# Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee



## Arch2k (Aug 13, 2005)

Does anyone know anything about Dr. F.Nigel Lee? What is his background? Is he worthwhile, or is there anything about him to be cautious about?

I know that the webmaster and super admin. really like Lee's work on infant regeneration. His website looks absolutely amazing with all of his free works available online.

Thoughts?


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 13, 2005)

Check out the BATTLE HYMN OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH written by Lee.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 13, 2005)

Lee is pretty cool  he has got alot of degrees. He is from africa originally I believe.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 13, 2005)

His academic credentials are amazing. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Lee. I especially appreciate his writings on historicism and the Christian Sabbath. His account of his father's murder and the salvation of the man who did it is deeply moving.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 13, 2005)

the story of that is amazing. Challenging.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 13, 2005)

*Short Bio*

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee was born in 1934 in the Westmorland County of Cumbria (in Great Britain). He is the great-grandson of a fiery preacher whose family disintegrated when he backslid. Though Dr. Lee's father was an Atheist, he married a Roman Catholic who raised her son in that faith. At the onset of the Second World War, Dr. Lee's father was appointed by the Royal Navy as Chief Radar Officer (South Atlantic). So the family then moved to South Africa. There Dr. Lee became a Calvinist; had the great joy of leading both of his parents to Christ; and became Minister of God's Word and Sacraments in the Reformed Church of Natal. 
Emigrating to the U.S.A., he attended the very first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America; transferred his previous ministerial credentials to that denomination, and pastored congregations in Mississippi and Florida. He was also: Professor of Philosophy at Shelton College in New Jersey; Research Scholar in Residence at the Christian Studies Center in Memphis; and Academic Dean of Graham Bible College in Bristol Tennessee. He was then the only person in the World serving on the Executives of both the British Lord's Day Alliance (headquartered in London) and the Lord's Day Alliance of the United States (headquartered in Atlanta). 

Preacher, theologian, lawyer, educationist, historian, philosopher and author, Lee has produced more than 300 publications (including many books) and also a multitude of long unpublished manuscripts. In addition to an honorary LL.D., he has twenty earned degrees including some ten earned doctorates awarded for dissertations in law, literature, philosophy and theology. His latest major work is a dissertation of more than 800 pages on Tiny Human Life: against abortion, AID, AIH, SHW, IVF and human cloning. 

Dr. Lee rises early; reads God's Word in eight languages; then walks a couple of miles before breakfast. He has been round the World some six or seven times; has visited eighty eight countries (several repeatedly); and has visited every Continent. He continues to be in demand as a promoter of doctoral students in Australia, Britain, South Africa & the United States. 

A diehard predestinarian and unreconstructed Southerner, Dr. Lee is affectionately nicknamed "General Lee" by his closest friends. Now in Australia, he is the Professor of Systematic Theology and Caldwell-Morrow Lecturer in Church History at the Queensland Presbyterian Theological Hall. His wife Nellie is in Fulltime Christian Service as a godly Homemaker. Their elder daughter Johanna teaches English, German and Modern History in Brisbane, at Parkridge High School. Their younger daughter Annamarie (whom Dr. Lee baptized as a baby in 1970) is now Secretary/Librarian at the Queensland Presbyterian Theological Hall, Brisbane, Australia. 

Earned Doctorates Th.D.: The Covenantal Sabbath University of Stellenbosch 
Ph.D.: Communist Eschatology Orange Free State University 
D.Min.: Daily Family Worship Whitefield Theological Seminary 
D.Ed.: Catechism Before Communion! Dominion School of Education 
S.T.D.: Rebaptism Impossible! Whitefield Theological Seminary 
D.R.E.: Baby Belief Before Baptism! Dominion School of Education 
D.Jur.: Women Ministers & Australian Litigation Rutherford School of Law 
D.Litt.: Holinshed on the Ancient British Isles Dominion School of Education 
D.C.L.: The Roots and Fruits of the Common Law Rutherford School of Law 
D.Hum.: Tiny Human Life: abortion, AID, AIH, SHW, IVF and cloning Whitefield Theological Seminary 


Other Degrees B.A.: University of Capetown 
LL.B.: University of Capetown 
M.A.: University of Capetown 
L.Th. (cum laude): University of Stellenbosch 
B.D. (cum laude): University of Stellenbosch 
M.Th. (cum laude): University of Stellenbosch 
M.A. & Cultural Sc.: Potchefstroom University


----------



## pastorway (Aug 14, 2005)

In the area of cautions when approaching his work, his views toward Baptists do not just highlight the differences between paedo and credo. They are extreme, unwarranted, and troubling.

According to what he has written and posted on the internet, it his vision that Baptists, if they do not repent and baptize their children, should be jailed by the state, their children removed from their homes, and given over to paedo families to baptize and raise. 

