Category Archives: separation of church and state

separation of church and state

Puritan Covenant Theology Exposed in the American Colonies

Leave a comment

A Publication of Simply Church Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Click here to go to Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 9, 2018

This lesson will discuss some shortcomings of Covenant Theology and give a few examples of the exposure of the Puritan Covenant Theology by colonial dissenters. Some of the quotes are quite long, so the lesson is not as condensed as in other lessons in this short course.

As one Puritan preacher, in an attempt to remove objections of some against partaking of the Lord’s Supper because of fears of not being born again, preached in order to persuade them:

“The children of those who are members of the visible church are, by the constitution of God, from their first coming into existence, members of his kingdom in common with their parents. So it was under the Jewish dispensation; and so it is now, [under the Christian] if there is any validity in one of the principal arguments, by which we vindicate our practice, in baptizing the infants of those who are members of Christ’s church.”[i]

According to Covenant Theology, the main promise God made in the Covenant of Grace was: “I will … be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee (Ge. 17.7);” and “includes the following promises: temporal blessings, justification, adoption, eternal life, the Spirit of God with His many ministries, and final glorification.”[ii] Establishment of religion in Christianity depends upon this covenant. Isaac Backus taught, “All establishments of worship by human laws, that ever were erected under the Christian name, were built upon calling the covenant in Gen. xvii the covenant of grace.”

Mr. Backus goes on to point out that “Those who have seen the nature of original sin, cannot tell how to keep up the idea of children’s being born in the covenant of grace, without some regard to grace in their parents. And in the same chapter where the unbelieving consort is said to be sanctified by the believer, a widow is required to marry only in the Lord….” [He then refers to a parable wherein to make his point the author thereof describes a church which advised a member to marry a certain woman of grace in the church rather than a woman he loves who is not of grace. Of the woman of grace, the church says:]

  • “As to some trifles, which a carnal man would object to, it becomes you as a spiritual man, to make no objection. It is true, she is of a mean family, and a very weak understanding; she is peevish and fretful to the highest degree; her shape is semicircular; she is what the world calls monstrous ugly; every feature is adapted to mortify carnal desires, which is much better than to have them gratified; she is the queen of sluts, and without any polite education. But she has grace, saving grace; she is regenerated; let your grace wed with hers, and a sweet bride she will be. Moreover, she is past the flower of her age, and we suppose need so requires.”
  • Backus goes on to say that this parable can be applied to no church on earth, but says “[H]ow mean and spiteful it is to treat the Word Grace [in the manner treated by Covenant Theologians]! Affixing the word to the covenant of circumcision, where God never put it, is the source of [a difficulty of a church at Stockbridge where to be sanctified by the believer, a widow is required to marry only in the Lord].”[iii]

Most Covenant Theologians have divided postfall history into two dispensations, the Mosaic dispensation sometimes called the “Old Covenant,” and the Christian dispensation, usually called the “New Covenant;” and they claim that the Covenant of Grace, although administration of that covenant differed between the dispensations, exists throughout these dispensations. “[E]ach dispensation or covenant named in the Bible is simply another stage of the progressive revelation of the nature of the Covenant of Grace.”[iv]

Covenant Theology has many problems. Many of them are pointed out in more thorough studies by Jerald Finney such as God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. Several significant shortcomings of Covenant Theology follow, repeating some already discussed:

  • First its “ultimate goal of history[, also discussed supra, the Glory of God through the redemption of the elect,] is too narrow…. Second, Covenant Theology denies or weakens some of the distinctions which are in the Bible by insisting that distinctions are simply different phases of the same Covenant of Grace…. In addition, Covenant theology denies the existence of distinctive gospels in the Bible…. Covenant Theology insists that there is no essential distinction between the Mosaic Covenant (the Law) and the New Covenant…. Covenant theology also denies the distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church.… Third, Covenant Theology is mistaken when it teaches that each of the biblical covenants is a continuation and newer phase of the Covenant of Grace…. Fourth, Covenant Theology’s unifying principle is too limited or narrow. [First, Covenant Theology is too limited in that it unifies history through the Covenant of Grace from either the fall of man or the time of Abraham. It is too narrow because it deals only with God’s redemption of the elect, and it does not unify the program of redemption with all God’s other programs.] Second, … it does not unify prefall history with postfall history, which a valid exposition of the biblical philosophy of history must do…. Fifth, in order to make its system work, Covenant Theology must employ a double hermeneutic (a double system of interpretation)….”[v]

According to the Covenant Theologian, “the idea of dual covenants functioned as a warning against reliance on good works for salvation.” The Covenant of Works required obedience for salvation. According to the Covenant of Grace one could only be saved by faith in Christ.[vi]

Yet, the Covenant of Works remained in effect.

  • “This meant, first, that New Englanders whom God had not yet called effectually into salvation remained entirely under a covenant of works and subject to its moral restraint. It meant also, according to Cotton, that the burden of moral expectation should drive the sensitive conscience to Christ. It was ‘the usuall manner of God to give a Covenant of Grace by leading men first into a Covenant of works.’ Living under the covenant of works, Shepard explained, they would discover their sinfulness, and their ‘terrors, and fears, and hopes’ would turn them to Christ. And it meant, third, that even Christians safely within the covenant of grace remained subject to the moral substance of the first covenant. Abolished as a ‘covenant of life,’ Shepard said, the law still remained a ‘Rule of Life.’ These were the traditional three uses of the law in Reformed theology; covenantal language provided a lively way to restate them.”[vii]

Covenant Theologians teach that God’s commands are “too severe even for Adam in innocency, and that grace[, through the covenant of circumcision and its successor, baptism,] gives an exemption from that severity,” under the Covenant of Grace.

