Tag Archives: covenant theology

Uncategorized

Analysis of “’Freedom of Conscience:’ Rhode Island founder Roger Williams “Wall of Separation” as understood by Jefferson – American Minute with Bill Federer”

Leave a comment

Click here to go to homepage with links to all analyses of “An American Minute by Bill Federer” Challenged

For a documented history of the spiritual warfare in America that started in the colonial period and continues to this day, see The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial.

Jerald Finney
February 18, 2023

This article challenges Bill Federer’s American Minute publication: “Freedom of Conscience:” Rhode Island founder Roger Williams “Wall of Separation” as understood by Jefferson – American Minute with Bill Federer. In that article, Federer subtly challenges the historical fact that “separation of church and state” as used with reference to the First Amendment and to Bible principle is not meant to keep a church out of civil government, only civil government out of church matters. Keep in mind that the phrase “separation of church and state,” although not found in the federal or state constitutions, is a succinct way of describing the concept of the historical wall of separation between church and state as intended by the First Amendment.

Right off the bat, in the title, Federer begins to mislead the uneducated reader. Roger Williams’ writings and documented history make abundantly clear that he upheld Bible teaching and believed in and practiced both the “two-way wall of separation” as well as “freedom of conscience.” He was banished by Puritan Massachusetts for his disagreements with the established church on matters such as their denial of freedom of conscience through enforcement of all Ten of the Commandments and their “union of church and state,” with church over the colonial Massachusetts government. Instead of waiting to be shipped back to England, Williams and a group of followers left Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, the first civil government with any lasting influence with both separation of church and state and freedom of conscience (soul liberty). Thomas Jefferson, a deist who believed in a secular state, also believed in a two-way wall of separation as well as freedom of conscience. His beliefs were based upon human reasoning. Of course, Jefferson knew that the states had chosen to allow voluntary establishment of churches and that many churches had chosen to remain separate from the state. I deal with that matter more extensively in other challenges to Federer. See, Roger Williams: Quotes and other selected information from God Betrayed. For a documented history of Roger Williams as well as that of Thomas Jefferson (on the matter or church/state relationship), see God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. (For specifics on Roger Williams, see the index of the book.).

Unlike Federer, Roger Williams did not confuse “freedom of conscience” with the matter of “separation of church and state.” Williams knew that these were two separate matters although inextricably linked when a nation has one established church. Federer constantly refers to freedom of conscious when trying to make the point that church and state should not be separated (that the “wall” is only one way).

In his confusion, Federer mis-defines the true and historical meaning and application of the relationship of church and state in the American colonial and early republic context. He does this, in large part, by selectively choosing from historical quotes, writings, sermons, etc. He misrepresents the beliefs of many, to include those of the Puritans, Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, the Apostle Paul, and many others. For example, both our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul were clearly against union of church and state and for freedom of conscience. In fact, the believer has a choice, no matter the laws of civil government or an establishment of church or religion and state: honor God even unto the death of the body or dishonor God and bow down to the church/state establishment. Our Lord said, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Jesus said it. Paul laid down his life practicing it.

Since the Danbury letter, Jefferson’s reply, and selected out-of-context quotes are widely misrepresented in “Christian” revisionist writings, as in this article by Federer, I will specifically address it. Federer claims that Jefferson explained who was limited by the “wall” in his letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, that being the federal government. Of course, that letter does not also explain something else that Jefferson believed, fought for, and wrote on extensively: the “wall” was definitely intended to keep the church (not Christians) out of civil government. As stated above, Jefferson was a deist who believed in a secular state. Furthermore, he did not believe in the trinity or in the miracles of Jesus. He went so far as to write his own Bible. Federer treats Madison and what he believed about the matter in like fashion. For more details see, God Betrayed; see also, Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America and Religious Liberty in America.

Along the way, Federer, again dwelling on freedom of conscience rather than separation of church and state, asks, “Freedom of Conscience”: how did it become enshrined in America’s legal tradition?” His answer is designed to carry the uneducated reader down the yellow brick road to a preconceived conclusion—that the wall of separation was meant to keep the government out of church matters but not the church out of government matters; i.e., that the church was intended by God to run the state and enforce all of God’s law. The Puritans in England and also in the colonies definitely did not believe that the King (the state) should be over the church. They came to America for religious freedom, for themselves only. Their colonial establishments in New England persecuted dissenters to the extent they could get away with. After hanging four Quakers for returning to Massachusetts after being banished by the establishment, England forbade them to execute any other dissenters. However, they continued to concoct every way they could to continue persecutions.

The colonial New England colonies combined church (not God) and civil government, the church being in the driver’s seat. They were Judaizers who believed the impossible—due to their wrong division of the word of God inherited from Augustine and John Calvin with modifications: that the rules for the only true theocracy ever ordained by God, the nation Israel, should be applied by a Gentile government. God was directly over both the civil government and the religion of Israel, and all the law and the Ten Commandments were strictly enforced. The Puritans substituted the Congregational Church for God. Their experiment quickly fell apart.

