Spinka, PG 290). He ruled out breaking with the church a priori. “I have not deviated in what I have written one hair’s breath from those who agree with the Catholic Church…” (Murray PG 79). Thus whatever reformation was to come, had to come within certain proscribed limits. He could go so far, and no further.

Conclusions:
Modern attempts at reformation are doomed to failure if we wage war on the enemy’s battlefield. There is no neutrality, no common ground that the regenerate and unregenerate man can meet on to peacefully discuss their differences. Unregenerate man is in willful rebellion to his sovereign Lord and consciously suppresses the truth (Rms 1:18). It is only by divine grace that His heart can be changed, the scales fall from his eyes, and he come to understand and receive the truth. In a time of increasing hostility to the gospel, it may well be tactically advisable to push for toleration; but ultimately and finally, there is no détente between the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of Satan. If we want to see true reformation and national revival, we must abandon the intellectual rags of humanism and proclaim a fully orbed Biblical faith.

Bibliography

Douglas, J. D., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1974
Hollis, Christopher, ERASMUS, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Co., 1933
Huizinga, Johan, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation, NY, Harper and Row, NY, 1957

Works Cited
Murray, Robert H., Erasmus and Luther, Their Attitudes towards Toleration, NY, Macmillian and Co., 1920
Spinka, Matthew, Advocates of Reform, (from Wycliff to Erasmus), The Library of Christian Classics, Volume XIV

However, the question in and of itself is an interesting one; since I believe, (to paraphrase Warfield) that the Reformed faith is the purest expression ever developed of Biblical religion, just what IS the status of Arminians? Is their gospel true or false? Since even the most cursory examination of the state of modern evangelical Christianity shows a deplorable lack of understanding and acceptance of the Reformed faith where does this “average” believer stand-spiritually speaking? Are those who have a deficient understanding of the doctrine of salvation all lost heretics that ought to be condemned?

To begin the answer one must first carefully define the terms. Strictly speaking, Arminianism is the doctrine of salvation condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. Jacobus Arminius (the Latin form of Jakob Hermandszoon) had been a pastor and university professor whose attacks on certain aspects of Calvinism caused considerable division and factions within the Dutch church. After his death in 1610, his students issued the Remonstrance outlining his system.

The major points of disagreements with historic Calvinism were (1) the decree of salvation applies to all who believe in Christ and who persevere in obedience and faith, (2) Christ died for all men, not just the Elect, (3) the Holy Spirit must help men to do the things that are truly good (such as having faith in Christ for salvation (4) God’s saving grace can be resisted and refused and (5) it is possible for those who are Christians to fall from grace (cf. R.G. Clouse in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Douglas editor, pg 70). The Calvinist responded to this theology with the now famous acronym TULIP (1) Total depravity, (2) Unconditional election (3) Limited atonement (4) Irresistible grace and (5) Perseverance of the saints.

These issues were debated at the Council of Dort, with classic Calvinism essentially “winning” the theological battle and Arminianism being declared a “heresy” (a serious distortion of doctrine that goes to the heart of the faith). “Calvinism” has been the historic, orthodox view from the time of Augustine (who refuted Pelagius in the 4th century). Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists all agreed with the Dutch Calvinists and likewise condemned Arminian theology (see Appendix).

Though the issues are complex, essentially the Reformed consensus was that only God can save sinful men; Arminian doctrine taught that God only made salvation a possibility. Thus man cooperated with God in salvation; God did His part in making salvation possible, but man also had to do his part or the salvation was ineffectual. In effect, Arminianism makes good works necessary before salvation, thus denying the heart of the Christian gospel. Reformed theology sees good works as a product AFTER salvation.

Furthermore, the Arminian view, since man cooperates in his salvation, destroys any sense of assurance; how can the Arminian ever be certain of his motives and actions? Does he “really” believe the gospel or is he self-deluded? When he sins, has he sinned “too much” or “too often” and therefore lost his salvation?

I remember a self-conscious Arminian church in a community that posted incredible “conversion” figures for ten years running. But the size of the church never changed! In essence, every year, almost HALF of their congregation would repent of their sins and become “converted” all over again!

Orthodox Christianity therefore rejected the Arminian formulation as heterodox. However, in the late 18th century John Wesley and in the early 19th century Charles Finney both “won” great numbers of American and English “converts” to the Arminian position during the great revivalist periods. Even traditionally Calvinist churches often subtly changed their message, de-emphasizing or even denying certain doctrines that might interfere with their evangelistic efforts. To this day, the most common gospel preached by the average American church at least APPEARS closer to that of Arminius than of Calvin.

So, with so many “Christians” today actively denying traditional, “Calvinist” soteriology (i.e., the “doctrine of salvation”), what is their status before God? First, from the definition given above, clearly, MOST American Christians today are NOT self-consciously “Arminian” in the classic sense just as they are not self-conscious Calvinists. In fact, it could be argued that they are mostly, just confused; affirming and denying aspects of both Calvinism and Arminianism at the same time. For example, the vast majority of evangelicals avidly believe in “eternal security” something utterly opposed by classic Arminian theology. Doctrinal teaching is increasingly rare and superficial in most American churches and most churchmen are simply unconcerned about doctrinal issues. The average Christian is unable to discern the differences between the two systems.

A common response from somewhat theologically adept layman to the question of whether they are Calvinist or Arminian is, “I am a Calminian…” Such people think they are saying something witty and insightful. They refuse to identify with either of the old categories because they believe they have found “truth” by embracing both at the same time. Yet, classic Arminianism and Calvinism are mutually exclusive systems; they contradict each other and cannot be logically reconciled.

Often, when Reformed scholars critique something as “Arminian,” they are not so much saying that a position IS classic Arminianism, so much but that the fundamental presuppositions being expressed must inevitably LEAD to Arminianism if a person were to be consistent with those presuppositions. However, people are not computers and do not always reason logically and consistently from their premises. People have an annoying ability to believe two mutually contradictory things at the same time-so simply because a Christian says he believes something like “free will” does not automatically mean that he is going to be consistent with that proposition and adopt classic Arminian theology.

Secondly, in this line, there is a tendency for some “ratio-centric” Christians to insist on a consistency in doctrine that transcends even Scriptural requirements. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms is one of the best developed expressions of Biblical truth ever systematized by men; but the Bible is NOT a systematic theology text-book. God gave His revelation about Himself through historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, as well as clear didactic passages (such as the Pauline epistles). It takes time, intelligence and rigorous scholarly work to put all of that revelation together consistently. The Old Testament saints had only a dim understanding of who the Messiah would be and how He would accomplish His redemptive task; though everything revealed was in fact about Him. The New Testament itself addresses heresies, false doctrines and deficient understandings of the gospel message that were rampant in the first century church (cf. Hebs 6:1). While the Apostles corrected these misunderstandings, they did not say that the people who held them were NOT Christians simply because they did not properly understand how all the pieces fit together. Clearly people had already become Christians, were baptized and were in the church and then had to be corrected in their theology and practice.