Covenant Theology, which does not recognize or correctly analyze the roles of the Old and New Covenants, is at odds with a correct interpretation of the Bible on this issue. Isaac Backus, in exposing the New England Puritan theology, explained:

  • “[The law is holy, just, and good]; it [is] spiritual; but [man] a carnal slave to sin, instead of having such high dignity and liberty as he before imagined he had…. A false imagination of good in the forbidden fruit, drew our first parents into rebellion against God; and such imaginations are the only source of sin in all their children. James i. 14, 15. Good is still their pursuit, but they have lost the knowledge of who can give it, or of what it is; but the regenerate soul knows both, and this is the precise difference between them. Psalm iv. 6, 7. Who does not know that debtors and criminals are not fit judges in their own causes? [Y]et that is the case with all reasoners against the truth and perfection of God’s written word…. And to hear many speaking evil of things they know not, but what they know naturally as brute beasts, and in those things to corrupt themselves; to see them tread down the good pastures, and foul the deep waters, and thrust others with side and shoulder, serves to confirm believers in the truth of revelation, and in the hope of a speedy deliverance from such evil beasts. Jude 10. Ezek. xxxiv. 18, 25.”[viii]

To show that God has “disannulled the national covenant which he made with Abraham,” Backus offered the following insights:

  • “First, Abraham had no right to circumcise any stranger, until he had bought him as a servant for money. Gen. xvii. 12, 13. But God says to his children, Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men. I Cor. vii. 23. And he says to his ministers, Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts xx. 28. He also says, Ye have sold yourselves for nought, and ye shall be redeemed without money. And this is the gospel of peace. Is. lii. 3, 7; Rom. x. 15. Thus do the apostles explain the prophets. Secondly, The children of Israel had no right to receive strangers into the church by households, until the day in which they came out of Egypt, when the Passover was instituted. And then God said, Every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. Exod. xii. 44—48. Circumcision and the Passover were as binding upon servants as children; and both ordinances pointed to the blood of Christ, which he was to shed for his people. And in reference to that, God said, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. And an inspired apostle says, In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. viii. 7—13; x. 9.  And can old and new, first and second, mean but one covenant? Surely no. Thirdly, Circumcision is the name which God gave to his covenant with Abraham. Acts vii. 8. And though Jews and Mahometans are still zealous for it, yet all Christians allow that circumcision is repealed. But after the apostolic age, men took away the name which God gave to that covenant, and added the name Grace to it; and they held that dominion is founded in grace. And from thence the nations have made merchandise of all the vanities of time, and of slaves and souls of men. But the plagues of Babylon will come upon all men who add to the word of God, and take away from the words of his book, if they refuse to come out of that practice. Rev. xviii. 4—13; xxii. 18, 19. And there is not a word in all the Bible for bringing any child to baptism without his own profession of faith in Christ, nor for forcing any man to support any religious minister; and all national churches are built upon these two superstitions. Fourthly, Circumcision was the shedding of human blood; and when Abraham received it, it was a seal of righteousness of the faith which he before had in Christ, in whom believers are justified by his blood. Rom. iv. 11, 23; v. 9; Gal. iii. 16; Gen. xv. 6; xvii. 24. It was a seal to him; but neither circumcision nor baptism are ever called seals to any other person in the Bible. But God says to true believers in Christ, In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. And he also says, Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Eph. i. 13; iv. 30. After believing in Christ, the Holy Spirit seals the merits of his death, and the promises of his grace to the soul. And all believers from the beginning, looked through the bloody ordinances which God appointed, to the blood of Christ for justification. And after the beast arose out of the bottomless pit, God said, All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. xiii. 8. Force and cruelty is the general character of the beast; but Jesus, who is the root and offspring of David, will cause all evil beasts to cease out of the land. Ezek. xxxiv. 4, 25; Rev. xxii. 16. Fifthly, the believing Jews were suffered to go on in circumcision for a number of years past the death of Christ, and then God said to them, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. …. Whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. Gal. v.2—4. So far was the covenant of circumcision from being the covenant of grace. That bloody sign not only pointed to the death of Christ, but also to the death of all true believers in him. Therefore Paul says, I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. … The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts. Gal. ii. 19, 20; v. 22-24. Adam and Christ are the only two public heads of mankind, as to the great affairs of the soul and eternity. For as by one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Rom. v. 19. For parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, is of infinite importance; but we can find no warrant for any to bring them to baptism without a personal profession of faith in Christ….
  • “God said of Abraham, I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. Gen. xviii. 19. He will and They shall, was the language of God’s covenant with Abraham; but I will, and They shall, is the language of the new covenant, since the death of Christ. Heb. viii. 10; x. 9. It was the will of God that the visible church should continue in the line of Abraham’s posterity, until Christ came and died for his people, and then the holy spirit was given, and believing Jews and Gentiles were united in his church. And they never were called Christians, until believing Gentiles were received into the church without circumcision….
  • “[T]he holding that the children of believers are born into the covenant of grace, or that baptism can bring them into it, without their own knowledge or choice, is such a confounding of grace and works together as holds multitudes in blindness and bondage.”[ix]

We should look at the Dispensation of Grace to find the duties of believers today.

Who are the true seed of Abraham? Mr. Backus again correctly divided the Word of Truth in answering this question:

  • “Circumcision was only for males, but females are equally the subjects of baptism, which proves an essential change of the covenant. And our Lord gave the gospel commission to the eleven, who were all born again; and he said to them, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ghost; teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. xxviii. 16—20. This promise is only to his children, in the way of obedience to all his commandments. And as the covenant of circumcision gave Israel a right to buy the heathen for servants, and circumcision was only for the males, the gospel says to believers, Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. iii.26—29. Abraham was an eminent type of Christ, and none are his spiritual seed but believers in Christ.” (, pp. 370-371).

