Lord of the Nations, LLC

Month: January 2023

  • A Summary of Crucial Errors of Pietism

    A Summary of Crucial Errors of Pietism

    [fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” border_style=”solid”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_repeat=”no-repeat” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” hover_type=”none” min_height=”” link=”” background_blend_mode=”overlay” first=”true”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=””]

    A Summary of Crucial Errors of Pietism

    Robert E. Fugate, Ph.D.

    A brief history of pietism

    Pietism was a 17th and 18th century renewal movement, that began in German confessional Lutheranism, emphasizing vital spiritual experience as the heart of Christianity. Its founders were Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705) and his student and successor, August Hermann Francke (1663-1727). The Moravians, led by Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-1760) (godson of Spener and student of Francke), were an offshoot of Pietism. The Moravians, in turn, strongly influenced John Wesley and Methodism. Subsequently, Methodism, Holiness groups, Brethren churches, and Pentecostal and many charismatic churches have been influenced by pietistic thinking.

    Pietism’s subjectivism fostered an ecumenism of experience, foreshadowing the Enlightenment. In fact, some of the major figures of the Enlightenment came from pietist backgrounds (e.g., Gotthold E. Lessing, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schiller, Johann W. Goethe, and Johann G. Fichte).

    Historically, pietism also laid the groundwork for nineteenth-century Protestant Liberalism. Friederich Schleiermacher, the father of modern Liberal theology, was educated in pietism by the Moravians. Schleiermacher grounded theology on the “feeling of absolute dependence.”

    “The Pietist orientation to religious experience expressed in its emphasis upon regeneration (a biological image) instead of justification (a forensic image) prepared the ground for this development.”[1]

    Today, the term “pietism” usually refers to a sentimental, privatized (inward) Christianity, which sees the Christian faith almost exclusively in terms of an individualized, emotional experience.

    With regard to the theological beliefs of pietism, pietism is individualistic, man-centered (semi-Pelagian), and emotional. It believes that subjective religious experience is the heart of Christianity. Pietism’s “religion of the heart” devalues the rational[2] and intellectual aspects of Christianity (“the religion of the head”[3]), often becoming mystical (irrational). Truth and doctrine are trivialized.

    Pietism has led to a mentality of compartmentalization of spiritual vs. secular among many professing Christians. Among its more orthodox adherents, pietism produces cultural irrelevance and retreatism/escapism (“Meet, eat, retreat,” and “don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.”) When liberalism captured the mainline denominations, and Fundamentalism adopted Dispensationalism and unbiblical pietism, American society and culture began to rot.

    Theological errors

    1. Pietism fails to come to grips with the Biblical doctrine of creation.

    God created everything good, and everything belongs to Him. The earth and all it contains belong to God, not to the devil — even after the fall (Gn 1-2; Ex 8:22; 9:29; 19:5; Lv 25:23 [land]; Dt 10:14; 1 Ch 29:11-12; Job 41:11; Ps 24:1 [the earth and all it contains, including people]; 50:10-12 [animals]; Hg 2:8 [silver and gold]; 1 Cor 10:26, 28).

    The entire created order reflects something of God and His glory — even after the fall (Ps 19:1-6; 97:6; Ro 1:20; 2:14-15; 1 Cor 11:7). Everything derives its meaning from God’s all-encompassing plan, and everything exists for the glory of God (Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Ro 11:36).

    2. Pietism depreciates the absolute Lordship of the resurrected Jesus Christ over all things, which was the central message of apostolic preaching.[4]

    After His resurrection,    [5] the Lord Jesus Christ is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rv 19:16; cf. 17:14; Ac 17:6-7; Ps 2; 89:27), “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rv 1:5). He possesses all authority both in heaven and on earth (Mt 28:18; Eph 1:20-22; Jn 3:35), and He will “subject all things to Himself” (Phil 3:21). “He is Lord of all” (Ac 10:36). Christ now manifests His triumph through His Church (cf. Ac 1:1-2ff; 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:6; 3:10), through which He will “fill all things” (Eph 4:10). Jesus Christ is to have the preeminence in all things (Col 1:18; Ps 110:1-2ff). Sadly, pietism truncates the chief confession of the New Testament (“Jesus is Lord”).

    3. Pietism is oblivious to the implications of the presence and power of God’s eschatological kingdom in history (the “already”) (Ps 110:1-3; Dn 2:31, 34-35, 44 stone that destroyed the four ancient humanistic empires and then fills the earth; 7:13-14; Mt 13:31-32//Mk 4:30-32 mustard seed; Mt 13:33 leaven; Ac 2:34-36; 1 Cor 15:25; cf. Ac 3:21).

