Once in a while you get a strange convergence of ideas. Seemingly disjoint ideas blend together to provide insight. The signposts of life start pointing in a certain direction. Christians often interpret this as the leading of the Holy Spirit, but care must be taken in doing so.
Recently Boxer sought a Christian discussion of theodicy. I attempted a response and the result was speaking past one another. I’ve since been musing and meditating on the topic, considering how to respond. As an Anabaptist, my view on the topic of theodicy is perhaps different than the views from other denominations. Yet, I didn’t (and still don’t) know how to say anything truly meaningful.
I always seem to take theological positions that differ from almost everyone else that I interact with. I’ve questioned many of the sacred cows of Christian patriarchy, I don’t vote, I don’t say the pledge, and I reject all violence. My recent debates at Deep Strength and Sigma Frame on headship reflect this tendency.
In a seemingly unrelated series of events, I’ve been increasing my exposure to both Catholics and anti-Catholic thought. Last year I debated Catholicism/Protestantism with Tyler Graham, a former-Protestant-turned-Catholic, at Tyler Journeaux. I wrote “On papal infallibility and cognitive dissonance” in response. This led me to the anti-papal writings of a former-Catholic-turned-Orthodox. Meanwhile, I started following a number of Catholics on Twitter in the wake of the sex scandals. I’ve since gotten into debates with a Catholic priest and with Earl (@deux_raymond). Then I listened to the debate between Tim Staples and James White and wrote “Sacred traditions of the Old Testament” in response. During my research for that post, I discovered Timothy F. Kauffman’s Out of His Mouth blog.
Kauffman writes about Bible prophecy. While I won’t go into his views in depth, there are a few key conclusions. First, the early church were the original “protestants”, the true church of Christ. Second, the Roman Catholic Church was formed in the late 4th century upon which most of its false doctrines were established. Third, the books of Daniel and Revelation predicted the rise of Roman Catholicism (the beast) and the papacy (the Antichrist). Fourth, the 1260 years predicted is the period of the Augustinian Consensus (when the RCC used violence to compel belief and executed non-Catholics).
For a number of years I’ve spent a lot of time, online and offline, around atheists. What I’ve found is that problem of evil is, perhaps, their most critical issue. Time and again they raise the objection: Christians commit atrocities just as much as or more than any other religion (or atheists). My typical response to this is that I’m an Anabaptist and we, as a church, do not commit atrocities. We eschew all forms of violence, including military. While this helps me sleep well at night, it does not do much to defend Christianity as a whole.
However, when considering Tim Kauffman’s position, that perspective changes. Defending Christianity as a whole is precisely what I cannot do. The vast majority of “Christian” violence is at the hands of Roman Catholicism (the beast). We also find that the magisterial Protestants were also guilty of using violence. So violence in the name of Christianity is not rare, but it isn’t universal (e.g. Anabaptists). The church of Christ is seen through its fruit. Don’t follow the trail of dead bodies, but instead the transformed lives.
Tim Kauffman noted that the remnant of the true church retreated to the Alpine region:
“Our point here is that during the 1,260 years that Rome retained the power and authority of the emperor, and wielded the sword for the punishment of heretics, there was also a movement that rejected the characteristically Roman Catholic doctrines that had emerged in the latter half of the 4th century…That protestant movement was consistently found in the Alpine Valleys between France and Italy until 1655 A.D. when the Waldensians were finally extricated from their refuge and dispersed throughout Europe.”
The protestants lived among the Alps from ~398-1658 AD before before being flushed out at the end of the 1260 years. It is interesting that areas around the Alps are where early Anabaptism took root among the Swiss Brethren in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. Various Anabaptists (including the author of the Martyr’s Mirror) have traced their apostolic origins through the Waldensians[1], who shared similar doctrinal beliefs.
Jesus taught that the way was narrow and few would find it. The peaceful Anabaptists closely reflect the teachings of Jesus, yet the Anabaptists hold views that are rare among Christianity. Even among the Christian manosphere where divorce is the enemy, no one considers that the Anabaptist way is the true way, despite the ultra-low divorce rates among the traditional Anabaptist faithful.
There is so much evil and suffering because people (including Christians) are not following the way of Christ. While almost every denomination has said “we are the true church”, how many have said “you’ll know us from our fruit?” If you want to understand why there is so much evil and suffering, it is because there are so few Christians. The problem with evil is that there are not enough Christians to overturn it… yet.