Again, this is only a small sampling. For more, see Isaac Backus Quotes from God Betrayed; Roger Williams: Quotes and Other Information from God Betrayed; or, for the most thorough treatment God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application.

Endnotes

[i] Isaac Backus, A History of New England With Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, Volume 2 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, Previously published by Backus Historical Society, 1871), p. 171.

[ii] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), p. 14, citing Berkhof, p. 277.

[iii] Backus, A History of New England…, Volume 2, pp. 238-241.

[iv] Showers, pp. 14-16, citing Berkhof, pp. 282-283 and Ernest Frederick Kevan, “Dispensation,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, editor-in-chief, Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids; Baker Book House, 1960), p. 168.

[v] Showers, pp. 19-25 citing Berkof, pp. 298, 300; Bernhard W. Anderson, “The New Covenant and The Old,” in The Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed. by Bernard W. Anderson (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), p. 232; and Johannes Behm, “kainos,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. III, ed. by Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, pp. 447, 448, 449. See Showers for a more detailed explanation of the deficiencies listed.

[vi] E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Sheridan Books, 2003), p. 40.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Backus, A History of New England…, Volume 2, p. 254.

[ix] Ibid., pp. 364-366, 371-372, 373.

separation of church and state

Some Basic Teachings of Covenant Theology

Leave a comment

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Click here to go to Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 9, 2018

This chapter will not examine Covenant Theology in detail, but some explanation is necessary. Some information will repeat some of the concepts already discussed. This study is primarily concerned with Covenant Theology, as practiced in the American colonies by established churches and the resulting unbiblical practices including persecution of dissenters.

Covenant Theology is “a system of theology which attempts to develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants,” the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. Covenant Theology began as a system in the 16th or 17th century and was introduced into America primarily through the Puritans.[i] One version of Covenant Theology combines the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace. Covenant Theology teaches that God established the Covenant of Redemption in eternity past when God determined to provide redemption during the course of history for the elect. This Covenant placed requirements on the Lord Jesus Christ. God the Father gave the Son the responsibility of paying for the sin of Adam and His elect (those the Father had given Him). He could do that by keeping the law thereby assuring eternal life for His children.[ii]

According to Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace came after God created man. These covenants are deduced by Covenant Theologians and are not specified in Scripture. The Covenant of Works was established between the creation and fall of man. It required “implicit and perfect obedience of Adam.”[iii] Adam broke the Covenant of Works after which God established the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Grace has been defined as “that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.”[iv] God is the first party to the covenant, and, depending upon the theologian, the second party is the sinner, the elect, or the elect sinner in Christ. Some people who never become regenerate are included in the Covenant of Grace since it exists as both ‘a communion of life’ experienced by only the regenerate and as a ‘purely legal relationship’ experienced by both believers and their children.

The children of believers experience the Covenant of Grace as a legal relationship in four ways: They are in the Covenant (1) “as far as their responsibility [to repent and believe] is concerned;” (2) “in the sense that they may lay claim to the promises which God gave when He established His covenant with believers and their seed;” (3) “in the sense that they are subject to the ministrations of the covenant;” and (4) “as far as the common covenant blessings are concerned.” A person who is a child of the regenerate is regarded as a member of the covenant even if he does not enter into the communion of life aspect through a confession of faith.[v]

Endnotes

[i] Showers, pp. 7-8; Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), pp. 183-184.

[ii] See, e.g., Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), p. 9.

[iii] Showers., p. 10; see also, Ryrie, pp. 188-189.

[iv] Showers, pp. 10-11; see also, Ryrie, p. 184 citing Berkhof, p. 277.

[v] Showers, pp. 11-13.

separation of church and state

The Way in Which the Two Systems Meet the Requirements for a Philosophy of History

Leave a comment

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Click here to go to Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 9, 2018

“[T]he way in which the two systems meet [the] requirements [for a valid philosophy of history] affirms that dispensationalism is the more valid and helpful system.”[i] First, Dispensationalists find the goal of history in the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth, an optimistic view which insists that the glory of the sovereign God must be seen in the present heavens and earth. According to Dispensational Theology, all history moves toward the ultimate goal for God to glorify Himself by demonstrating that He alone is the sovereign God.

Throughout Scripture, God is glorified. The First of the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me,” an absolute, rock-hard rule, indicates that God wants to be glorified. Everything is seen in the Bible as being for His glory.[ii] The successive dispensations glorify God by (1) demonstrating that God is sovereign throughout history despite Satan’s attempts to overthrow God’s rule and man’s rebellion against God since God can “hold man responsible to obey His methods of administering His rule and can judge man for his” disobedience; (2) “displaying the disorder and tragedy which result from the rejection of God’s rule;” and (3) by “progressively [moving] history toward the fulfillment of its God-intended climax.”[iii]

On the other hand, the Covenant Theologian seems pessimistic and sees the present struggle between good and evil terminated by the beginning of eternity at which point there will come catastrophe and divine judgment.[iv]

Second, in Covenant Theology, the unifying principle for the philosophy of history is the Covenant of Grace, a soteriological principle. Dispensational Theology has a unifying principle—the sovereign rule of God—which “ties the distinctions and progressive stages of revelation together and directs them toward the fulfillment of purpose in history.”[v] Dispensational Theology recognizes that the redemption of the elect plus many other programs are all parts of God’s purpose for history.

