The Northern Kingdom - False Church?

[Sam Jer]

1. Was the Northern Kingdom a false church?
2. Is there any historical precedant for such a view?
3. If it is, how does it inform our view of false churches today?

Moreover He rejected the tent of Joseph; And did not choose the tribe of Ephraim. (Psalm 78:67, New King James Version)

Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also (Jeremiah 3:8, New King James Version)

Belgic Confession, Article 29: The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin... As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

(Note: I know this thread is not in "Paedobaptism Answers", but please do not reply if you disagree with the version of covenant theology these questions assume)

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Yes, the Northen Kingdom of Israel was a false Church.

See the intro on this page:

On the Roman Church being a Church, She being Apostate, her Baptism being Valid, that the Reformers’ Ministerial Calling was Valid, the Necessity of Separation from Her & Whether Romanists may be Saved​

On the Post-Ref distinction between False and True Churches, which is much more nuanced than people typically take it for, and assumed false Churches were Churches in some respect, see:

The Reformation on True & False Churches​

For how all this informs our view of false Churches today, see:

On Modern, Liberal Denominations​

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

It is clear that Jeroboam I in his new northern kingdom, fearing his people would go to Jerusalem to worship in truth, instead set up false worship temples in Bethel and Dan: 1 Kings 12:25-33

The faithful in the northern kingdom, starting with the priests, then went to the southern kingdom:

2 Chron 11:13-17 "And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him [Rehoboam] out of all their coasts. For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD: And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made. And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years: for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon."

And then many more from the north later joined king Asa in Judah:

2 Chron 15:8,9,10 ff. "And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the LORD, that was before the porch of the LORD. And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him. So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa."

Today there is much false worship being instituted in the churches. How this informs our view is that such apostatizing churches will go into captivity to the devil and end up in that place prepared for him and his fallen angels, the lake of fire.

There is great value in learning the history of God's people given us in His word in the OT!

 

[Sam Jer]

Are synagouges and nontrinitarian cults technically false churches? Or does baptism make the diffrence?

Or is that just semantics by that point?

 

[jwithnell]

Non-trinitarian views are outside what has been revealed to us in the completed Scriptures. No true church can hold such a view.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Are synagouges and nontrinitarian cults technically false churches? Or does baptism make the diffrence?

Or is that just semantics by that point?

According to Rutherford, whom I agree with, anyone who affirms the Apostles Creed is a visible Christian.

Hence Jewish synagogues are not Christian.

So yes, non-trinitarian cults, which can affirm the Apostles' Creed, are false Churches which are apostate, as they deny one or more fundamental articles.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

According to Rutherford, whom I agree with, anyone who affirms the Apostles Creed is a visible Christian.

Also I do believe it is possible for some Antitrinitarians to have a valid baptism, namely those that uphold the Apostles' Creed. Here is the Rutherford quote:

"I say, though this were true, yet will it not follow that these few fundamentals received by all Christians, Papists, Lutherans, Arians, Verstians, Sabellians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutychanes, Socinians, Anabaptists, Treithitae [Tritheists], Antitrinitarii [Anti-Trinitarians] (for all these be Christians and validly baptized) do essentially constitute a true Church and a true religion:​

​

[1.] Because all Christians agree that the Old and New Testament is the truth and Word of God, and the whole faith of Christian religion is to be found in the Old Testament, acknowledged both by Jews and Christians; for that is not the Word of God indeed in the Old Testament which the Jews say is the Word of God in the Old Testament. Yea the Old and New Testament, and these few uncontroverted points received universally by all Christians are not God’s Word, as all these Christians expone them, but the dreams and fancies of the Jews saying that the Old Testament teaches that Christ the Messiah is not yet come in the flesh, the Treithitae say there be three Gods, yet are the Treithitae Christians in the sense of Doctor Potter:​

​

So that one principal, as that There is one God, and Christ is God and man, and God is only to be adored, not one of these are uncontroverted, in respect [that] every society of sectaries have contrary expositions upon these common fundamentals, and so [they have] contrary religions. Who doubts but all Christians will subscribe and swear with us Protestants the Apostolic Creed, but will it follow that all Christians are of one true religion, and do believe the same fundamentals?"​

​

The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, section 5, pp. 224-29

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Looks like Turretin disagreed a bit, and held that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was a requisite for valid baptism.