Putting together the entirety of God’s revelation into a comprehensive and logically consistent system took over a thousand years. Clearly, there were Christians before the Westminster Assembly who were among the Elect, who did not always understand how all the wonderful promises, precepts and principles of Scripture fit together coherently. Would we deny them membership in the invisible church just because they lived in a time BEFORE godly and learned men had argued, debated and reasoned together to give us a purer, more consistent expression of the “faith once delivered?”

Thirdly, what is it that saves a man from his sins? This may seem too simple a question but surprisingly, some do not seem to grasp that how we answer THIS question will determine how we address the “Arminians” in our midst. Is a man saved because he understands and professes certain theological propositions about the nature of salvation, or is he saved by the grace of God in Christ? “False dichotomy” some will cry, but seriously, think with me for a moment; how DOES God save a man from His sins?

Well, the word of God is preached, God regenerates a sinful man’s heart, giving him faith to turn from his sins, believing that gospel and then confessing Jesus as Lord. “Ah hah!” the wily critic will respond, “but the key is that it is the WORD of God is preached; and Arminianism is not the word of God but the word of man!”

However, is that necessarily so? In Romans 10:9-10 the Apostle Paul CLEARLY writes, “…that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved…” And then in verse 13 he concludes, “…for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Now just how advanced and sophisticated a theological understanding of the gospel must a person possess to be saved? Literally, in these verses there is almost NO complicated theology involved at all; simply acknowledging Jesus as Lord and believing “in the heart” that God raised Him from the dead. There is no requirement here for a person to comprehend the subtle (though important) philosophical and theological nuances of free will, what was going on in the eternal mind of God before creation, the extent of Adam’s transgression, the noetic effect of sin, the extent of the atonement, the effects of the Holy Spirit in calling a man, the perseverance of the saints, etc. Yet how much of all these things does a person have to understand for the gospel to be effectual? Some Reformed people seem to assume that BEFORE a man could be converted, he requires the equivalent of a seminary education!

Granted, there are enormous theological implications to confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead, important implications; but at this point we are simply inquiring about how much intellectual content is required by God in order to effect a transition from death to life. And the answer is, “none!” God regenerated John the Baptizer’s heart IN HIS MOTHER’S WOMB! There are children whose hearts are regenerated in infancy. Can we not assume that some people of diminished intellect are saved by God’s grace even though their cognitive processes are seriously impaired?

The reason of course is that God decreed that His Elect would be saved; He does His work inside the unregenerate heart giving a person a new nature and a renewed mind. After “conversion” God then works through His Holy Spirit to transform that person’s entire life and thinking. However, at any one moment of time in that person’s life; how would they themselves understand their experience or how well could they articulate it to others? And if their understanding of God’s actions is less than complete, or even wrong, does it negate that work of God?

Converts to the faith carry with them much intellectual baggage from their previous life that can and often does obscure the reality of their new natures. They do not always understand what has happened to them, or how it has happened to them. In fact, depending upon their own education, native intelligence or ability to articulate complex ideas, they may be significantly limited in how they understand this work of God, let alone in being able to express it meaningfully.

Furthermore, they are handicapped by the theology of those who first shared the gospel with them. The person who preached to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for sins and was resurrected on the third day might not himself understand properly how all these things fit together into a comprehensive and consistent Biblical worldview. But the “convert” does BELIEVE that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God and does CONFESS Him as Lord; and that is all that the Bible requires for salvation. I see nothing in Scripture that says that merely because he might be confused about the process that somehow, it invalidates the work of God in his heart which gave him both the faith, and the ability to profess Christ in the first place.

Therefore for all these reasons, a person could well have a regenerate heart and possess true saving faith in Christ, YET not be accurately express that in consistent terms. To the contrary, they could well give explanations that are even contrary to Scripture because, simply speaking, they just don’t know any better.

God saves a man through a particular process, but the man so saved may misunderstand that process, misinterpret the events leading up to it or even be confused about what God has done in his heart and life. The reality of regeneration is there, but the understanding of that reality may well be limited. To affirm otherwise is to implicitly adopt some form of Gnosticism; salvation by secret knowledge, rather than the active work of God in Christ.

Saving faith in Christ is surely more than giving intellectual assent to a series of theological propositions. “Conversion” requires a regenerate heart that confesses Jesus as Lord and believes that God raised Him from the dead. Now that “confession” is again no mere intellectual formality; it is the recognition that Jesus Christ is HIS Lord; that his life is subject to King Jesus. But would not all good Calvinists argue that a man cannot do that unless God first regenerates his heart and gave him faith in the first place (1 Jn 4:15)?

“But surely, AFTER salvation, that regenerate heart will seek for truth and that truth MUST be some form of the Reformed faith?” This is of course “true” in that regenerate hearts, having been freed from slavery to sin ought to rejoice in the truth and hungrily seek after it (Jn 17:17). But there are several other considerations; first, God gave His church teachers for a reason; not all can or should teach (Jas 3:1). If Christians do not have “good” teachers, then many will never come to a full realization of the truth. “And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Paul asks in Romans 9:14 in a slightly different but still relevant context. Thus if Christians do not have shepherds who understand the truth and teach the truth, then many of them will never understand it either.

Finally, there are sins of intellect as well as of the flesh. No Reformed person would insist that simply because a man’s heart was regenerated that he would never sin again. Christians sin, because we have not yet been perfected. And the most subtle and most dangerous sins of all are sins of the mind. The entire book of Proverbs was written to teach men wisdom; clearly something we do not have by nature. Wisdom is the life-long acquisition and application of God’s unchanging moral principles built into the very fabric of creation. But men can be self-deceived, uninformed, ignorant and sometimes actually STUPID when it comes to understanding God’s wisdom. Therefore, should we not expect that some Christians whose hearts are truly regenerate, who are less than consistent in ALL areas of life, may have a wrong understanding of the process of salvation?

After all, Reformed Christians often suffer from their own sins of intellect; Paul warned specifically about arrogance coming from a greater understanding of the faith (Rms 8:1). Reformed Christians can be snide, condescending, prideful, contemptuous, and nasty towards others whose understanding does not reach their own exalted level (Rms 14:1ff). Furthermore, there are more than a few Reformed Christians who gossip, slander, backbite, brood over offences, etc., in every Reformed church. While their understanding of the faith may be superior to the average broad evangelical’s, their application is just as deficient. Isn’t it just a little hypocritical to call one person’s salvation into question because he lacks a theoretical construct that consistently deals with the Biblical data, but then turn a blind eye to our own mental and ethical failings? When reading through the New Testament, to which does the Holy Spirit give more space, the intellectual understanding of the faith, or the ethical application of the faith (1 Jn 2:29, 3:4, 6, 9, etc.)?

Granted, true, Biblical religion ought to have both sound doctrine and sound application; the presence of one does not excuse the lack of the other. But our point here is that ALL Christians fall short of the glory of God and perhaps we ought to be a little more concerned about taking logs out of our own eyes, than worrying about the splinters in other people’s eyes.

