My Story with a Critique of Fundamentalist Extremism and a Defense of my Positions

~ fundyreformed

The following is the text of a letter I sent to some of my college friends, which I had been keeping up with. This letter tells much of my story. I present it here with just a few minor edits. Feel free to jump to “My Critique of Fundamentalism and Defense of My Positions“, which is the last half of this lengthy letter.
 
 

My Story

September 19, 2005

Dear ——-,

Greetings! I apologize for not having written in quite a while. Many things have changed in my life since we last talked, leaving me somewhat at a loss for where to begin and how to explain these things to my friends. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I want to really bare my soul to you, and let you understand my mind in this matter.

Last I contacted you, I was still in the San Francisco area attending ——— Baptist Church. Carolyn was teaching first grade part-time for their academy, and I was taking an occasional class offered by the church at a Master’s equivalent level. I was laid off, though, in April 2004, due to my company’s financial woes. I spent several months in a fruitless search for work. We had already decided that Carolyn would not teach the next year to enable her to be a full-time homemaker. Thru my brother’s connections, I applied for a job in the Minneapolis area. There was a good church we had heard of… in the area, too. After praying and seeking godly counsel, we decided that God would have us move to Minneapolis and take the job. We arrived in July 2004. But we did not yet, at that point, anticipate the dramatic and comprehensive changes God was leading us to make.

We found an apartment and became actively involved as members of —— Baptist Church of ——-, MN. By this time, we had learned that God was going to bless us with another daughter, and so we began to eagerly await her birth (Megan Faith was born January 20, 2005 — we praise God for two healthy daughters, we also are expecting our 3rd child on or around Feb. 5, 2006-Ps. 127:5a). Also, my parents had come home on furlough, and we enjoyed much fellowship and time with them, during their visits to Minneapolis made more frequent due to my mom’s mother’s deteriorating health (she was in hospitals in either Duluth or St Paul, MN from August 2004 thru January 2005 when she went to be with the Lord). We also enjoyed a greater fellowship and connection with my brother and his wife (and daughter — they now have a son, too) as they were only a 6 ½-hour drive from us in ——-, ND where he has been pastoring since May 2004.

However, during this time God was giving me, more and more, of a feeling of distaste and frustration over our church. The feeling was practically tangible. I felt unfed, and dissatisfied. While there was a shortage of Biblical teaching and exegesis centering on Christ, there was an overabundance of preaching and teaching on the things fundamentalists separate over issues and standards. Even those messages that did focus on Christ were very shallow. I was also irritated by the poor scholarship that was presented (and accepted) as careful and scholarly Biblical teaching. More disheartening, though, was the feeling we both had that week after week, people came to church, went thru the rituals of church, enjoyed time with friends, and left without really experiencing any sort of passion for Christ. There was passion for standards, but no spiritual vibrancy and life. The pastor strangely did not talk about his messages or really about anything spiritual at all, before or after the services. The services were extremely formal and traditional, and it was very hard to worship in a meaningful and personal way. The impression we got was that everyone was completely satisfied with where they were spiritually and corporately as a church. We sensed no holy unrest of spirit, no burning desire for God, just a complacent traditional mindset, that this is what church/religion is and nothing more. We were, to be fair, impressed by a genuine testimony of witnessing for Christ that characterized many of the members. We also do not doubt that they sincerely love Christ. Yet, the church conveyed the false idea that the sum total of spirituality is consistent witnessing and adherence to standards. Worship, love, persevering faith in God and His promises, desire for God — these are at the heart of spirituality, not external acts which we can accomplish in our flesh. Equally alarming was the low view of salvation. It seemed to be understood as merely a decision. They did not accept what is termed as quick prayer-ism, yet the predominant view was that salvation was received thru a quick prayer. Children were being pressured to “get saved” by accepting Jesus into their heart. And anyone claiming to have given his heart to Christ was accepted unreservedly as a genuine believer. We were genuinely concerned for the spiritual wellbeing of our children. [disclaimer: Please note how I stressed this was what we “felt” and the “impression” we got. We do know many of the people at that church were sincerely loving God and living lives for Him, nevertheless, the “impression” we were getting of the church as a whole was as stated above. I do believe that this may be due to the fact of what God was doing in our lives more so than an indication as to the actual state of the majority of the people in that church.]

I believe God used this experience to finally push us over the edge and make some decisions that He had been leading us to for quite some time. We resigned our membership from that church and began searching for a new church. But before I talk about that, I think I should explain a bit of God’s working in our lives bringing us to this point.

Looking back, I can see God’s hand in this all along the way. He gave me a burning desire to know the truth, since I was a child. He equipped me with a critical-thinking, sharp mind. In college, I would not have been considered to be someone who just floated along with the crowd and accepted anything anyone taught me; no, I wanted to know and embrace the truth. My days at ———- Baptist College were when I really commenced my quest for holding the right Biblical positions on issues and standards of conduct. I evaluated everything and had a serious approach to life, I think. Gradually, my convictions became more and more shaped by my growing understanding of Scripture. God led me to Carolyn and then led us to ——- Baptist Church. There we both were challenged to be more thoroughly Biblical in everything we did. We saw how that church had changed its practice in significant ways fairly frequently, to align itself closer with Scripture. Tradition and peer-pressure were certainly backseat to Biblical exegesis and teaching. My understanding of Scripture grew, particularly in respect to what salvation is. For some reason, throughout my college experience I had never heard 1 Jn. 2:19 taught on in this regard before. The verse powerfully cuts to the heart of the issue of salvation and eternal security. It teaches that those who seem to fall away never were genuinely saved. Conversely, those who are saved will never ultimately fall away. Pastor ———- continually preached about how saved people characteristically live. He held out Biblical expectations of genuine believers, and did not cavalierly assume that all who profess salvation possess it. He also completely rejected the popular assumption that there can be perpetually carnal Christians. Salvation is something supernatural and will inevitably result in a changed life.

During this time my convictions seemed to be becoming more cemented, and more directly founded on Scripture. Yet I still had a problem: my brother. My brother went to Northland Baptist Bible College (now Northland International University), and early on in his college years, he changed dramatically. His standards became much less than they had been (in my eyes), yes. But the real startling change was a positive one. He became much more spiritual than I had ever known him to be. He genuinely loved Christ and constantly talked about Him and Scriptural things so much that I hardly recognized him. God changed him in a dramatic way — a good way. He attributed much of the change to reading part of John Piper’s book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Since we were both very busy with college and our ministries, we did not get together that often. When we did, though, we inevitably ended up arguing with one another for hours on end in at least one debate session. We discussed all the issues I thought were important — local church only theology, personal separation issues (pants on women and music), Calvinism, and of course, KJV-onlyism. I would go into the debate each time more and more prepared (I thought) to face him with good, clear, Scriptural arguments for these issues. Yet I would be frustrated as my arguments fell on seemingly deaf ears. The feeling I got, however, was not that he was directly despising God’s word. Rather, I felt that my arguments were being found to be baseless. I felt helpless. While I was always so confident in talking with others, who agreed with me, about these issues, I felt inept and unable to answer many of his arguments. This happened time and time again in our discussions.

While I was at ———– Baptist, I felt like my convictions were given more Scriptural support because I was around people who used clear Biblical exegesis to support their positions. Still though, I did not seem to gain ground against his arguments. However, as a result of my time at ———– and my acceptance of their more Biblically precise teaching on salvation, he and I started to enjoy greater fellowship and unity. He wholeheartedly agreed with my beliefs regarding salvation. We had several good conversations about the gospel, putting our differences aside. Actually, he wanted to have real communion with me all along. He stressed that the Bible presses for unity and fellowship in the gospel (Phil. 1:5). He was willing to reach out to me despite the areas in which we disagreed. However, for my part, I was uncomfortable with that, because in some way my positions were so much a part of me that I could not genuinely unite with others who did not hold to some of the major positions at least.

