Should We Expect Cultural Redemption?

Posted on November 6, 2015 by Kent Kersey

Introduction

Many evangelicals are angry and frustrated about cultural and societal changes. Anger and frustration are frequently the result of unmet expectations. Could it be that the anger and frustration felt about our American society are based on unmet expectations about our culture?

Evangelicals are angry about America’s slippage into immorality. We expect better. However, should we expect cultural behavior that is fully in line with our Christian ethics?

Evangelicals expect better behavior because we have been working off of a model that predicts the realization of cultural redemption. Our culture, according to this way of thinking, used to be more redeemed than it is now. Also, if the proper conditions are met, it is possible for our culture to become more redeemed in a Christian sense.

This paper will try to position the expectations of cultural redemption in an historical and theological context. This paper will argue for a model of Christianity and culture that strives for Gospel representation without the expectation of complete cultural redemption.

“Christ Redeeming Culture”

There are many ways of thinking about redeemed culture. For the purpose of this paper, however, I would like to propose a specific model.

Richard Niebuhr’s classic 1951 book, Christ and Culture describes five historical models for understanding how the church has traditionally understood, and worked out, the tension between Christianity and culture.1The following discussion doesn’t fully represent Niebuhr’s nuanced details, but offers simplified models are offered as a possible diagnosis of evangelicalism’s anger and frustration regarding the American culture.

John Stackhouse suggests that evangelicals have inhabited all of Niebuhr’s models over time.2 Nieburh’s first type is Christ against culture. The classic example of this model would be the Amish horse and buggy. The GARBC’s penchant for separation, however, could be an example of this view as well.

Stackhouse suggests that Niebuhr’s Christ of culture paradigm has been seen in evangelicals “whenever we have closely associated God and country and assumed that our nations are Christian, or ‘almost,’ so that with enthusiasm and effort we can realize that ideal.” 3

The Christ above culture model, according to Stackhouse, might be seen in apologists who link certain non-Christian thinkers like Plato or Aristotle to an intellectual understanding of God’s truth.

The last two categories: Christ and culture in paradox (hereafter “paradox”), and finally, Christ redeeming culture (hereafter “redemption”) are the subject of the following paper. These two categories currently represent two differing visions of how the church relates to the culture at large.

The following discussion doesn’t fully represent Niebuhr’s nuanced details, but offers simplified models are offered as a possible diagnosis of evangelicalism’s anger and frustration regarding the American culture.

Since Niebuhr doesn’t give a detailed critique of the redemption idea, many see this is his preferred model. The redemption model has become the standard understanding among evangelicals regarding their belief about how God will, and should, work through culture.

A heavy leaning on the belief that we should be looking for a redeemed culture has led to the intense frustration and anger among evangelicals who expect either the residue or anticipation of redeemed culture. A culture that is drifting away from traditional Christian morality betrays the fact that our culture is either losing or avoiding redemption.

Examples of evangelical hope for redemption can be seen in movements that are working towards reclaiming or creating a Christian influence on America.

Reclaiming Christian America

Second Chronicles 7:14 (If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land) is sometimes applied to America. If America will repent of her wicked ways, it is claimed, God will heal this land. In other words, it could be redeemed.

Groups like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and Ralph Reed’s Christian Coalition of America worked hard to bring America back to its Christian roots. Of course, a lot of debate has taken place about defining America as a Christian nation.

Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson recently stated that a Muslim should not be elected as president of the United States. The sentiment behind Carson’s belief is not the focus of this paper, but it does show that many people believe that despite the first amendment’s clear statement against a religious test about serving in government, a tacit litmus test is in play. Carson’s statement, in fact, reveals the incredibly complicated nature of religious liberty. The principle that would allow a radical Muslim to serve as president would actually deny his religious obligations if his faith tried to establish itself as the one true religion.

The reclaiming movement can be seen in songs like Rend Collective’s song “Build Your Kingdom Here.”

