Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Michael Brown struggle session

Michael Brown’s Struggle Session, Veiled Attack On Nicene Council

Michael Brown is the hyper-charismatic preacher who is perhaps the most famous figure in “Messianic Judaism,” a denominational tradition that tries to blend Modern Judaism and Christianity. Michael Brown has gone after the Reformation believing that Benny Hinn is a better theologian than Martin Luther. But more recently, his writings suggest an inability to consistently uphold Trinitarian doctrine, as he affirmed an attack on the Nicene Council and the doctrine it produced.

In a recent article titled, “The ominous resurfacing of ‘Christian’ antisemitism,” Michael Brown leads a struggle session against Christian Nationalists and other right-wing Christians.

For example, after a recent debate on the ongoing election of Israel, I spotted this comment on X, speaking of the Jewish people: “The porn, trans and usury people? Imma go with Martin Luther.” The post also contained a screenshot of a vile, antisemitic Luther quote.

Yes, this is the same Luther who, in 1543, called for Jewish synagogues to be set on fire and places of business to be broken down and destroyed, for rabbis to be forbidden to teach on the penalty of death, for Jews to be rounded up in ghettos and deprived of jobs — and more.

Yet this individual wrote, “Imma go with Martin Luther”?

You might say, “He’s obviously just another loony antisemite.”

Perhaps so, but according to his profile, he is a “1689 Baptist,” meaning that he holds to the London Confession of 1689 and takes pride in his Baptist “orthodoxy.” He also states that he is a “Church history buff” and “Abortion abolitionist,” among other things.

So, he is an antisemite, for sure. But he is also a professing committed, Evangelical, pro-life Christian. You can be assured he is not alone.

Micahel Brown correctly identifies the rhetoric as not coming from Palestinian supporters. In fact, he notes just how based these accounts actually are. Brown is historically not a fan of Reformed theology, and he became famous during the Brownsville Revival in which he notably made a false prophecy about Modern Israel. Since then he has become an apologist for false teachers including the aforementioned Benny Hinn, Bill Johnson, and Mike Bickle.

You can be assured that this viewer, too, claimed to be a Christian, referencing the need for the Jews to be saved.

On and on this drivel goes, with still another writing, “You’re bothered by what Luther said about the Jews but not bothered by what they have said and do say about your own savior? How about the fact that they spit on Christians in the streets of Israel? Oh wait. Dr Brown you’re not worried about that. You instead would rather make videos against the Christians who speak out about it.”

To his credit, Michael Brown is not strawmanning his opponents, but letting their ideas showcase themselves.

He also stated that Judaism is an “antichrist, blasphemous” religion, with some viewers offering their “amen” in the comments section.

In fact, it is becoming a mark of Christian orthodoxy to demonize the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. To fail to do so in the strongest, even vilest terms, is to raise questions about your own faith.

Brown argues that a Christless religion is somehow neither blasphemous nor antichrist. He argues citing Romans 10:2 which was written before the emergence of Talmudic Judaism, meaning it does not apply to Modern Jews today because their religion is completely different. The lack of sacrifice, or desire to sacrifice, is evidence that the zeal Paul wrote about is not present.

Yet because I affirm with Scripture that the Jewish people remain chosen (for a mission, without the guarantee of their salvation, as taught throughout the Bible), and because I unceasingly stand against antisemitic libels, that makes my own faith suspect in the eyes of the “orthodox” Christians. To add insult to injury, these Christian zealots fail to realize that one of the biggest reasons that Jewish people do not believe in Jesus is the conduct of the Church, which at times offered Jews baptism or death, among other horrors.

Michael Brown makes the church out to be the villain, just like John Hagee.

Attacking Nicea

From there Michael Borwn concludes by attacking the Nicene Council which produce the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is instrumental to the Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity. The council was called for by Emperor Constantine who allowed the church to solve the most pressing issue of its day.

As Christian researcher Aaron David Fruh wrote in the Jerusalem Poston July 20, 2023, “Today theological Antisemitism is flourishing in church pulpits and seminary lecterns. Replacement theology would lay dormant for several years after the Holocaust but has returned with vengeance. It would only be a matter of time before theological Antisemitism would merge with nationalism as it did in the 4th century under Constantine and as it did during the Holocaust under the Nazis.”

May God awaken His Church to denounce this foul plague and declare to the Jewish people and the world that these ugly voices do not represent Jesus or the Gospel. The matter is urgent.

Michael Brown cites Aaron David Fruh whose faith he affirms. The article he links is titled, On Decrees that Spilled Jewish Blood: The Evil Legacy of the Nicene Council. The entire article is an attack on the Nicene Council and by extension, Nicene Christianity, what orthodox Christianity is often referred to by historians for this time period (as opposed to Arianism).

As a Christian who investigates Christian Antisemitism, I sometimes wonder what Christianity would be like today had it not sold its soul to the Roman Empire in the 4th century during the reign of Constantine. From the time of the Council of Nicaea, when Church leaders merged piety with a lust for political power, Christianity entered into an apostasy from which it has never recovered.

Fruh describes Nicean Christianity as an apostasy from which the church has never recovered. How can anyone who believes that uphold the Holy Trinity, and not succumb to Modalism, Arianism, or other ancient heresies?

The Council of Nicaea rang with a genocidal note when it codified theological Antisemitism known as Triumphalism (the church has triumphed over Jews) and Replacement theology (the church has replaced Israel and the Jewish people). As a Christian, it is impossible for me to read the decisions passed down by the church leaders who formed the Council of Nicaea without feeling tremendous shame for how several of those decrees weaponized a newly militarized Church to carry out violence against Jews over the coming centuries.

Notably, his description of “triumphalism” is not the more common usage of this term, perhaps novel. Fruh also presupposes that the church believed that Jews were God’s chosen people before Constantine which is blatantly untrue. In any case, Fruh dismisses the contribution of Trinitarian doctrine which at best he attempts to reverse engineer, claiming to come to the same conclusion on his own without the influence of this ancient council. But in reality, Christians stand on the shoulders of giants, including those at Nicea.

During the Nicene Council, the alarm bells should have sounded, but no attention was given to the possibility that the decrees passed down in the council would eventually shed Jewish blood. The same is true today. As Christian Nationalists develop a taste for the possibility of wielding the power of a Christian empire, the alarm bells should be sounding, but the silence of Nicaea remains.

Fruh concludes his article lamenting the lack of discernment of Christians who remained silent refusing to denounce Nicea.

Michael Brown cites Fruh favorably in both his assessment of church history and his conclusions, meaning that Michael Brown cannot consistently uphold the Nicene Creed, and his Trinitarian doctrine should therefore be questioned.

Powered by RedCircle

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
Reddit
LinkedIn

One Response

  1. Ray,

    You wrote: “But more recently, his writings suggest an inability to consistently uphold Trinitarian doctrine, as he affirmed an attack on the Nicene Council and the doctrine it produced.” This was poorly worded. It is important for Christians to understand that the Council of Nicaea did not “form”, “create” or “produce” any new doctrines. They merely affirmed what had been taught and handed down from the Apostles and Christians before them.

    Servus Dei,
    – Jeff

Leave a Reply

Join 7,244 other subscribers

Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Trending Posts