Federer states, that, throughout the Scriptures, Israel and the Church are referred to as the Lord’s “bride,” etc. and takes quotes out of context to support this matter. A contextual literal examination of Scripture makes clear that Israel was referred to as the bride of God the Father, but the bridegroom of the church is the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, all this is explained in God Betrayed. Scripture also makes clear to one who believes it, but not to one who wrongly divides it, that the relationship of “religion” and state in Gentile nations are not the same as those for God, religion, and state for the theocracy of Israel.

Of course, Federer is right when he states that God desires man to have free will and that man, in exercising that free will, choose to love God. God also gives nations a free will—honor or dishonor God and His Word. Believers in North Korea and other God rejecting nations have free will, but they may give their lives for exercising it, as did all the Apostles except John and untold millions of believers who have been viciously tortured and murdered because of their refusal to bow down to Catholic and Protestant church/state establishments. For example, the government of North Korea has chosen, of its own free will, not to honor God and God’s Word. If ta believer in North Korea is caught saying the name of Jesus in a positive way, handing out a Gospel Tract, possessing a Bible, or witnessing to another, he will be killed, and sometimes on the spot.

Federer states, “A controversy raged among inhabitants of Massachusetts, between ‘a covenant of grace’ versus ‘a covenant of works.’” There was no controversy in the colony of Massachusetts between “a covenant of grace” versus “a covenant of works.” How this inaccurate statement, and much more in the article fits together is beyond me. The spiritual battle in the New England colonies was between those who held a literal dispensational view—i.e., Dispensationalists—and the Puritans who believed a spiritualized, allegorized interpretation—i.e., Covenant Theologians. Covenant theology “represents the whole of history on the basis of two or three covenants called the the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Grace, and, according to some Covenant Theologians, the Covenant of Redemption.” For explanation of the distinctions between the opposing factions in Massachusetts, between those holding the dispensational view and those holding to covenant theology, see Part I, Section I, Chapter 3 and also Part II Section I of God Betrayed; see also, Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America and Religious Liberty in America.

On the matter of separation of church and state, Federer misrepresents Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Leland and many pastors, writers, statesmen, judges, etc.. He emphasizes their stand for soul liberty, but leaves out their stand for total separation of church and state and what that means. To get the true and documented history of the spiritual conflict in the colonies and early republic, see the histories in God Betrayed, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial, and Religious Liberty in America.

State Constitutional provisions protect soul liberty (freedom of conscience) and forced establishment of churches. Soul liberty is the freedom to choose and follow God, a god, or no god without persecution by civil government. Religious establishment is the combining of church and state. The religion clause of the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The First Amendment and corresponding state constitutional provisions separate church and state, absolutely on the federal level and by choice on the state level. Federal mandatory separation has never been forced upon the states, so churches in all the states still have the choice of either pleasing God (not combining with the state through man’s law) or grieving God (combining with the state as an established church though statutory contract—incorporation or charitable trust law).

When a church chooses to combine with a state, she gives up much of her First Amendment and state constitutional protections or religious liberty and becomes a legal person under the Fourteenth Amendment for many purposes. See, Short Answers to Some Important Questions.

Separation of church and state means exactly what it says. The highest federal and state laws were meant in their historical context to separate church and state, with the caveat explained in the last paragraph. Allowing state into church matters or church into state matters does not separate church and state.

Neither the First Amendment nor corresponding state constitutional provisions were meant to separate God and state which is something entirely different from separating church and state. See, Biblical Teaching of Self-Government, the online version of Part I, Section I, Chapter 3 of God Betrayed, for a basic understanding of the relationship of God (not the church) and state. From a more comprehensive understanding, especially in the American context, read the whole book.

Church establishment is always a product of man’s law. The first established church was the Roman Catholic church. Protestant churches which came out of Catholicism combined with the state when the opportunity presented itself. The Puritans in the New England colonies established the Congregational Church and the church was over the state. The Anglicans established the Church of England in the Southern colonies and the King was the head of the church. In all those colonies, as with prior unions of church and state, the colonial establishment legislated all ten of the commandments. Penalties for going against the establishment were severe and violation of any of the commandments were subject to extreme punishment.

Federer starts his article with quotes and comments to show that mankind has always believed in God. A better authority for that conclusion is the Word of God, and especially Romans 1:18-32 which states, in part: “

  • “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).

The following stood for a two-way wall of separation between church and state:

  • Roger Williams. Federer notes that this (Rhode Island) was “the first place where the church was not controlled by the state.” That is inaccurate. “The state of Teprice in Armenia, in the ninth century, gave absolute freedom of opinion and conscience for one hundred and fifty years before being overcome. All around them were persecutions for conscience sake – they themselves had lost one hundred thousand members by persecutions in the reign of Theodora – yet here was a shelter offered to every creed and unbeliever alike. The Baptists have always set up religious liberty when they had the opportunity” (John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas: Bogard Press), pp. 38-41, 51-52). The Catholic establisment in the Old World controlled the civil governments of many nations. In the Puritan colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, the church controlled the state. The correct statement is, “Rhode Island was second civil government–the first with any lasting influence–in history to honor separation of church and state and soul liberty.”
  • Dr. John Clarke.
  • Thomas Jefferson.
  • James Madison.
  • John Leland
  • Many other men (and women) who were instrumental in the colonial warfare which led to the First Amendment.

