To Catch a Nephilim: Billy Carson’s misguided search for something true

by Joel V Webb | Dec 12, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

I’m sure many are aware of the recent debate and ensuing debacle surrounding Billy Carson, and his debate with Christian scholar and apologist Wes Huff.  If you have not seen the debate you can find it HERE. The debate is a masterclass of defending the Christian faith on the merits of the historical truth. We don’t “just have faith”, we have a certainty in an actual historical event that actually took place. The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you have not heard of Billy Carson, he is a pseudo-scholar who is much what you would find on the History channel at 2AM from fifteen years ago. He claims to be an expert on ancient manuscripts, artifacts, and believes that he is uncovering “hidden truths” that have been kept from the general public about the truth of human history. 

Much of what he talks about concerns essentially extra-terrestrial super powerful beings that are the source of the existence of gods in ancient civilizations. Much of what Billy presents is fundamentally a questioning of the Christian understanding and narrative of history. Billy has many thousands of supports that he has influenced because he has (until recently) a competence and a narrative that people disenfranchised for various reasons think explains all their questions. 

Here’s the interesting thing. This is going to sound crazy, but in a foundational way, Billy isn’t totally wrong.

The Old Testament is replete with references describing spiritual beings, nephilim, sons of God, divine council…and the list goes on. These references continue to appear in the New Testament as well, taking shape as the spiritual powers just as demons and the like.

For many in the Evangelical world, we often flatten the reality of the spiritual world to be much simpler than what is actually presented in the text of Scripture. And for some, the claims of Billy seem off the wall (and in many cases they are, as per the debate linked above). But at the core premise of Billy’s worldview, there are spiritual beings that have influenced and impacted human history. The only difference between Billy and the narrative of Scripture, is that Billy is parroting the propaganda of the other side. 

The Old Testament (OT) in particular is a product of the Ancient Near East (ANE). The Israelite people who produced it (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) were declaring the truth of the Almighty God, King of the Universe, the Sovereign Lord who was the creator of all things. All of this while opposing the pagan deities of their geographic neighbors. So what we find is that much of what is written in the OT is a polemic against the pagan gods, and the religious narratives of the world around them, stating what actually went on. 

An example of this is Genesis 6, where the Bible describes the sons of God creating the Nephilim, or might men. This of course was a great sin, and abhorrent in the eyes of God. And the offspring of these instances are described as tyrants, given to evil and not to be looked up to. This stands in stark contrast to every narrative we see in ancient mythology. Has anyone heard of Hercules? That is a pagan narrative of a “hero”, someone who is half-god and half-human. But the story in Scripture is actually saying, “THAT IS A BAD THING!!”

These parallels are evident all throughout the OT, and it is fascinating as you being to see how theses texts would have been so essential for the early nation of Israel, seeking to represent the one true God, in a world full of other stories.

As I have recommended in other posts, there are 2 books that are essential as primers when looking at this topic. The first is The Unseen Realm (or Supernatural) by the late Michael Heiser. The other is The Lord of Spirits by Andrew Damick.  Both of these books provide the groundwork for seeing and understanding the spiritual landscape and presuppositions that are going on in the OT text, and the implications it has on the story of Scripture, and our lives today.

Because of all of this we see that Billy is searching for something more. The world, especially the spiritual world is much more detailed that many of us take for granted. Much of the Christian community in the West for the last 100 years has been fairly shallow when it comes to our understanding of what goes on in the spiritual world, and we have kinda shrugged off any suggestion of anything more than angels & demons. So Billy is hitting at something that is true, but has been deceived into believing the wrong thing about something that is in essence true. The spiritual beings he talks about are real. But they are not what he thinks they are. In reality they are fallen spiritual beings that solely desire to see the corruption & destruction of humanity because they are image bearers of God.

So what does this mean for Billy Carson? 

To put it bluntly. Billy is essentially supporting demonic propaganda. Yes. Billy is very ill-informed and misguided, and whether intentionally or by happenstance he has been a mouthpiece for narratives that the demonic forces of old used to control the nations surrounding Israel in their nascent stage. 