In the midst of this struggle for truth and precision in doctrine, God brought a book to my attention (Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life edited by Steve Atkerson and published by the New Testament Reformation Foundation), which I read in either the fall or winter of 2003. While I did not necessarily accept all of the views the book argues for (it stresses the need to let the Bible, rather than tradition, shape our church polity, arguing for house churches, multiple elders, and observing the Lord’s Supper as a meal rather than a mini-cup and wafer among other things), the book had the effect of shattering many preconceived notions and widening my vision. Many things I had been encouraged to assume and take for granted to be Biblical, now became things I felt compelled to evaluate under the light of Scripture. I began to see how much of what I believed and practiced was really tradition and not revealed truth. This changed my perspective quite a bit, and made me willing to see things from other points of view. Moreover, I was made aware that my church and my sphere of fellowship were not the only ones with a deep commitment to Scripture and a desire to conform to it rather than tradition.

The debate with my brother gradually centered on a couple key issues. Early on, we were concerned with the KJV-only debate. He gave me articles by William Combs, a professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (a fundamentalist institution similar to Northland in their stands {i.e., not KJV-only and less separatistic than most independent Baptists}), and Daniel Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and recommended D.A. Carson’s book The Bible Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. I recommended books by D.A. Waite at first (when I was only beginning my research into the issue, since then I would not recommend his books to anyone, as they contain factual errors, faulty reasoning, and naive scholarship) and then by E.F. Hills. At ————– Baptist I was privileged to be able to interact with some of the sharpest KJV-only proponents available…. Yet, I was never able to find satisfactory answers and I felt like some of my concerns were not even really acknowledged. This severely limited my ability to convince my brother of what I believed to be was the right position.

Our debate then shifted to the topic of Calvinism. He was more passionate about this issue, since to him a denial of Calvinism was a root cause of the widespread errors regarding the nature of salvation. My brother’s wedding, which I attended, was themed around God’s sovereignty. Afterward, he and his wife began attending John Piper’s church in Minneapolis: Bethlehem Baptist Church. He sent me a booklet on the five points of Calvinism written by Piper and the elders of his church. Our church, had been dealing with the issue around the same time. They kicked out a member primarily for his acceptance of Calvinism (which had led him to leave and attend a Calvinistic Baptist church in the area). I was not pleased with the fact that the church did not just let him leave, but decided to kick him out over this “false” doctrine. It troubled me that someone coming to a different position on this one issue would bring on himself such negative consequences. Still, though, I remained convinced that Calvinism was not Scriptural. I had read David Hunt’s book What Love is This?  — a critique of Calvinism. Yet when I read Piper’s booklet, I was amazed at how Biblically based it was. I took issue with only a few points of what that booklet had to say. Later, I was directed (by Pastor ——————-, no less) to Dr. David Doran’s critique of Hunt’s book. (Doran is the pastor of Inter City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.) He does not so much debunk Hunt’s thesis as he shows Hunt’s ignorance and bad writing (one could call it outright deception!). Several of Hunt’s quotes use ellipses in an extremely suspect way (like claiming Spurgeon called limited atonement, heresy, whereas the material left out of the quote by the ellipsis is a direct affirmation of the doctrine of limited atonement). {Incidentally, a friend at our church pointed out to me that even Vance, a critic of Calvinism himself, critiques Hunt’s errors and ineptness.} He had previously given me Willing to Believe by R.C. Sproul. I purposed to begin reading this only after I had read Hunt’s book.

As I began working my way thru Sproul’s book, I continually encountered challenging arguments for Calvinism. I still did not agree with Calvinism as a whole, but found myself less hostile to it and willing to agree with some of its points (or at least the spirit of them). When I left ———— Baptist to go to MN, I was still not ready to accept Calvinism, and was working out a better understanding of their position which is very much more Calvinistic than Arminian, while not embracing Calvinism (they believe both faith and repentance are gifts of God but that thru the preached Word of God sinners do have the ability to respond to God’s call after which they are given the gifts of faith and repentance).

When we came to MN and sat under the teaching of Pastor ——, this issue and many others were constantly brought to mind. What to me were complex issues were treated with little care as to accuracy or scholarship. Opposing views were misrepresented as often as they were demonized. While I sat stunned under the preaching, which I found largely shallow, illogical and full of poor hermeneutics, I was reminded of many similar sermons I heard in chapel at —————. [disclaimer: I am describing my perceptions. I also heard several good sermons and evidence of obvious scholarship as well from the above pastor. At the time, however, I was really “jolted” by some of what I was hearing.] As I was evaluating the teaching and preaching of that church, I found myself evaluating much of the independent Baptist movement I was a part of. With closer contact and more conversations with my brother, and with more research and contemplation, I embraced Calvinism, came to reject a strict KJV-only position, and began thinking thru other issues as well. I was also reading more and more of John Piper’s works. He continually impressed me with the substance and soul of what he had to say, as well as how Biblically based his assertions were. It became very apparent to me that the passion he wrote of was largely missing in my life and in the lives of many I knew. I came to connect much of the blame for this with what fundamentalism did and did not emphasize. External conformity to standards and leader-worship are advanced by the movement. Whereas there may be much preaching on having a heart for Christ, a guilt-driven, man-pleasing process is built into the heart of fundamentalism that invites the all-too-common reality of cold-hearted people going thru the motions of church-ianity, secure and smug in the approval their external performance has given them. As I read Piper and other non-independent Baptists, I found a sincere desire to be Biblical and a genuine passion for Christ that exist outside our camp. Our movement conveys the impression that we are the only true followers of Christ — everyone who is not a fundamental independent Baptist is either misled or outright sinful (in a somehow worse way than all of us are sinful). I found, however, that such opinions are pure fiction. Slowly, God was bringing what I had been thinking on and searching out for two or three (or more) years together into a sharper and sharper focus. I found myself staring at the very real possibility of simply walking away from this movement, into something else which would be more Biblically based.

This brings me back to early January 2005. We (Carolyn was agreeing with my observations and did some reading and studying on her own with many issues we faced — she is wholeheartedly behind me in the decisions we have made each step of the way…) felt that God wanted us to leave ——— Baptist Church and go elsewhere, but we still did not know where. By this time I was a Calvinist, and while I still favored the TR, I believed that both it and the KJV (as well as the Hebrew Masoretic Text) had errors {an admission that led me to be more willing to review the evidence in favor of the Majority Text or the Critical Text as opposed the TR}. With such large changes in my thinking made, I still was not ready to join Piper’s church. I thought that we might end up joining Fourth Baptist Church in Plymouth, MN (a suburb of Minneapolis) pastored by Douglas MacLauglin (former president of Northland Baptist Bible College). This church is fundamental and independent Baptist, yet it does not prefer that women wear pants and uses the NKJV. It has conservative music but embraces Calvinism (although many of its seminary professors [Central Baptist Theological Seminary] are 4-point rather than 5-point Calvinists). We attended several times, but I still did not feel at peace about the church. We also visited Bethlehem Baptist (Piper’s church). We prayed about and discussed our decision and believe God has clearly directed us in this matter. We have been attending Bethlehem Baptist now since February and plan on joining the church at their next Covenant Affirmation Sunday.

I did talk with my parents about our choice and they were behind me. They have not agreed with much of what they see as extreme views among fundamental, independent Baptists. Dad has always lamented the tendency of independent Baptists to be busy shooting one another rather than shooting the devil. Dad actually recommended that we attend John Piper’s church, when he heard what I felt about many of these things. That surprised me, because at first, Dad and Mom had been leery of his attending there. Yet, they came to really appreciate Piper’s messages and books. [disclaimer: My parents still are solid fundamentalists. They have tried to focus on the important issues rather than getting bogged down on debates over smaller things. They use only the KJV in their ministry, and would not join our church. The advice they gave was given in light of decisions I had already made. And they do not agree with every thing John Piper holds to.]