Arminianism has never saved anyone because it IS a deficient understanding of the gospel; Arminianism only makes salvation a possibility dependant on a man’s good works. Thus, in this sense, Arminianism IS a false gospel for only God can and does save sinners as a sovereign act of His eternal will. Men cannot save themselves; they are spiritually dead (Eph 2:1) and the gospel is foolishness to them (1 Cor 2:14) until He shines His light into their hearts, giving them faith (2 Cor 4:5, Eph 2:9, etc.). But the point of course is that such people may still be saved because they have called upon the name of the Lord for salvation, submitting themselves to His Lordship and believing in the depths of their being that God raised Him from the dead.

Granted, “Invite Jesus into your heart” is not the gospel and no one was ever saved by praying a “prayer” or walking down the aisle after an “invitation.” However, when the fact that Jesus Christ died for sinners is preached, and men are called to turn from their sins, receive His forgiveness and submit themselves to His Lordship, God can choose to regenerate a person’s heart giving him faith to trust in Christ. That person may well then pray the “sinner’s prayer” or “raise his hand” or whatever, but at that point it may well be that he is just making that confession that Jesus is Lord Paul talked about in Romans 10:9-10.

However, ideas do have implications; what we believe really does affect our life, and our ministry. A Christian who never grows in his understanding of the faith cannot help but be deficient in his values, his ethics and his practice of the faith. Our God is the true God (Jn 17:17), and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24). Being ignorant of the truth, or suppressing the truth or distorting the truth will have profound effects on the health of the church and the advancement of the Kingdom. There can be no doubt that one of the reasons for the present deplorable state of the church of Jesus Christ in the world today is a direct result of a mangled, confused and inconsistent understanding of the Scriptures. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly many within the broad evangelical community whose distorted understanding of the gospel is the result of unregenerate hearts (tares, if you will) who use doctrinal confusion as a means of entering the Church and keeping her from her high and holy calling.

The Reformed faith was once the almost universal consensus in America during our colonial period. Pietism, Revivalism and Arminianism were a three pronged attack from within the covenant community that undermined and destroyed Reformed orthodoxy. However, out there, in broad evangelical churches, there are those that belong to Christ, despite their theological deficiencies. Sometimes they do not know better, because no one has ever told them anything different. They hunger and thirst for righteousness, a deeper walk and spiritual meat, but have no one to feed them.

Rather than being contemptuous of such people, or insinuate that they are little better than baptized pagans, surely, those of us who have been granted greater insight ought to be trying to reach them? The great task of the Reformed church over the next generation is going to require Calvinists to get on their knees, repent of our own sins, and then in love and gentleness reach out to these brethren to bring them back to the richness of orthodox Christianity (2 Tim 2:23-24). When we reformed folk learn how to demonstrate love and service to our brethren, meeting them where they are, and then leading them to where God wants them to be, perhaps He will grant us a new reformation and true revival of religion.

God’s revelation of Himself in creation is a wondrous complexity of awesome mystery and intricacy. Each of us tries to fit the pieces of the puzzle together the best we can. Sometimes our picture of reality may be quite close to the mark. At other times, we may be totally wrong. Sometimes, once we get an idea in our heads, it can terribly difficult to shake out, no matter how wrong-headed it may be. Psychologists have noticed that human beings tend to see just what they expect to see. In one experiment, subjects were given random patterns of dots and told to look for hidden pictures. Even though in reality there were no pictures, most people still thought they found some. Even more surprisingly, a significant number of people continued to see the pictures, even when they were told no such picture existed! It is very difficult to shake free from preconceived ideas.

This trait of seeing only what we expect to see can be quite serious when it comes to Bible study. Some people are so convinced that they already KNOW what the Bible says on an issue that it can never tell them anything new. There is a tendency to read into passages exactly those meanings we expect to find (and being sinful human beings this usually means an interpretation that conveniently lets us off the hook). But if we want to grow in our faith and learn how to please and serve our Lord better, we must allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. We must learn to submit even our preconceived ideas to the authority of God’s Word.

One example of how difficult this struggle can be was my own failure to adequately interpret certain passages on baptism. For years, since I already KNEW what these passages had to mean, I simply interpreted them according to my own presuppositions. I never did ask myself whether those presuppositions were correct. I just started with my own theology and then read that theology into the passage. It was only when forced to reexamine those passages from a completely different perspective that I saw things that I had never before seen. And as a result, I had to make some very big changes in not only my understanding of baptism, but my practice as well.

I was studying Colossians 2:11-12 in my personal devotions: “And in Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without human hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Christ in baptism, in which you which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, Who raised Him from the dead…” Several things seem to leap out at me from the text. First, circumcision is here used as a symbol of regeneration. The “removal of the body of flesh” refers to the death of our old nature and the creation of our new one (see 2 Cor 5:17). The circumcision of Christ was His being “cut off” at His crucifixion. He died in our place. We are spiritually circumcised when the benefits of His death are applied to us through the death of our old nature (see Rms 6:1ff).

Now here is where the text begins to get interesting. If you leave out the qualifying material and connect the main thoughts from both verses, the passage seems to equate baptism with circumcision; i.e., “you were also circumcised… having been buried with Christ in baptism.” Thus, our circumcision occurred at baptism. But for a Baptist, this was a little hard to swallow. If this baptism refers to water baptism then one would only experience regeneration when one received water baptism. Thus, salvation would not be of grace, but would also require a work (i.e., baptism). In fact, this is exactly what baptismal regeneration teaches; that one is not saved unless one is baptized.

But since salvation is not a result of works, but according to God’s grace, the baptism here cannot refer to water baptism. It must refer to some other baptism. What other baptism is there? Ah ha! The only other baptism is Spirit baptism. Charismatics and Pentecostals make Spirit baptism an unusual event that some, but not all believers experience. But Spirit baptism is simply another way of figuratively speaking about regeneration. We are baptized into Christ (Rms 6:3) when we become Christians. Thus Spirit baptism and circumcision are both figurative ways of speaking about the same event; regeneration.

Now it begins to get sticky. If water baptism is a symbol of Holy Spirit baptism and both are symbols of regeneration then that would lend support to the Covenant theology doctrine that equates Old Testament circumcision with New Testament Baptism. The Old Testament was the shadow, the New Testament the fulfillment. Circumcision foreshadowed the penalty of sin (i.e., being cut off, death) and the willingness of the Messiah to bear that penalty for us. Now that the Messiah has come and has borne that penalty, it is no longer appropriate for us to bear the sign of the old covenant.

For example, the Old Testament obliges God’s people to celebrate Passover in remembrance of the Lord’s deliverance from the tyranny of Egypt. Yet Passover itself is but a shadow of the Lord’s own first-born Lamb suffering and dying for His people. Now that Christ has come, we no longer celebrate Passover but the Lord’s Supper instead. The simple meal of wine and bread is the new symbol of the Lord’s deliverance of His people.

Thus in the same way, now that the Messiah has come, it is no longer proper to use circumcision as a symbol of entrance into the covenant. We have a new symbol, baptism. In the Old Testament, the promise of the fullness of the Spirit was yet future. Now it is a reality. When the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost, He entered into human hearts, converting dead fleshly beings into spiritually alive new creations (2 Cor 5:17). Thus, water baptism is a replacement for circumcision.