The following were for union of church and state

  • The Puritans (The church in the New England colonies ran the state (church over state).
  • The Anglicans (the King was head over the church).
  • Many other Protestants, although, for the most part none of them achieved the status of the established church of a colony. After the advent of multiple establishments, many different churches chose to contract with the state for establishment. Under multiple establishment in America, the state is given much control over the church, but the church is given no control over the state.

Honest Biblical and historical scholarship disproves the Christian Historical Revisionism which predominates the “Christian” landscape on America. Christians, and especially Christian political activists in America, blindly continue to follow a refuge of lies even though educated secularists, who themselves revise to support their satanic goals, have extensively exposed the lies and the ignorance of the Christian community in general thereby causing millions to view Christians as uneducated ignoramuses and to blaspheme the name of God. God wants his children and churches to proceed with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. The methods of spiritual warfare matter to God; he has not and will not honor such efforts. This is a principle that runs throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

“Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it” (Isaiah 28:17-18).

Separates and Baptists in New England

V. Backus Struggles with the Issues of Baptism and Covenant Theology; Rejects Infant Baptism and Covenant Theology

Leave a comment

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry

Previous Lesson:
IV. Backus Becomes a Baptist Leader; His Differences with the Established Church; Taxes Supporting the Established Church

Next Lesson:
VI. Separates and Baptists Desire To Meet Together; This Proves Untenable; Backus Leads Brethren to Start a Baptist Church at Titicut

Click here for links to all lessons on “The Separates and the Baptists in New England.”

Click here to go to links to all the written lessons.

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

For accompanying more thorough study from God Betrayed click here.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 28, 2018

Isaac Backus found the answer by studying the Bible.

Backus struggled with the issue of baptism, studied Scripture, rejected infant baptism, and was baptized by dipping on August 22, 1751.[1] He set out to refute the anti-pedobaptist position by first turning to the Bible, and then to the claims of Baptist scholars in England that infant baptism was a corruption brought into the Christian church in the 2nd or 3rd century. What he found surprised him.

Next, Backus examined the Covenant Theology which lay at the heart of New England Puritanism. The relevance of this theology to Backus was mainly its effect on the church-state issue:[2]

  • First, “[T]he Jewish church was clearly a national church, a theocracy in which Moses and Aaron ruled together, and thus the Puritans were able to utilize the covenant theology to justify their ecclesiastical laws and their system of territorial parishes and religious taxes. Second, the covenant theology provided the Puritans with justifications for the Halfway Covenant, thus polluting the purity of the mystical body of Christ. And in the third place the covenant theology, by emphasizing that grace ran ‘through the loins of godly parents,’ that the baptized children of visible saints were somehow more likely than others to obtain salvation, thereby established a kind of hereditary spiritual aristocracy; it also undermined the sovereignty of God by implying that God was bound by this covenant to save certain persons rather than others. [Etc.]”[3]

The Puritans supported the unity of the Abrahamic Covenant in Romans 11.17.

  • “Here, the apostle Paul spoke of the Christian covenant as being grafted on to the Jewish covenant as a branch is grafted on to an olive tree, from whence the Puritans ‘argued the right of professors now to baptize their children, because the Jews circumcised theirs.’ This Backus rejected as misinterpretation. ‘The Jews were broken off thro’ unbelief, and the Gentiles were grafted in, and stand only by faith.’ Faith was essential to baptism. What Puritans stressed as organic continuity, Backus and the Baptists stressed as a complete break.”[4]
Isaac Backus rejected Covenant Theology.

Backus concluded that the Separates must explicitly reject the Covenant Theology, the whole conception of the corporate Christian state, which the Puritans had so painstakingly constructed in the wilderness of New England. Backus decided against infant baptism and was baptized. “[H]e rejected the Covenant Theology of the Puritans by arguing as the Baptists had long done that the Bible contained two covenants, the old Covenant of Works made with the Jews, and the Covenant of Grace made with those who believe in Christ….” “[T]he Puritans had confused the gospel of grace with the doctrine of works and transformed the gospel church of visible saints into a national church with a birthright membership.”[5] “Backus and the Baptists stressed the discontinuity, the antithetical nature of the two, the complete and distinct break between the past and the present dispensations. That Americans were ready to grasp this new outlook after 1740 and to pursue it to its logical conclusions marks the real break with the Old World, the medieval mind and the Puritan ethos….”[6]

Endnotes

[1] 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), pp. 108-111.

[2] William G. McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Piestic Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), pp. 61-63.

[3] Ibid., pp. 62-64.

[4] Ibid., p. 76.

[5] Ibid., pp. 73-76.

[6] Ibid., p. 74.

Puritans & Pilgrims in Massachusetts

VI. The Theology and Goals of the Puritans in America

2 Comments

A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry

Previous Lesson: V. The Theology and Goals of the Puritans Up to Their Arrival in America in 1629

Next Lesson: VII. The Results of Puritan Theology in Massachusetts Soon Came to Fruition

Click here for links to all lessons on The Pilgrims and Puritans in New England.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 24, 2018

Puritans hung 4 Quakers for returning to Massachusetts after being banished for their religious beliefs.