This is just some of what he had written in "The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren."

In this work he wrongly starts with this assumption:



> The Baptists are the (equally antipaidobaptistic) stepchildren of the Anabaptists. Baptists, however, have baptized by single submersion -- at least ever since about 1638. In this, they have followed Mediaeval Romanism -- and repudiated both the Protestant Reformation and most Anabaptists.



Because he automatically makes a connection between credos and the Anabaptists he is off on the worng foot throughout the rest of his work. He tries to show that Baptists claim to descend from the Anabaptists, and while many do just that, he fails to identify the FACT that the First London Baptist Confession of Faith, penned by CALVINISTIC Baptists who repudiated the Anabaptists, begins with these words:

*A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. *

A simple reading on our confessions proves how wrong Lee is on what he writes about what we believe. But because he so overemphasizes infant baptism, even saying that to baptize an infant is to write God's name of their forehead, he misses the point of all that we have in common between credo and paedo churches.

He likens modern day Baptists with these others groups:



> the Christadelphians, the Mormons, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Jehovah witnesses, the Pentecostalists, and the left- wing liberationists



He also labels us in the same category as:



> sacramentalists like the Campbellites; unitarian Christadelphians; 'charismatic' Pentecostalists; premillennial Dispensationalists; polygamous proto-Mormons; state-hating "Jehovah's witnesses"; soul-sleeping Seventh-day Adventists; and various assorted deniers of everlasting punishment.



He goes on to state that those who do not baptize infants are "heretics."

And it just gets worse from there.

In closing he writes the following:



> God has not left us in the dark as to how to overcome Anabaptist (and all other deleterious) influences even in our modern world. Those methods are: firstly, the powerful preaching of the Gospel; secondly, the 'improving' (or daily living-out) of one's own baptism; thirdly, the joyful outworking of the preached Word of God; fourthly, the State's punishment of criminals.
> 
> "For their publishing of such opinions or maintaining of such practices as are contrary to the light of nature or to the known principles of Christianity..., they may lawfully be called to account and proceeded against...by the power of the civil magistrate.





> It is an earnest petition that the Church be "purged from corruption" such as Anabaptism, and be "countenanced and maintained by the Civil Magistrate" against all ungodliness -- so "that the Ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed." Romans 10:1f & 11:25f. This is a petition that baptism no longer be limited by some to adults alone -- nor repeated in adulthood to those already baptized in infancy.
> 
> The Westminster Assembly's Directory for the Publick Worship of God rightly understands the above petition to be a promise that the Church will ultimately calvinize all the world. That includes de-brainwashing heretics -- and redirecting them toward the untruncated Word of God.



and finally:



> standing upon Scripture, Christian Calvinists now say to all such stepchildren: "Anabaptists of all countries -- repent!"We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- including justified Baptists; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins)



Read it for yourself here,:
http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/

Phillip

[Edited on 8-14-05 by pastorway]


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 14, 2005)

Yup. Brightness does not always lead to a balanced position.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 14, 2005)

He is pretty good. I've learned a lot from some of his articles/sermons.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 14, 2005)

Good man; wrong on a few items,  but then who isn't? We nearly had him as a pastor till the presbytery got heavy handed and put cold water on the call (mid 1980s). I think it was a hostile four hour exam on the floor. Maybe it was three; but sure seemed long. Some simply did not want F. N. Lee back in the PCA. Several items by Dr. Lee (probably duplicated on his site but not sure) are posted at our church site articles section.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/articles.htm#Lee
Also see items that may only be in PDF at:
http://www.fpcr.org/bluebanner.htm
Search on Lee.


----------



## AdamM (Aug 14, 2005)

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Lee, but I find many of his writings somewhat confusing and frankly, not that convincing.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

> We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- *including justified Baptists*; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins)



Does Lee believe baptists to be justified? (i.e. saved?)


----------



## Mayflower (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- *including justified Baptists*; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins)
> ...



Why not sending him a personal mail. I send him before some mails with questions about baptism and everytime he repley back to me.

His mailadress is :
[email protected]


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > We therefore call upon all of the various stepchildren of the Anabaptists -- *including justified Baptists*; heretical Seventh-day Adventists; apostate "Jehovah witnesses"; polytheistic Mormons; and atheistic Communists -- to repent of their great sin of antipaidobaptism (and of all their other sins)
> ...





Does Lee believe that "justified Baptists", i.e., true brethren in Christ, should be put in jail for refusing to baptize their children?



> Fourthly, the State, as God's servant, is to punish all criminals. Explains the Westminster Confession of Faith:473 "They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power or the lawful exercise of it...resist the ordinance of God. Matthew 12:35; First Peter 2:13-16; Romans 13:1-8....
> 
> "For their publishing of such opinions or maintaining of such practices as are contrary to the light of nature or to the known principles of Christianity..., they may lawfully be called to account and proceeded against...by the power of the civil magistrate.