    •     It is also oblivious to the breadth or scope of God’s kingdom:

    “The object of the divine rule is the redemption of people and their deliverance from the powers of evil. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 is definitive.     Christ’s reign means the destruction of all hostile powers, the last of which is death. The kingdom of God is the reign of God in Christ destroying all that is hostile to the divine rule” (Rv 11:15; Mt 4:8 // Lk 4:5; Mt 12:26; Lk 11:18; 2 Cor 4:4).[6]

    “    The scope of his [Christ’s] eschatological rule, the extent of his realm, is nothing less than the entire creation; all things are subject to him (Mt 28:18; 1 Cor 15:27; Heb 2:8). ‘Christ is ‘head over everything for the church’ (Eph 1:22).”[7]

    The kingdom of God is as comprehensive as the dominion mandate (Gn 1:26-30),    [8] as the subsequent effects of sin, and as Christ’s redemption.

    By failing to embrace the message of Christ’s eschatological kingdom    [9] pietists weaken “the gospel of the kingdom” (i.e., the good news of the governmental rule of God mediated through the Person of His Son, King Jesus).

    4. Pietism depreciates the victory Christ has already won in history. Jesus Christ has bound and vanquished Satan and all his demonic hordes (Mt 12:28-29; Col 2:15; Jn 12:31; Heb 2:14-15; 1 Jn 3:8; Rv 1:18), and He is plundering Satan’s kingdom (Lk 11:20-22; Is 53:12; Eph 4:8). Jesus is Lord; Satan and the Antichrist are not Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ manifests and enforces His conquest in history through His body, the Church (Lk 10:17-19; Ac 1:2; Ro 16:20 [cp. Josh 10:24-25]; Rv 12:11; 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 1:20-23 + 2:6).

    5. Pietism’s theology is rooted in pagan Greek dualism, which asserts that the material world is evil and spirit is good.

    Evil is viewed as     metaphysical, rather than ethical. On this secular philosophical foundation pietists contrast “spiritual” things with “secular” things (contrary to: 1 Cor 10:31; Col 3:17, 23; 1 Pt 1:15; Zc 14:20). Thus they have perverted Jesus’ “gospel of the kingdom” into the gospel of Neo-Platonism.

    6. Many pietists destroy the unity of Scripture[10] with their depreciation of the Old Testament.[11]

    Practical consequences

    1. Pietists fail to obey the creation mandate (Gn 1:26-30) — abdicating their God-given stewardship to the devil and his followers. (This promotes cultural lawlessness, not holiness. It produces a church that has lost its preserving influence [Mt 5:13].)

    2. Pietists fail to fulfill the great commission (Mt 28:18-20),[12] since they are oblivious to the scope of discipling nations.[13]
    Pietists usually avoid involvement in politics.

    3. Pietists rob God of glory.

    4. Pietists often develop unbiblical standards of holiness and separation[14] from the world (defining “world” in an unbiblical manner[15]), resulting in legalism (if not asceticism).

    5. Pietists tend toward moral perfectionism,[16] separating and forming a church within the church.

    6. Pietists do not develop a comprehensive worldview, leaving them powerless to confront Satan’s kingdom. (You can’t beat something with nothing.) In so doing they fail to “take every thought captive to make it obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:5) and to love God with all their mind (Mk 12:30, part of the greatest commandment), “so that in everything He [Jesus Christ] might have the supremacy” (Col 1:18).

    7. Pietism produces religious parasites who live off the fruit of those who labored to produce a more Biblical worldview (e.g., civil liberty,[17] medical and technological developments, protection from thugs, etc.).

    8. Pietism fosters a feminized church.[18] Most men are repulsed by a religion that is anti-intellectual, feeling-based, and that tells them they are second-class Christians because most of their time and energy are spent in a secular (i.e., non-spiritual) vocation.

    9. Pietism is impotent to prevent or to oppose tyranny, as demonstrated by the militaristic Prussian state with its compulsory statist education system.[19] Their retreat from culture and their unwillingness to confront the messianic, all-encompassing state gives tacit approval to it.

    10. Because pietism reduced the gospel to soul-saving, it put man at the center of its gospel, thereby becoming humanistic and impotent to oppose the religion of secular humanism.[20] Even worse, “By surrendering entire areas of life to the humanists, pietism has unintentionally contributed to the spread of the humanist malady … a massive betrayal!”[21]

    “It is not an accident that Pietism and the Enlightenment arose at the same time. As Christian thinkers retreated from the world and regarded the inner, spiritual realm as the only valid sphere for the faith, so the vacuum which remained was occupied by the new humanists, the men of the Enlightenment.”    [22]

    Through their abdication, pietists inadvertently glorify Satan’s power and abet Satan’s kingdom! (Is their “gospel of the kingdom,” in effect, the gospel of Satan’s kingdom, which they believe controls the world?)