Although they differed from the Church of England and others on some doctrines, “[t]he Puritans brought 2 principles with them from their native country, in which they did not differ from others; which are, that natural birth, and the doings of men, can bring children into the Covenant of Grace; and, that it is right to enforce & support their own sentiments about religion with the magistrate’s sword.”[1]

John Cotton was called upon to arrange the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the colony.[2]  They set up a ecclesiocracy in which no one could hold office who was not a member of an approved church.[3] “The civil laws were adjusted to the polity of the church, and while nominally distinct, they supported and assisted each other.”[4]

“‘It was requested of Mr. Cotton,’ says his descendant Cotton Mather, ‘that he would from the laws wherewith God governed his ancient people, form an abstract of such as were of a moral and lasting equity; which he performed as acceptably as judiciously….  He propounded unto them, an endeavour after a theocracy, as near as might be to that which was the glory of Israel, the peculiar people.’”[5]

The goal of the Puritans was to build “city on a hill.” Two modern day Covenant Theologians and historical revisionists wrote:

  • “They determined to change their society in the only way that could make any lasting difference: by giving it a Christianity that worked. And this they set out to do, not by words but by example, in the one place where it was still possible to live the life to which Christ had called them: three thousand miles beyond the reach of the very Church they were seeking to purify.
  • “[T]he legacy of Puritan New England to this nation, which can still be found at the core of our American way of life, may be summed up in one word: covenant…. [O]n the night of the Last Supper, to those who were closest to Him, Jesus said, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins….”[6]

To the contrary, covenant cannot be found, as understood by the Puritan theologians, now or anytime in the past, at the core of our American way of life. The idea of covenant at the core of our American way of life was that of the Baptists as expressed by the Warren Association at the close of the War for Independence:

“The American Revolution is wholly built upon the doctrine, that all men are born with an equal right to what Providence gives them, and that all righteous government is founded in compact or covenant, which is equally binding upon the officers and members of each community…. And as surely as Christianity is true, Christ is the only lawgiver and head of his church….”[7]

Nor is there a Bible principle that allows a nation to covenant with God contrary to the principles laid down in God’s Word. The Puritans incorrectly believed that every nation is in covenant with the Lord to enforce both His spiritual and earthly principles. They misunderstood the biblical teachings that God gives every nation a choice as to whether to follow His rules, and that nowhere in Scripture is there authority for a nation to initiate a non-biblical covenant with God. God alone initiated the Old Testament covenants to which He was a party, thereby, among other things, establishing Israel as a theocracy, and He made no such covenant with any other nation. All other nations called Gentile, and are judged by God primarily based upon their treatment of Israel.[8]

Covenant Theology[9] asserts that there are only two covenants, or three, in the Bible, with the other covenants which came after the Covenant of Grace being only a continuation thereof. The Covenant of Law, according to the covenant theologian, was made in the Garden of Eden. Covenant Theology superimposes the New Testament over the Old. Herein lies some of the fatal flaws in this interpretation of the Bible. In the Puritan formulation of those covenants, the principles and practices of the nation Israel and the Jewish religion were applied to the church and state. As has been shown, this presents irreconcilable conflicts with Old and New Testament teachings concerning law and grace and the relationship of church and state.

God permits a mutual compact or covenant between a ruler or the rulers and the people—a covenant that does not include God and His principles and that is not initiated or ordained by God.  God allowed even the people of the theocracy of Israel to reject Him and, like the Gentile nations, to have a king.[10] Isaac Backus taught as follows:

  • “Now the word of God plainly shows, that this way of mutual compact or covenant, is the only righteous foundation for civil government. For when Israel must needs have a king like the rest of the nations, and he indulged them in that request, yet neither Saul nor David, who were anointed by his immediate direction, ever assumed the regal power over the people, but by their free consent. And though the family of David had the clearest claim to hereditary succession that any family on earth ever had, yet, when ten of the twelve tribes revolted from his grandson, because he refused to comply with what they esteemed a reasonable proposal, and he had collected an army to bring them back by force, God warned him not to do it, and he obeyed him therein. Had these plain precedents been regarded in later times, what woes and miseries would they have prevented? But the history of all ages and nations shows, that when men have got the power into their hands, they often use it to gratify their own lusts, and recur to nature, religion or the constitution (as they think it will best serve) to carry, and yet cover, their wretched designs.”[11]

The Puritan ideal is disproved by correct interpretation of the Word of God, by biblical history and prophecy, and secular history, including the history of the colony of Massachusetts. Israel, populated by God’s chosen race, was directly under God, yet the Israelites rejected His theocracy so that they could have a king like all the other nations. Israel fared ill when they did things their way and were ruled by kings. Under both God and king, Israel refused to do things God’s way, and rejected his commandments and statutes. After the death of King Solomon, the nation divided in two. All of the kings of the northern kingdom, Israel, were bad. The southern Kingdom, Judah, had twenty kings—eight were good[12] and twelve were bad.  Both Israel and Judah, in accord with God’s philosophy of history, experienced religious apostasy, moral awfulness, and political anarchy. They failed to keep the commandments and statutes of God and were taken into captivity as a result.