Now if this is true, then the question arises, to whom then should this symbol be applied? Covenant theology insists that God deals with peoples, not just individuals. Covenantal theology teaches that God is pleased to work within families. Peter said on the day of Pentecost that the promise of regeneration and participation in God’s divine family were “for you and your children and for… as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself… (Acts 2:39).”

In the Old Covenant, the symbol of participation in the covenant (i.e., circumcision) was applied to every male child on the eighth day. This did not mean that every individual Hebrew child was saved, only that the child was included in the covenant community. If the child grew up and rejected the covenant, he was “cut off” and the symbol of blessing became a symbol of cursing. Jesus said, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” The Jews paid a heavy price for their apostasy and rebellion. The mark of the Covenant could either be a blessing or a curse depending upon whether it was followed up by faith.

Thus, I came to see that in the same way, Baptism as a symbol should be applied to the children of believing members of the church. God’s covenant is not just for individuals, but for families as well. The sign of the covenant is a promise by God that He will remain faithful to His Word. No, it does not mean that every baptized infant is saved (just as no Baptist would ever say that every person who professes faith and is baptized is necessarily saved).

The significance of this came home to me when I was pastoring a Baptist church some years ago. When Baptist children hit their early teen years, usually some sort of “revival” breaks out in the youth group and most of the teens will get “saved” in a fairly short period of time. They then come forward for baptism. In this case, as a number of young people were baptized, one teenage girl from a believing family also came forward. The girl though sweet in spirit suffered from emotional and learning difficulties. We worked with her for weeks, catechizing and instructing and going over the plan of salvation. No matter how hard we tried, she was never able to verbalize an unprompted, coherent confession of faith. Without that confession, though, as a conscientious Baptist Pastor, I was unable to baptize her, which caused her, her family and a number of others in the church a great deal of heartburn. Couldn’t I just bend the rules a little bit?

No, I could not. But the dilemma she faced would not go away. What was her status before God? Is she always to be excluded from the blessings of the Covenant because she had learning disabilities? What about all those people who lack the mental or physical capacity to profess faith? Are they God’s rejects? What is their relationship to the Church? I didn’t have an answer then.

Now though I see that God works in families. That young girl did have a portion in the Covenant and should have been baptized as a child. It is good, right and proper that the children of believing parents be given the sign of blessing. Now 1 Corinthians 7:14 makes sense: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” This verse is very hard to understand from a Baptist’s perspective, but makes perfect sense to those who hold to Covenant baptism. The children of even one believing parent are holy; not that they are not sinners by nature, but rather holy in the sense of being under the blessings of the Covenant. Covenant children have believing parents who teach them God’s law and commandments and provide models of Christ-like love and character. They are under the care of a Christian church that helps nurture and encourage them. They grow up hearing the gospel as a normal part of their lives.

Does this mean that all Covenant children are saved? Not necessarily, their baptism is to be a constant reminder that they have been given great blessings. But God must still work in their hearts, granting repentance, regenerating their hearts and giving them saving faith. If they turn away and reject these blessings, their condemnation, if possible, is worse than that of a heathen child.

“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace. For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God… (Hebs 10:26ff)”

These verses were very difficult to understand to one steeped in the doctrines of eternal security. But when I realized that they probably refer to Covenant children who reject their Lord, they make perfect sense. Now this is both a promise and a dire warning of taking the blessings of the Covenant too lightly.

Thus, baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of participation in the New Covenant and my children have a portion in God’s great and wondrous salvation! I have a responsibility to teach, train, disciple and nurture my children. By God’s grace, I can expect my children to come to saving faith at a very young age. I can expect to see the results of a regenerate heart even in toddlers. While all children are conceived in iniquity and have a sinful nature, I expect our gracious Lord to remember His covenant, grant them repentance and give them saving faith. Thus I treat my children as believers who need to be loved and taught our holy religion, not as pagan interlopers in my home. And, as each of my children has come to the age of reason, each has been able to give a credible testimony of saving faith in Christ and evidence of a regenerate heart. God keeps His Covenant!

Of course, there is much more to Covenant baptism than what this one essay can detail. But it lays down the foundation for learning to see things in Scripture that our experiences have blinded us to. God is sovereign. He has made a covenant with His people. Baptism is the sign of that covenant and replaces circumcision. Our children have a portion in that covenant. And therefore, they have the right of baptism.

A strong argument can be made that the innate desire for “secret” knowledge goes right back to the beginning of time to the Garden of Eden. Eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit because she believed the Tempter’s lie that HIS “secret” knowledge of God’s plans was superior to God’s own revelation. The serpent first told her that the common knowledge was inaccurate (God’s revelation was wrong and self-serving) and instead offered to initiate her into “new” secret knowledge never before revealed (the fruit would make her as God). She ate, Adam followed her example, and the world was cursed with sin.

Ever since that time, there have always been at heart, two rival religions; the worship and service of the One True God, revealed by Him in His abiding Word, and Gnosticism. While technically speaking, Gnosticism refers to a Christian heresy of the Second Century which was an amalgam of Christianity, various pagan religious rituals, and Greek philosophy; ALL false religions at heart are essentially Gnostic. The essence of Gnosticism is that salvation is by secret, hidden knowledge; knowledge that one must be initiated into by adepts, mystics, prophets, or elites. The details of that knowledge may change from religion to religion and from culture to culture, but the essence is always salvation requires that secret knowledge. Furthermore that “secret” knowledge is always superior to that which God revealed in Scripture.

In the ancient pagan world, the Sphinx was a heathen perversion of the Guardian Angel protecting the Garden of Eden from sinful men. The Sphinx required a person to successfully answer its riddles before allowing a traveler to pass; fail to answer correctly and you were eaten. But, if you had the RIGHT, secret knowledge, then you could answer the riddle and achieve “salvation” (see Gary North’s essay in Moses and Pharaoh). Ancient pagan religions taught some sort of ascending series of circles, each requiring mastering some “secret” knowledge before admittance to the next level. In more primitive times, when the sheer hard work of making a living meant that few men ever had the time to master the “gnosis,” the average person had to be content with allowing a priest to wield that knowledge in his name. The priest was assumed to have mastered the various levels and therefore could act as a go-between. But within the priesthood itself, there were ascending levels where ever more arcane and esoteric “knowledge” was imparted. Sometimes the “real” religion might be utterly different than the one offered for “public” consumption; as only the “inner circle” knew the “truth.”

Gnostic religion was and is ultimately about power. Adam and Eve were tempted with the idea that they could become gods in their own right. Not satisfied to rule God’s creation on HIS terms, the essence of all human sin is the attempt to obtain power on Man’s terms. Gnostic religion therefore always has as its foundation the promise that IF you can master THIS secret knowledge, then YOU can have power either in this life, or the next. Now, the “power” offered may be different for different religions; some men might want spiritual power, others may desire economic political or social power, and some might be enticed by the promise of sexual “freedom;” but since the Dominion Mandate of Genesis 1:28 is inscribed within the very nature of our beings, sinful men always seek unlawful power for unlawful purposes.