    In light of the theological errors and bad fruit of pietism, it comes as no surprise that Francis Schaeffer described pietism as: “a defective view of Christianity”; “platonic spirituality”; “giving little, or no, importance to the material world”; “it neglected the intellectual dimension of Christianity.”    [23] He adds, “The mistaken pietists thought battles in the area of government were ‘unspiritual’. … [Pietism’s Christianity is] shut up to a removed and isolated spirituality. … Evangelicals were right in their rejection of a poor pietism which shut Christianity up into a very narrow area of spiritual life.”[24]

    [The above errors do not mean that we cannot appreciate Biblical aspects of pietism, such as the importance of conversion, a personal relationship with God cultivated through personal prayer and Bible study, holy living, and missions. Neither do such errors mean that God did not use pietism for any good purposes.]

    Endnotes

    [1] “Pietism,” Encyclopedia of Christianity, eds. Erwin Fahlbusch, et al., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999-2008), 4:222.

    [2] Christianity is rational and logically consistent. Rationality is part of the image of God. Pietists confused rationality with non-Christian philosophical rationalism, which has as its starting point man’s reason unaided by divine revelation.

    [3] “An antithesis between head and heart is nowhere found in Scripture” (Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation [Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1986], pp. 92f.

    [4] See the numerous quotations of Pss 2 and 110 by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament.

    [5] “In his ascension, however, Jesus entered into a new exercise of His messiahship. This is expounded in Acts 2:24-35. Jesus has been seated at the right hand of God and installed upon the throne of David (2:30). Here Peter under inspiration reinterprets the prophecy of Ps 110:1. The throne of David is no longer in Jerusalem; it is in heaven at the right hand of God. Jesus is even now reigning as messianic king (Messiah)” (George E. Ladd, “Kingdom of God,” in ISBE, rev., 3:29).

    [6] George E. Ladd, “Kingdom of God, Heaven,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), p. 658. Note that these Scriptures teach that this reign of the Lord Jesus Christ has already begun in history (as recognized by premillennialist Ladd).

    [7] Richard B. Gaffin, “Kingdom of God,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds., Sinclair B. Ferguson, David E. Wright, and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 369. (Gaffin is an amillennialist.) See also: Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), pp. 50, 87-89; Archibald A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976), pp. 283f.

    [8] John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), pp. 249-251, 307.

    [9] To this end they twist Christ’s statement, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36). What did Christ mean by this statement?

    “Kingdom” (βασιλεία) denotes “the act of ruling, kingship, royal power, royal rule” (BDAG, p. 269; cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Gospel According to St. John, 3:249). “The essential meaning is reign rather than realm” (TDNT, 1:582; cf. L-N # 37:64).

    “Of” (ἐκ “out of,” “from”) is a “marker denoting origin”; “to denote derivation” (BDAG, p. 296). This is confirmed later in the same verse when Jesus reiterates, “My kingdom is not from here” [ἐντεῦθεν] (BDAG, p. 339, noting that the two expressions “from here” and “from this world” are equivalent). F.F. Bruce translates these two phrases, “My kingship does not proceed from this world. … My kingship proceeds from another source” (Gospel of John, p. 353). Similarly, D.A. Carson comments, “Jesus’ reign does not have its source or origin in this world” (Gospel According to John, p. 594). Jesus is telling Pilate that the origin and authority of his kingly rule are from God (cf. Jn 19:11); they do not come from the world (just as Jesus himself did not come from the world, but “from above,” Jn 8:23 [ἐκ, 4 times], i.e., from God in heaven). Jesus is not saying that his kingdom does not rule over the world. Carson adds, “It is important to see that Jesus’ statement should not be misconstrued as meaning that his kingdom is not active in this world, or has nothing to do with this world. John certainly expects the power of the inbreaking kingdom to affect this world; elsewhere he insists that the world is conquered by those who believe in Jesus (1 Jn 5:4).” R.J. Rushdoony adds, “Our Lord does not deny that His Kingdom is over the world, only that its origin and authority are from this world: the origin is God” (Gospel of John, p. 249).

    Jesus uses this language because he “wants to make clear to the Roman who is used to thinking in terms of power politics, that he is not planning a rebellion which would be achieved by ‘worldly’ means, with weapons” (Rudolf Schnackenburg, Gospel According to St. John, 3:249). By his statement, Jesus rejects revolt and revolution as the means of establishing his kingship. He also rejected the Jewish national expectation of a military messiah who would deliver them from Roman military oppression
    (instead of first dying on the cross). (Contrast militant Communism and Islam.)