My hope and prayer is that Billy’s eyes will be open. That he will, through the work of the Holy Spirit understand his need for Christ and believe the Gospel that changes everything.

In Rememberance of Me

by Joel V Webb | Dec 12, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

Of the two sacraments practiced in the Protestant tradition, the one that continues on throughout the believer’s life is that of the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper, Communion). Eucharist simply means thanksgiving from the Greek, which derives from the connection to the Passover meal and the similarity it has with the thanksgiving offering in the Levitical law. It has also been found in early church history in the Didache to be called the Eucharist as well.

Matthew 26:26-28 (NET), While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

One of the primary argument surrounding the Lord’s Supper as is with baptism is their classification. Some in the Protestant world are uncomfortable with using the language of “sacrament”, and rather use the term “ordinances” that the Church is commanded to practice. I am not going to discuss here the additional practices in the Roman Catholic tradition where they have 7 sacraments. The primary distinction between these two terms is the affect of them. An initial note, the word sacrament is derived originally from the Greek word meaning mystery. For those who use the term sacrament, it is common to hear the phrase “means of grace”. This is utilized in the Roman, Anglican, Methodist, Orthodox and other traditions. The theology is that through the sacraments, God enables and conveys His grace to the believer through them, be it baptism or the Eucharist. There are obviously disagreements of the specific mechanics of it, or if it’s even important to know. For those who utilize the term ordinances, is to say that these are things that we are to do because Christ commanded them and is beneficial to do them because it reminds us of God’s work (be it baptism or Eucharist). 

I contend that the term sacrament is the correct one to use for baptism and the Eucharist. I believe that through the Holy Spirit, God enables and conveys His grace to the believer. Initially at baptism, and continually through the Eucharist. John Wesley has a fantastic sermon titled ‘Constant Communion’ where he develops this idea that the Eucharist is an essential in the regular life of the Christian as a continual remembering and enabling through the grace of God to live a holy life. In this I do believe that Christ is spiritually present as we partake. Now this likely throws up some questions. I believe that the Roman distinction of transubstantiation is a mechanical overstatement in a desire to have philosophical certainty HOW Christ is present in the Eucharist. Rather, I put myself with the rest of the sacramental tradition where while we believe that Christ is present, and enabling the believer, the “mechanics” are as the Eastern Orthodox Church puts it, “is a mystery.” 

Because of this I have come to see the importance of regularly taking the Eucharist, even on a weekly basis. If the Lord’s Supper is an avenue by which Christ strengthens our walk and transformation to look like Him, than why would we not participate as often as we are able to? In fact, up until some of the radical reformers came onto the scene, the primary element in the Church service was the receiving of the elements. The table was the central place that people came to worship. Yes, to hear the Word, sing and fellowship. But primarily to partake together. It was the high-point of the service, that everything culminated with. What is a more fitting way to finish a service than with a proclamation of the Lord’s death! as He commanded.

This practice of regularly meeting is not just found in the tradition of the Church, but also in Church history through the Scriptures. The pattern we see in the Early Church was that their gatherings we focused around yes teaching, but also breaking bread (Acts 20:7). John Wesley comments on this Scripture, “their daily Church communion consisted in these four particulars: Hearing the word; Having all things common; Receiving the Lord’s Supper; Prayer.”

Sadly in many parts of the Church this practice has been relegated to happening less often, and in some cases rarely practiced. Here are several poignant quotes concerning the diminishing place of the Lord’s Supper as apart of regular Church practice.  

William Willimon (cited by Scott McKnight) hits the nail on the head:

In my own
free church tradition, Zwingli’s practice of quarterly celebrations of
Communion have taken hold. That radical reformer from Zurich felt that
quarterly celebrations of the Lord’s Supper were sufficient lest the
meal become too commonplace, too ritualized. This is an odd point of
view. Odd because five hundred
years of experience in those churches that adopted the Zwinglian
practice shows that churches which commune less frequently value
Communion less. Odd because
of the biblical and historical testimony of weekly celebrations of the
Eucharist. Odd because reformers such as John Calvin and Luther hoped to
establish weekly Communion.