“In dispensationalism the [unifying] principle is theological or eschatological or doxological, for the differing dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships, which culminate in history with the millennial glory. This is not to say that dispensationalism fails to give salvation its proper place in the purpose of God…. If the goal of history is the earthly Millennium and if the glory of God will be manifest at that time in the personal presence of Christ in a way hitherto unknown, then the unifying principle of dispensationalism may be said to be eschatological (if viewed from the goal toward which we are moving) or theological (if viewed from the self-revelation of God in every dispensation) or doxological (if viewed from the perspective of the overall manifestation of the glory of God).”[vi]

Third, Dispensationalism gives a proper place to the idea of development, whereas Covenant Theology does not. In Covenant Theology in practice there is extreme rigidity even though Covenant Theology does include in its system different modes of administration of the Covenant of Grace, and although those modes would give an appearance of an idea of progressiveness in revelation. Dispensational Theology states that each new dispensation requires a new revelation, thereby supplying the element of a proper concept of the progress of revelation. According to Dispensationalism, under different economies, God gives new revelation which is increasingly progressive in scope. The similarities in different dispensations are part of a progression of development by God rather than:

  • “a result of employing the unifying principle of the covenant of grace…. Only dispensationalism can cause historical events and successions to be seen in their own light and not to be reflected in the artificial light of an overall covenant.
  • “Thus a correct philosophy of history with its requirements of a proper goal, a proper unifying principle, and a proper concept of progress is best satisfied by the dispensational system. Like the need for biblical distinctions, the proper concept of the philosophy of history leads to dispensationalism.”[vii]

Endnotes

[i] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 17.

[ii] See Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), pp. 50-51 for an excellent overview of Scripture that substantiates this point.

[iii] Ibid., pp. 50-51.

[iv] Ryrie, pp. 17-18 citing Alva J. McClain, “A Premillennial Philosophy of History,” Bibliotheca Sacra 113 (April 1956): 113-14.

[v] Showers, p. 52.

[vi] Ryrie, pp. 17-18; see also, Showers, p. 53.

[vii] Ryrie, p. 19.

separation of church and state

The Essence of Dispensationalism

2 Comments

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry of Charity Baptist Tabernacle of Amarillo, Texas

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Click here to go to Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America

Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

 

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 8, 2018

“[T]he term dispensation as it relates to Dispensational Theology could be defined as a particular way of God’s administering His rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose of world history.”[i] Another way to define “dispensation” is “a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.”[ii] “Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God.”[iii]

There are important characteristics and considerations concerning dispensations. There are three characteristics of each dispensation necessary to make it distinct from all other dispensations. First, each dispensation is characterized by a unique ruling factor or combination of ruling factors. “Second, it must involve a particular responsibility for man.” “Third, it must be characterized by divine revelation which had not been given before.” Three secondary characteristics are that each dispensation applies a test to man to see whether or not man will perfectly obey God’s rule, each dispensation demonstrates the failure of man to obey the particular rule of God of that dispensation, and each dispensation involves divine judgment because of man’s failure.[iv]

Some important considerations are first, the different dispensations are different ways of God’s administering His rule over the world, not different ways of salvation. Since the fall, individuals have always been saved by grace through faith. The sacrifices of the Israelites in the Old Testament did not provide salvation. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin” (He. 10.4). The Israelite’s offering implied confession of sin and of its due desert, death; and God ‘covered’ [or ‘passed over,’ …] his sin, in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, which did, finally, ‘put away’ the sins ‘done aforetime in the forbearance of God.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Ro. 3.23-25).

“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (He. 9.15).

Second, “[a] dispensation is a particular way of God’s administering His rule, but an age is a particular period of time”—hence a dispensation is not an age of history. Third, a dispensation may involve God’s administering His rule over all mankind or over only one segment of mankind. “Fourth, a dispensation may continue or discontinue some ruling factors of previous dispensations, but it will have at least one new ruling factor never introduced before.” “Fifth, each new dispensation requires new revelation.”[v]

Dispensations have characteristics. Primarily, dispensations are stewardships. All in a particular dispensational economy are stewards, although one man usually stands out. For example, Paul was used by God more than any other to reveal His grace. Nonetheless, all the apostles and every other believer are also stewards of God’s grace. All have a responsibility to respond to that grace. God will judge those who fail to do so.[vi]

Most theologians recognize seven dispensations: Innocence (Gen. 1.28); Conscience (Gen. 3.23); Human Government (Gen. 8.20); Promise (Gen. 12.1); Law (Ex. 19.8); Grace (John 1.17); Kingdom (Eph. 1.10).[vii]

In each dispensation, God used or uses a ruling factor to govern man. Man failed or will fail in every dispensation, even in the last dispensation in which Christ Himself will rule over a perfect government and exceptional conditions. Man’s failure in that dispensation will bring God’s judgment. Those who rebel outwardly during that time will be executed (See, Is. 11.3-4; 29.20-21; Je. 31.29-30), and “God will crush the huge revolt which will take place immediately after the seventh dispensation sending fire to destroy the human rebels and casting Satan into the lake of fire for everlasting torment (Rev. 20:9-10).”[viii]

Dispensational Theology recognizes distinctions of things which differ in history by asserting that distinctions are the result of God’s administering His rule in different ways at different periods of history. “There is no interpreter of the Bible who does not recognize the need for certain basic distinctions in the Scriptures.”[ix] The Covenant Theologian also makes rather important dispensational distinctions even though he views them as related to the unifying and underlying Covenant of Grace. For example, Louis Berkhof, after rejecting the usual dispensational scheme of Bible distinctions, enumerates his own scheme of dispensations or administrations—the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation. “However, within the Old Testament dispensation Berkhof lists four subdivisions, which although he terms them ‘stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace,’ are distinguishable enough to be listed.’” Thus, he recognizes five dispensations—four in the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensation.[x]

Endnotes

[i] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), pp. 27-30; see also, Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), pp. 28-31.