    (For the meaning of “world” see note 15.)

    [10] One of the clearest ways of demonstrating the unity of Scripture is through covenant theology (see O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980). Yet, God’s covenants refute the Neo-Platonist/pietist matter/world vs. spirit dualism. “Every covenant God makes—with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus—there are these three elements [that were found in the Creation Mandate, Gn 1:26-28]: a divine blessing, a seed, and a land. God blesses his people by giving them descendants to live in a land, subduing that land to bring glory to God” (John M.
    Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, p. 250).

    [11] “Over the centuries, virtually all heresies have been hostile to the Old Testament, or have decreed that it is now an ended dispensation, or in one way or another have down-graded it in part or in whole. … Down-grading the Old Testament is a way of re-writing the New, because the meaning of the New is destroyed if the Old Testament is set aside in any fashion. As a result, the ‘New Testament Christianity’ of such heretics winds up being no Christianity at all” (Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Gnosticism,” Chalcedon Position Paper # 74 [May 1986]; reprinted in: The Roots of Reconstruction [Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991], p. 325; and in An Informed Faith: The Position Papers of R.J. Rushdoony, 3 vols. [Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon / Ross House
    Books, 2017], 3:681).

    [12] Note that the Great Commission literally says “disciple all the nations” (Greek text; Young’s Literal Translation; cf. Matthew Henry’s commentary); it does not say, “Make some disciples out of [ἐκ] every nation.” The latter is Scripture twisting.

    [13] Every nation is comprised of various domains or spheres: religion; civil governments and law; family and social welfare; education; economics and business (including science and technology); media; the arts, entertainment, and sports. The great commission, the dominion mandate, and the Christian worldview encompass all these spheres. Cf. Kenneth L. Gentry, The Greatness of the Great Commission (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).

    [14] Adherents of the “Christ against culture” view include: monastics, Manichean heretics, Anabaptists, Quakers, Pietists, Watchman Nee, and many rapturists. Their view has been rejected as unbiblical by almost all Christian denominations. The Biblical view is that of Augustine: Christ the transformer of culture, i.e., wherever the Lord Jesus Christ is received and His lordship applied and obeyed, Christ transforms the culture of those Christians. If a significant percentage of people in any geographical area embrace the comprehensive lordship of Jesus Christ, He transforms their whole culture, bringing it in line with the Bible.

    [15] BDAG lists eight definitions for κόσμος, with only sub-point b of definition 7 denoting “that which is hostile to God”
    (pp. 562f). This is an ethical (not a metaphysical) category describing the mindset and lifestyle of those persons in Satan’s kingdom, living under Satan’s lordship, who oppose God’s will and purpose—in “sharp contrast” to “the things and people who belong to God” (Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, eds. R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997], p. 1223). This ethical usage of the word “world” does not describe the physical world/universe
    (that God created) or the world of humanity (cf. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996], p. 836; ISBE, rev., 4:1114; Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (DJG1), eds. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992], p. 887). (In the Bible, sin is ethical, not metaphysical.) The New Testament has a “positive view of the creation as God’s handiwork and as the sphere of divine activity. … The concentration of the New Testament upon the work of redemption does not exclude the cosmology of the Old Testament but rather presupposes it” (ISBE, rev., 4:1115). “The difference between a ‘spiritual’ and a [ethically] ‘worldly’ way of life … is not between two compartments of life, one religious and one secular, but between life ordered under the rule [kingdom] of God and life in conformity to the human tradition of rebellion against God” (New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p. 855).

    [16] For a historical recounting and refutation of various forms of perfectionism, see Benjamin B. Warfield’s treatment of perfectionism in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols. (1931; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), vols. 6-7).

    [17] Archie P. Jones, “Foreword,” in Benjamin Franklin Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (American Vision, 2009), p. 12.

    [18] Rousas J. Rushdoony, Sovereignty (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon/Ross House Books, 2007), p. 318.

    [19] Richard L. Gawthrop, Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

    [20] Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Post-Christian Era,” Chalcedon Report # 87 (Nov 1, 1972); reprinted in idem., The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1991), p. 825, and in Mark R. Rushdoony, ed., Faith & Action: The Collected Articles of R.J. Rushdoony from the Chalcedon Report, 1965-2004, 3 vols. (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon / Ross House
    Books, 2019), 1:446f.

    [21] Pierre Courthial, A New Day of Small Beginnings (Tallahassee, FL: Zurich Publishing, 2018), p. 276.