Jim Hamilton makes a similar point:

It is not
clear to me why churches that seek to model themselves by the pattern
of church life and structure seen in the NT would not also partake of
the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. If it is objected that
this would diminish its significance, my reply is simply that those who
make this argument typically do not claim that weekly observance
diminishes the significance of the preaching of the Word, the prayers of
God’s people, the singing of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and I
doubt they would be disappointed to have weekly baptisms!

Both of these quotes were sourced by THIS article from HolyJoys.com).

It is at the table where we all come, and partake of the elements. It is at that place that we all are to reflect on the amazing work that Christ has done for us all. It is there that, even with different language and liturgy, or ingredients of the elements we are worshiping with our brothers & sisters across the world and time proclaiming His death until He comes again. It is a moment that is holy. It is a moment that as we eat and drink we physically interact with the words that we speak. I do not believe in transubstantiation (as stated above and per Article 26 of the 39 Articles of Religion). But we are in another way tangibly interacting with our Lord who died and rose again. It is a moment of beauty as we know the Holy Spirit, in us is strengthening and enabling us for His service, and His glory. This holy and beautiful moment should be regarded as more than just an ordinance, as if it were us just reflecting on an important memory, or as if we were participating in mandatory training. Christ instituted it for our benefit. To know that His sacrifice is effectual for the entirety of our lives, not just when we first entered His family.

All of this that I have written and quoted is not to say that the preaching of the Word, or singing songs is nor important, it is! But, there has been as it seems from my perspective a much needed rediscovery of the importance and the power of the Eucharist. It should have predominant importance in Christian worship as participation in it is in it’s own way a reciting and declaration of the Gospel message. And I believe that through it, we can encounter Christ to be strengthened and steeled in holiness to image Him in the world around us.

Conversion of a Credobaptist

by Joel V Webb | Dec 8, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

This might ruffle some feathers.

Like most (if not
all) Western Evangelicals I was baptized when I was a bit older (for
me at 16). While I made a profession of faith at 4 or 5 years old,
general practice was not until someone was a bit older to make the
public declaration. As a baby I had been dedicated with my twin
brother at just a couple years old. My parents publicly stating that
they would raise my brother and I in the ways of the Lord. At some
points I would hear of “babies being baptized”, but it was always
with suspicion, mostly talking about Roman Catholics. Baptism is
really just a sign, a public confession when you want to let other
people know that you are following Jesus, and is only for those who
can make that conscience decision to follow Him.

And up until about 6
months ago I have held to that position as well.

I want to take you
though a truncated journey of my conversion from a credo-baptist
(a.k.a believers baptism) to a paedo-baptist (infant baptism). This
is a journey that I never thought I would go on, but as I have delved
into Scripture, taking into account as well the history and practice
of the Church it became increasingly evident there was more to the
story than I was told. As someone in the Wesleyan tradition I am
going to use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to help frame my journey and
discovery. Before I get into the weed I want to express a few
qualifiers.

I am in the Free
Methodist Church, a denomination that allows for both infant baptism,
and infant dedication. As someone who will be ordained in the near
future, I am agreeable to perform both infant baptism and dedication.
This is not something I am not dogmatic on, and am willing to do
both.

Secondly, I have no
ill-will to my credo-baptist brothers and sisters. I do not believe
that mode of baptism is a tier-one issue. While I believe (as I will
explain) infant baptism is a more grounded practice, it does not
invalidate other forms of baptism. Actually, for someone who has
never been a follower of Christ needs to be baptized (as is shown in
Scripture). But for those who have kids in the Church I feel infant
baptism is the best course of action.