Magic and sorcery are based firmly on the same commitment to “gnosis” or “secret knowledge” as a means of obtaining powers beyond the ken of ordinary men. People believed such power was possible, though difficult to obtain, and many were literally willing to sell their souls for the hope of acquiring it. The modern pursuit of ESP is the same old search for mystic power simply wrapped up in new “scientific” language. The Star Wars series with its emphasis on “The Force” is really just another example of “Gnosticism.” The “Force” is ancient knowledge that offers mystical power to those who can grasp its “secrets.”

In one sense, knowledge IS power; what you know affects what you can do. Thus it is hardly surprising that the hunger for “gnosis” (Greek for “knowledge”) is associated with a desire for power. However, acquiring power implicitly puts one at risk of OTHER men who also seek knowledge and power. Hence, men from antiquity have formed secret societies to protect THEIR knowledge and advance THEIR power. Paganism wanted a monopoly of religious power and therefore shared its “secrets” only with those who would advance their goals. Medieval craftsmen wanted to restrict access to their knowledge of carpentry, masonry, mercantile trade, etc., and so formed “secret” guilds. As the Reformation started in northern Europe, the Renaissance was occurring in Italy which coincided with the greatest upsurge of occult activity in Western history.

The very word “occult” means “hidden” and therefore has a direct relationship to Gnosticism. For some of the Humanists, the “hidden” knowledge was ancient Greek philosophy, architecture and sculpture. For many others though, it was an attempt to obtain occult power through alchemy, sorcery and magic; and sometimes the two goals were intermingled. To advance their goals (and stay clear of the Inquisition), many of these men formed various secret groups to study and develop their “knowledge.” By the time of the Enlightenment, many of these societies were well established all across Europe. Part of their foundational belief was that Man needed to “evolve” usually by descending into the original chaos of creation as the first step in “recreating” himself in his own image.

Thus, revolutionary ideology, both political and social became a necessary consequence of their occult activity; all of the modern revolutionary movements beginning with the French Revolution, Marxism, Anarchism, etc. began in secret societies that had adopted some form of Gnosticism and occultism (see “Fire in the Minds of Men”). Revolution was seen as a way of displacing the old order by a descent into political and social chaos so that a new world order could be built on its ashes. Such secret societies were often also committed to sexual promiscuity as well; the “old” order of monogamy and fidelity in the family had to be destroyed to make room for the “new” order designed by men. Now how philosophically consistent these various adherents were with these premises, and how many joined for the promise of free sex (or the hope of being on the “inside”) is hard to determine; but there can be no question that the much of the political and social turmoil of the modern world arose directly from these occult societies.

These secret societies, both on the political left and political right, were convinced of the need of “enlightenment” or “illumination” as the path to the next stage of human evolution. Contrary to what is taught in most modern universities, evolutionary theory was not something new with Darwin, but rather simply the public acceptance of the most ancient of all Gnostic beliefs; Man ascending from chaos to god-hood through secret knowledge. Darwin’s major contribution was to make evolutionary theory acceptable to the Materialists of the 19th century by positing a non-supernatural mechanism by which this evolution occurred (i.e., natural selection). It is interesting to note that though Darwin’s theory has been repudiated by many of the best minds in the scientific community (i.e., natural selection does not seem to actually work the way Darwin said it did and some other mechanism must account for the diversity of species), yet his underlying evolutionary premises have been accepted as religious dogma and taught to every generation of students since (See “Darwin’s Black Box”).

However, materialist evolutionary theory is simply the public expression of the most basic Gnostic belief; all secret societies allow SOME of their doctrines to become public; how else to intrigue new members? However, like the old “bait and switch” technique used by every grocery store and car salesman (where you offer one thing to get the public into the door, only to sell them something more expensive once they are inside), Gnosticism has another whole hidden agenda it really wants people to buy; the necessity of Man’s continued ascendance into the divine. In the modern world, Science Fiction is the slightly disreputable cousin to Scientism and Materialism-however, the best “Sci-Fi” writers have earned degrees in the physical sciences. One only has to read a sampling of their work to see the ancient Gnostic hope revived and refashioned for the modern world The very popular “Matrix” movies are Gnostic to the core; life as we know it is a fantasy-through “enlightenment” the hero escapes the illusion and literally becomes a “god.”

Perhaps the best known “secret” society today is the Masons. Their public persona is of a fraternal organization of middle-aged men who wear funny hats and driving silly little cars in parades to raise money for children’s hospitals; what could POSSIBLY be wrong with that? But the essence of Masonic teaching is classic Gnosticism. Hooded initiates are asked, “What is your greatest hunger” to which they are to respond “light!” The Masonic lodge then requires the new member to memorize the rituals of the society to advance from one level to the next; each step giving the individual more of the “secret” knowledge. Part of that secret knowledge, taught only to the highest levels, is that despite what they tell the world, (or their initiates) THEIR God is really the TRUE God; Christians, Jews, Muslims and even ancient Egyptians or Canaanites all only have only a piece of the picture. The Masonic God is a composite of Jehovah, Baal and Osirus (revealed in the “secret” hidden knowledge of God’s “true” name that only THEY know).

The fact that many sincere, well meaning Christians have been members of the Masonic lodge, or that Masons have done many good works (something in their “theology” that is necessary for “salvation”) does not detract from their essential Gnostic presuppositions. In early American history, a significant number of the Founding Fathers were either Masons, or closely associated with Masons. Records indicate that some Founding Fathers met together for Lodge Meetings, and then afterwards, over beer in the pub downstairs, would discuss revolutionary politics. In the 19th century, so many influential men were Masons that it certainly appeared as if there was a “conspiracy” that the United States was being controlled from “behind the scenes.”

It is seriously doubtful that many of these men were self-consciously Gnostic; whether the lodges influenced the men, or the men used the lodges as a means of spreading their own ideas is hard in retrospect to determine. Furthermore, there is a tendency for men to interpret new ideas through their own presuppositions. Undoubtedly, many of the Masons simply saw their society as a fraternal organization devoted to camaraderie and good works. However, SOME of those men knew exactly what they were teaching, and doing.

In certain circles today, there has been widespread speculation that there are secret societies which control world events. The “Illuminati” (or “the enlightened ones”) was an actual secret society started by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria in 1776. However, supposedly, this was only the public appearance of a much more ancient secret society that goes back all the way to the dawn of time. Depending upon which conspiracy theorist one reads the “real” origin of the “Illuminati” lies in the Antediluvian island of Atlantis, where supposedly, their “secret” knowledge allowed them unprecedented power over the rest of the world. After the fall of Atlantis (to war, revolution, divine judgment-take your pick) some of the survivors kept the ancient knowledge alive, though secret, carefully initiating new members who would work together to bring back the wonders of the ancient world. Thus from the beginning of “history” this secret group, with its mystical powers has been quietly working behind the scenes, orchestrating world events in order to bring about their own ends.