The Puritans failed to correctly interpret both the Old and New Testaments and secular history which clearly show that all nations that have ever existed have been judged by God, are in the process of being judged by God, or will be judged by God. They misinterpreted prophecy concerning the end times to say that the church, working hand in hand with the state will establish the kingdom of heaven on earth. Oh, had and would they (have) realize(d) that the New Covenant for the church had so much better promises and procedures than the Old Testament covenants. “But now hath he [Jesus Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”[13]

The Puritans wrongly, but truly, believed they could build the Kingdom of God on earth, in their lifetime—all they needed, they felt, was “the right time, the right place, and the right people” who “were willing to commit themselves totally.”[14] The Puritans did not realize that the philosophy of history in the Bible and the basic nature of man rendered their goal impossible. God describes the cycle of every civil government, Jewish and Gentile.

  • “The book of Judges is a philosophy of history. ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people’ (Proverbs 14.34).”[15]
  • “We see that philosophy in the book of Judges. Israel at first, for a short time, served God. Then they did evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth. The anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He delivered them into the hands of their enemies. Israel then entered into a time of servitude. Israel cried out to God in their plight and distress.  They turned to God and repented. God heard their prayers and raised up judges through whom they were delivered.
  • “This cycle was repeated over and over. The book of Isaiah opens with God giving his philosophy of history. Isaiah outlines three steps that cause the downfall of a nation: (1) spiritual apostasy, (2) moral awfulness, (3) and political anarchy.”[16]
  • “Every nation goes down in this order: (1) religious apostasy; (2) moral awfulness; (3) political anarchy. Deterioration begins in the [church], then to the home, and finally to the state. That is the way a nation falls.”[17]
  • “In Judges 17-21, we have presented that philosophy of history [that was mentioned above]. In Judges 17-18, we see spiritual apostasy. In Judges 19, we see moral awfulness. In Judges 20-21, we see political anarchy. This period ends in total national corruption and confusion. ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21.25).’[18]
  • “If you want to know just how up-to-date the book of Judges is, listen to the words of the late General Douglas McArthur: ‘In this day of gathering storms, as moral deterioration of political power spreads its growing infection, it is essential that every spiritual force be mobilized to defend and preserve the religious base upon which this nation is founded; for it has been that base which has been the motivating impulse to our moral and national growth. History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual reawakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.’”[19]

The Puritans felt that they were dedicated to serving the Lord and to doing things His way. They believed that they could set up a civil government modeled after biblical principles. They did not realize that even had they been upright in God’s eyes, future leaders would depart from the faith and lead the church and the civil government downhill into depravity just as happened in Israel and in all church-state marriages starting with the Catholics and up to the established churches after the Reformation, including the Church of England from which they were fleeing.

Endnotes

[1] Isaac Backus, A History of New England With Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, Volume 1 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, Previously published by Backus Historical Society, 1871), pp. 34-35.

[2] Roger Williams and Edward Bean Underhill, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton’s Letter Examined and Answered (London: Printed for the Society, by J. Haddon, Castle Street, Finsbury, 1848), p. xii.

[3] Backus, p. 35; Williams and Underhill, pp. x-xi.

[4] Williams and Underhill, pp. xii-xiii.

[5] Ibid., footnote 8, pp. xii-xiii, citing sources.

[6] Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1977), p. 146.

[7] 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), pp. 265-266.

[8] See Section I.A. of these studies.

[9] See Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America.

[10] See 1 S. 8.

[11] Backus, Volume 1, APPENDIX B, p. 530

[12] Mannessa started out bad, was judged of God, then did good, making him the only bad king in Judah or Israel to repent and turn from his wicked ways. See 2 K. 21.1-18; 2 Chr. 33.1-20.

[13] He. 8.6; See all of He. 8.

[14] Marshall and Manuel, pp. 145-146.

[15] J. Vernon McGee, Joshua and Judges (Pasadena, California: Thru the Bible Books, 1980), p. 111.

[16] Ibid., pp. 112-113.

[17] Ibid, pp. 113, 203.

[18] Ibid., pp. 203-214.

[19] Ibid., p. 113.

separation of church and state

Persecution: A Consequence 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

Puritans hung 4 Quakers for returning to Massachusetts after being banished for their religious beliefs.

Covenant Theology has had clear consequences. Roger Williams pointed out, concerning religious persecution based upon Covenant Theology: “He [that is, the established churches] that kills and he [those defined as heretics by the established churches] that is killed, they both cry out, ‘It is for God, and for their conscience.”[i] Only one side can be right, and the Bible shows that side to be the persecuted Baptists. Both protestants and papists, Williams continued, “pretend they have spoke with Moses and the prophets, who all, say they, before Christ came, allowed such holy persecutions [and] holy wars against the enemies of holy church.”[ii]

It is impossible for a Gentile nation prior to the return of Christ to operate as a true theocracy. As seen in Section I, Chapter 6 of God Betrayed (which is published online in an edited version), a theocracy is a “Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed.” All alleged “Christian” theocracies (church over state, state over church, or a combination of church and state; called ecclesiocracies by the author) are only poor imitators of the one true God-ordained theocracy in Israel. God never told the church to work with the state, over the state, or under the state.