Let me make a few things absolutely clear. First, this was not an easy decision to come to. There has never been a harder decision for either of us to make. I basically had to write off my whole life as being part of a movement I believe to be seriously flawed. We had to look at our friends and realize that most if not all of them will simply write us off as liberal compromisers and cease any fellowship with us. We would completely understand, since we have been there ourselves before — ready to separate from people at the drop of a hat. From our perspective now, we long to have continued fellowship with our friends — fellowship based on the glorious gospel of Christ. We can charitably agree to disagree on what are minor issues in light of the hugely unifying truths we hold in common — the authority of and inerrancy of the Bible, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, justification by grace thru faith alone…. I had to come to grips with the fact that if we had come to this decision while still members at ———– Baptist in CA we would no doubt have been voted out of the church! I had to accept that my education is not adequate for me now. I am not confident that it has adequately prepared me for ministry, as most of it was focused on methods of ministry I largely disagree with now, while the rest of it was largely shallow on Biblical exegesis and scholarship, leaving me without enough knowledge of doctrine to be able to chart the troubled waters that face evangelicalism as a whole now. I will have to look at going to a seminary for 3 years or more, probably, before I feel competent to enter the ministry at the level I believe God ultimately wants me to. We had to look ahead to feeling very uncomfortable at whatever church we would join, and having to find all new friends. We have no family in Minneapolis, so we have really felt isolated the past six months. It has not been easy. It would have been much, much easier to just go with the flow. But, at the end of the day, we want to be a part of a church that is consumed with knowing Christ and desiring God and His glory rather than one consumed with keeping a preconceived set of standards, personal and ecclesiastical, that will somehow make us more faithful and thus more valuable to God. I want my children encouraged to love Christ and know Him personally, rather than have them pressed to conform by praying a prayer and keeping external standards in order to be/look holy.

Second, I want to report that we have seen this drastic change bring about much good already. We have been challenged spiritually like never before thru the Christ-saturated and Biblically substantive preaching. We both appreciate our salvation and God’s grace so much more than we did before. The atmosphere of the service facilitates a deeply personal and serious worship. The music, we have both found, is incredibly deep and very worshipful — not pervasively secular and detracting from the message as we were brainwashed before to pre-assume. Our church thinks through every aspect of its worship, preaching, and ministry and tries to base everything on Scripture. The nursery programs have been very helpful in directing our children toward God at an early age. We have benefited by many seminars and teaching that our church offers. We have also seen how Christ-oriented and real, so many of the people we know at church are. We have joined a small group as part of our church’s Biblical response to Heb. 3:12-14 and 10:24-25, and been greatly encouraged by the personal exhortation and fellowship in a small, more intimate setting. This has greatly helped me in my struggle to remain pure from impure thoughts in this impure world. In short, we are growing in the Lord and are very excited that he has brought us to this church. We are probably more spiritually focused than we were before, and we are certainly growing. God has graciously helped us adjust to the changes, bringing us positive and lasting spiritual blessings.

Now, I know you are coming up with many “Biblical” objections, and you are wondering how I could so easily and flippantly, it seems, cast off so many distinctive standards of independent fundamental Baptists. I cannot possibly see every thought you have right now and answer every argument that comes up in your mind. I do want to give a general defense, though, of some of my new positions. I will try to be brief. Above all, I want to be charitable. I do see many things that are good with the movement Carolyn and I grew up in. I also see many people that are good and sincerely godly people who are committed to this movement. We believe that there are some elements of mind control involved in the movement as a whole. We also understand that God leads people in different ways and that he has made us all human enough that it is impossible that everyone will be able to agree in every point. We understand that there are many illogical thought structures used by various groups to support a host of opposing claims, and we realize that our fallen intellects are all flawed and thus we may be wrong and you may be right in some areas. We also know how hard it was for us to see some of these things, and how hard we kicked against the pricks in some of these areas ourselves. In fact, these last few sentences are a key argument I have concerning so many of these distinctive stands. I believe there should be room for disagreement in many of these areas just because there is so much ambiguity and problems with two people and groups seeing exactly eye-to-eye when debating these issues. I believe there are certain truths that are more clearly revealed in Scripture than others. And while no truth should be treated lightly, we still have a greater obligation to separate over, or stand for those truths that are more clearly revealed in Scripture (like the deity of Christ, inerrancy, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, etc.).

I want to briefly address the following issues: KJV-onlyism, local church ecclesiology, music, dress standards, church government, separation, Calvinism, Covenant Theology, Post-tribulational rapture. I will also try to address some general concerns I have with fundamentalism as a movement. I will not use this exact order in addressing these issues. In fact, I am going to reproduce most of a letter I wrote to Pastor —– explaining why we left their church, yet I will be making some additions. (The first paragraph that follows here is introductory and somewhat repetitious to use here, but I want you to be able to see clearly what I see that makes me so leery of fundamentalism as a whole) There might be some things I am forgetting, but you are more than welcome to correspond with me and open a debate on these or any topics.

My Critique of Fundamentalism

Often in fundamentalism, doctrine and Biblical exegesis are downplayed, ignored, or avoided. Topical or shallow messages prevail. Church members learn their do’s & don’ts but not what the Bible actually says (the arguments Biblical authors use, the context of favorite proof texts, or Bible doctrines in general). While fundamentalists claim to be standing on the Bible alone, rare is the church that actually opens itself up to Biblical scrutiny. For instance, it is an assumed thing that the Bible will not actually be shown to teach Calvinism, post-tribulational rapture, or covenant theology. So anyone who would espouse one of these positions or another similar position is immediately identified as a heretic and the church never actually carefully reviews what the Bible says on the matter.

Fundamentalists assume that their practices, standards, and positions are Biblical to the point of reading into the Bible what is not there to support their traditions and viewpoints. In the vacuum of solid Biblical exegesis, ignorance and faulty reasoning/logic prevail. In short, while fundamentalists claim to be the stalwart defenders of true doctrine, they are in fact the defenders of old-fashioned (actually late 1800’s early 1900’s) tradition. (For example, while today most fundamentalists would decry any church not having Sunday School, or a Sunday Evening service, or not having an altar call, prior to the 1850’s no church had any of the above. SS and Sunday Evening services were evangelistic in nature and origin, and the altar call was a human method originally designed to help out the Holy Spirit in bringing awakened sinners to the point of conversion/repentance {it was popularized by the rank Arminian Charles Finney, who explicitly denied substitutionary atonement and exalted human efforts in the work of “revival” actually judging the validity of methods [the altar call among them] by the success they brought [the end justifies the means sounds like contemporary leaders like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels]}.

Additionally, fundamentalists universally decry the use of worldly music to attract the world to services where they can be reached. However, the music fundamentalists sing, almost to the exclusion of music from any other period of church history (music from the mid to late 1800’s thru the early 1900’s) was created in the same way. It was music that intentionally moved away from a more complex harmony/melody to something the average unchurched person would like. Soloists sang the verses and the congregation joined in for the catchy {at that time} chorus. Evangelists D.L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, and Billy Sunday attributed much of the success of their large-scale revival campaigns to the music written and sung by their various song leaders: Ira Sankey, Phillip B. Bliss, Charlie Alexander, and Homer Rodheaver. The position of song leader and the prominence of the piano were born during this era. The music written in this era also deliberately downplayed doctrine and encouraged personal experience: thus an emphasis on Jesus as a friend rather than Lord and Judge. This resulted in many flocking to revival services and many denominations turning their backs to the older hymns richer in doctrine and substance. {See Confronting Contemporary Music by H.T. Spence of Foundations Bible College published by Foundations Press for documentation of the part about music})