????


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

> Does Lee believe that "justified Baptists", i.e., true brethren in Christ, should be put in jail for refusing to baptize their children?



Did Calvin?


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 15, 2005)




----------



## Dan.... (Aug 15, 2005)

Did the apostle John?

1 Jn 3:10,14,16,17.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

That depends on the context of the discussion and what we are talking about. I would say your proof texts are only part of the answer.

This is exactly where the conversation should go if one is to answer fairly, but it is going to be difficult - 

Now you are going to have to define what it means to walk disorderly, why someone would shun a brother, and how judicial discpline works in this case. This will raise questions on how you view the law, how discipline works in the church, and what cross overs there are between the Civil magistrate and the Chruch. It will also have to go into how history progressed and where the roots of these systems emerged.

So, the moral of the story is that Phillip's post was too glibb. He needs to define more things in relation to the question as a whole. Otherwise, you will have the entirety of the Reformation and the Westminster Assembly "not loving the bretheren" for thier treatment of the Anabaptists "and thier stepchildren."



Its not as easy as a single, blanket statement. Practical theology is always accomplished in the seat of systemtatic theology.


----------



## gwine (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> So, the moral of the story is that Phillip's post was too glibb. He needs to define more things in relation to the question as a whole.



glib

A	adjective
1 glib, glib-tongued, smooth-tongued
artfully persuasive in speech; "a glib tongue"; "a smooth-tongued hypocrite"

2 glib, pat, slick
having only superficial plausibility; "glib promises"; "a slick commercial"

3 glib
marked by lack of intellectual depth; "glib generalizations"; "a glib response to a complex question"

Methinks you need another word to describe Pastor Way's comments. I thought he was pretty specific about what he was urging caution about.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

#3 works.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 15, 2005)

gee thanks guys.....I raise a valid concern about a serious deficit in FN Lee thinking and research when it comes to the history of modern day Reformed Baptists and my comments are defined as "glib"? (marked by a lack of intellectual depth) oh, well, I prefer the foolishness of the message preached to the so called intellectual wisdom of those who would be so Biblically misinformed that they would think it the right and proper thing to do to throw other Christians behind bars and liberate their children from their homes because of a disagreement over baptism. Lee's work and thoughts on the matter is not just an attack on other believers, it is an attack against the sanctity of the Christian family.

And am I to note now that it should be okay for a person to want to throw me in jail on a charge of being disorderly because I disagree with him on a secondary matter, namely baptism, and it is okay because Lee refers to some Baptists as "justified"?

Lee has made his case in this work and on internet forums and it is a case that is lacking! I proved that with a simple post of the introduction to the _First London Baptist Confession_.

For the Record - Reformed Baptists do not claim to have descended from the Anabaptists - so for Lee to make the case that we are their step children and lump us in with several obviously heretical and apostate groups is poor scholarship at best and a lack of Christian charity at worst.

Because of Lee's stances on this and other topics I am not too pleased that he is getting recommendations from this board - for to recommend his work is to tell every Baptist here that they are criminals and false teachers.

And for what it is worth, it does not matter what Calvin thought about it, because he was wrong too in his treatment of other Christian groups in his day.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

{MODERATE}

This is a moderation to keep the thread on track:



> And for what it is worth, it does not matter what Calvin thought about it, because he was wrong too in his treatment of other Christian groups in his day.



Isn't that what the Anabaptists said as well?

No one has proposed that Lee is "right" (nor am I saying he is wrong). The point is simply made that statements are not as compact and tight as some would like them, historically speaking. That is why it is important to have a full orbed statement (see my other post to Dan) about what should dealt with here before saying Lee is wrong.

1) Prove that baptists, histroically, did not believe the same things, or emerge from Anabaptism. (Not just say they didn't)

2) Prove that they legitiamtely were recognized by the Reformation, and subsequent groups (i.e. Westminster).

3) Prove that statements like your above that I quoted, are not what the Anabaptists did or beleived.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 15, 2005)

This may need another thread then because it seems you are saying that Westminster sets the bar for orthodoxy across the board with no room for improvement or growth in grace.

If we must take Calvin's view by default (without any critical or Biblical thinking about how wrong he was in this area) then Lee is right - put me in jail and throw away the key.

Calvin, for all the good he did, also *persecuted* Christians who disagreed with him on secondary matters. And no matter what history, Westminster, or the Reformers taught in this regard, the Bible takes a contrary view to their behavior toward those who are members of theh Body of Christ. 1 Cor 12 makes this clear.

Phillip


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 15, 2005)

Matt,



> Otherwise, you will have the entirety of the Reformation and the Westminster Assembly "not loving the bretheren" for thier treatment of the Anabaptists "and thier stepchildren."