The present day “Illuminati” is supposedly governed by a secret council who dictate economic, social and political policies for their own benefit, directing the course of world events. Their ultimate goal is universal “enlightenment” or illumination; but at the present time the world is not yet ready for all the ancient mysteries. They recruit the best and brightest young men in colleges and universities by having them join certain secret societies. Those deemed suitable, are then initiated further into the “conspiracy.”

Impediments to the goals of the “Illuminati” includes nationalism, private property, the family, and Christianity, since all these things give men allegiances to things other than the “secret” knowledge the Illuminati possess. Therefore, they stage manage certain events to undermine the Republic, encourage the United Nations and promote promiscuity. Both Communism and Fascism were “Illuminati” plots designed to facilitate the New World Order. Once men no longer trust their national governments, or the family, they will be ready for “illumination.”

And what is the key doctrine of the “Illuminati?” Why, that Man is God! Of course, this means that at the present time, some men are more “God” than other men and therefore such men have the “right” to exercise dominion in any way that seems good to them. Gnosticism in any form has always seen power as the defining characteristic of God, power they want for themselves.

Does the “Illuminati” actually exist today? Historically, the “movement” was suppressed in Europe but many insist that it simply went “underground” where it has been working ever since. Yet to even ask the question today is to risk being branded a paranoid conspiracy nut (see the movie, “Conspiracy Theory” with Mel Gibson). However, the answer of whether some such group as the “Illuminati” continues to survive of course must be that no one REALLY knows; if it really IS a secret society, then by definition, its membership, goals, and actual influence is, well, secret! There are so many books, and web-sites available that discuss the existence of the “Illuminati” that surely, if they do exist, they have the worst kept secret in history! But several things argue convincingly against the existence of the “Illuminati” or any other such organization which pretends to control human destiny.

First, clearly, as we have seen, secret societies and conspiracies have always and will always exist; Psalm 2 acknowledges the existence of conspiracies. One might even call the Adversary’s temptation of Eve in the Garden the FIRST conspiracy; i.e., the two met together and plotted to overturn God’s rule. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Adversary conspired with other angels to rebel against God. After the Great Flood, men engaged in an “open” conspiracy to build the tower of Babel, despite God’s commands to spread throughout the earth. Babel would give all the peoples of the world a religious and cultural center, therefore concentrating their power. And as we have argued, Gnosticism in various forms has formed secret societies throughout history, sometimes supported even as the State religion.

The real question though is there one, over-arching conspiratorial group that exercises power over human affairs from behind the scene? Besides the incredibility of believing in the history of the mythical Atlantis, (and not everyone who accepts the existence of the “Illuminati” accepts the Atlantis connection), this view implicitly grants to men, the nature of God. Only God is sovereign. Psalm 2 ought to be memorized by every Christian; though Kings and Princes conspire together to take a stand against God and His Anointed, God’s response is to laugh at them. What if all the earthworms in the world conspired against you; how concerned would you be? It is laughable that sinful, puny men can think they can overthrow God. God’s will, will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Everything that happens on earth DOES happen for a reason, wars, invasions, economic disasters, social engineering, etc., but the reason is that God wants it to happen. While we may not understand how that providence is working out in time and space, the Christian MUST trust that God knows what He is doing (Rms 8:28-29).

Only God can and does declare the end from the beginning and therefore only He can control human destiny. Just think about all the things in the world that a human group would have to understand and coordinate for a worldwide conspiracy to actually work and clearly; only God has the mind to understand all these things, let alone the power to bring His will about. Thus, to fear international conspiracies is to implicitly ascribe omniscience and omnipotence to limited men. While undoubtedly there are still various secret “societies” existing today, they do not and cannot have the ability to actually implement their schemes-to assume so is to accept that Man can become God!

Furthermore, there is a difference between a conspiracy and synchronicity; i.e., if many men share the same ideas and beliefs, they will tend to act in the same sort of ways. Therefore, it could APPEAR as if their actions are being orchestrated from “behind the scenes” where in reality they are simply going about their normal day to day activities acting consistently with their fundamental presuppositions. For example, say that you saw a group of people suddenly all lining up outside a certain place at a certain time and start chatting together; it COULD be that these people have all gotten together by prior agreement (thus a conspiracy, albeit an innocent one). Or it COULD be that the restaurant they are meeting at has a luncheon special that has become popular and the same people, liking the same kind of food have gotten to know each other as they eat in the same place day after day.

The fact that there is a widespread consensus at university campuses on what is or is not “politically correct” COULD be the result of a self-conscious conspiracy from some unnamed group wanting to indoctrinate the next generation; or it COULD be that since all the professors attended the same graduate schools where the same material was taught are simply passing on those same ideas to the next generation. The fact that both the Democrats and Republicans both seem hell bent to destroy our nation COULD be a vast, “secret” conspiracy; or it could be that both have adopted certain fundamental presuppositions about government that means they essentially act the same way.

While paranoid conspiracy schemes are often associated with the political right, the Radical Left has its own versions; remember Hillary Clinton’s famous “vast, rightwing conspiracy” remark? The late R. J. Rushdoony was often accused of being the “spider at the center of the Religious Right” conspiracy by certain leftist and humanist groups. Now for anyone who actually knew the man, such a thought was beyond ridiculous. Granted, in both cases, it COULD seem to outsiders that a conspiracy consisted because people tended to act in concert. In reality, there was simply synchronicity between diverse groups of people with no formal association with each other. But because they held to certain core beliefs, when they acted on those beliefs (or reacted to events in the broader culture) then therefore it might look as if their actions were coordinated by some “hidden” hand.

Thirdly, the worldwide conspiracy view misses the significance of God’s actions at the tower of Babel, as well as the nature of sinful men. Without Christ, all men are tyrants, wanting to exercise unlawful power over others; and therefore in Hobbe’s terms, men in their natural state are all at war with one another. Ungodly power is always established from the top down in blasphemous imitation of God’s sovereignty. But just as God confounded the men at Babel, so He has confounded men throughout history. No empire has ever conquered or controlled the entire earth. We mentioned earlier that to control the entire world would require the mind and power of God; but it also requires the will of God. God clearly set a precedent at Babel that sinful men would not be given the opportunity to impose their version of a “One World Order.” Therefore, the Masons, the Skull and Bones Society, the Council on Foreign Relations or the Tri-lateral Commission might well have men in them who desire to impose their views on the world, but God will confound them.

Furthermore, because unregenerate hearts are at war with God, then they will be at war with one another; competing claims to divinity inevitably leads to conflict as each man seeks to impose HIS will on others. Socialist, Marxist or Fascist tyrannies have ALWAYS suffered or fallen from internal warfare by competing men who want exclusive power. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and others were all victims of assassination attempts (the degree of success may never be known; while Hitler apparently survived the attempts against his own life by his generals, if the war had continued, SOMEONE would have eventually gotten to him. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that both Lenin and Stalin were actually killed by rivals).