    [22] Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Faith and Society,” Chalcedon Report # 98 (Oct, 1973); reprinted in idem., The Roots of Reconstruction, pp. 870f, and in Mark R. Rushdoony, ed., Faith & Action: The Collected Articles of R.J. Rushdoony from the Chalcedon Report, 1965-2004, 2:1121.

    [23] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), pp. 18f (= The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 5 vols. [Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982], 5:424).

    [24] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984), pp. 102, 119; cf. pp. 98, 103, 33; (= Complete Works, 4:372, 385; cf. pp. 368f [“mistaken pietism”], 373, 318). Cf. Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), chapter 18.

    ⓒ Robert E. Fugate, 2006

    Lord of the Nations, LLC • www.LordoftheNations.world

    [/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Biblical Proof that a Fetus Is a Person

    Biblical Proof that a Fetus Is a Person

    Biblical Proof that a Fetus is a Person

    Robert E. Fugate, Ph.D.

    1. The individual human life initiated at conception is on a continuum with the individual adult life.

    The Hebrew terms hareh (conceive) and yelled (give birth, bear a child) occur together 41 times in the Old Testament. The close pairing of these two words clearly emphasize conception, not birth, is the starting point of individual human life.

    When a woman conceives she is “with child” (hareh, Gn 16:11; Ex 21:22; 2 Sm 11:5 nkjv; Is 7:14; etc.; Ex 21:22 yeled children), having conceived a “baby” (Lk 1:41, 44) or a “son” (Gn 25:22 ben son; Job 3:3 geber mighty man; Lk 1:36 υἱός son; Lk 2:21 παιδίον child; cf. Lk 1:15) in her womb. Hebrew terms ben, geber, and the Greek υἱός are normally used in Scripture of sons of various ages or of adult men. Likewise, the Hebrew yeled is almost always used of a child (not a baby in his or her mother’s womb). The Greek term βρέφος makes no distinction between an unborn baby (Lk 1:41, 44), a newborn baby (Lk 2:12, 16; Ac 7:19; 1 Pt 2:2), an infant (Lk 18:15), and a young child (2 Tim 3:15). The use of these Hebrew and Greek terms for babies in the womb demonstrate personal identity over time–from a person’s conception through adulthood. No separate Hebrew or Greek words are used to distinguish a fetus from an infant or child.[1] Thus God makes no distinction between potential human life and actual human life, between an unborn fetus and a child already born.

    Continuation of personal identity from conception through adulthood is also indicated by the use of personal pronouns (e.g., “I,” “me,” “my,” “you,” etc.) in passages in which a grown man (e.g., Job, Christ, David, the Suffering Servant, Jeremiah, or Jacob) refers back to when he had been a baby in his mother’s womb (Job 3:13; 10:18-19; 31:15; Pss 22:9-10; 139:13-16; 51:5; Is 49:1, 5; Jer 1:4-15; 20:17-18; Ho 12:3).

    God himself actively creates and molds each person in the womb (Job 10:8-12; 31:15; Pss 119:73; 139:13-16; Jer 1:5 cf. Ps 78:5-6).

    2. The Bible affords legal protection to the unborn child. Accidentally killing an unborn baby is murder and warrants capital punishment because the unborn baby is a “soul” or “living being” (nephesh, Ex 21:22-23;[2] cf. Gn 9:5-6). The life-for-life formula applies to the destruction of a fetus, with no qualification as to how young the fetus might be. The fetus–at any stage of development–is, in the eyes of this law, a living human being.

    This case law gives an a fortiori argument (i.e., from the lesser to the greater) regarding the value of fetal life: If these penalties apply to an accidental abortion, how much more do they apply to deliberate abortion!

    3. The child in the womb is a separate person from his or her mother (Gn 25:23; Ex 21:22-23; Lk 1:15, 36, 41-44; Gal 1:15).

    4. The Bible ascribes sin to the unborn child (Ps 51:5). Sin is ethical, not physical, and only a moral agent (person) can be guilty of sin or have a sin nature. Unborn babies are conceived in sin because they are “in Adam” (i.e., descendants of Adam, the first man, and therefore members of the Adamic or human race; Ro 5:12ff).

    5. An unborn baby can be filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:15). In Scripture, only human persons are “filled with the Holy Spirit.”

    6. An unborn baby shows signs of personhood, such as leaping for exuberant joy in response to certain human voices (Lk 1:41, 44).

    7. God calls some men to special service while they are still in their mother’s womb (Gal 1:15-16; Jdg 13:3, 5, 7; Is 49:1, 5; Jer 1:5; Ro 9:11-12).