Not exactly. What percentage of the Westminster Assembly or "the entire reformation" actually past sentence or put baptists in jail for not baptising their children (and only for not baptising their children, not for various anabaptist heresies)?

Also, what did the General Assembly of 1789 have to say about the issue? Do you think that all of those elders were aware that they were going against the "entirety of the reformation"?



[Edited on 8-15-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

Sorry fellas, you are totally missing my point. Maybe I'm not being clear:

Before you cast judgment on Lee (which is happening in particular with Phillip) you have to prove he is wrong. That's is all I said.

You would need to prove that his view on the Civil Government is wrong (and Calvin's), and you would need to prove that the Baptist movement did not have relations or emerge from the Anabaptists either historically or theologically.

_Then_ you can say Lee is wrong on this issue. You cannot just throw up your arms and say "lock me up and throw away the key" as if that is somehow an "argument."

All Phillip has said by way of argument is that the 1689 Confession was written to segregate the difference between Anabaptist theology overall and Baptist Theology overall. That does not argue that they believe the same things on Civil Government, baptism, etc.

I'm not arguing the point, I'm arguing the validity of a glib assertion without proof. Just prove your assertions. Don't just say "And it just gets worse from there."


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 15, 2005)

Why re-invent the wheel? Per the Confession of Faith of both yours and my church, anyone who would have the civil magistrate "punish" those who will not adhere particularly to the WCF & Catachisms is in error:



> III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments;[463] or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[464] or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.[465] *Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.[466] *And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.[467] It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.[468]



Do you agree?



[Edited on 8-15-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Why re-invent the wheel? Per the Confession of Faith of both yours and my church, anyone who would have the civil magistrate "punish" those who will not adhere particularly to the WCF & Catachisms is in error:
> 
> 
> ...



That is the Updated version of the confession, right?


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



It is the American version that was adopted by the OPC and PCA.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 15, 2005)

It is the version adopted by the PCUSA in 1789. There are other _American_ versions: ARP (1799), and UPC (1858), and RPCNA rejects everything after the colon. Following PCUSA are: Book of Confessions; BP, OPC, PCA; PCUS; PCUSA/UPCUSA.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Why re-invent the wheel? Per the Confession of Faith of both yours and my church, anyone who would have the civil magistrate "punish" those who will not adhere particularly to the WCF & Catachisms is in error:
> 
> 
> ...



Does Dr. Lee agree? (Whether I agree or not is not the question - show why Dr. Lee is wrong).


----------



## love2read (Aug 19, 2005)

My opinion is that Lee is wrong. Why? Not primary because of what he is saying but above all HOW he is saying it. There is (at least to me it seems) no love at all in what he is saying about Baptists but rather hatred. The way he states things to me show: no love and no patience.
IF Baptists are wrong on this issue then clearly he could have stated things in a totally different way.
The way some men continue to discuss (whether it is a friendly discussion or not I leave that to you) on this issue makes me grow very sad.
All should have concluded that the way he said some things are not promoting unity in the Church of Christ at all....... and I hope that we all agree that both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are members of the Body of Christ.
When we study church history we should also conclude that when statements like these are being made we see strong divisions coming up in the church which is a negative testimony to the world in a strong sense. Because of such a testimonies many lives, families and friendships have been damaged. Just study the Church in the Netherlands for the last 150 years and draw your conclusions.
Please men, let us seek to strive for holiness, Christ-likeness, above all.

Jeroen


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 19, 2005)

If the accusation is correct about Dr. Lee thinking I shouldn't be able to raise my Children, I think he is going to have many problems with God who gave them to me. There is no place in scripture that calls for the removal of children from parents. 

Do any of you know of any scripture that allows for such behavior or assumed authority? Sounds tyrannical to me. I would have to defend myself and my children from such a person.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> If the accusation is correct about Dr. Lee thinking I shouldn't be able to raise my Children, I think he is going to have many problems with God who gave them to me. There is no place in scripture that calls for the removal of children from parents.
> 
> Do any of you know of any scripture that allows for such behavior or assumed authority? Sounds tyrannical to me. I would have to defend myself and my children from such a person.



For the record most (if not all) theonomists disagree with him on stealing baptist babies. In fact, the two most vocal theonomists I am familiar with (Doug and Howard Phillips) are BAPTISTS!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 19, 2005)

So, evidently Phils accusation is true? I thought Phil gave a defence for his accusation. If this man truly is like this he is opposed to God in this matter. I would defend myself proudly against this man. His reformation theology would mean nothing to me. He is attacking the first formed unit God instituted, the family. He should be careful of what he wants to attack.

[Edited on 8-19-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 24, 2005)

Closing.


----------