Build Your kingdom here

Let the darkness fear

Show Your mighty hand

Heal our streets and land

Set Your church on fire

Win this nation back

Change the atmosphere

Build Your kingdom here

We pray

 

Although Rend Collective is from Ireland, many American Christians surely sing these lines with gusto, hoping that our land will be brought back to more Christian foundations. This song claims that cultural redemption is possible and within our reach with God’s help.

Creating Christian Culture

Another way of working for the idea of cultural redemption is to take the “post” out of “post-Christian”. The idea of a post-Christian culture assumes that there was a time when our culture was Christian, or at least more Christian than it is right now.

This idea of a previously recognizable Christian influence definitely makes sense. Christianity has less influence in the public square today than it did a generation earlier. The idea, then, of redeeming culture can be a strategic move to reintroduce a Christian influence into a culture that has forgotten about its religious pedigree.

A few specific authors have been very instrumental in bringing the hope of a redeemed culture into popular Christian thought.

Francis Schaeffer famously diagnosed misguided modern thinking. According to Schaeffer, a fundamental split between reason and faith accounts for schizophrenic thinking in the modern world. Modern man has bifurcated the united ideas of classical, holistic Christian thinking by forming a wall between the heart and the mind. The following quote is one of Schaeffer’s clearest statements of his foundational argument:

One must understand that from the advent of Kierkegaardism onward there has been a widespread concept of the dichotomy between reason and non-reason, with no interchange between them. The lower story area of reason is totally isolated from the optimistic area of non-reason. The line which divides reason from non-reason is as impassable as a concrete wall thousands of feet thick, reinforced with barbed wire charged with 10,000 volts of electricity.”4

According to Schaeffer the dichotomy between faith and reason has erroneously created a way of looking at the world as either secular or sacred. Nancy Pearcey picks up Schaeffer’s paradigm a generation later in her popular work Total Truth.5 Chuck Colson joins Pearcey in How Now Shall We Live? to advocate for a way that virtually eliminates the secular in order to see everything as a sacred gift from God.6 Thinking in terms of “secular,” it is claimed,  denies God’s absolute lordship over all creation.

Colson and Pearcey map out a strategy that would minimize the “secular” in hope of maximizing the “sacred.” Public Christian voices, it is reckoned, will restore a definitively Christian influence into the culture at large. This Christian influence will bring about a more redeemed culture.

It is important to note that the definition of “secular” that Schaeffer, Pearcey, and Colson reject describes a realm where God’s rule is absent. Since there is no place where God does not reign, there really is no such thing as “secular”. Since many have adopted this definition, it’s no wonder “secular” is a taboo word among evangelicals today.

The term “sacred,” on the other hand, is used to recognize God’s rule. Everything, everyone, and every place, then, is sacred. Pearcey states:

We have to reject the division of life into a sacred realm, limited to things like worship and personal morality, over against a secular realm that includes science, politics, economics, and the rest of the public arena. This dichotomy in our own minds is the greatest barrier to liberating the power of the gospel across the whole of culture today.7

One can see, then, that Pearcey’s thoroughgoing adoption of Schaeffer’s two story model has no room for a secular category. This proscribed nature of the term “secular” is deeply entrenched in modern evangelical thinking.

The visions of Schaeffer, Colson, and Pearcey, then, would result in a culture that is less secular and more sacred. Christian witness serves to change society into a place that is friendly to, and supportive of, Christian values, especially Christian morality. After all, if everything is sacred, why shouldn’t it look sacred?

Cultural redemption, according to Colson and Pearcey, is the result of redeemed thinking.

If our culture is to be transformed, it will happen from the bottom up-from ordinary believers practicing apologetics over the backyard fence or around the barbecue grill. To be sure, it’s important for Christian scholars to conduct research and hold academic symposia, but the real leverage for cultural change comes from transforming the habits and dispositions of ordinary people.8

If this vision of redeemed culture is the correct one, there is no question why recent cultural shifts in America are causing such angst among evangelicals. America, according to the redemption camp, is becoming less redeemed in terms of orthodox Christian standards. In other words, the redeemed strategy is not working like we expected. Unmet expectations lead to anger and frustration.