My Defense of my Positions

(Moving on to specific issues now…) While not every question concerning the sovereignty of God & the free will of man can be answered by any system completely, Calvinism best accounts for the fact that repentance (2 Tim. 2:25, Acts 11:18, and Acts 5:31) faith (Acts 3:16, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, and Rom. 12:3 {also Acts 15:8-9 and 18:27}) and conversion in general (Jn. 6:64-65 explaining v. 44, Acts 16:14, Jm. 1:18, Eph. 2d:8, and Jn. 1:13) are gifts from God. Eph. 1:19 clearly states that we believe according to the working of God’s power (not our own). 2 Thess. 1:3 teaches we should thank God for the faith of believers, since by implication it proceeds from Him. Phil. 1:6 states that God started a work in us. He did not pick up after we contributed self-wrought faith. No, He started it and He will bring it to completion. How else can you think of a gift other than as given freely and wholly undeserved? God does not look for who is responsive to him, before giving them faith, because without faith it is impossible to please Him at all (Heb. 11:6, see also Rom. 8:7-8). In fact 1 Jn. 5:1 clearly says literally “everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” The Greek tense could not be clearer in the original)the birth happened before the belief, since the text seems to clearly teach that the belief is a proof/result that birth happened. I challenge you to provide any text that more clearly speaks to the specific relation of regeneration and faith other than maybe Jn. 1:12 with vs. 13 or James 1:18. (Keep in mind regeneration is not salvation or justification, both of which only happen to those who have already believed. Regeneration is a heart change performed by God the Spirit. I contend the Bible clearly reveals that regeneration precedes faith, which itself precedes justification and salvation.)

1 Cor. 1:23-24 clearly teaches that there is a call that is not the universal call of the gospel. The gospel is preached to all and the Greeks count it as foolishness, while the Jews count it as a stumbling block, but those who are the called (from both Jews and Greeks) see it as the power of God to salvation. So the general call of the gospel is only heeded by those who are called by a different, sovereign call. This is why Rom. 8:30 says that all who are called (and only the called) are justified. Thus those who are not justified were not called. This fits with Jn. 6:44. Jn. 10:15, Eph. 5:25, and 1 Tim. 4:10 teach that Jesus died for the elect in a different way than he died for all men. This is why Jesus could teach in Jn. 10:26 that the reason people do not believe is because they are not elect (of Jesus’ sheep) instead of teaching what fundamentalists primarily believe, that people are not elect because they do not believe (cf. Acts 13:48 and Jn. 8:47). All who are unbelievers do not seek God and are blinded by Satan. They need God to shine the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” in their hearts just like He commanded light to shine out of darkness on Day 1 of Creation (see 2 Cor. 4:3-6) also I challenge you to access John Piper’s sermon on 2 Cor. 4:1-7 preached May 1 2005 accessible in print or audio for free here. I challenge you also to explore Biblical arguments for Calvinism more by accessing for free John Piper’s booklet on the 5 points of Calvinism. Also be sure to read Romans 9 and notice how Paul anticipates the very arguments that arise from our human understanding against the reality of God’s total sovereignty (vs. 14 and 19). Also it should be apparent that if God is dealing with an individual in Pharaoh the context and individuals are the ones bringing up the questions, that Esau and Israel are to be understand as individuals (see vs. 11 and 24 for extra support of the obviously clear teaching of this passage). It is amazing to what hermeneutical lengths people go to force Romans 9 not to teach what anyone reading it is shocked to see that God has sovereignty over individual’s destinies. See also Romans 11.

I also am leaning toward a post-tribulational rapture position. I do not believe Scripture is clear enough on this for people to separate over pre-trib. vs. post-trib. position. From my studies into this I believe the post-trib. position best represents Jesus’ teaching in Matt. and Luke and the apostle’s teaching in the epistles. The pre-trib. position forces a strange dispensational element on Jesus’ teaching and turns the clear teaching of the epistles that there is only one parousia (revealing or coming) of Jesus into there being two parousias. For the sake of getting this letter finished, I will here quote four of John Piper’s arguments for post-tribulationalism from a 2 or 3 page paper on the second coming.

1. The word for “meeting” the Lord in the air in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (apantesin) is used in two other places in the New Testament: Matthew 25:6 and Acts 28:15. In both places it refers to a meeting in which people go out to meet a dignitary and then accompany him in to the place from which they came out. One of these, Matthew 25:6, is even a parable of the second coming and so a strong argument that this is the sense of the meeting here in 1 Thess. 4:17-that we rise to meet the Lord in the air and then welcome him to earth as king.

2. The wording of 2 Thessalonians 1:5-7, when read carefully, shows that Paul expects to attain rest from suffering at the same time and in the same event that he expects the unbelievers to receive punishment, namely, at the revelation of Jesus with mighty angels in flaming fire. This revelation is not the pre-tribulational rapture but the glorious second coming. Which means that Paul did not expect an event at which he and the other believers would be given rest seven years before the glorious appearing of Christ in flaming fire. Vengeance on unbelievers and rest for the persecuted church come on the same day in the same event.

3. The wording of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 suggests that the “assembling to meet him” is the same as “the day of the Lord” about which they are confused. But the assembling is the “rapture” and “the day of the Lord” is the glorious second coming. They appear to be one event. Supporting this is the reference to “gathering” the elect in Matthew 24:31. Here there is a gathering (same word) but it is clearly a post-tribulational context. So there is no need to see the gathering and the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians as separate events.

4. If Paul were a pre-tribulationist why did he not simply say in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that the Christians don’t need to worry that the day of the Lord is here because all the Christians are still here? Instead he talks just the way you would expect a post-tribulational person to do. He tells them that they should not think that the day of the Lord is here because the apostasy and the man of lawlessness have not appeared. (See the AM sermon of 8-30-87 for more on this one.)…”

I also am leaning toward covenant theology, as I see that much of the dispensational position is forced and does not adequately deal with how the NT authors and characters clearly saw the church age as a fulfillment of OT prophecy (which dispensationalists say applies only to the tribulation/millennium). Also Rom. 4:13-16 teaches specifically that the promise given to Abraham concerning his inheriting the land is given to all the spiritual seed of Abraham not to his physical seed. This alone negates the central premise of dispensationalism. Gal. 3 also clearly teaches that the blessings promised to Abraham are given to those who are Christ’s–Abraham’s spiritual seed. I challenge you to see how the NT authors used OT quotes. It is so very apparent that they saw the current reality of the church age as embodied in God’s chosen people in OT times. They see the NT era as a fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. Over and over again in the NT we see the physical promises (and by no means were the promises only physical there are many clearly spiritual promises given; part of the problem of dispensationalism is enforcing an unbiblical dichotomy between fleshly and spiritual realities) reinterpreted spiritually. Matthew clearly spiritualizes OT quotes to show that they really pointed to the Messiah coming to usher in a spiritual kingdom.

I also have been awakened to the fact that much of what fundamentalists separate over is not even clearly revealed in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say how much beat/rhythm in music is acceptable or not. Jewish music was much more peppy than the average fundamentalist’s music today. In fact, there is no Biblical basis for concluding that an emphasis of beat in music is inherently sensual. A sampling of music and dance from a diverse group of cultures clearly reveals that folk music which in no way is sensual is represented by many different styles unique to the different cultures. Fundamentalists, by and large have no problem tapping their foot when listening to marches or Western hillbilly/cowboy-type music because they understand it as a separate genre of music not inherently evil. Yet fundamentalists refuse to accept any more modern styles of music, although once again they enjoy a more antiquated bluegrass-style country sound. What infuriates me most about the debate over music is the incredible Scripture-twisting lengths some people go to in order to have a Biblical reason to say some music forms are evil. The classic example in my mind is the twisting of the story of David ministering to Saul with his music to mean that the beat in music should be emphasized the least while the melody the most (an argument used by Frank Garlock in Music in the Balance). Another equally wrong attempt is made by comparing the heartbeat with the beat of music, and somehow then making the jump that Scripture supports this comparison (no beat=dead, erratic beat=sick, steady and measured beat=healthy). While most fundamentalists would decry someone lifting their hands in a church service or clapping, both of these actions are commanded in Scripture (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8, Ps. 47:1).

