Baptist Amillennialist
Waldron, along with Baptist Amillennialist Tom Hicks has written a book inveighing against Theonomy and postmillennialism. One position they take as Amillennialists is that the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church. Now, keep in mind that if it is true that there is no such thing as neutrality this Amillennial position means that all other Institutions of men that are not the visible church are, by necessity, outposts of the Kingdom of Satan. That which cannot be part of the Kingdom of God is always a part of the Kingdom of Satan and is always opposed to the Kingdom of God. This means, families, education, arts, politics, courts, medicine, and all the institutions that wherein these are contained all belong to Satan’s rule because according the Waldron, Hicks and countless number of Amillennialists the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church.
This is despite the fact that we are taught to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. This position is held despite the fact that we are to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This position is held despite the fact that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Christ who then instructed us to disciple the nations. This stupid Amillennial position is held despite the fact that the gates of hell would not prevail in the Church’s work of extending the Kingdom.
The Amillennialist position is fine with Jesus being King over the Church. They are fine with Jesus being King over our individual personal lives. However, these poor chaps get stuck on the idea that the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Church and personal individual lives, as that is multiplied by God’s faithfulness to build his Church, will necessarily mean that all the various institutions that are built up by converted men and women will thus become expressions of the Kingdom of God.
Waldron, instead wants to refer to all that as “ripple effects on society.” Apparently “Kingdom ripples,” are acceptable but actually being part of the Kingdom of God is verboten. One wonders where an acceptable Kingdom ripple ends and where an unacceptable Kingdom identity begins. Maybe we should begin a “Kingdom ripple police.” These Kingdom ripple police would make sure that ripples never became more than ripples.
Waldron needs to be reminded that Jesus was crucified for being the kind of King that the Romans found threatening. Rome would not have found Jesus being King to be threatening to their rule if they had believed that the Kingship that Jesus brought was only to be over a private religious organization (Church) or over people’s “hearts.” Pilate would never of hoisted Jesus up on the Cross if Jesus had been only some kind of private sphere King.
“If these arguments that I am making are correct then Christian Nationalism is actually Satanic. It is, in truth, Satanic Nationalism because it is a usurpation of Christ’s authority… The book of Revelation teaches that their is an unholy alliance between state religion and and overpowered civil government. Any government that claims authority over the Church’s orthodoxy and fills the church with reprobates is under the influence of the dragon and is speaking with the voice of the dragon.”
Tom Hicks
Anabaptist Amillennialist
1.) Hicks great presupposition here is that a nation’s government should allow for all the gods into the public square. Being Baptist, Hicks, by definition, believes in pluralism, which means he believes in polytheistic Nationalism. Since religion is an inescapable category all nations practice a nationalism as animated by some religion.
2.) Notice when one gives up Biblical Christianity the categories of good and evil end up being inverted. Once Hicks calls genuine Christian Nationalism, “Satanic Nationalism,” he now has embraced “Satanic Nationalism” as being Christian.
3.) Hicks is correct about the book of Revelation but all because a godless union of church and state persecuted the Church in the book of Revelation (something we would expect) that doesn’t mean all cooperative work between a Christian church and Christian State is evil.
4.) A Christian government correcting a Christian church that is giving up doctrines of the true Christian faith is a blessing. Obviously a government filling up the Church with reprobates would not be a Christian government and would, as such, have to be resisted. Hicks makes no sense.
5.) Hicks is speaking with the voice of the Dragon.
Hicks is speaking with the voice of the radical reformation (AnaBaptists). Below is a Puritan voice of the second Reformation – John Owen. It provides a correction to Hicks Baptist ramblings.
“Protestants teach unanimously that is it incumbent on kings to find out, receive, embrace, and promote the truth of the gospel, and the worship of God appointed therein, confirming, protecting, and defending of it by their regal power and authority; as also, that in their so doing they are to use the liberty of their own judgments, informed by the ways that God hat appointed for that end, independently of the dictates, determinations, and orders of any other person or persons in the world, unto whose authority they should be obnoxious.”
John Owen
Puritan
Hicks and Waldron are classic examples of problems one finds with amillennial, baptist, theology. These guys think they are claimants to the doctrines of the Reformation and claimants of covenant theology. However, when it comes down to it, all you are left with when one embraces Baptist Amillennialism is discontinuity, dualism, and dispensationalism.
I was surprised by your writing, “Jesus was crucified for being the kind of King that the Romans found threatening.”
According to the gospel accounts as I’ve always read them, he was crucified for being the kind of King the Jewish Sanhedrin, per Caiaphas’ testimony, found threatening to their suzerainty under Rome.
In contrast, when Jesus answered Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, Pilate said, “I find no fault in him.”
Let’s not forget the threat of the Jews to Pilate on this score Ron.
12From then on, Pilate tried to release Him, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who declares himself a king is defying Caesar.”
So, Pilate finally hoists Jesus up on the cross because Pilate, as a representative of Rome found Jesus to be a threat.
Now, Pilate may have been politically maneuvered into doing this but that doesn’t change the truthfulness of my observation.
Thanks for commenting Ron.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but I never get the impression that Pilate saw Jesus as a threat to Rome. Rather, he saw the Jews as a threat – using the phony pretext of Jesus as a rival to Caesar – to bring his own loyalty to Caesar into question. Pilate knew that they had delivered him for envy, and always saw Jesus as a just man. But when he was maneuvered into an ‘it’s a him or me’ gauntlet, he acceded to their demands. Jesus (who knew where this was all leading) even privately told Pilate that those who had delivered him had the greater guilt.
OK… so I won’t beat a dead horse either.
When Waldron was pastoring in Grand Rapids years ago he stated that the Reformed Baptist ‘faith’ is the fusion of anabaptist ecclesiology with Calvinist theology.
Hello Dave,
And I have demonstrated elsewhere on Iron Ink that to “fuse” those two leaves one in serious contradiction.