    8. When a baby dies in the womb (Job 10:18-19; Jer 20:15-18) or in childbirth, its soul enters the afterlife with deceased adults (Job 3:13-15; 2 Sm 12:23).

    9. Jesus Christ was fully a person while in his mother’s womb. In the incarnation the Logos took on flesh and became the God-man, Jesus Christ. Scripture tells us that God prepared a physical body for him (Heb 10:5). The Gospels describe some of this process: the Son of God was begotten of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:20; Lk 1:35); Mary conceived in her womb (Lk 1:31); and Mary brought forth (gave birth to) a son (Mt 1:20; Lk 1:31). Clearly God began the process of the incarnation at the point of conception, not some time later. This was necessary because, in his human nature, Christ “had to be made like his brethren in all things” (Heb 2:17, 14; cf. Ps 22:9-10; Is 49:1, 5; Lk 3:23-38).

    This Biblical evidence clearly demonstrates that an unborn baby is a spiritual, rational, moral person.

    [Note that in Scripture prenatal death is regarded as a curse and an object of horror (Ho 9:14; Job 3:10-16; 10:18-19; Ec 6:3);
    contrast Ex 23:26.]

     

    Endnotes

    [1] The Hebrew term gōlem (embryo) occurs only once in the Bible (Ps 139:16). If the writers of Scripture had desired to distinguish between an unborn fetus and babies or children who had already been born, the necessary terminology was available.

    [2] H. Wayne House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978), pp. 109-123. John M. Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” in Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Christian Case against Abortion, ed. Richard L. Ganz (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1978), pp. 51-57. Umberto Cassuto, A
    Commentary on the Book of Exodus     (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), pp. 275, 277.

     

    © Robert E. Fugate, 2006

    Lord of the Nations, LLC • www.LordoftheNations.world

     

  • Why Should I Study Theology?

    Why Should I Study Theology?

    Why Should I Study Theology

    Robert E. Fugate, Ph.D.

    It is not uncommon today for people to question the importance of studying theology. Some Christians affirm that they just want to hear “practical” sermons, not sermons that teach theology. (Don’t they realize that Biblical ethics are derived from Biblical theology?) Others assert that “theology divides,” so they conclude that all theology is detrimental. Because of such attitudes, reputed authorities on church growth warn pastors to avoid teaching doctrine. Yet, we must ask, is this avoidance a Biblical approach? Are there reasons why we should study theology? I would like to suggest several reasons why it is imperative for Christians to study orthodox, Christian theology.

    The subject of theology is the most important subject in the universe

    Theology is the study of the personal, triune God — his nature and his purposes, which he reveals through his words and his deeds. One attribute of this sovereign, unchanging God is truth. Because God is truth, his Word is truth (Jn 17:17). Since God’s Word is truth, it functions as the ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be measured. God tells us that his written Word is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16). All of these facts demonstrate that the study of orthodox theology, or Biblical doctrine, is the most important field that we could ever study!

    The study of Biblical doctrine is usually referred to as systematic theology. In using the term “systematic theology,” we indicate that there is a comprehensive, unified statement of what Scripture as a whole teaches about God.

    Theology is the foundation for every aspect of life and study

    Systematic theology makes it possible for people to think intelligently and logically at all. Without the concept of systematic theology and the God it sets forth, we cannot hold to a rational and understandable universe, nor to any meaningful order therein. There is no other God, no other truth, and no other possibility, system, or meaning outside of him. God as Creator, Providential Ruler, and Redeemer is the necessary cause, connection, will, power, and action between and in all things. Anything short of that is not theology but anthropology.

    Thus orthodox Christian theology provides the foundation for every other field of study. Apart from Biblical doctrine, one can never properly understand the role of church, state, school, family, the arts and sciences, the vocations, or anything else.

    Theology unites Christians in the truth

    True fellowship with God (who is truth) and with God’s people requires truth. The “unity of the Spirit” can only be enjoyed
    where there is “the unity of the faith” (Eph 4:3-6, 13-15), for light can have no fellowship with darkness (2 Cor 6:14-16). Anyone preaching unity, while setting aside apostolic doctrine (as infallibly recorded in Scripture) is to be opposed (Ac 15:1-2, 23-24; 1 Cor 14:36-38; 2 Cor 13:2-3; Gal 1:8-9; 1 Th 4:8; 2 Th 3:6, 14; Tit 2:15; 1 Jn 2:18; 2 Jn 9-11; Rv 22:18-19).

    Systematic theology makes a believer more epistemologically self-conscious[1] by rooting out the inconsistencies of smorgasbord religion. There is no place for epistemological, theological, or ethical pluralism in Christian thinking. God is the source of truth.