Next, part of the
discussion hinges on our definition and discussion of sacraments.
While my Roman Catholic brothers & sisters believe there are 7, I
as a Protestant practice the two of baptism and the Eucharist (the
Lord’s Supper). There are some in more Anabaptist circles who
refrain from terminology such as sacrament, and prefer to use
“ordinance” Over the last several years I have become more aware
of the huge importance that sacraments plats in the life of the
Church. They are more than just ways we remember things. Sacraments,
as John Wesley spoke of them are a means of grace, by which God
through the enables and strengthens the Christian in holiness. We so
often focus on what WE do when we practice the sacraments, rather
than focusing on what GOD does in and through them. While yes baptism
is a public declaration of our allegiance to Christ, Scripture also
is very clear as to God’s work through the at of baptism
(Colossians 2:6-13). I am working on a blog post about sacraments,
and the Eucharist specifically, so wait for that.

Finally, this post
is not wholly exhaustive. Between references to Scripture and
tradition there is more than I could cover here and would love to
individually connect with anyone who has questions.

Scripture: Likely
one of the strongest cases from Scripture for infant baptism is how
baptism is the new circumcision. In the Old Testament the sign of
being apart of God’s people was the sign of circumcision. Every
male was to be circumcised, so people would know they were apart of
the family of Abraham. This of course after the initial act by
Abraham was performed on all male infants. Physical circumcision
then continued to be the sign for God’s people up until the coming
of Christ.

In the book of Acts
we have numerous stories of baptisms taking place. It of course
tracks that adults who became followers of Christ would be baptized,
as the initiatory sacrament into the Church. And during a number of
these instances there is reference to that person and their entire
household being baptized. Religion being a familial thing, it would
make sense that all in a family would be baptized into the community
of Christ as a sign of new life in Him.

Here is a helpful
list of comparisons of baptism and circumcision from Phillip Kayser
that is very comprehensive, and I appreciate not having to compile
the entirety of the Scriptural references.

Tradition: Simply
put, up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s, infant
baptism was the universal practice of the Church. When we look to the
early Church Fathers it is nearly unanimous that infant baptism was
the practice since the early Church (as early as 100AD). Justin
Martyr, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gergory Nazianzen,
Augustine, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian and many many more
Church fathers attest to infant baptism being the mode of the Church
for the children of believing parents. Of course this did not exclude
new converts to the faith, who would be baptized into Christ (be they
Jew or Gentile).

It was only until
the radical reformers who questioned this practiced. But aside from
these, all the main reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius,
Cranmer) upheld the legitimacy of the practice of the standard.

Reason: Some
may ask, “wasn’t Jesus dedicated, and so because of that children
should be as well.” This is true, Jesus was dedicated as an infant.
But heres the thing, the New Covenant had not been initiated yet.
There was no death of Christ to be baptized into. It cannot be denied
that Jesus would have been circumcised coming from a Jewish family.
In the Jewish mindset, baptism was an act of purification, bit did
not represent the distinction that circumcision does until after the
death and resurrection of Christ.

Now that we are in
the New Covenant, is it not also reasonable that we want to signify
that our children are in fact apart of God’s people? We don’t
believe that our kids are little pagans running around until they
make a decision to follow Jesus. Yes, infants who are baptized should
when they are ready to, either affirm their baptism, or be confirmed
as a sign of living their life in line with their baptism.

Another aspect we
should also consider is the very individualistic culture that we are
in living in the 21^st Century West. Throughout Scripture,
we see a familial/communal aspect to ones faith. So much of our focus
in how we talk about our faith in Christ is what we do, rather than
the focus on what Christ does for us.

Experience: Be
it the baptism of an infant or an adult, we know that being baptized
does not ensure that person will remain in Christ. This is often a
common objection to infant baptism, “that baby can’t make a
decision, there’s no guarantee they will follow Him.” This is
true, just as there is not guarantee that anyone will apostatize the
faith.

Back to a
consideration of the individualization of culture and faith. One
thing that we forget about Sacraments is that is is more than just
recognizing our part, but they are also a declaration of what God has
done, and His work in our lives to save us. What’s more powerful
than a declaration of the Gospel, and the work of Christ when someone
is baptized? In baptism we recognize God’s saving work, and through
that work we state that our children are now apart of God’s people,
to be raised in His ways. While similar to dedication as some would
say, I would argue the impact is much more profound.