[ii] Ryrie, p. 28.

[iii] Ibid., p. 29; see pp. 29-31 for definitions of “dispensation” by various scholars.

[iv] Showers, pp. 30-31; see also, Ryrie, pp. 33-35.

[v] Showers, pp. 31-32.

[vi] See Ryrie, pp. 56-57.

[vii] See Showers pp. 33-49 and Ryrie, pp. 45-57 (Showers and Ryrie call the Dispensation of Law the Dispensation of Mosaic Law and the Dispensation of Kingdom the Dispensation of the Millennium; Ryrie calls the Dispensation of Human Government the Dispensation of Civil Government.

[viii] Showers, pp. 33-49.

[ix] Ryrie, p. 16.

[x] Ibid., citing Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), pp. 293-301.

separation of church and state

(2) Colonial Theological Warfare—Separation of Church and State

Leave a comment

A Publication of Simply Church Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 7, 2018

A complete analysis of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology requires a long and deep study of the Bible. FN [i] These short lessons will briefly look at some of the characteristics of each and distinctions between the two. The differences were debated in the colonies during a spiritual warfare that began in the early 1630’s. Fortunately, the dispensationalist view prevailed. This resulted in the adoption of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which, among other things, separates church and state (not God and state).

The two theologies have distinct “philosophies of history.” FN [ii] The two main systems which Bible-believing scholars have developed to exposit the Bible’s philosophy of history, Dispensationalism or Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology, have produced two systems of theology. Dispensational Theology contains all the necessary elements of a valid philosophy of history. “Dispensationalism, [which] can be defined very simply as a system of theology which attempts to develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of the sovereign rule of God, represents the whole of Scripture and history as being covered by several dispensations[, economies, or stewardships] of God’s rule.” FN [iii]

“The essence of dispensationalism … is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purposes of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.” FN [iv]

Covenant theologians teach that the church has replaced Israel. The Bible literally teaches that the rules for the church and state are different than the rules God ordained for the theocracy in Israel. Distinct rules, as discussed in the articles under Distinct Differences between Church and State that Render Them Mutually Exclusive, are laid down in the Bible concerning Judaism and Israel and the church and state.

Covenant theologians believe that God is through with Israel, that the church replaces Israel. This is a grave mistake to Judaize the church, a mistake which has many consequences.

“It may safely be said that the Judaizing of the Church has done more to hinder her progress, pervert her mission, and destroy her spiritually, than all other causes combined. Instead of pursuing her appointed path of separation from the world and following the Lord in her heavenly calling, she has used Jewish Scriptures to justify herself in lowering her purpose to the civilization of the world, the acquisition of wealth, the use of an imposing ritual, the erection of magnificent churches, the invocation of God’s blessing upon the conflicts of armies, and the division of an equal brotherhood into ‘clergy’ and ‘laity.’” FN [v]

The “Judaizing” of the church is based upon false biblical interpretation, upon a false philosophy of history.

The main issue in the theological warfare in the colonies was the relationship of church and state. Other issues such as believer’s baptism (Dispensational) versus infant baptism (Covenant Theology)—an issue closely related to the issue of separation of church and state—were also hotly debated. Covenant theologians believe in union of church and state. Dispensationalists take the literal meaning of the Bible on this issue—that God desires church and state to be separate in Gentile nations; both under God, but neither working over, with, or under the other. The arguments of both sides in the colonies are still available. Both secular and Christian histories of the theological warfare and the accompanying persecutions of dissenters is undeniable. Sadly, Calvinist, Protestant, and Catholic revisionism has done a masterful job of both promoting a revised version of history while hiding the truth from untold millions of “Christians.”

Endnotes

[i] For much more in-depth look at these matters, see Dispensational Theology versus Covenant Theology.

[ii] “Karl Lowith defines ‘a philosophy of history as ‘a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning’” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 17, citing Karl Lowith, Meaning in History (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 1; see also, Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), p.  1). This definition “centers on three things: (1) the ultimate goal of history; (2) the unifying principle; and (3) the recognition of ‘historical events and successions,’ or a proper concept of the progress of revelation in history” (Ryrie, p. 17). The Bible contains a philosophy of history because it deals with the issue of meaning, offers a systematic interpretation of history, covers the entire scope of history from beginning to end, including the what and why of the future, presents a unifying principle which ties together and makes sense of the whole gamut of events, distinctions, and successions, and demonstrates that history has an ultimate goal or purpose (Showers, p. 2; Ryrie, p. 17).

[iii] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), p. 27.

[iv] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 41.

[v] Dr C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, First Edition, January, 1896), p. 12.

church incorporation and 501(c)(3)), separation of church and state

3. Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and their importance to the issue of church and state relationship in America

Leave a comment

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Previous Lesson:
2. Definitions of “Separation of Church and State,” “Established Church,” and “Religious Freedom or Soul Liberty”2

Next Series of Lessons:
 4. Distinct Differences between Church and State Which Render Them Mutually Exclusive

Click here to go to all lessons on the Bible doctrine on the relationship of Church and State.

Click here to go to the written lessons.

Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

A student may not choose to delve into all the matters concerning Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology. Some of the studies below are optional and not necessary for a basic understanding of the spiritual or theological warfare that went on between established and dissenting, mainly Baptist, churches and their representatives in the colonies. Therefore, some of the studies noted below are noted to be “Optional.”