On a similar note, Dt. 22:5 is a matter of interpretation. Several valid interpretations exist (the Bible does not specifically say that pants are male clothing, for instance), and so one should not separate over a matter that is not clearly defined as unbiblical. There is considerable historical support for the understanding of the text as speaking to transvestism associated with the false worship and pagan idolatry of the Canaanites. Also, someone can legitimately accept the principle of gender distinction in clothing (which may be supported by Dt. 22:5 and seems clearly taught in 1 Cor. 11), and apply that by being careful to wear only modest, woman-like pants. In fact, culottes and skirts are often least likely to be modest in the situations they are worn (and at the lengths they are typically worn).

I have thoroughly thought through the KJV only issue (reading scores of books–thousands of pages worth of research) and am convinced of three things. First, that the KJV only movement is a relatively new movement started around the 1950’s, {although some scholars like Dean Burgon defended the KJV prior to this, their defense was categorically different than that of the KJV only movement, due to their views that the TR, and the KJV, had many errors and needed revision} which was originally based on a scientific/rationalistic defense–the many MSS outweigh the few, TR is as old as the “older” texts which support the modern versions, Church Fathers and other language versions support the TR against the Critical Text, etc.

Second, that later KJV only defenders started saying that the Bible’s teaching on preservation would require that the KJV only position be true Important to note, is that the position did not arise out of Bible believers desiring to defend the doctrine of preservation, but that KJV defenders reinterpreted the doctrine of preservation to help defend their KJV only views. The Bible does not teach that every letter and word of Scripture must be preserved or else the document cannot be considered Scripture and thus cannot be valid. In fact, the Scripture clearly teaches that for a time part of the revealed Scripture was not available and actually was lost–Josiah rediscovered it. A helpful article along these lines is William Comb’s article in the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal Fall 2000 on “The Preservation of the Bible”.

Third, that both the texts underlying the KJV (Masoretic Text & TR) and the KJV itself have errors. One or two examples of each kind of error are enough to prove my claim that the KJV is errant (although many more examples could be provided). Errors in the Masoretic Text: Example = Ps. 22:16, the MT has “like a lion my hands and my feet” whereas the KJV following the Vulgate, Septuagint, and all ancient versions (only 2 Hebrew MSS are known to contain the reading of the MT) have “pierced my hands and my feet”. (It is interesting to note that the KJV in 20 or more places goes with the marginal reading of the MT instead of its text reading.) Errors in the TR: Examples= Acts 9:6, the first half of the verse has no Greek support of any kind (although there is some support from other ancient language versions)–see Edward Hills Defending the KJV, pg. 201. Erasmus claimed to have copied it from the Latin Vulgate into the Greek New Testament (TR). (It is also interesting to note that in Acts 22 and 26 when Paul recounts what is recorded in Acts 9:6 this phrase is not repeated and a different phrase is mentioned both times as what Paul said in response to Jesus’ statement.) Rev. 16:5, the TR underlying the KJV has “which art, and wast, and shalt be” whereas all Greek MSS and other Greek Texts, all Latin and other ancient versions, and all church fathers’ quotes have “which art, and wast, the Holy One“. There is no support for this reading at all. Hills says it is a conjectural emendation that Beza made to the text–see DKJV, pg. 208. Errors in the KJV: Example = Is. 13:15, KJV has “every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword” whereas the Hebrew MT, Greek LXX, Latin Vulgate, and all other versions, quotes, etc. have “every one that is captured shall fall by the sword”. There is not one scrap of support for this reading. It is very possible that the KJV translators mistook one Hebrew letter for another, as that is the only difference between the words. In light of these errors and facts, I am not KJV only.

In fact, in studying this further, I now lean toward the critical text position. I challenge you to read One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible edited by Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder and published by Kregel. All the contributors are professors at Central Baptist Theological Seminary and thus understand the KJV only camp much better than most academicians. The book is fair and accurate in representing the views held by the more informed KJV-only (or TR-only) people. However, the book is absolutely amazing; try to refute it! The following articles will be helpful. Perhaps the single best article to encompass all the arguments is Doug Kutilek’s critique of David Sorenson’s book Touch not the Unclean Thing. His history of the rise of KJV-onlyism is very informative. Links for two articles will follow here which prove that godly scholars before the influence of Westcott and Hort (and the finding of some of the papyri and early manuscripts discovered since the late 1800’s) came to the same conclusions which such findings added proof for see Turretin and Tregelles. Also here is one article, representative of the wealth of accurate information available that has been written by Dan Wallace that totally overturns the arguments for the superiority of the TR so parroted in the circles I came out of.

Briefly, I want to address a few remaining issues. First, multiple elder rule is clearly taught as opposed to single-pastor rule of churches. The closest thing to Biblical warrant for the belief in single-pastor rule is the implication drawn from the singular for bishop versus the plural for deacons in 1 Tim. 3. Any argument based on Rev. 2-3 has to first pre-assume that angels=pastors — an assumption not necessitated by the text. In contrast to such skimpy support is the clear teaching that churches had multiple elders (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1, and many others). Also Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 clearly teach that the NT intent was to have a plurality of elders in every church and town. Second, the local church only ecclesiology is patently forced and unnatural in many texts (the whole book of Ephesians, Gal. 1:13, and clearly Rom. 12:4-5 where Paul sees himself united to believers he has never met as part of the church of God — for which Christ died Acts 20:28). Local churches are very important, and every believer should be a part of one (Heb. 10:25) but there is a sense of a unified and universal church that the vast majority of thoroughly Christian scholars has believed in and clearly affirmed (Eph. 5:23 and 3:21). Third, there seems to be an overemphasis of separation in fundamentalism and a total neglect to follow the many Biblical examples and imperatives of unity/interdependency among churches. I believe that the tenor of the NT positions/preferences Scripture indicates that we should separate over major doctrines, not minor .

This concludes my defense to you of my positions. I encourage you to have a Berean attitude. I also am glad for the many blessings I have received spiritually from my friendship with you. I hope we can maintain good ties and love one another as fellow believers truly as we should. Keep serving God and loving Him remembering all His benefits to us in Christ Jesus.

Your friend in Christ,

Bob Hayton

151 thoughts on “My Story with a Critique of Fundamentalist Extremism and a Defense of my Positions”

  1. Hi Bob, this looks like it will be a very interesting blog.

    Let me say first, that I respect your decisions, and can in some way understand your points of view.

    I am very happy to hear the news of your family and its growth especially spiritually.

    While not really wanting to get into arguments, I wonder if you would listen to some sermons I have preached (http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Jeff^Voegtlin) and let me know if they are more of the typical fundamentalist type of sermon, or if you would think they are an attempt at biblical hermeneutics. I know you may not have time to listen to lots of sermons, but you did invite us to listen to other sermons in this post.

    I will say that I have read some of John Piper’s sermons and been helped by some of them.

    I know you admitted in your letter to the possibility of you being wrong about some things, so I ask (on behalf of fundamentalists that are not IFBx – at least I don’t think I’m extreme) for grace, you should know more about this than us. Please be gracious with us, someday we’ll come to know the truth also. And as we do, we’ll attempt to practice it in our churches.

    Personally, I’m not so stuck on being a fundamentalist as I am on following God’s Word as closely as possible in my personal life, my public life, and in my church.

    I look forward to reading your posts. I’ll probably add your blog to my outlook reader.

    I would also like to hear your thoughts on some of my randomness I have posted in my own blog — http://www.jeffvoegtlin.com/blogs/jdvblog.html

    Anyway, Am I the first to comment on your blog?

    Reply

  2. Pastor Jeff (as I will always remember you),

    Thanks for the comments. And no, you are not the first to comment. You’re the second. I had a comment on my limited atonement post.