    Theology protects Christians from pernicious errors

    God’s Word separates truth from error, teaching “sound doctrine” (1 Tim 1:10; 4:6; 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 4:3; Tit 1:9; 2:1, 10; cf. Ro 6:17), while warning against false doctrines (2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:6-9; 1 Tim 1:3; 4:1; 6:3). Thus there is a sense in which doctrine is supposed to divide. God himself has decreed a perpetual antithesis between his kingdom and the kingdom of Satan, between truth and error (Gn 3:15; Mt 25:41). Christ himself caused divisions (Mt 10:34; Lk 12:51; Jn 7:12, 43; 9:16; 10:19) — even through his teaching (Jn 6:61-66; 10:19-21). Biblically-sound systematic theology continues working to uproot all alien presuppositions, and to protect against pagan philosophies (Col 2:8).

    Some doctrinal errors are so serious that God calls them “destructive heresies” (2 Pt 2:1) and “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:1). But apart from an understanding of doctrine, how can one know what constitutes heresy, and which heresies are particularly “destructive” (“damnable,” kjv)? Scripture tells us that God speaks a curse on anyone preaching any other gospel (Gal 1:8-9). Examples could include: a gospel of salvation by grace + works (e.g., Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, etc.); a psychological gospel; a gospel of socialism (e.g., liberation theology, feminist theology); a gospel of uninterrupted health and wealth; a gospel of a finite god (e.g., process theology, the “open view of God”); etc.

    Some people believe that doctrine is relatively unimportant, asserting that passion for Jesus is primary. However, the choice between passion for Jesus and orthodox Christian doctrine is a false dilemma. The only option is both/and, not either/or. Without orthodox Christian doctrine, you cannot know whether the Jesus that other people are passionate about is the same Jesus that you are passionate about. Numerous cults and religions have their own “Jesus”: the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Jesus, the Mormons’ Jesus, the Liberals’ Jesus, the Unitarians’ Jesus, the new agers’ Jesus, the Jews’ Jesus, the Muslims’ Jesus, Unity’s Jesus, Christian counselors’ Jesus, etc. The situation was no different in the early church with the Ebionite Jesus, the Docetic Jesus, the Arian Jesus, the Appollinarian Jesus, the Nestorian Jesus, the Eutychian Jesus, etc. And most of these groups were passionate about their “Jesus!” Furthermore, without orthodox Christian doctrine, you cannot even know whether the Jesus that you are passionate for is the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man who sits at the right hand of God the Father, i.e., the Jesus of the Bible! Thus it is not a matter of choosing between passion for Jesus and orthodox Christian doctrine. The Apostle Paul is a good example of how the two must be blended.

    The Church throughout all ages has found the study of theology to be indispensable. It is usually heretics who most stringently
    oppose the study of historic, orthodox Christian theology. Of course, heretics themselves are not devoid of theology.

    The study of theology is necessary to obey Scripture

    Christians need to learn Biblical doctrine in order to fully obey the Lord. For example, Scripture commands us: to love the Lord our God with all our mind (Mt 22:37; Dt 6:5); to stop thinking as the world thinks (Ro 12:2); to take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5), that Christ may have preeminence in everything (Col 1:18). In other words, we must (on a creaturely level) think God’s thoughts after him. To think God’s thoughts after him, we must systematize God’s written Word,
    applying it to all areas of life. In short, we must develop a comprehensive, Biblical worldview (based on the entire Bible) through which we can interpret all of life — including business, economics, the role of civil government, marriage and family, education, science, art, music, recreation, etc. — from God’s perspective. To settle for anything less than a comprehensive, Christian
    worldview is a denial of Christ’s sovereignty or lordship over all areas of life, and a denial that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” can only be found in Jesus Christ (Col 2:3). Furthermore, any lesser goal robs God of the glory due his name. Clearly, to be able to apply the Bible to every area of life and culture will require studying Biblical doctrine.

    Obeying the straightforward Biblical commands, such as, “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), necessitates the study of theology. How else can one know what constitutes “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints?” The same could be said of many other verses. Christians are to continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Ac 2:42; 2 Tim 3:10) — but what is the apostles’ doctrine? Christ warned the disciples to beware of the corrupting effects of bad doctrine (Mt 16:12; cf. Col 2:20-23; Heb 13:9) — what constitutes bad doctrine?