I can’t deny the existence of evil and these musings are not a full answer to the problem of evil. Perhaps these thoughts will coalesce into a meaningful and illuminating view on theodicy in the upcoming months (and years?).
[1] Some historians do not consider the Anabaptists to be direct successors of the Waldensians. That they are separate groups does not actually matter: it is a fallacy of Roman Catholicism that Christ’s church must follow a single unbroken line of direct episcopal succession. The Anabaptists considered themselves to be fellows of the Waldensians, acknowledging their shared doctrines. They shared such an affinity because they read the same Bible. Waldensians were also very similar to Baptists, an independent, but related, group.
You wrote:
This is a good start in your research, but please continue to dig deeper in Kauffman’s claims.
Walt,
Your tone seems ominous: is that “please” as in pleading? Are you suggesting I’m missing something in particular? If so, please be straightforward.
Regardless, I will dig deeper.
Derek
You wrote:
Since you are an Anabaptist, as was I at one time, do you believe Mr. Kauffman’s claims? May I assume you are an “Arminian” Anabaptist in favor of the ordo solutis of Jacobus Arminius?
Walt,
For years I neglected Bible prophecy due to lacking explanations. Mr. Kauffman’s claims are plausible. Some points are better than others, but many critical ones seem solid. I wish to keep examining.
By my impression, you believe many of his claims, but disagree on details— in particular the dates of the 1260 years. Either way, this does not preclude the Anabaptists from their Waldensian relationship and Bible-based doctrine.
I’m not a Calvinist. When I have issues with Arminianism, I look for a third explanation. Perhaps that answers your question.
Why did you reject Anabaptism for Calvinism?
Derek
Derek,
You wrote: “By my impression, you believe many of his claims, but disagree on details— in particular the dates of the 1260 years.”
I would have to look at the word file I created while posting on Tim’s site. I believe there are maybe 50 posts that he has refused to allow to be posted publicly in my various disagreements with him. He allows only my posts that he chooses and mostly those that appeal to his audience making me look like a fool following blindly the Scottish Covenanters. I refer to it as going into a fight with a blindfold on and one arm tied behind your back trying to defend yourself. It is very very hard.
My responses to his replies are blocked so he will always have the last word guaranteed and that is how he controls what he wants his audience to understand. I’ve learned a lot how one controls the media message restricting freedom of speech and insuring their audience sees only what is permitted that can support an authors position. It does not have to be the New York Times commentary section. It can be any blogger site to avoid those who take a contrary view.
Thank you for sharing with me how you have seen my restricted postings, and how they look to you. I’ve preserved and saved all these nearly 50 posts to share reproduce them in a booklet I hope to write one day against Tim’s views so everyone has a fair chance to see protest against his eschatology.
The only part I believe is likely is the great apostasy and period of falling away from the true and faithful doctrine revealed by the Apostles in Scripture, and the period of the early in the 3rd and 4th century. I started building a library of key books and primary sources for my library on the early Jewish Christians and the path of preserving the Scripture manuscripts that disagreed with Jerome’s Latin translation and interpretation. I’m threading that path not just into Gaul, but into other areas too.
Yes, I obviously disagree with Tim’s error in the start of the 1260 year period, but more importantly his Anabaptist views on the role of the civil magistrate and his dispensational Pentecostal leanings toward the role and method of worship of the Christian church on earth. Tim is very clear on this view; he writes:
“The question is not whether Christ is in control. The question is, “Does Jesus currently have an earthly kingdom?” No, He does not.”
Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans taught, “I. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed: by virtue whereof, they have power respectively to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.” (WCF, Chapt. 30; 1647)
The reformers believed that the invisible, true church of Christ’s elect the Father gave Him throughout the ages were His kingdom on earth and in heaven. That is why in all ages the elect have governed more or less faithfully as a remnant suffering in the visible church which is made up of lots of heresy, false ministers, the antichrist, the man of sin and lots of other claiming Christianity but are not Churches but synagogues of Satan here on earth.
You wrote: “Why did you reject Anabaptism for Calvinism?”
Calvin was an early reformer, and one of the greatest ministers outside the Apostles. There is a false view that he killed, or had order the killing of Michael Servetus for heresy. Calvin taught the church did not have the power of the sword, and never ordered nor demanded the killing of Servetus. This was my rally call against every “evil” Calvinist when I was an Anabaptist and Armenian Baptist. When I did learn the facts it was a bit of a blow to my presupposition. Further, as an Arminian I could not believe in the doctrine we were born in original sin, and could not defend infants dying in the womb getting saved since they could not hear the gospel, and understand the gospel, and certainly could not be baptized. Same with even infants who died outside the womb that did not believe nor were baptized. Ordo Solutis was introduced to me, and once I documented several hundred Scripture passages that God solely was the author of His elect and called many but chose only His elect, I had to re-evaluate how much I was taught to be Arminian and anti-Calvinist. I was not a 5 point Calvinist initially. It took me a significant amount of relearning Scripture with new glasses.