(1) Introduction
(2) Colonial Theological Warfare–Separation of Church and State
(3) The Essence of Dispensationalism (Optional)
(4) The Way in Which the Two Systems Meet the Requirements for a Philosophy of History (Optional)
(5) Some Basic Teachings of Covenant Theology (Optional)
(6) Puritan Covenant Theology Exposed in the American Colonies
(7) Three Critical Factors Upon Which Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology Disagree (Optional)
(8) Dispensationalism Correctly Explains the Covenants of Law and Grace (Optional)
(9) Persecution: A Consequence of Covenant Theology
(10) History Proves Established Churches Are Vile, Viciously Persecute Heretics, and Corrupt the State, the Church, and the People (Optional)
(11) New Testament Teaching against Persecution of Heretics (Optional)
(12) Conclusion to “Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and their importance to the issue of church and state relationship in America”

Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

separation of church and state

Introduction: Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology

Leave a comment

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

A publication of Simply Church Ministry

Click here to go to Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America.
Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © January 29, 2018

In order to understand religious liberty and the history of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (freedom of speech, press, association, religion (or religious liberty); conscience; soul liberty; separation of church and state; and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances), one must understand Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. This is because proponents of these two theologies fought a spiritual warfare in the colonies which led to the adoption of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Puritans were Covenant Theologians. Historic Baptists were Dispensationalists in belief, although the term Dispensational Theology was not coined until sometime in the last few hundred years. These two theologies clashed in the English colonies of America, the Baptist view prevailing at the federal level with the adoption of the First Amendment.

Christian and Secular Revisionists, as always, continue to deceive the general population in America with a revised history of the First Amendment. The contrived version of “Christian” revisionist history predominates the American Christian landscape. Endnote [i] The historical section of these studies will summarize that history, which scholars have recorded from the colonial period until this day. Endnote [ii] Contemporary Christian Revisionists use the same techniques as did their Calvinist forefathers. As Isaac Backus noted, concerning the revisionism and lies of the leaders of the established churches in the colonies:

  • “[I] appeal to the conscience of every reader, whether he can find three worse things on earth, in the management of controversy, than, first, to secretly take the point disputed for truth without any proof; then, secondly, blending that error with known truths, to make artful addresses to the affections and passions of the audience, to prejudice their minds, before they hear a word that the respondent has to say; and thirdly, if the respondent refuses to yield to such management, then to call in the secular arm to complete the argument?”[iii]

See Isaac Backus Quoted in God Betrayed to get a little understanding of the importance of his efforts and writings in the colonies for the cause of separation of church and state and religious liberty. The first major threat to the colonial establishments was instituted by Roger Williams in New England. His activities and writings forcefully revealed fallacies of Puritan (Calvinist) theology and Puritan persecution of “heretics” and led the founding of the first civil government in history with any lasing influence with religious liberty. See Roger Williams: Quotes and Other Information from God Betrayed.

Baptists in the colonies fought the Puritan and Anglican establishments. Isaac Backus came out of the Congregational (Puritan) Church, became a Baptist, and fought against establishment of churches, infant baptism, etc. His Bible studies led him to disregard significant portions of Calvinist allegorized interpretations of Scripture. He still called himself a Calvinist,  but rejected much of classic Calvinism. Through his extensive writing and activities, he fought for separation of church and state, baptismal regeneration, and other issues in the colonies.  These studies, especially the advanced studies, extensively quote Isaac Backus, and others such as Roger Williams—another hero of the faith who, as a Congregational pastor arrived in Massachusetts from England in the 1630s and soon clashed with Puritanism. It is obvious from their writings that these men took a literal view of Scripture and rejected the allegorized interpretation of Catholicism and Protestantism. Their writings totally dismantled the teachings of Puritans such as John Cotton. At the same time, Cotton and other Puritans, true to form and according to their theology, lied and misrepresented truth as always. They justified lying based upon false interpretations of Scriptures such as those dealing with Rahab the harlot and the midwives in Egypt.

The warfare between various biblical theologies continues and will continue until the kingdom of heaven is established by our Lord. Most “Baptists,” not to mention members of denominations and religions, have unknowingly succumbed to false religious beliefs and philosophies as end-time prophesy unfolds as foretold in Scripture.

This and the next few teachings will, in a nutshell, explain Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology, distinguish them, and will be invaluable in one’s quest for understanding of the biblical principle of separation of church and state and the American application thereof. To fully understand these matters will not be the goal; only the most important matters will be covered, and those in summary form. see the citations and references for more in depth analysis and study.

Covenant theology allegorizes and spiritualizes Scripture and teaches union of church and state. Covenant theology applies selected principles regarding the theocracy of Israel to Gentile civil government and the church. Dispensational theology is based upon a literal belief in Scripture which accordingly teaches separation of church and state. Although many biblical principles run from Genesis to Revelation, the rules for church and state and for the Jewish religion-state are not the same. Under Judaism (the Jewish religion as ordained by God), religion and state operated hand-in-hand under God; that is, the religion and state were unified by God, both religion and state instructed by God to work together directly under God for the same goals.

Keep in mind that there are many variations of Covenant Theology. Likewise, Dispensationalist systems of theology deviate, some alarmingly, from accurate and literal understanding and teaching on Scripture. God will not call every believer to totally understand these systems. The best thing a believer can do with God’s Word is to study it, believing what it says. When one does that, he will by definition be a dispensationalist. The important thing is that the believer read his own Bible and verify any Bible teaching. It is a serious mistake to blindly follow anyone, especially traditional Calvinist, Reformed, Catholic, Charismatic, JW, Mormon, or similar cultic teachings and teachers.

Endnotes

[i] See, The history and Meaning of the First Amendment or The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial which also explains why those revisionists lie about history and seek to intentionally deceive Christians.