Israel, the only theocracy which has ever existed, operated as a theocracy only until the Israelites rejected God and demanded a king, and God acted on their request and gave them King Saul. In the theocracy, all ten of the commandments were enforced. While operating as a theocracy, Israel was directly under God, and God initially spoke directly to the leaders of the nation of Israel. After God allowed Israel, at Israel’s request, to be ruled by a king, the Jewish religion and the civil government no longer worked together, although God spoke to the kings of Israel through his chosen prophets.

God no longer speaks directly to leaders of civil government, to the leaders of church government, or to others. He speaks to believers, led by the Holy Spirit, through His Word, the Bible. This is consistent with the fact that He only ordained one theocracy, Israel, prior to the second return of Christ. Yet Covenant Theology united church and state, with the church taking the place of God in speaking directly to the civil government. As a result, the “church” used the strong arm of the state to enforce its own particular brand of religion, or the state itself enforced its preferred religion. The only way to justify such a union is to use a false interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation which, since it is based upon Satan’s principles, must have been developed by Satan himself and implemented either by his children or by children of God who were not walking in the spirit according to knowledge.

The beating of Obadiah Holmes by the Puritans in Massachusetts

The most noticeable and atrocious consequence of all church-state and state-church unions has been the confiscation of property, dissemination of lies about “heretics” as defined by the state-church, and other persecutions such as the beating, torture, imprisonment, and killing of untold millions of people who have dissented from the views of the state-church. The ultimate result of church-state or state-church alliances is always the same—the alliance of church and state called for by a perverted interpretation of Scripture forces others to profess allegiance to the doctrines of the official church under penalty of persecution, thereby attempting to stamp out those who practice free will. The state-church or church-state enforces its own peculiar doctrines including all of the Ten Commandments among which are the first four commandments which deal with man’s relationship to God. In effect, it requires many to be dishonest with both man and God. Since no one can be forced to choose to believe a particular religious belief in their heart, a lot of religious hypocrites are thereby created.

Endnotes

[i] Roger Williams and Edward Bean Underhill, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton’s Letter Examined and Answered (London: Printed for the Society, by J. Haddon, Castle Street, Finsbury, 1848), p. 33, First published in 1644.

[ii] Ibid., p. 34.

separation of church and state

Puritan Covenant Theology Exposed in the American Colonies

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 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

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 Churches Under Christ 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.[i] The historical section of these studies will summarize the true history, which true scholarship has recorded from the colonial period until this very day.[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 certain 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. He obviously disregarded the 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 arrived in Massachusetts from England in the 1630s. 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 justify 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 of the First Amendment or The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus which also explains why those revisionists lie about history and seek to intentionally deceive Christians.

[ii] See, List of Scholarly Resources which Explain and Comprehensively Document the True History of Religious Freedom in America

[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

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

Leave a comment

 

A Publication of Churches Under Christ 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. When church and state combine, the earthly combines with the spiritual and trouble lies ahead, as history proves.

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

God desires that both civil governments and churches choose to be under Him, to operate according to His principles. At the same time, 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.[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 is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”[ii]  Generally speaking, those who run civil government cannot know spiritual and ultimate truth since most leaders in civil government are unregenerate (or, in rare instances, Christians who are usually spiritual babies).

Catholicism was the original church to be united with the state through the law of civil government in the early fourth century. Catholicism, most notably Augustine and much later Aquinas, developed the theology which unifies church and state through the laws of a nation. This theology justifies the persecution, torture, and murder of heretics. Established Protestant churches continued to practice this heretical theology. Church state establishments have always viciously persecuted and murdered those whom the established church has labeled to be heretical.[iii]

Established churches in the American colonies—notably, the Puritans and Anglicans—continued to persecute heretics, although due to constraints by England, not as severely as in the Old World. As always, faithful Bible stood spiritually, not physically, 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.[iii]

The Covenant Theology of the Puritans, a modified form of Calvinism, which is a modification of Catholic theology, spiritualizes and allegorizes much of the Bible. Calvinism teaches union of church and state and requires the persecution of heretics.

The main opponents of Covenant Theology, union of church and state, and persecution of “heretics” in the colonies were the Baptists. The writings and history, for the most part have survived. Unlike the Old World where Protestantism and Catholicism before that successfully destroyed the books, writings, and teachings of “heretics” new forces came together in the colonies which allowed the brilliant history and writings of men such as Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Isaac Backus, and other to be preserved. Sadly, Christian Revisionism, not to mention secular revisionism, has tried to blot out or pervert and hide that history and those writings.