    Let me clarify, somewhat. I do tend to overstate things, and I fear my criticisms of fundamentalism might be more harsh than I intended. In making my point I tend to overstate it, I fear.

    There are many positive things about fundamentalists. I will always be thankful for the seriousness which was imparted to me at Fairhaven. There is an honest effort to please God among many fundamentalists. And there is a sincere faith in the Bible. These are certainly praiseworthy attributes. My criticisms are more directed toward certain misemphases or missing elements in fundamentalism which have great potential to obscure (in my opinion) certain great and important truths of Christianity.

    I feel that certain structures established by fundamentalism lend themselves to creating environments which foster a performance based value system. The way we relate to God is on how well we have performed. The way we relate to others in our camp is by how well we have performed. The way we view our self-worth is by how well we have performed. While it is important to obey and conform to God’s standards of holiness, such obedience and conformity does not constitute our acceptance with Him. Jesus’ blood and righteousness do.

    This then leads to an emphasis on conforming and being faithful to a set of do’s and don’t’s–which become taboos and rules of community, which by the way are unquestionable. Success is measured by faithfulness to this man-made list of rules and not to how much one has loved others and loved Christ and been changed by His Word.

    The large emphasis fundamentalism puts on authority does much to enforce the list and to squelch any independent questioning/research into the validity of the list. This is a big factor in why so much of fundamentalism is defined by personalities, rather than doctrines. No creeds or confessions join fundamentalists, rather personalities and allegiances do. I have found many exceptions to the rule, but by and large the movement is what it has been.

    It is these types of things which I feel obscure the vision of Christ that I want to focus my life on. I grant that there are many problems in other Evangelical circles, but one group’s problems does not negate the other’s. I have found that there are many conservative evangelicals who decry the problems of evangelicalism almost as much as fundamentalists do. And they have as deep a respect for God’s Word and desire for holiness. They also have a great passion for a close relationship with Christ (as many fundamentalists do). They may draw their lines of ecclesiastical separation differently than fundamentalists do, but that does not mean they spurn ecclesiastical separation.

    I truly am thankful for much that I have learned at Fairhaven and at Bethel Baptist in El Sobrante. I deeply respect the desire to be Biblically based in every area of life. I have not abandoned that focus, I trust.

    I also have always respected your teaching and preaching as demonstrating, by and large, a sincere attempt at biblical hermeneutics. I will try to listen to some of your sermons, and will probably enjoy them, too. I wish that the type of preaching you do would be more pervasive, widespread, and ultimately popular in the movement than it is. (Not to say that Biblical preaching is extrememly popular in all evangelical circles, either! But Biblical preaching is one of the primary factors in why so many people have begun attending our church in the last 5 years or so, here at Bethlehem).

    I have always respected you and have learned much from you during my time at Fairhaven. Please, feel free to keep up on my blog, and I will try to keep up on yours.

    May God Bless.

    Reply

  5. A friend of mine, Tom Ross, posted the entirety of his 26 page letter to me here in this comment thread, in mid January. To make it easier to read, I have formatted that letter and put it into its own post over at my auxiliary blog. You can see the letter here.

    I have also provided my letter which preceded this response from Tom, in a post which provides links to all the pieces of the ongoing discussion so far. That post can be reached by clicking on this link.

    Again, the reason I deleted the letter from Tom that was posted here, was to provide it with the original formatting, which was lost by posting it as a comment. I also moved the letter in order to make the comment section of this bulky post a little less daunting.

    Reply

  7. Hi,

    I read your a good deal of your blog, and appreciate your honesty and seriousness regarding the Word and proper response to its teachings.

    I would suggest that you not think of your past experiences as wasted in any way. God leads us along and we all had to start somewhere! I must say that Oral Roberts, of all people, was the first person used of God in my life to experience the reality of Christ. Someone has said that a one-eyed man is king in a country of blind men. So thank you Oral, but I soon learned (and am still learning) there was much more to Christ than I was first presented with.

    It wasn’t too long after that, however, that a copy of The Sword of the Lord fell into my hands. I read John R. Rice’s Letter to a Modernist and thought I had died and gone to Heaven! I grew up in a liberal Methodist church that was pastored by two men (at different times). Both of these men were personable, highly educated and loved people. However, they were blind guides who knew little of the Bible and questioned even that. So the Sword taught me to look to the Word of God. Some of those great sermons were still on fire with a passion for Christ and the experience of His love!

    What’s so engaging about John Piper is his obvious hunger for God but truly, his passion is not unique. It really should be the commonuncommon experience of the least of us, don’t you think? I saw it in the greats of Fundamentalism, and still do. However, I also see the flaws. I will always be grateful to people God used and is till using in my life to help me understand the salvation so graciously extended to me.

    I am very much persuaded against Calvinism and was sorry to see you embrace what I consider a system rooted, deeply rooted, in error. You mentioned Vance but I’m not sure your read his excellent book, The Other Side of Calvinism. I hope you will!

    In the meantime, I will read John Piper’s book on the Five Points (aka TULIP).

    One quick point; Calvinism conflicts with the Bible both subtly and overtly, IMHO. One obvious contradiction to the truth of the Word is that every believer will always manifest fruit.So a true believer will persevere, even though he may have any number of periodical lapses. In the end, he will die with a smile on his face, congratulating himself on “holding on.” Thus he has not so much manifested his salvation as he has earned it by said persevering. Of course, I am exaggerating this teaching to make a point, but the truth is, many Christians go to Heaven with little or no fruit that can be seen by man.

    I have yet to see(perhaps you will be the first) a Calvinist deal with 1 Corinthians 11:30 which clearly reveals that MANY true Christians are weak, sickly, and even experience premature death because they don’t develop or mature!

    So much for the “perseverance of the saints” as a guarantee of eternal life! Better to trust the clear promise of John 5:24 that no believer will ever come into condemnation and that he already possess’eternal life.

    God bless you in your journey, Dennis Clough

    Reply

  8. Dennis,

    Thanks for your kind comments. You are welcome to disgree with Calvinism and add a dissenting view here anytime you like.

    As for your point about 1 Cor. 11:30, let me speak briefly. Being in sin is not necessarily the same thing as walking away from faith altogether. When Calvinists say Christians will persevere, they mean the latter. They do believe growth will evidence the true nature of a regenerated believer’s life. But we admit there are varying degrees of growth in believers and we also agree that Christians can be involved in deep sin. Someone may die and we may be left wondering if they were even saved truly or not–much like the example of Lot. Yet God makes the final judgment not us.

    We believe that all who have genuine faith will never walk away from that faith (apostasize) finally. And we believe that God works to cause true believers to persevere. It is God’s work that he started and continues, not merely our work. Yes, practically, Calvinists say we have a duty to persevere. But with Paul, as we persevere, we point to God’s grace as the enabling cause of our works. We depend on him, and seek to not boast in our own doing.

    You could read my “Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!” post for more of my view. I think perseverance is too often dismissed nonchallantly by nonCalvinists. The Bible has much to say about our need to persevere–but of course we can only do so by the free grace of God.

    Reply

  9. Bob,

    I have read completely this post with great interest. It is amazing to me that your path so parallels mine. Not with the same institutions, but the same conclusions.

    Thank you for sharing your story. It has greatly encouraged me.

    Blessings,
    Aaron L. Turner

    Reply

  10. Aaron,

    I have received many such testimonies like yours, and it makes me glad that I have shared my testimony in such a public way. I hope others become more willing to actually examine what they believe and why.

    God bless you and yours!

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  11. Hello,
    Great site! I went to a home church conference and met Steve Atkerson, author of “ekklesia” what a great and awesome guy.

    It seems that we share similar views. I am a musician, and I would be honored if you would check out my music. All of the music is free for download. Anyway, just thought that I’d share.