[ii] See, Legal and Scholarly Resources and Authorities. See also, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial.

[iii] Backus, A History of New England…, Volume 1, p. 150. This comment followed and preceded illustrations of how those in favor of church/state marriage, infant baptism, etc. advance their cause.  On pp. 151-152, Mr. Backus illustrated how those in favor of infant baptism argued their position, pointing out the fallacies of their arguments. Their tactics have not changed, although in America, due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, they no longer can call upon civil government to enforce their beliefs. Click here for Quotes of Isaac Backus in God Betrayed.

separation of church and state

2. Definitions of “separation of church and state,” “established church,” and “religious freedom or soul liberty”

Leave a comment

A Publication of Simply Church Ministry

If you miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies, you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Previous Lesson:
1. Introduction

Next Lesson:
3. Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America 

Click here to go to all lessons on the Bible doctrine on the relationship of Church and State.

Click here to go to links to all written lessons.

Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © January 22, 2018

Separation of church and state,” “established church” and “religious freedom and soul liberty (the two go hand in hand),” are inherent in the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This lesson will define those phrases. The remaining studies and cited authorities, especially the studies on the history of the First Amendment, will make perfectly clear that the definitions given here are accurate.

 1. Definition of Separation of Church and State

Click the above to go to the article, “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?

The biblical principle of “separation of church and state” is that God desires both a church and the state to choose to be under God, but desires neither to be over or to work hand in hand with the other. According to God’s word, different principles apply to church and state. A church has spiritual responsibilities. The state has earthly responsibilities. God desires the two to be totally separate entities, both ordained by God who desires both to submit to Him in love and to be guided by His principles as stated in His Word. God’s principle of separation applies to church and state. As Jesus explained to the Pharisees, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” ()Matthew 22:21). 

A church under God remains an eternal spiritual entity only so long as she does not inadvertently or intentionally change her status to an earthly temporal entity by placing herself under the law of man, under civil government. By placing herself under the law of man, she combines church and state and makes herself, at least partially and sometimes wholly, a temporal, legal, earthly entity.

The incorporated and federal tax exempt (501(c)(3) or 508(c)(1)(A)) church is the main type of state/church union. The rules of civil government for such a church are secular and such a church agrees, when she applies for and accepts the status, to the rules which come with state non-profit corporation law and the rules that come with her tax-exempt status. She also agrees that any disputes over violation of the rules will be decided by her chosen authority—the state of incorporation or, for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(3)(A) purposes, the federal government. God and the Bible will have no part  in disputes deemed by the state to be under their authority.

In other words, man, not God, has authority over much of what the corporate 501(c)(3) or 508(c)(1)(A) church, being an established church, does. For many activities, the First Amendment and corresponding provisions of the particular state constitution which are statements of the Bible principle of separation of church and state (not separation of God and state) no longer apply. Such a church has chosen to become a legal person under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, Incorporated Church: A Human Being with No Soul.

 2. Definition of “Established Church”

An established church is a church who is an integral part of the state and receives state support. She does this by choosing to become a legal entity. The church and state reach an agreement or enter into a contract whereby either the state runs the church, the church runs the state, or the church and state work hand in hand, as equal partners, to enforce earthly and spiritual laws and principles. In modern America state-churches are influenced, perverted, and/or perhaps dominated by state enforced satanic principles.

Historically, the established church has either been over the state, or the state has been over the established church. When the state has been over the church, the state directs the affairs of the church to a greater or lesser degree and vice-versa. In either case, the spiritual affairs of the church are mixed with the earthly responsibilities of the state. In the past, in either a church/state or state/church, leaders of both church and state operated under a false theology based upon false biblical principles. The results were (1) corruption of the church, corruption of the state, corruption of the clergy and political leaders and the members of society and the church, and (2) torture, imprisonment, confiscation of property, and/or the killing of those who refused to bow down to the theology of the church-state or state-church. We see the former results in the church-state activities in America today. The latter results occuried in the American colonies.

  3. Definition of Religious Freedom or Soul Liberty

“By religious freedom, or soul liberty, is meant the natural and inalienable right of every soul to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to be unmolested in the exercise of that right, so long, at least, as he does not infringe upon the rights of others; that religion is, and must be a voluntary service; that only such service is acceptable to God; and, hence that no earthly power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, has any right to compel conformity to any creed or to any species of worship, or to tax a man for its support.”

Religious freedom exists when every citizen has, by law, the choice, without persecution, of choosing God, false gods or a false god, or no god at all. Religious freedom, as shown in God’s Word, is what He desires in a Gentile nation. Even though He desires Gentile nations to provide for religious liberty, He also wants them to submit themselves to Him and His principles, and recognize that Jesus Christ is the Supreme Sovereign. Thus a nation modeled after biblical principles will provide for religious liberty while also operating under God and His principles for civil government.

Click the above to go to book.

“This principle gives to ‘Caesar’ ‘the things that are Caesar’s,’ but it denies to Caesar ‘the things that are God’s.’ It does not make it a matter of indifference what a man believes or how he acts, but it places all on the same footing before God, the only lord of the conscience, and makes us responsible to him alone for our faith and practice. [By 1900 this doctrine was] very generally accepted, not only in Virginia, but also throughout the United States. It [had] been incorporated into our National and State Constitutions, and it [was ] the basis for our civil liberties” (Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (Harrisonburg, VA.: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; First Published Lynchburg, VA.: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), p. 9.)

 

separation of church and state

1. Introduction to the Biblical Doctrine of Separation of Church and State

Leave a comment

 

A Publication of Simply Church Ministry

Miss one part of the puzzle that is being put together in these studies and you will never see and understand the whole picture.