The final straw that broke me beyond the tiresome armininism vs. calvinism debate was my disagreement in the independent form of church government, believer only baptism, instrumental music in worship, and uninspired hymns and songs written and promoted by Isaac Watts. I tried to get my Arminian Baptist Pastor to reconsider these issues when they wanted me to be “re-baptized” after I delayed it too long, and my final plea was generally ignored due to the “Calvin killed Servetus” issue and how “evil” the reformers were on the Anabaptists. To me it was more about persecution, but about what the Scriptures taught on doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of church government. These principles combined was far more of interest to me that how many Catholics or Reformers allegedly killed the Anabaptists with my circle of church family.
Walt,
You don’t appear a fool (and I’ve only read a fraction of the comments). He allows (some) dissent, but doesn’t always respond to it. Still, if his goal is whitewashing his message, he does a bad job. The weaknesses in his argument are not a mystery. For example, to name just a few, the recovery from the fatal wound, the reliance on early dating of Revelation, the speculative nature of the 1260 years, and the risk of post-hoc rationalization that all historicist approaches are susceptible to.
I’m considering writing and publishing my own book in response. Why don’t you self publish on a blog of your own? If you want someone to publish your rebuttals, I can offer file hosting and guest posts. Your work on early Jewish Christians sounds interesting as well. I can’t offer readership, as I don’t have any meaningful readership, but I can offer a platform. My approach to apologetics is intellectual and academic, so I have no issue with publishing alternate opinions. I have no need to censor: if I can’t refute something I disagree with, then the fault is my own.
That said, keep in mind that I (presently) lean towards an ante-Nicean, sola scriptura Christology. I find the Trinitarian formulations to have been derived in the 4th century by the same false doctrinal influences that gave rise to the RCC. So I’m a heretic to almost every denomination, including Anabaptists and Calvinists. According to them, I am therefore not a Christian.
Your tale sounds intriguing. Feel free to post it here in the comments or email me a guest post at any time.
Derek
Derek,
You wrote, “Why don’t you self publish on a blog of your own? If you want someone to publish your rebuttals, I can offer file hosting and guest posts. Your work on early Jewish Christians sounds interesting as well.”
It is something I think about often, and am hoping that 2019 will be a change in my overall work load. I’m now up over traveling and working in 50 countries, and very often am going so hard overseas it is tough to stay focused. I hope it changes this year.
You wrote, “I can’t offer readership, as I don’t have any meaningful readership, but I can offer a platform.”
It is giving me something to consider for sure. Thank you.
You wrote, “That said, keep in mind that I (presently) lean towards an ante-Nicean, sola scriptura Christology. I find the Trinitarian formulations to have been derived in the 4th century by the same false doctrinal influences that gave rise to the RCC.”
I did see above that you don’t vote, say the pledge and don’t believe in violence. We don’t vote, nor say the pledge, nor take any oaths to uphold the constitution, nor enter the military nor accept a role on a jury. It is not as though we disagree with these out of principle but only due to what we believe is the pluralistic religious nature of the constitution. We love and believe in faithful civil magistracy like what was developed in the first reformation in Scotland under the National Covenant of Scotland and the second reformation in Scotland, England and Ireland under the Solemn League and Covenant. Since we view the SLC was binding on colonial America as a moral person as they were the “King’s dominions”, we see the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution as Covenant breaking documents.
You wrote: “So I’m a heretic to almost every denomination, including Anabaptists and Calvinists. According to them, I am therefore not a Christian.”
There is nobody as hated in the history of the Christian community than Scottish, English and American Covenanters so don’t feel so bad. They were the most hunted and killed in history under what Oliver Cromwell defined as “Toleration”. We do not believe in violence, but we do believe in self-defense to preserve Godly life and liberty. If you look into the Killing Times in Scotland, you might be surprised what “Toleration” can do to a small people who are hated with such passion. It is why Presbyterians like Kauffman hold the movement in such incredible disdain publicly. Don’t feel so bad as we don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter either! Yeeks.