    Thanks,
    -Sean

    Reply
  12. Pingback: Fundamentally Reformed » Clarifying My Critique of Fundamentalism

  13. I came upon your website from a Sharperiron forum about blogs we read. It took me a couple of days to get through your whole critique (a parent of 2 – I’m sure you understand the lack of time to read) but I really enjoyed it. I have travelled a very similar path, blessed by God to have a few, dedicated teachers and pastors along the way to direct me back to Christ. Keep sharing your message, there are many who need to see that there is true Biblical Christianity outside of the legalism they have experienced in fundamentalism.

    Reply

  15. Bob, I have been on a similar journey as yours. I’m not ready yet to let go of my old KJV, but I have fully embrace my Sovereign Lord. I would like to see a ministry get started that is targeted toward IFB’ers, that might help them make the move over to the Biblical Gospel. I will be in touch.

    Reply

  16. Glad to hear from you, Joel. It is difficult to envision a ministry aimed at IFB’ers. In many respects they are sincere and dedicated to Christ. They are not easily convinced to “switch” and they quickly take offense. I wish more became like me and you, and this blog is for that aim. But ultimately I am happy for the fact that many of them are faithfully serving Christ, even if they hold to some wrong and divisive views.

    God bless,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  17. I can relate to your journey. I too have taken a similar journey. Over and above the doctrinal issues, is the issue of pride. It is the age old pride of man that is the scourge of IFBx folks. It is what lies behind hyper-separation, performance-based Christianity, backstabbing and fighting among IFBx churches, lack of Biblical exegesis, creation of camps around pseudo-Popes such as Hyles. Unfortunately my friend it is not limited to IFBx people. Our American Church culture, steeple and all, is a magnet for the prideful ambitions of men. In denominations/conventions it is not so much an issue for the layman because fellowship isn’t broken unless the church seperates from the denomination/convention. But even then, you still have a vested core group of people in each church that define the power dynamic and are in many cases untouchable. You brown-nose, follow, or lay low. It is an issue of accountability that exists predominantly because of a single-head hierarchial leadership model. However even in an multiple-equal elder situation you can have this happen if they are part of the same clique. This is perhaps why the NT says to set the people held in lower esteem as judges in the church. OMG I am getting too Biblical now aren’t I?
    I have yet to discover a church that places fidelity and commitment to accurate, exegetical Biblical teaching OVER its own existance. As an organization, today’s church creates a power vacuum which must always be filled no matter the cost. This is my experience. The brick wall past which you may not apply the Scripture any further is exactly where it challenges the power structure and dominance of the leadership and the core players.
    If your church seems to be an exception it is because you happen to be on the same page as the movers and shakers. When you grow past it then you better move on. No one likes an “upstart”.

    Reply

  18. I can appreciate your comment David, but let us not be too pessimistic. The Bible is true and Jesus is on the throne. He promised His church would be triumphant and the gates of Hell could not prevail against it. Who are we to negatively assume that any and every church we could go to will have unGodly leadership?

    No church is perfect, but we all have Christ as our head and he is walking in the midst of the candlesticks (churches). There are some good fundamentalist churches, even.

    God wants us to be faithful and He has given us churches to help us. While my blog is pointing out errors in the doctrine and practice of some churches, it is trying to promote correct doctrine and correct practice, not a distrust of doctrine and no practice at all.

    I hope you find a good church and that you don’t just bail out on God totally. (I don’t know enough of you from your comments to tell anything, so forgive me if I am reading too much into your comments.)

    God bless you in Christ,

    Bob

    Reply

  19. A Bible teacher in High School of mine who had been down a similar path as you describe used to always tell us that we were “in God’s School.” And that God’s school was the best School. Then he would go on to clarify that he was not speaking of the Mission Boarding School that we were attending but about the School we call the Christian life.

    Thank you for your transparency, I almost began to laugh when you made a comment that your friends would think your change flippant. You had just spent page after page describing how you had come to this point, it would be ridiculous to call the change flippant.

    I wonder about the whole debate about Calvinism and Armenianism, and wonder why God has to be placed in a Box over man derived issues. I am not attempting to attack your choice to follow whole-heartedly after Calvinism, since you have placed a lot of thought into your decision and come to the conclusion that you are at peace with. I wonder however and I don’t mean to sound relativistic when I say this but if God is transcendent over creation and the nature of God is unknowable to the mind of man how can we claim that the Bible strictly teaches predestination or conversely that man can apostatize. These in my mind seem to be doctrines of men that place our Sovereign God into a box that God does not place Himself into.(i.e. God can not sin, etc.) In saying this I am not denying that God has foreknowledge of sinners who will repent, this would be a denial of Gods omniscience. Or am I saying that I don’t believe man has a free will to choose, this would go against what I believe Scripture teaches about the openness of the Gospel for all who would believe. Yet, I know that not all will believe, and I believe that God knows who those who will believe are. God however in His sovereign will has provided for man to live out his life in whatsoever state he so chooses with the opportunity salvation and for the final Judgment at the end, before God who provided for Salvation despite man’s neglect of the provision. In the end even this brings Glory to God, which is in the end the final purpose of Creation from the beginning of Creation.

    I understand your concern about Fundamentalist philosophies providing a false security for believers entrenched in their pews. I too see this as a danger, and would refer these pew sitters to review Christ’s letters to the 7 Churches and particularly to the letters to the churches in Ephesus and Leodecia found in the Book of Revelation. Your point there reminds me of the statement in the book to the Philippians
    Philippians 2:12
    “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always
    obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now
    much more in my absence, work out your own
    salvation with fear and trembling.”
    Salvation is not through the Church but through Christ. It is the responsibility of every believer to assure his own relationship with God not the church’s.

    Thank you again for your post, I know that it was not directed to me originally, I just happened upon it and enjoyed reading though it, although due to time constraints only made it half way through, and scanned the rest for content.

    Reply

  20. Hey,
    I think you should probably remember me, I am Brian Balzamo, Tom’s Brother. I think that To was in your wedding if I am not mistaken. I only went to school with you for one year and then I transferred to Ambassador Baptist college and graduated from there. I am at the present moment an assistant pastor in Michigan, but I will be returning the Lord willing to NJ Next summer to plant and pastor a church. I stumbled upon your blog and read through most of it. While I agree on some of your points, I don’t think it is necessary to go as far as you have. I too see the error and external facade of fundamentalism and I believe that it is hurting more people today than it is helping. I too have forsaken fundamentalism, but not clear Bible doctrine. It seems to me Bob, that you have forsaken fundamentalism for another “Locked in system of thought”. You critisize fundamentalism for being caught up in personalities and things such like, well ok now so are you. What do call John Piper and such like proponents of Calvinism and covenant theology? They are personalities, and with these personalities comes a circle, an association, and a rigid system of belief. It is no different than fundamentalism except for the fact that you are embracing false doctrines as a means of trying to be different from Fundamentalism. Bob, The true Gospel does include the Soveriegnty of God and that is true, but it also includes the free will of man!(and please don’t start telling me that everytime the word whosoever is used in Scripture it is referring to the elect because it is not). You cannot get around that. You can try to explain it away with greek and all your big words, but it is still there and you know it is there. Believe me I DO I DO understand your reason’s for leaving fundamentalism, I just don’t think you should leave doctrine. My wife and I have left the fundamentalist Baptist movement ourselves personally, but not clear Bible doctrine. We have left fundamentalism and not only fundamentalism but also we are not associating with a denominational name anymore, because of the external emphasis that is becoming and has become widespread. There are people that have never heard the name of Jesus Christ right here in our country and we are so busy debating theology that we are letting them go into eternity without telling them about our Lord. We will be starting a church which will NOT propagate a denomination or a doctrine taught by some popular man, but rather clear simple doctrine as Clearly seen in Scripture, not doctrinal books written by men. You have left a movement for another movement and in the process you allowed yourself over this long period of time to leave True Bible doctrine. You want to leave fundamentalism go ahead I’m with ya, but please don’t leave True doctrine.