Previous Chapter:
B. Bible Doctrine of Church

Next Lesson:
2. Definitions of “Separation of Church and State,” “Established Church,” and “Religious Freedom or Soul Liberty”

Click here to go to all lessons on the Bible doctrine on the relationship of Church and State.

Click here to go to links to all written lessons.

Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © January 20, 2018

As these studies have already shown, God, the Supreme Ruler, ordained civil government and the church at different times, for different purposes, and for peoples with different natures. God ordained the state, the civil government, to deal with earthly matters, and the church to deal with spiritual matters. God’s word reveals distinct differences, some of which have already been explored in prior lessons, which render church and the state mutually exclusive. God’s desires a special, exclusive, loving  relationship with churches. As we have seen from Scripture, God is jealous over his espoused, his churches. See, for example, 2 Corinthians 11:1-3.

God leaves no doubt: the methods used by individuals, families, churches, and nations matter to God. When church and state combine, the earthly combines with the spiritual and trouble lies ahead.

God desires that both civil governments and churches choose to be under Him, to operate according to His principles. His principles for churches are very distinct from those for the government of nations. Thus, God desires separation of church and state—that is, He desires that neither the church nor the Gentile state work with or be under the other. A church who does not understand this proper relationship will be easily influenced to take earthly benefits from the state in return for forsaking her purely spiritual status and calling under Christ. Most American churches have corporate 501(c)(3) legal status; both combine church and state for earthly temporal legal reasons. Such churches are established churches, legal creatures of the state. See, EN.[i]

It is the responsibility of every church, not the state—regardless of all persecutions by the state, by the church-state alliance, and/or by the world in general—to be a light and stand for and proclaim truth. This is so because a church is the only institution made up of people privy to God’s spiritual insights, and only the church can be “the pillar and ground of the truth.” See, EN [ii] When churches leave truth in the dust, they become apostate and there is no longer any support for God’s truth. When that happens, individuals, families, churches, and the nation are headed for trouble, ultimately God’s judgment.

The first union of church in state occurred in the early fourth century. Augustine developed a theology justifying union of church and state. History proves that church state union has always resulted in the corruption of the church, the state, and the people and the persecution of those deemed to be heretics through imprisonment, torture, murder, taking of property, banishment, and other means. Catholic and Protestant establishments, when in exclusive union with the state, viciously persecute and murder those who will not bow down to their ungodly union. See, EN [iii]

The persecutions of the Old World were brought to America. Established churches in the colonies—notably, the Puritans and Anglicans—persecuted heretics. Due to constraints by England, their persecutions were not as severe as in the Old World. In the English colonies, those who refused to bow down to the established churches could not be killed; they could only be jailed, fined, imprisoned, humiliated, etc. As always, faithful Bible believers peacefully stood against the establishments. Due to the circumstances in the colonies, those heroes of the faith ultimately prevailed when the First Amendment was ratified and added to the United States Constitution.

Click the above to go to the article, “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?

The Covenant Theology of the Puritans, a modified form of Calvinism, which is derived from Catholic church/state theology, spiritualizes and allegorizes much of the Bible. The Puritans in New England prescribed a union of church and state where the church controls the state. Anglican colonial establishments practiced a form of Augustinianism in which the state (the King) controls the church.

The main opponents of union of church and state and persecution of “heretics” in the colonies were the Baptists. Their writings and history has survived. The writings of men such as Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Isaac Backus, and others reveal the colonial spiritual warfare that led to the First Amendment. Sadly, Christian Revisionists like David Barton and William Federer, have revised that history in their attempts to implement their false Presbyterian Calvinist union of church and state theology. They have deceived the great majority of believers since they control “Christian” media and Christian political activism.

Many pastors and believers come up with false reasons for uniting with the state through incorporation, federal tax-exempt status and/or other means. Many take Bible verses taken out of context to prop up their false church/state theology. They have reworded and/or misinterpreted God’s word to justify unholy union of churches with civil government. Many are just ignorant of any Bible reasoning and application and blindly follow tradition .

God’s gives clear warning to churches against building upon the wrong foundation. By the grace of God, this Simply Church Ministry will continue to sound the alarm in the midst of the almost universal hersey and apostasy of American churches. We invite those who have an ear to hear to join with us

1 Corinthians 3:9-17 (KJV) “For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:9-17).

Endnotes

[i] See What is an established church?

[ii] 1 Ti. 3.15. Many earthly relationships and behaviors involve the application of spiritual insights. For example, God teaches, in His Word, the responsibilities of husbands to wives, wives to husbands, parents to children, children to parents, civil government to marriages and the men and women joined in marriage, civil government to children, and so forth. Although these are spiritual teachings, they are to be applied in earthly relationships to which there is a spiritual parameter. In other words, God is involved in all relationships and has outlined the ultimate consequences for behaviors, and therefore, everything is spiritual even though it may have an earthly dimension. The trouble comes when man tries to exclude God and His principles, an impossible task.

Also, every sphere of ordained government has its own God-given jurisdiction. God desires the state to stay out of family affairs unless criminal acts are involved. He wants civil government to stay out of church affairs, and the church, as an institution to stay out of state affairs. At the same time, he wants Christians to be in authority since only Christians can apply His principles in the realm of government (of course this has almost never happened). Likewise, a church has no God-given jurisdiction over a family.

[iii] Some resources which cover history of the union of church and state under Catholic and Protestant legal establishments (established church/states) are: The History of the First Amendment, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, and Introduction to the biblical doctrine of “Separation of Church and State (Covers persecution from the crucifixion of Christ by Jews, Rome (the Catholic/Roman establishment), to the Reformation, to the American colonies).