Here is a section of a webpage with some sources on it:

On the Validity (or Not) of the Baptism of Sects & Heretics​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The answers already provided are more than adequate, in my opinion. My contribution here is not for their improvement.

In my view, our starting point for understanding and evaluating the Old Covenant kingdom is in parallel to the NT church, i.e. the New Covenant kingdom.

Almost all other lenses through which to examine the former kingdom--including it's split into two--end up a serious distraction to the truth of God. We are not going to learn much useful or beneficial for applying the text to secular politics (for example), by assuming that because the Old Covenant church was also a state, therefore states of all ages find in ancient Israel the model of ideal public order and governance.

All the uniqueness of God's covenant relation to this one nation of all in the whole earth is quite discounted by presuming the just application of his covenant monarchy to any earthly sovereignty or organization. God chooses his consort and offers her a covenant-relation; no nation or other group chooses for itself Israel's God to be its loving head; the Gibeonites (Jos.9) give us a kind of insight into what sort of relationship might come about if a nation offered itself to Israel's God: they became hewers of wood and fetchers of water, equivalent of slaves in other words. The nations qua nations are destined to be the Lord's footstool, his humiliated enemies.

Of course, it is still true that the nations surrounding the church today--as much as in old time, Dt.4:6-8 --might gain much from observing the true church carrying on and conducting its business in full compliance with Christ, who though he is King of all kings and Lord of all lords, is specially the Head of his mediatorial kingdom: the church. For example, the church contains a court (or a system of courts) where Holy Scripture obliges "due process;"

It sure is good if the secular government under which one lives has such a court, but the world's system does not recognize God speaking through Holy Scripture. The world gives selective due-process (an oxymoron of course) or no such thing; perhaps imperial Rome's example is a clear demonstration of the former. For all its vaunted world-wide justice, the Empire maintained very much the two-tiered justice system. However, partiality is forbidden the church today, and it was also forbidden to the church in the wilderness.

If the true church abandons due process (becoming less true thereby), why should it be surprising if the secular nation within which such a church has its dwelling becomes less fair and just? Has not the salt then lost its saltiness? Its influence is worthless, but the church is rather being influenced and becoming worldly. The northern tribes, which took the name Israel for itself and left Judah, and David's son, and the true altar of Israel--these tribes became a false church. They were Oholah (Ezk.23:4), and played the harlot against her husband. Before long, they were indistinguishable from all the other nations, bringing their gods within her borders after making her own golden calf anew.

But for a while, this false church was comparable to the rump of the true church in the southern kingdom. For a while, some pitiful witness was carried on in those borders, and there were notable efforts at reformation and reclamation. The ministries of Elijah and Elisha stand out in this respect, as they carried forth a witness against the lies and degeneracy, and called the faithful remnant away from contentment with the tragedy of apostate Israel. These faithful men (and others) conducted themselves in the Spirit even as far as Israel's king's confidences--with limited effect. But there continued to be a remnant of faith in Israel until the conclusion of that kingdom, as Hezekiah's call for a Passover of unity demonstrated, 2Chr.30, when an appreciable number of men made their appearance in Jerusalem. It was a last plea to the north for religious reconciliation and reformation, though it was received by many with scorn, v10; see 2Chr.31:1 for some visible effects of reformation carried out even in the north after this feast.

Hezekiah's great-grandson, Josiah, had to conduct his own reformation for the true church of Judah, see 2Chr.34:3. He made foray into the northern lands, as far as Naphtali, v6, but the work in the north was largely symbolic as there was no more church government there at all, not even a false one after captivity came. What remnant remained, v9, was vanishingly small. Josiah made his own effort at a Passover of unity, 2Chr.35, a celebration to rival his great-grandfather's v18; and while the north was represented, it seems the number of them that came from that territory was little reckoned (if comparing with the earlier report).