Thus the very idea that ONE group has managed to obtain secret power and maintain a unity of purpose over centuries goes against what we know to be human nature. If in fact there is any continuity between the Masons, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Order of Assassins, etc., it is more likely that later groups self-consciously “stole” the history from earlier groups in order to give their movement some “credibility.” For example, it is hardly likely that the Masons are actually direct lineal descendants of the builders of Solomon’s Temple as they claim. Their roots are most likely in the mason’s guilds of the medieval world, which were “secret” societies; but societies developed to protect the secrets of their craft and therefore maintain a monopoly on certain goods and services.

However, the modern Masonic movement began in the 18th century and simply adopted some of those earlier rituals and practices, sprinkled it liberally with Christianity (since that was the dominant religion of the West) and added their own unique touches. The claims of antiquity simply make their new society appear more ancient, more “mysterious” and therefore appeals to the Gnostic tendencies in all men. Thus there is no real connection between various groups, OTHER than synchronicity of belief; the original false religion of Gnosticism.

Why do so many people, Christians included though, believe in the “Illuminati” or other such groups? There are a number of potential answers, all or some of which might be true at the same time. First, there is the tendency amongst all men to seek simple answers to complex questions. The world is still a mysterious place and no one understands why things work out the way they do. For many Christians, simply trusting God is enough of an answer to get them through the turmoil and struggle of life. However, for others, it is psychologically appealing to find ONE group responsible for ALL the world’s problems.

Furthermore, this “solution” conveniently lets us off the hook to actually do anything! Never underestimate the human capacity to shift the blame and flee from responsibility. From the time of Adam in the Garden, (who first blamed Eve, then God for his eating the forbidden fruit), sinful men seek to escape the consequences of their actions. By postulating some group such as the “Illuminati” men can blame the world’s problem on something beyond their control. Hitler blamed the Jews, the Marxists blamed the rich, and some blame the “Illuminati.”

It is interesting to note that right wing conspiracy theorists never seem to actually DO anything except try to convince other men of the existence of the conspiracy! It’s almost as if they believe that once everyone “knows” about the conspiracy, the conspiracy will go away? Marxist societies started in Europe and conspired in “secret” to take over political and social power. Yet, did exposing the existence of such societies stop them? Then why should exposing the “Illuminati” supposedly stop THEM?

The answer of course is that the very act of exposure gives the conspiracy enthusiast the feeling that he is actually DOING something. Not only does this belief offer a simplistic explanation for complex events, but also gives a person the illusion of power. Placebos can often work as well as an FDA approved drug, IF the person taking it believes it will. In the same way, conspiracy theorists find much comfort in “exposing” the latest actions of the “New World Order” because for them, it gives them the psychological illusion of power.

Of course, the underlying problem is that if we want social stability, economic prosperity, political liberty and security, then Christians must live godly lives in the world, submitting every area to King Jesus. We must love our wives and be committed to their sanctification. We must raise godly, virtuous children who are not conformed to the standards of this world. We have to work diligently and conscientiously at our callings. We have to live frugally and wisely. We have to become involved in the political process and sometimes make tough decisions between issues that are not always as black and white as we would like. In short, REAL reformation of society takes a lot of hard work; work which we just would rather not do.

Therefore, to this day, the vast majority of Christians still send their children to public schools where they are indoctrinated into various forms of humanism, and then wonder why they grow up to reject the faith. Far too many marriages are shallow shams, wherein both husband and wife refuse to fulfill their Biblical roles. Men do not work and they spend too much on things they cannot afford. They willingly trade their liberty for the promise of security from the “nanny state.” No, it is a LOT easier “exposing” the “conspiracies” rather than admitting it is our own sin that is causing the problem; or doing the hard work of getting our lives in order.

In fact, the very appeal of being “in the know” about the vast “conspiracies” out there, actually feeds the same innate hunger for “secret knowledge” of all false religion! They are on the “inside” knowing things about the “real” world that the “poor dumb masses” do not even suspect! The irony here is rich; those who are committed to “exposing” the “Illuminati” are in fact victims of the very same Gnosticism that is the core of their teaching!

Finally, Gnosticism is implicit in even the modern day Church; we do not have to look to a “hidden” conspiracy because the assumptions are prevalent within the covenant community. Some may find the following analysis offensive, but the Christian gospel has often been expressed in the modern world strongly resembles another variation of Gnosticism. When we see evangelism as essentially getting men to pray a prayer as a response to initiating them in the “secret” knowledge of Jesus, we are in danger of replacing the gospel with Gnosticism. The Biblical gospel is not based just on “knowledge” that Jesus died for one’s sins but rather on the PUBLIC confession that “Jesus is Lord” (Rms 10:9-10). That “confession” is more than a simple “belief” in something; after all, the demons believe, and tremble! But rather it is the day by day outworking of that confession in subduing every area of life to the Lordship of Christ that is the essence of the gospel. This is not salvation by works, (for by grace we are saved); Jesus fully and completely fulfilled all the righteous requirements of God’s perfect Law on our behalf and died for all our transgressions of it. We are judicially declared “Not Guilty” because of Christ, but IF Jesus IS Lord, and we confess that, THEN it MUST make a difference in our lives.

However, the requirement that true saving faith results in a changed life is largely ignored by the average evangelical; they want to believe that a mental assent to some theological proposition is the same as salvation. They want assurance that by having the “knowledge” of Jesus, they can live their own lives, on their own terms. Implicitly they have adopted Gnosticism that says salvation is by KNOWLEDGE. The Lordship controversy that continues to rage in various churches is remarkable; can you have Jesus as savior without having Him as Lord? The Apostles would simply shake their heads in dismay at such a question.

Yet some in Reformed churches are not all that far from their broad evangelical brothers. The constant debate regarding the Law of God continues to rip churches and fellowships apart. To say that God must be obeyed as the outworking of regeneration is seen by some as “legalism.” There are some “respectable” academics and scholars who insist that the average Christian is not ready or able to handle the “secret” knowledge that is being taught in seminaries (I was told exactly this in a first year seminary class). The “secret” knowledge might be the seminary’s adoption of Higher Criticism, or the Framework Hypothesis-or something else; either way only the “enlightened” can possess this knowledge. It must be hidden from the average man in the pews, lest he discover that the seminary has abandoned the faith he believes in and therefore stops writing those support checks.

Gnosticism has always been with us in various forms, and will continue to plague the people of God until, “every knee shall bow and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Until that day, SOME men will form secret societies and conspire together for unlawful power. Some of them will actually achieve SOME measure of unlawful power in this life. But Christians need not fear the conspiratorial actions of these sinful men because God alone is in control, scoffing at their futile attempts and warns them to “Do homage to the Son lest He become angry and you perish in the way. For His wrath may soon become kindled…”Psa 2:12

Introduction

Since the time of the Enlightenment, the role of human reason has become paramount in Western thinking. Though initially based on the out-workings of a thousand years of Christian presuppositions, modern man discovered that reason had given him significant power over the material universe. Reason, gave birth to Science and Technology, the twin demigods of autonomous man. Science and Technology, gave man the illusion that he could exist without reference to the supernatural, especially a supernatural God. As the boundaries of human knowledge expanded, more and more of human life could be safely categorized into the safe, materialistic constructs of 19th century rationalism. If not dead, at least, to modern man, God was no longer relevant.