Why isn’t our culture getting redeemed according to the strategy of Schaeffer, Colson, and Pearcey? A recent book by James Davison Hunter suggests that the cultural redemption model suffers from a misguided understanding of how culture is actually changed.

Hunter investigates the belief that changed minds change culture. He finds that this is actually not the case. Cultural shifts aren’t the result of believing something. Hunter summarizes this view, “As the logic goes: if people’s hearts and minds are converted, they will have the right values, they will make the right choices, and the culture will change in turn.”9

According to Hunter, however, the view that redeemed thinking will lead to a redeemed culture, “is almost wholly mistaken.”10 Hunter sees institutions and institutional elites as the agents who actually usher in cultural changes.

The redemption model, then, proposes a world that is potentially redeemable. Christians need to work hard with God to usher in redemptive work that will result in a more Christian culture.

“Christ and Culture in Paradox”

Along with Niebuhr’s four categories of the Christian relationship to culture (Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, and Christ redeeming culture), another way is offered: Christ and culture in Paradox.

Niebuhr’s classic example of this paradox is Martin Luther’s two kingdom theology. Luther’s clearest exposition of his view is found in his 1523 treatise On Secular Authority—To What Extent We Owe It Obedience.

As mentioned earlier, the term “secular” is rejected by Pearcey and Colson because it implies a sector which is not ruled over by God. Since there is no place not governed by God, “secular” is a non-existent construct. Luther, however, defines secular differently. The secular government, over against the sacred church, is not established by the consent of the people; it is founded by the ordinance of God.

Although Luther’s context was couched in a long-standing Christendom, his distinction between God’s twin rule over sacred and secular paved the way for later societies that would recognize religious liberty. Luther’s proposed dichotomy need not necessitate a gnostic duality. While Augustine’s two cities implied a kingdom of Satan existing alongside the kingdom of God, Luther’s two kingdoms are both ruled by God.

In the redeemed kingdom, God rules directly through the gospel; in the common kingdom, he rules in a hidden way through natural reason. In the common kingdom God is disguised and not recognized by the kings or subjects. In the church, God is revealed through the Jesus Christ.

A paradox view of Christianity and culture would hold to a view of a Christian’s citizenship in two kingdoms at the same time. A Christian is a citizen of the redeemed kingdom which needs no authority other than guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Christian, however, is also a member of the common kingdom, which God has established primarily to govern those who are not redeemed.

According to David VanDrunen, the Bible “requires a high view of creation and of cultural activity, but it also requires a distinction between the holy things of Christ’s heavenly kingdom and the common things of the present world.”11

VanDrunen points to Genesis for the foundation for the common kingdom. In God’s “covenant with Noah God entered covenantal relationship with the entire human race (and with the entire creation), promising to preserve its cultural activities such as procreating and securing justice.”12 Abraham’s covenant, on the other hand, establishes the foundation for the redeemed kingdom.

This idea of the two kingdoms is stated clearly here:

Christians live under two kingdoms, governed respectively by the Noahic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant. Civil governments, families, economic associations, and many other cultural institutions continue to exist under the covenant with Noah, and Christians and non-Christians alike participate in them and, in many respects, cooperate in their activities. At Christ’s return these institutions and activities will come to a sudden and       radical end. Yet Christians belong especially to the church, the New Testament manifestation of the special covenant community created in Abraham. Through the church they are citizens of heaven even now.13

Theologians who are persuaded by the paradox view doubt the historicity of the redemption views of Colson, Pearcey, and Schaeffer which claim that the church has not traditionally used a holistic view of seeing everything as sacred and nothing as secular.

The important point here is that the paradox model presents different cultural expectation than that of the redemption model. Whereas the redemption position expects to see a more Christian culture, the paradox view has no such expectation. While the paradox view can hold out hope that the church will be a witness to redemption, it doesn’t expect that the common kingdom will look completely redeemed in a Christian sense.

Baptist Witness

It might seem strange for a Baptist to consider the paradox model since most of today’s Baptists would probably see it as too Lutheran.

A Baptist consideration of the paradox view, however, is fully in line with early Baptist thought. In fact, an examination of three different Baptist traditions show that the paradox view is deeply seated in the DNA of Baptist thought.14

The twin distinctives of religious liberty and soul competency are the clearest examples of a Baptist alignment of the paradox model.