This section will examine:

  • Covenant Theology versus the theology of the dissenting Baptists in the colonies;
  • some distinct differences between the church and the state which render them mutually exclusive;
  • Christ’s statement concerning Caesar and God and the false interpretation of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.13 and some other verses which are often cited out of context to support unlimited submission to the state in all earthly matters, and in all spiritual matters, with the possible exception of preaching salvation;
  • the Bible doctrine concerning the relationship of church and state.

Click here to go to a more thorough and advanced Introduction.

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).

 

Uncategorized

Principles, Dispensations, and Covenants in the Bible

2 Comments

Jerald Finney
Copyright © December, 2015

The Lord has impressed this author to write a booklet (which may turn into a book) corresponding to a long time and continuing detailed study of the word of God covering principles, dispensations, and covenants in the Bible. This study may look at some other teachings, but all such teachings will be compared to what the Bible literally says from Genesis to Revelation concerning the particular principle, dispensation, or covenant each of which will occupy its own chapter or chapters (to be determined as this booklet is penned). The author will not present finished chapters all at once, but will publish each chapter in its beginning and as it progresses.

Understanding these matters should be near the top of any serious Bible study since correctly dividing the word of truth on them is necessary to a solid understanding of Scripture, of the history of the church including the history of the persecution of authentic believers, and of the daily spiritual battle that all believers are instructed to engage in. Knowing the history of the persecution of believers is important; knowing why they were willing to die horrible deaths for their faith in Jesus Christ is more important since the latter must be based upon the foundation of the word of God. Accurate history and present day fact proves that true believers (as well as heretics, apostates, and followers of false religions) died and continue to die for their faith. Dying for the wrong reason may surprise one when he ends up in hell. Sadly, generally speaking, much study time has been devoted to historical persecution of true believers, but little time to Bible foundations of their martyrdom.

This study is open to analysis, but Bible analysis only. It matters not what anyone teaches. What matters is what Scripture teaches on the subject as a whole. For example, the book of Hebrews speaks of the new and the old covenants. Does this mean that there are only two covenants in the Bible. It cannot mean such a thing since there are obviously more than two covenants in the Bible. To understand what Hebrews is teaching, one must first understand if the rest of the Bible describes only two covenants. One must consider to whom is the particular Scripture speaking, for what purpose, and both the immediate and overall Scriptural context.

There are definitely numerous principles, covenants, and dispensations in the Bible. After many years of study accompanied by copious notes, the author cannot deny the obvious. The author has always looked at Scripture as the standard when reading what others have written or said.

The author is aware that good men of God have been led down the road to a belief in what is called “Covenant Theology” by studying what others have written on the subject and verifying what they have been taught by looking at the Bible. In trying to convince others to believe in covenant theology, men will usually start with verses in the New Testament, taken out of context without a foundational study starting in Genesis 1.1 and ending with Revelation 22.21. They have not started in Genesis with dedicated study and copious notes on principles, covenants, and dispensations. Covenant theologians are not the only ones who have perverted the teachings of Scripture; others such as hyperdispensationalists have done likewise, although in a different manner, maybe even by going through the entire Bible starting in Genesis.

David Ickes comment concerning classical learning is totally appropriate to Bible learning:

“[W]hen one reads a properly written book, each paragraph expounds on the previous one. So the reader’s brain learns subconsciously about premises and conclusions built upon them. One would not grasp the meaning of the 4th paragraph without first reading the previous 3. This teaches organized linear thinking. Each chapter would do the same in relation to the previous ones and so on.”

This is the way to learn the Bible. This is not the way of the Reformed Covenant Theologian; this is not the way of the hyperdispensationalist; this is the way of the dispensationalist. The Reformed takes the Bible out of order, adds to the Bible, and spiritualizes portions of the Bible to support a false theology.

This study starts with covenants.

Covenants

The reformed or the covenant theology definition, as repeated in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, is incorrect according to the Bible. It says:

  • “In theology, the covenant of works, is that implied in the commands, prohibitions, and promises of God; the promise of God to man, that man’s perfect obedience should entitle him to happiness. This do, and live; that do, and die.
  • “The covenant of redemption, is the mutual agreement between the Father and Son, respecting the redemption of sinners by Christ.
  • “The covenant of grace, is that by which God engages to bestow salvation on man, upon the condition that man shall believe in Christ and yield obedience to the terms of the gospel.”

Notice that the covenant of works is “implied” according to the Covenant Theologian. To correct the above definition of the so called “covenant of works”, the Bible from beginning to end teaches that the God-given goal of man is the glory of God, not personal happiness. The goal of man from the beginning was to glorify God. He did so by obedience.

According to Genesis, God’s first covenant with man was stated, not implied, and that covenant included five dos and one do not. The five dos were:

“(1)  To replenish the earth with a new order—man; (2) to subdue the earth to human uses; (3) to have dominion over the animal creation; (4) to eat herbs and fruits; (5) to till and keep the garden.” Genesis 1.28-30

However, there was only one “do not” and only disobeying that “do not” rule brought death: do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 1.16-17.

Ge.2.16-17In that first covenant, God gave one rule which would bring death: if man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. God commanded man to do certain things. However, man was told not to do only one thing: not to eat or the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Disobedience to that one rule would result in death.