You wrote: “Your tale sounds intriguing. Feel free to post it here in the comments or email me a guest post at any time.”
I’ll keep it limited to avoid offending your audience and perhaps yourself needlessly. I only ask that if I am attacked like at Tim’s site that you don’t block my responses to correct the record. I am not going to cause anyone any violence, but I do want the right to defend myself without blocking my posts as can happen due to our Covenanter distinctives not being Tolerated by the “tolerant” in the blogosphere!
I left the Arminian Baptist church in 1997 and became a Covenanter in 1998. It has been an interesting learning experience in doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of church government. I am post millennial historcist as were most reformers, but we don’t take a prophetical role to the degree others take who are absolutely convinced of their prophecy interpretation. I think the counter reformation by Rome and the Jesuits were authors of competing views seeking to teach the visible church that the Romish system was not Antichrist and the Papacy was not the man of sin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Ribera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_del_Alc%C3%A1zar
Those who teach that the close of the 1260 year reign of Antichrist is in history, and Rome and the Jesuits have no more influence in our generation give me cause for suspicion. When they hate the reformers and say Antichrist reign is over then my eyes and ears perk up…sorry to say.
Few things offend me. Censorship is one of them. Another is defending abortion for convenience. Beyond that? Not much.
Speaking past each other is a big problem if there is an interdenominational conversation. The same term can mean different things to each group. Even within certain lines of thinking, there is also division as to what a term means.
I have withdrawn from these types of discussions online for this very reason. I have a hypothesis that too many see everything through the lense of doctrine, without having a firm foundation in scripture first.
As per headship, I have the feeling you are more in line with sigma and deep strength, based on my experience with mennonites. I saw the arguments, participated in them, and agree we were all speaking past each other. Complementarianism is a deceiving term- it sounds right, but the ideals being pushed under the guise of that term are off so as not to ruffle too many feathers in society at large.
As per anabaptists being peaceful, their entire history is not without bloodshed, and there was a time where they sought to establish the kingdom through bloodshed- see The Tailor King as an example. Since then they have been peaceful.
I am vaguely aware of some of the key doctrinal differences between reformed theologians and anabaptists, and lived in a community with many mennonites- wonderful cooks, nice people, and their women make great wives. While I disagree with nonaggression, I think you will find many more rejecting the pledge, etc., in the future.
There are several groups which claim to be the true church, or think that becoming the true church means going back to Acts. There are multiple groups that claim lineage from Waldensians. I have major reservations about these groups, as some tend to be more in line with cults (I’m not referring to mennonites here). Over half of the New Testament exists to rebuke and correct the early church.
The way is narrow, but I do know of many groups that claim this, yet never show any fruit or light, and instead retreat from society. They tend to never experience growth, and survive through marriage.
You are correct. I do have meaningful disagreements, but on the whole we are not all that different. I appreciate that they can defend their positions well. That is rare and worthy of respect. I just think they are too legalistic and restrictive.
I can understand those who support self-defense and freely acknowledge that sensible scriptural interpretations support either position. I’ve never tried to convince anyone of this, I just live my own way. Nevertheless, we will not take up the sword until Jesus returns. Only then will we fight at his command.
To be honest, I don’t care much about that designation. It’s historically and intellectually interesting, but I don’t worry about “apostolic succession”, a non-biblical term.
Core Anabaptist doctrines are (1) rejection of infant baptism and requirement for believers (adult) baptism; (2) non-violence; (3) non-creedal (scripture only) church; (4) the Sermon on the Mount; (5) forgiveness; and (6) delicious food, hospitality, and faithful wives.
Many Anabaptists strongly advocate for justice and mercy for the vulnerable. Such advocacy can involve personal or corporate actions. Anabaptists tend to be quite loving and generous. Even the Amish, who isolate themselves intentionally, are genuinely good people.
I don’t think Anabaptists get everything right, but the fruits of a few hundred years of Anabaptism in Pennsylvania are undeniable. Did you know that the Quakers and Mennonites worshiped together in Germantown and in 1688 were the first group to publicly denounce slavery in America? That’s our legacy (my wife and I are both descended from notable ministers on different branches of Mennonites in America).
Also, keep in mind that Anabaptism in America has partially succumbed to the cancer that has infected most denominations. This has resulted in schisms.
The Muenster Rebellion happened during the period when Anabaptism was being formed. Those acts of violence most likely contributed to what became non-violent Anabaptism. In other words, the reaction to violence was repentance, whether or not they were culpable.