Religious liberty, according to James E. Wood, is grounded in Christian anthropology. God creates us free; therefore, we should live as free creatures. Wood defines religious freedom as “the inherent right of a person in public or in private to worship or not worship according to his own understanding or preferences, to give public witness to one’s faith (including the right of propagation), and to change one’s religion—all without threat of reprisal or abridgment of one’s right as a citizen.”15

The soul competency doctrine states that every person has a right to direct access to God. According to R. Stanton Norman, “an individual must be afforded a free, uncoerced opportunity to interact with God in order to realize one’s ‘religious destiny.”16

The principles of religious liberty and soul competency would suggest the existence of a world where the redeemed church bears incarnation witness of Jesus Christ within a culture that might never be redeemed.

Anabaptist Influences

Walter Klaassen shows that

Basic to the Anabaptist view of government was their version of the two kingdom doctrine. In its basic ingredients it was virtually identical with Martin Luther’s. Government was given because of man’s sin; it belonged to law, while the church, which was given out of sheer grace, belonged to the gospel.”17

Two of the earliest Anabaptist thinkers believed God worked through two different avenues. On the one hand, God established the government which bears the sword. On the other hand, God works directly through his church. The Anabaptists did not expect that they would redeem this world at all. In fact, they had a very pessimistic view of the fallenness of the world around them.

Michael Sattler’s Schleitheim Confession (1527)

Michael Sattler (ca. 1490–1527) was an Anabaptist pioneer who had previously served as a prior of a Benedictine monastery. Sattler was only an Anabaptist for a short time, but his contribution to the first Anabaptist confession of faith, The Schleitheim Confession (1527), cemented his legacy as one of the most important thinkers of the Radical Reformation.

The Schleitheim Confession calls for believers to separate from the world. The demarcation between good and evil seems to illustrate a view of Christ against culture. However, one statement very clearly delineates two realms of God’s authority. The sword, according to the confession, “is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ.” God has chosen civil authorities to function now in the same way theocratic forces worked under the Old Testament law.

There is a considerable tension between the two ways God chooses to work in the world. On the one hand, God has established the church as his visible body on Earth. On the other hand, he uses the secular realm to enforce his rule.

Pilgram Marpeck

Pilgram Marpeck (d1556) was a civil engineer by trade and a very gifted lay theologian in his free time. He worked and worshipped in Strassburg and Augsburg.

Pilgram Marpeck is not well known outside of in-depth Anabaptist studies. Marpeck was a German Anabaptist who was also a well-respected member of society, a rare thing in deed. His engineering skills were so valuable to the city fathers that they tolerated his unorthodox Anabaptist beliefs. It is ironic that Marpeck’s persecution came at the hands of local Lutherans. The Anabaptists agreed with the early Lutherans on the basic tenants of the two kingdoms, but differed greatly on the thought that allowed the state to use the sword against heretics.

Marpeck wrote a theological treatise in 1531 called Exposé of the Babylonian Whore.18 Marpeck sounds apocalyptic in his analysis of sixteenth century Europe. According to Marpeck, the entire world is “now full of error and seduction, and all generations on earth are drunk with the wine of fornication, Rev. 18[:3].” He definitely has no hope for cultural redemption.

Despite the darkness of this world, God has not failed to leave a witness. Markpeck knows “of no other Authority specifically appointed by God than the Emperor; all emperors hold the imperium even today and will hold it until the appointed time of which Daniel speaks (Daniel 11 [:36]), when the wrath of God shall come over the whole world (Isa. 24 [:17–21]). For all flesh needs his authority and rule.”

In his Explanation of Testaments Marpeck states:

They should be allowed to remain in their proper service of God to fulfill it according to God’s will through the fear of God … . Saint Paul distinguishes this wisdom of the worldly magistrates from the wisdom of Christ when he says: ‘It is not the wisdom of the rulers of this world.’ I Cor. 2. It is thus clear that the worldly rulers have a special wisdom for their service. (Anabaptists in Outline, p. 262)

According to Marpeck, then, this world is hopelessly lost and unredeemable. God, however, has still authorized the king to guide and protect. These Anabaptists were nearly unanimous in their denial that Christians could use the sword.