How much clearer can the Bible be? How can the Covenant Theologian so misconstrue the word of God and get by with it? One who believes and studies the word of God cannot deny the above truth. As this study progresses, many more fallacies of the Reformed will be revealed.

That is enough for tonight, December 15, 2015.

Miscellaneous Spiritual/Legal Matters

Questions Which Reveal Whether One Is A Covenant Theologian

Leave a comment

Jerald Finney
Copyright © November 22, 2015

Note. See Dispensational Theology versus Covenant Theology as well as the first four sections of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application for an accurate explanation (not the perversions of the doctrine which many follow) of the origin, definition, etc. of the term “Dispensational Theology.”

3This short article gives questions to help the knowledgeable believer and the believer who wishes to become knowledgeable determine what he believes and why; specifically whether he is a Covenant Theologian, a Dispensational Theologian (both as defined in the article above) or some variation thereof.

Many more questions could be added, but these few will help one determine whether he believes Covenant Theology or some aspects of that theology. One who answers all the questions “yes” is a Covenant Theologian. Should you answer some questions yes and some questions no, you have inconsistent and mutually exclusive beliefs. Some of these questions are rather difficult and you may not be able to answer them with your present knowledge and understanding of the Bible and theology. If so, just skip those questions and answer the ones you do understand.

  1. Do you believe that the rules for church and state and for the Jewish religion-state are the same?
  2. Do you make important dispensational distinctions even though you view them as related to the unifying and underlying Covenant of Grace?
  3. Do you see the present struggle between good and evil terminated by the beginning of eternity at which point there will come catastrophe and divine judgment?
  4. Do you believe that the unifying principle for the philosophy of history is the Covenant of Grace?
  5. Do you believe that the redemption of the elect plus many other programs are all parts of God’s purpose for history?
  6. Are you convinced that Israel and the church are essentially the same?
  7. Do you believe in a nonliteral interpretation of Scripture, especially when interpreting prophecy?
  8. Are you amillennial?
  9. Do you believe that the church/state union (a one world church/state) will be achieved and will succeed in bringing peace to the earth before the return of Christ?
  10. Do you believe that the ultimate purpose of history is the glory of God through the redemption of the elect?
  11. Do you develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants: the Covenant of Redemption (some covenant theologians do not include this covenant), the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace? [Note. One definition of “philosophy of history” is “a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning.” Of course, that definition requires some thinking to understand. If you wish to know whether you are or are not a Covenant Theologian, you should be able to understand it.]
  12. Do you believe that person who is a child of the regenerate is a member of the Covenant of Grace even if he does not enter into the communion of life aspect through a confession of faith?
  13. Have you divided postfall history into two dispensations, the Mosaic dispensation sometimes called the “Old Covenant,” and the Christian dispensation, usually called the “New Covenant”?
  14. Do you believe that the Covenant of Grace, although administration of that covenant differed between the dispensations, exists throughout these dispensations?
  15. Do you believe that each of the biblical covenants is a continuation and newer phase of the Covenant of Grace?
  16. Do you believe in dual covenants? (I.e., that the Covenant of Works required obedience for salvation. According to the Covenant of Grace one could only be saved by faith in Christ.)
  17. If your answer to 16 was “yes” then is the Covenant of Works still in effect?
  18. Do you believe 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?
  19. Do you believe that the local church should be made up of both those who are under the Covenant of Works as well as those who are under the Covenant of Grace?
  20. Do you believe that all in society should be forced to be members of a church which is united with and supported by the state?
  21. Do you believe in infant baptism?
  22. Do you believe in union of church and state?
  23. Do you believe in enforcing all the Ten Commandments?
  24. Do you believe in executing those who do not agree with your theology, at least outwardly?
  25. Do you believe in forcing all to attend the established church?

These matters are most important because the road to religious freedom without persecution in America was a story of the conflict between opposing Bible beliefs and practices – between the persecutors (Covenant Theologians such as the Anglicans and the Puritans or Congregationalists) and the persecuted. Because the same theologies are at war today, a believer actively engaged in spiritual warfare should make sure he is fighting according to knowledge, understanding, and wisdom on all fronts and especially on the front of accurate Bible teaching.

Knowing the answer to this question is vital to spiritual warfare.
Knowing the answer to this question is vital to spiritual warfare.

The history without the theologies involved is incomplete and inadequate. The battle between false theology and truth is still raging. To side with the false in even some areas dishonors our Lord and leads to bad consequences. It is better to fight for right no matter what, but so doing without knowing and teaching the reasons for the fight and the Bible precepts behind the war, and exposing lies and false theologies does not fully glorify God. Failure of God’s soldiers to proclaim all truth contributes to the cause of those who are pushing spiritual lies. All believers should seek to be in God’s perfect will even though one knows that he will never perfectly achieve such a thing.

As is obvious from a reading of Dispensational Theology versus Covenant Theology as well as God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application, those Baptists who led the charge for religious freedom were well studied in their beliefs, exposed the doctrines and practices of their Covenant Theology adversaries, and very articulately published their positions. Let us look to our examples, those historic Baptists who stood for truth and followed the teachings of the Bible no matter the cost.