    The church is the depository and guardian of the truth

    Scripture refers to “the faith[2] which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) as a “deposit” of truth that was “entrusted” to Christ’s Church (1 Tim 1:18; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14; 2:2; cf. Ro 3:2; 1 Cor 9:17; Gal 2:7; 1 Th 2:4; 1 Tim 1:11; Tit 1:3). God holds the Church responsible to “guard” and to “hold firmly” to this deposit of doctrinal truth (Ac 16:4; 1 Cor 11:2; 15:1; 2 Th 2:15; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14). To say this is to say that Christianity involves God-revealed truth or doctrine. No true doctrine — no true Christianity! To depart from sound doctrine is to apostatize from “the truth,” i.e., the Christian faith (2 Tim 4:3-4).

    Church leaders must give attention to sound doctrine (1 Tim 4:13, 16; Tit 2:1, 7), teaching no other doctrine (1 Tim 1:3; Tit 1:9), for man-made doctrines produce vain worship (Mt 15:9 // Mk 7:7). Those elders who labor hard in the Word and doctrine are to receive greater pay (1 Tim 5:17-18). The Church is commanded to avoid and to excommunicate those who reject sound
    doctrine (Ro 16:17; 1 Tim 6:3-5; 2 Th 3:6, 14; 2 Jn 9-10; Rv 2:14-15, 24). Clearly, believing and obeying Biblical doctrine is very important to the Lord.

    Everyone is a theologian

    Where Biblically-sound systematic theology is absent, a vacuum does not remain; unbiblical theology replaces it. Systematic theology cannot be avoided. It is never a question of theology or no theology; it is always a question of what theology — Biblical theology or unbiblical theology. Theology is an inescapable concept! Everyone has a theology (whether good or
    bad, consistent or inconsistent). Everyone is a theologian (whether amateur or professional).

    To summarize, studying orthodox Christian theology can help
    you to:

    • Know and understand God and his purposes better, in order to obey and glorify him
      more fully;
    • Build a Christian worldview through which you can properly interpret all aspects of life and culture, learning to think God’s thoughts after him;
    • Guard the Christian faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints,”
      remaining united with the true church of all ages; and
    • Be protected from false prophets, false teachers, and various forms of satanic deception.

    Be faithful soldiers of Christ

    The church in America is being torn apart by heresies and unbiblical ethics. The inerrancy of Scripture is considered to be a
    non-essential doctrine by many evangelical “scholars” today. In the minds of many, science speaks the authoritative word, so they believe in “theistic evolution” rather than six-day creation. Anti-trinitarian errors are spreading, as are pantheistic nature worship, panentheism, finite godism, Eastern religions, and other forms of mysticism. Self-contradictory pagan psychologies have replaced Biblical counseling in many quarters of evangelicalism. Objective truth is being exchanged for subjectivism,
    relativism, and postmodernism. Feminism has infected families, church, and state. Sodomy has come out of the closet and pedophilia is on the horizon — while much of the Evangelical church preaches a “gospel” of love and grace that is devoid of God’s holy and just law. The state is attempting more and more to take over the role of God himself — while pietistic seminary
    professors, pastors, and conservative politicians see no Biblical blueprints for society, or relevance for Biblical law. Sadly, these leaders direct us to look to nature and natural law (man’s reason) — not to the Bible — for answers to society’s ills.

    More than any other time in American history, this is a day when God’s people need to be equipped with the glorious truths of God’s Word, that they might enter the battle “and having done all to stand” as victor (Eph 6:10-13). God’s truth is marching on, and it will be victorious! But the question is, Will you be faithful in the battle? The charge of that uncompromising Reformer, Martin Luther, still rings out today:

    If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point
    which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

    Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield, and other heroes of the faith “conquered kingdoms” by preaching “the whole
    counsel of God” (Ac 20:27) in the power of the Spirit. They knew the doctrines of Scripture, and they applied them to the issues of their day. By God’s grace, we can do the same today; but this will only happen if we diligently study God’s Word (Biblical doctrine) so we will be “handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).

    This is why we need to study theology!

    Endnotes

    [1]
    To be epistemologically self-conscious a person must deliberately choose doctrines, other beliefs, ethics, etc. that are consistent with each another and with the person’s theory of knowledge (i.e., epistemology).

    [2]
    One of the lexical definitions of the Greek word translated “faith” (πίστις) is the content (sum total) of what Christians (must) believe; Christian doctrine (Ro 1:5 nkjv; Gal 1:23; 3:23; 1 Tim 1:19; 4:1, 6; 6:21; 2 Tim 2:18; Tit 1:13; Jude 3) (BDAG, p. 820; L-N, 31:104).

     

    ⓒ Robert E. Fugate, 2001

    Lord of the Nations, LLC • www.LordoftheNations.world