Early Baptists

A branch of seventeenth century English Separatists would later be known as Baptists. This group wanted to be left alone spiritually, but were more willing than the Anabaptists to participate in social life.

British Separatists

Thomas Helwys’ book, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1611/1612) is widely regarded as the first extended literary argument for religious liberty in the English language. Helwys helped John Smyth start a church in Holland that was grounded in a membership of baptized believers. Smyth and Helwys were a bit of an odd couple. According to Leon McBeth, “If Smyth was the more dynamic and creative, Helwys made his contribution in clarity of thought and stability of action.19

After establishing the first Baptist church in Holland, Smyth and Helwys parted ways. (“Parting ways” would become a great Baptist tradition.) Upon returning to England, Helwys established the first Baptist church in England.20 After tasting religious liberty in Holland, Helwys was even more offended with the throne’s illegitimate rule over the pulpit. He was compelled to voice his concerns directly to King James I.

It is cruelly ironic that Helwy’s work on the necessity of religious liberty caused his prolonged incarceration. His Declaration is a brilliantly reasoned theological treatise that expounds biblical concepts, arguing for a model of Christian interaction that is in essential harmony with Luther’s two kingdom theology. Helwys draws a clear distinction between the two kingdoms when he shows that the king “cannot be both a king and a subject in one and the same kingdom.” 21

According to Helwys, it is beyond doubt that God has established the role of the earthly king. First Peter 2:14 clearly states that the king’s power was given by God “to punish evildoers and to reward them that do well.” God’s intent is that this power advances good deeds and does not advance the “mystery of iniquity.” 22

Helwys wants to draw a very clear distinction between the two kingdoms. He implores King James to not let deceivers fool him into thinking he has any authority over the kingdom of Christ’s church. If the king attempts to rule over the church, “he shall sin against God in entering upon the kingdom of Christ who is the only King of Israel.” 23

Although Helwys does not use the exact language of religious liberty and soul competency, he describes each idea. He touches on the issue of soul competency when he asserts that the common kingdom is governed by the king’s sword. Trouble makers should be compelled to stop making trouble. God, however, works differently. The king reacts to outward acts of rebellion; God works with the inward attitudes of the heart. “It is spiritual obedience that the Lord requires, and the king’s sword cannot smite the spirits of men.” 24

Probably the best known affirmation in this document is the following statement offered in the original English, “Let them be heretikes, Turks, Jewes, or whatsoever, it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure.”25 This sentiment reveals an uneasy willingness to live in a world with two diverse kingdoms, one that lives by Christ’s rule and another that allows a plurality of religious commitments. While Helwys holds out for a progressively pure church, he also votes for a common kingdom that would protect those with different (or no) beliefs as well.

For these early Baptists, separation from the established church did not necessitate a desertion from society.

Roger Williams

In The Bloudy Tennent of Persecution (1644), Roger Williams states that “true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom.”26

A Plea for Religious Liberty is an excerpt from The Bloudy Tennant. Williams, like Luther, Marpeck, and Helwys before him declares that the government is ordained by God, not to steer the hearts of men, but to protect their property. Williams explains that “a civil government is an ordinance of God, to conserve the civil peace of people, so far as concerns their bodies and goods, as formerly hath been said.”27

Within this document, one can clearly identify Williams’ heavy reliance on Luther’s two kingdom thought. “it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God’s Spirit, the Word of God.28

Williams and Helwys both make room for two coexisting societies, and a Christian is a citizen of both. They belong to the community of Christians while also living peaceably with people of other religious persuasions or those with no religious persuasion at all. Williams did not expect to live in a world that would necessarily share his religious beliefs.