Yet, after Josiah the south was turned into Oholibah (Ezk.23:11ff), sister of Oholah and if possible even more determined to outdo her older sister inviting abomination into her bosom. The judgment promised by their Husband was terrible. Without a full recognition of the scope of divine promises, including the will of God to preserve and even resurrect a remnant (Ezk.36 & 37) it would seem that the true church wholly vanished from the earth. But God is faithful to his covenant, “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake," Ezk.36:22. There will always be a true church in the earth, made up of those who "humble themselves to come to Jerusalem." 2Chr.30:11.

Semper reformanda.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So yes, non-trinitarian cults, which can affirm the Apostles' Creed, are false Churches which are apostate, as they deny one or more fundamental articles

Did you mean "cannot" in this sentence or am I just not following you here?

 

[Jack K]

In 1 Kings 13, the man of God sent to confront Jeroboam as he's worshipping at his northern-church site in Bethel is instructed to be very wary during his time in the north and not to accept any hospitality nor enjoy fellowship, even with fellow "prophets" he might encounter there. As it happened, a prophet he met there looked legitimate but was a liar. This command against fellowship underscores the danger of being taken in by false teaching that still claims the Lord's name and uses familiar language, but preaches no gospel (the Jerusalem temple rituals pointing to Christ were discarded).

This command adds to the evidence that, yes, it's probably right to think of the northern church in Israel as a false church—especially when combined with the evidence Steve pointed out of faithful ministers leaving that church and going south.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Did you mean "cannot" in this sentence or am I just not following you here?

Hi Andrew,

I did mean what I wrote.

The Trinity is first affirmed by a major creed in the Nicene Creed, c. 325. The Apostles Creed was before that. While it mentions the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it does not delineate their relation to each other, and hence does not explicitly affirm the Trinity.

Hence numerous non-Trinitarian Churches of that era (such as Arians, Monarchists, Sabellians, Tri-theists, etc.) affirmed the Apostles Creed, but not Nicea.

The question is if they are visible, though erring and heretical, Christians, and if their baptism is valid. Rutherford says yes. Turretin says no, at least as respects their baptism. I have reasons to lean towards Rutherford on this, though I also see the reasons of Turretin, and I am not completely sure how to synthesize all the issues at this time.

The major examples of such heretical groups in the Reformation were the Socinians and non-Trinitarians. The question was if they were Christians in any significant sense (they certainly claimed to be), and whether their baptism was valid. I have seen some sources on this, but I need to find more to get a better idea of how the reformed were handling this.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Hi Andrew,

I did mean what I wrote.

The Trinity is first affirmed by a major creed in the Nicene Creed, c. 325. The Apostles Creed was before that. While it mentions the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it does not delineate their relation to each other, and hence does not explicitly affirm the Trinity.

Hence numerous non-Trinitarian Churches of that era (such as Arians, Monarchists, Sabellians, Tri-theists, etc.) affirmed the Apostles Creed, but not Nicea.

The question is if they are visible, though erring and heretical, Christians, and if their baptism is valid. Rutherford says yes. Turretin says no, at least as respects their baptism. I have reasons to lean towards Rutherford on this, though I also see the reasons of Turretin, and I am not completely sure how to synthesize all the issues at this time.

The major examples of such heretical groups in the Reformation were the Socinians and non-Trinitarians. The question was if they were Christians in any significant sense (they certainly claimed to be), and whether their baptism was valid. I have seen some sources on this, but I need to find more to get a better idea of how the reformed were handling this.

That makes sense - I have long struggled with the issue of where to "draw the line." I, too, am a great admirer of Rutherford, but I have to pass when someone defines "heretical" with a hard and fast rule such as which creeds must be affirmed. I don't think anyone can say definitively where the line is which makes someone holding to certain error(-s) and/or heresy a non-believer. Apostasy, perhaps, but error even including heresy, no. I do believe Church courts have the duty and power to rule what is an error or what is apostasy, but how much error/apostasy denies the possibility of salvation can only be judged by the Saviour. Our responsibility (individually and corporately) is to hold fast (Titus 1:9), hold fast (Hebrews 3:6), hold fast (Hebrews 4:14), hold fast (Revelation 2:25), and, lastly, hold fast (Revelation 3:3).