The response of the Church to the devastating influence of scientific materialism was three fold. Some Christians simply capitulated, in the form of theological liberalism (wherein the Church says nothing to modern man, that he is not already saying to himself). Others, found solace in theological irrelevance, as the fundamentalists retreated from every area of life except the personal and subjective aspects of pietistic Christianity. Finally, broad evangelicalism gave in to compromise and acculturation, retaining a semblance of theological orthodoxy, but adopting materialist categories while slowly adapting the faith to prevailing norms.

As a result, the modern Christian finds himself under constant, subtle pressure to conform to humanistic and materialistic standards. In attempting to defend the historic Christian faith, much of the Church has implicitly borrowed philosophical categories from the humanists, and then watched in horror as the humanist captured the universities, seminaries, media, politics, education and culture. Even such stalwart defenders of the faith as B. B. Warfield, compromised on evolution, textual criticism and apologetics simply because he borrowed the thought forms of logical positivism so prevalent in his day. Warfield lost Princeton, the Presbyterians lost their church, and America entered into a theological dark age.

A resurgent Christian faith must return to basics to understand where we went wrong, and why, before something new can be built. There is a time for planting, and a time for reaping, but also a time to break up the soil. One significant philosophical failure that caused the Christian faith to lose its power and effectiveness was a sub-Biblical view of human reason and apologetics. This brief essay is an introduction to the fundamental approach of how the consistent Christian worldview is to be applied in one of the most basic areas, defending the faith against the attacks of her adversaries.

The Role of Apologetics

The term “apologetics” comes from a compound Greek word made up from “apo” meaning for and “logos” meaning “a word.” It thus literally means “a word for” and in Koine Greek was a legal term referring to a formal, courtroom speech given in defense of something 1. Over time, it came to have a specific contextual meaning within the Christian community. In the early Church, apologetics concerned itself with showing the pagan Roman Empire that Christians did not eat babies rescued from exposure (why else would people want to save unwanted children?), drink blood during communion, or indulge in sexual orgies during the Love Feast. Essentially, the task of apologetics was to defend the Church against the attacks of her adversaries.

As time, and the accusations against Christianity changed, the role and even the purpose of apologetics changed as well. In both the early and medieval church, apologetics was synthesized with Greek philosophy with Plato being said to be “God’s Moses to the Greeks.8″ The influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity cannot be over-estimated. In attempting to deal with a radical worldview opposed to Biblical presuppositions, there has always been a tendency within the Church to adjust herself to the current “zeitgeist” of the age. Hence some modern writers insist that apologetics is the systematic working out and presentation of intellectual, scientific and philosophical arguments for the credibility of the Christian faith.2″ They thus already have conceded considerable ground to the enemy, for they have chosen “credibility” as the goal. Apologetics thus is denigrated to a plea for “equal time” in the market place of ideas with the assumption that a neutral, objective audience will carefully and impartially weigh the evidence and reason to the “correct” conclusion regarding Jesus Christ.

For others, apologetics is almost synonymous with Christian philosophy3. And again, the methodology, terminology, goals and limitations of godless philosophy are borrowed, “integrated” into Christianity, and the faith compromised. For some the role of reason is paramount4 while for others it is an affront to faith.5 For some apologetics must concern itself purely with philosophy and philosophical issues, while for others it is simply a sub-division of theology.6 In modern times, those in the liberal and neo-orthodox camps as represented by Barth, Brunner, Bultman and Tillich have abandoned any systematic defense of the faith since they have already given up on the faith itself!9

Apologetics and Christian Philosophy

In order to avoid confusion, apologetics and philosophy can and must be differentiated. In medieval thought, when theology was still the queen of the sciences, apologetics was that branch of theology concerned with defending the faith while philosophy was concerned with the development of a consistent Christian world view10, albeit it a worldview tainted by Greek philosophy. Today apologetics and philosophy often overlap because theology has been dethroned and philosophy has assumed the burden for providing ultimate meaning, a burden she does not bear easily or successfully. Therefore, the major intellectual attacks come from the philosophical implications of materialism and humanism.

A truly Christian philosophy, especially in the area of epistemology (how we know what we know) is necessary to provide an essential foundation for the apologist’s work. The apologist cannot function unless he understands and operates within a consistent, Biblical worldview. Thus in this sense, Christian philosophy should provide the tools and methodology for apologetics, while the apologist uses the tools to defend the faith.

Yet, Christian philosophy itself can begin only after the theologian has done his work, exegeting the Scriptures and arriving at conclusions regarding the over-arching truths of the Bible. It can be argued that the tools the theologian uses are the ones the philosophers gives him; e.g., a theory of knowledge, linguistic analysis, etc., 11. However, without the theologian, the philosopher has no way to verify his theories of knowledge. The philosopher begins his work with certain assumptions, assumptions that cannot stand independently of the existence and attributes of the Living God. Hence, what presuppositions does the philosopher brings to bear on any question, where do those presuppositions come from, and what makes them valid? What is knowledge? Is true communication possible? If so, how so?

The consistent Biblical theologian must answer that we know, because God knows. God is triune, and has eternal fellowship within the members of the Godhead. Thus, there is real communication possible and real content to be communicated, because of the unchanging nature of God Himself. God has revealed Himself through Scripture, hence knowledge, relationships and communications are all possible because of the very nature of God12. Without the theologian’s work, the philosopher has no intellectual foundation on which to build and extrapolate from. This argument is indicative of the fundamental problem facing Christian apologetics. Where do we begin? What assumptions are we making regardless of which side we choose?

It can be argued, that the philosopher’s main task, is to take the eternal, unchanging principles of God’s infallible and authoritative word and apply them to form a consistent, Biblical world view. He must show how the Scriptures apply in every area of human endeavor such as art, science, language, culture, etc.13 Instead, modern Christian philosophy is often conspicuous by its absence. It offers little except the warmed over dregs of the latest, discarded, humanist fad. “Phileo Sophia,” the love of wisdom, has become the love of man’s wisdom, no matter how depraved, bankrupt or destructive to the Faith.

The Task of Apologetics:

Apologetics must defend as true, what the theologian reveals from Scripture.14 The Apostle Peter sates that we must give a “word for” the hope that is within us. In context, that hope was the resurrection. Greek philosophy, and the Gnostic doctrines that grew from it, saw an irreconcilable difference between flesh and spirit. God was spirit, and therefore anything spiritual was considered superior. Humans left this material world behind to become spiritual beings (and if good enough, enjoyed the spiritual pleasures of the Elysian Fields).

Christianity on the other hand taught that Christ had risen from the dead, a resurrection that in Greek thought was both unnecessary and counter-productive (cf. Acts 17:32). Peter’s call then is to do more than simply defend the resurrection, but also the very reasons why the resurrection was important. Hence, it required an attack on the basic working presuppositions of the pagan worldview. The Greek concept of Spirit Vs. Matter was simply wrong, and the Christian is required to confront it. Peter is not calling for Christians to synthesize Greek philosophy with Biblical theology, instead, at rock bottom, he demands that we face a demoni