Application

A common theme among all of these examples is the delineation of a common kingdom which is not, and might never be, redeemed. In the examples of the Anabaptists and Helwys, this other kingdom is ordained by God, but rotten to its core. These thinkers would surely reject a project that sought to restore and reclaim this kingdom. According to Marpeck, this world “overflows with evil that one lay hidden in the mystery of wickedness.” 29

These examples of Baptist applications of a paradox model allow us to conclude that the notions of religious liberty and soul competency call for a church that functions within a culture that is open to other faiths or no faith at all. For the Anabaptists and General Baptists of the early seventeenth century, there definitely was a secular realm, even within their Christendom. For Helwys and Williams, there was room for pluralism. Williams was a champion of tolerant. It might be troubling for many evangelicals to consider that pluralism, secularism, and toleration might not be dirty words for Baptists.

Conclusion

So should we expect cultural redemption?

Yes and no.

Christians can expect partial cultural redemption. Since we are redeemed members of our culture, we can expect the gospel to transform us into better citizens. As the people of God, we are bearing a Christ-like incarnate presence within our sphere of influence. We can expect the Holy Spirit to work through us as we fit in as salt and stand out as light in our culture.

On the other hand, Christians need to temper their expectations of complete cultural redemption. Yes, God’s reign is absolute in the whole world. Second Cor. 4:4 claims that there is an enemy “god” of this age, but as Luther reminds us, “the Devil is God’s Devil.”

Hopefully, evangelicals will handle the phrase “redeeming culture” with care. If we expect that this world should be the kingdom of God, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. By reintroducing a nuanced understanding of “secular” we should be able to allow institutions in the common kingdom to seek noble ends that do not always reflect absolute Christian ethics and morality. For example, we don’t expect a bank to tithe a portion of our deposits to local churches. We should also expect robust educational standards in our public schools that don’t attempt to transform everyone, including non-believers, into the image of Christ.

As God’s church we must enjoy, explain, and expect redemption. At the same time, however, we must understand that redemption is extended to his elect and his church. Redemption on a global scale will not be realized until his return. Let’s not get sidetracked with a task that is reserved for God’s final age.

 

  1. Richard Niebuhr, H.. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper, 1951. For current discussions about Niebuhr see Carson, D. A. Christ and Culture Revisited. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2008.
  2. John Stackhouse, ”In the World, but …,” Christianity Today April 22, 2002, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april22/8.80.html
  3. Stackhouse
  4. Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1976), 174.
  5. Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2004.
  6. Charles W. Colson and Nancy Pearcey. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999.
  7. Pearcey, (Kindle Locations 544–547).
  8. Colson and Pearcey. (Kindle Locations 530–532).
  9. James Davison Hunter (2010–03–31). To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Kindle Locations 217–218). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
  10. Hunter, (Kindle Location 375).
  11. VanDrunen, David (2010–10–06). Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (p. 26). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
  12. VanDrunen, (p. 29).
  13. VanDrunen, (p. 30).
  14. Evidence for the paradox view is provided by both Anabaptists and Baptists from the English Separatist tradition. It is acknowledged that the debate over Baptist origins attempts to find the ultimate hereditary ancestors of Baptists with either Anabaptist or the branch of English Separatists led by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. This paper’s argument does not attempt to chime in on that debate, but acknowledges that both Anabaptist and English Separatists have surely influenced Baptist thought.
  15. James E. Wood, Jr., “A Biblical View of Religious Liberty,” The Ecumenical Review 30 (January 1978): 33.
  16. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005., 160.
  17. Walter Klaassen, ed., Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Sources (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press), 244.
  18. Accessed at http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/250 in September, 2015.
  19. Leon H. McBeth, (1987–01–29). The Baptist Heritage (p. 34). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  20. McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (p. 38).
  21. Thomas Helwys and Richard Groves. A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity (1611/1612). Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1998., 39.
  22. Helwys, 33.
  23. Helwys, 36.
  24. Helwys, 37.
  25. Leon H. McBeth, (1990–01–01). A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (p. 72). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  26. McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (p. 84). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
  27. Roger Williams (2012–12–17). A Plea for Religious Liberty (Kindle Locations 113–114). . Kindle Edition.
  28. Williams, (Kindle Locations 15–17).
  29. Marpeck, 1.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.