Final Thoughts:
As I said, this post is not exhaustive. But it is a sort of primer as
to why I no longer consider myself a credo-baptist. But what I’ve
presented here represents some of the core reasoning that I now am a
proponent of infant-baptism. This transformation has been just one
aspect of my theological journey to one that has been more connected
to the historical Church that is faithful to Scripture. I still
identify myself as an Evangelical (in the religious, not political
meaning), but have also been increasingly identifying some of the
pitfalls and shortcomings that Evangelicalism has accrued through
being suspicious of the past.

For other in-depth
discussion on infant-baptism you can check out these resources:

https://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-brief-defense-of-infant-baptism/

https://leanpub.com/infant-baptism/read

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/why-we-should-baptize-babies-the-case-for-covenantal-infant-baptism

Book Review: Rebirth of Orthodoxy

by Joel V Webb | Dec 6, 2024 | Orthodoxy Matters

What is orthodoxy, and why does it matter?

These are questions that many years ago Thomas Oden, who is now recognized during his lifetime as the preeminent Methodist theologian, and the father of a branch of theology called paleo-orthodoxy. 

We live in what is now called the post-modern era, where many of the assumptions of what has built our current world are being called into question. And many of these questions also etch away at the foundational truths that construct the core of Christian belief. Calling it “modern chauvinism”, where the assumed inference is that the understanding of the past is inherently inferior. This has developed from a combination of the rise of secularism, materialism & critical theory. 

If this modern chauvinism is the presumed way of operating, then what do we actually do with the long held beliefs of the Christian Church? Are they something to be believed, or are they the relics of an outdated past that has no connection with the here and now, and must be updated to fit with our modern sensibilities.

Oden himself went on his own journey from an idealistic liberal theologian, to someone who concretely was pursuing the classical Christian consensus of orthodoxy through the history the the Church. Finding his start by looking at the early church fathers (a.k.a patristics) as the progenitors of all faithful followers of Christ. 

Orthodoxy is simply defined by Oden as, “the integrated biblical teaching as interpreted in its most consensual classic period”. From this, if we go back to the patristic teachers, we can begin tracing the core of Christian understanding from the Apostles to our day with consistency. Some of these key teachers are Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, Cyril & Crystotham.

Another amazing facet of his look on what is Christian orthodoxy is his placement of tradition as important to this. “tradition is itself a memory of scripture interpretation consensually received.” Meaning we cannot expunge tradition as many do in more fundamentalist understandings, as it helps hold the Christian consensus together. 

But ultimately Oden’s greatest area of concern and criticism is for the critical, liberal & Marxist understandings of Christian theology and history (which he himself had been saved from). 

“The Marxist explanation of orthodoxy was simple” economic interests prevailed. Ideological winners imposed their views on ideological losers corrosively – a matter of power.” This narrow understanding of history (as Marx himself would enjoy) rejects any notion of divine inspiration, that a Holy God could through His people keep and preserve His revelation to mankind. This of course being a core tenant of Christian understanding.

In fact, while many of these modern understandings seem so very broad, Oden states that they are actually very restrictive and small. Their “all encompassing acceptance” is really very small and narrow in comparison to Christian orthodoxy. One area that this shines bright is in orthodoxies understanding of diversity. “Because modern diversity has no time to listen to other generations, it risks a massive loss of wisdom.” This also is seen in the actions that flow from this kind of understanding. “Nothing is more pathetic than a self-centered doctrinal or moral advocate who claims to be centered on God’s Word and yet fails to listen to the vast resources of orthodoxy. 

This book, while written some years ago is more pertinent for our time than ever. I fear the dangers that Oden warns of are continuing to chip away at churches and seminaries,, thus causing a new generation of pastors and theologians to be driven more by idealistic modern chauvinism, than the tried and truth orthodoxy of the classic Christian consensus.

It is in the rebirth of orthodoxy in each one of us that will lead to a solid and real ecumenicism that will bring the Church together over what is essential, to spread the Gospel.