    Reply

  21. Brian,

    I’m sure I don’t have to speak in Bob’s defense, I know he can defend himself adequately; but notwithstanding, I thought I would make a quick comment on your misconception:

    I know Bob (and his theology) well enough to know that he would not at all deny that “whosoever will [whosoever of any of mankind] may come.” However, to say that, because whosoever will may come is necessarily to imply that some are indeed willing is not only an unsubstantiated leap in logic — it is also in contradiction to clear scriptures. Romans 3 says that not one single person seeks God. Christ, in John 6, says that no one is able to come to him, unless the Father enables him. If a person desires to come (will come), then he may. But no one freely desires, in his natural state. Hence, the very desire is the gift of God, and comes not of human willing, but of God’s grace (see John 1:13, for instance). In fact faith and repentance are explicitly said to be God’s gifts (e.g. Philippians 1:29, Acts 11:18, etc.).

    Whosoever will may come, but no one naturally will — the will of everyone is bound by sin. But when God, of his free grace, gives someone a new heart, that heart is indeed willing (see, for instance, Jeremiah 31:31-34). This is all God’s grace.

    I just wanted to speak up, since your post misrepresents Bob’s Calvinistic theology. There’s no benefit in dealing with a straw man, so I thought you might like truer version of Reformed soteriology to consider than the one you were arguing with.

    Blessings,
    Nathan

    Reply

  22. Nathan you said:
    “Whosoever will may come, but no one naturally will — the will of everyone is bound by sin. But when God, of his free grace, gives someone a new heart, that heart is indeed willing (see, for instance, Jeremiah 31:31-34). This is all God’s grace.”

    This almost sounds like circular reasoning. The new heart given by Gods grace to the Believer takes place at salvation, not in order for salvation to take place. If they have already received a new heart before they will be saved, what purpose is there in becoming saved? Gods leading by the conviction of the Holy Spirit is what I believe Christ was talking about. Otherwise of what use is the Third person of the Godhead. Isn’t one of the functions of the Holy Spirit to convict sinners of their sin and to draw them to the place where they see their need for salvation?

    I will concede that my argument may be based upon a definition of terminology in the discussion of a new heart, so I will ask that you define your terms when you speak of a new heart. Unless there is a definition of terminology true discussion and understanding cannot take place. Obviously neither you nor I speak of the physical organ that pumps blood, but are you speaking of the spiritual change that takes place when a person is changed by the work of the Savior at Calvary, or are you speaking of a perceived need for change based on the conviction of sin.

    That being said, I think that you would agree that there is no need to make personal attacks upon a person for God’s leading in their life. I wouldn’t say based upon the main article here that the perception of God’s leading was based upon sinful motives or upon misguided selfish desires. Concepts of personal separation should be more in the line of separation from sin than separation from fellow believers. Otherwise I cannot conceive that there ever could be any possibility of fellowship, as everyone has different personal convictions about any number of issues. The argument could be made that even in the early church, even when the Apostles were alive, there may have been different views on scriptural matters. Obviously Paul addresses these differences in his epistles. Different churches had different problems. Paul wrote specific things to specific Churches. As they were inspired and are now recognized as Scripture good for all of the churches, they were original directed to specific churches. Christ through John also addressed these differences in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Each one of us needs to decide based on Scriptural principles, whom we should fellowship with and in which local church we should worship. Ultimately after all a person’s salvation is a matter between him and God, and not a matter between him and his pastor, or him and the congregation. His growth in the faith and his walk with the Lord however will hinge upon the environment in which he worships and those with whom he fellowships.

    Reply

  23. Joshua C,

    Thanks for taking the time to read through most of this long post. I am glad it was a blessing to you.

    Regarding Calvinism, I have two other posts which seem to bear more directly on the points you and Brian brought up here (to which Nathan responded above). You are welcome to pursue further interaction on those posts, and of course to read them for my point of view. Basically, I agree that God is ultimately unknowable, but I believe that God has said more aobut these matters in His Word than you are aware of. Please read the posts, they should at least help you understand my point of view.

    They are: “‘Whosoever Will’ and Calvinism” and “Regeneration, Reception, and Faith”.

    Thanks for the interaction.

    God bless you richly in Christ Jesus,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  24. Brian,

    Great to hear from you! I do remember you, and yes your brother Tom was in my wedding. How is he? Does he approve of your break with fundamentalism?

    I am encouraged that you seem very determined to stand for what is right, and that you also have been awakened to what is wrong with many elements of fundamentalism. And I do hope the best for you and your family, and I pray God your new church will be blessed and used by Him for much lasting good and the saving of many souls. I do mean this.

    However, I would like to address what you say here:

    “It seems to me Bob, that you have forsaken fundamentalism for another “Locked in system of thought”. You critisize fundamentalism for being caught up in personalities and things such like, well ok now so are you. What do call John Piper and such like proponents of Calvinism and covenant theology? They are personalities, and with these personalities comes a circle, an association, and a rigid system of belief. It is no different than fundamentalism except for the fact that you are embracing false doctrines as a means of trying to be different from Fundamentalism.”

    I think this statement reveals some misconceptions about Calvinism, and I would like to help clear that up if I may. And in doing so I need to compare Calvinism with fundamentalism since you have done so in your statement above.

    Fundamentalism is a fairly new development and has more to do with a culture than a creed. It is more about how you hold to different positions and how such positions affect your fellowship or lack thereof with others. It is rigid in that it only allows for fellowship with others who have the same strict beliefs about separation. It is personality driven in that doctrine is often downplayed and allegiance to competing personalities is encouraged.

    Calvinism, however, has much more historical heritage. It is the product of the Reformation. All of the Reformers could be termed Calvinists—they would agree with the doctrinal position of Calvinists today. Calvinism is a descriptive term not a movement started by one guy. Luther was a Calvinist long before Calvin came around. Calvinism relates to a doctrinal system best known by the so-called “Five points” of Calvinism. Many great confessional documents of historic denominations have upheld and defended the doctrinal underpinings of Calvinism. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterians), the Helvetic Confession (Reformed), The 1689 London Baptist Confession, The Canons of Dort, the 39 Articles of Faith (Church of England), and many other documents/confessions of various and different denominations within Protestantism embrace the basic doctrines of Calvinism.

    Also, the earliest Baptists and the vast majority of Baptists were Calvinistic all the way down to the 1900s. Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Adoniram Judson, William Carey–these all were ardent Calvinists. So there is a tad bit more legitimacy to Calvinism than Fundamentalism and it is different.

    Now I agree that today Calvinism can be faddish because it is popular; and it can revolve around personalities like John Piper, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, and the like. But these men do not demand allegiance or loyalty in any similar way to the leading personalities of fundamentalism.

    You describe Calvinism as a “locked in system of thought” and a “rigid system of belief”. This might show that you might think of Calvinists as extremists and elitists. Some people think of Calvinists as saying they alone are right and everyone else is wrong (well, really, who doesn’t think this way?). But more accurately, people think of Calvinists as those ready to burn their opponents at the stake, as people who nitpick with everyone else’s beliefs and have no fellowship with anyone but diehard Calvinists.

    Sadly, there are some Calvinist which deserve this description. But the vast majority of Calvinists, and the majority today are much more like Charles Spurgeon. They understand and believe in the doctrines of Calvinism, but they readily accept those who don’t as faithful and dearhearted fellow believers in Christ.

    You see, Calvinism is more of an explanation for what goes on behind the scenes in salvation. It is not something just made up from men’s minds, but it is strongly taught in many passages of Scripture. God goes out of his way to teach that both faith and repentance are gifts of God, but then he also requires men to repent and believe. How are we to explain that? We believe that you can’t just use this verse to negate the clear teaching of that other verse, but that all verses must fit together into a harmonious and unanimous single teaching of Christ.

    If you read the two posts I link to in the comment directly above this (toward the end) and if you also look at other comments on my blog on Calvinism, by clicking on the category link in the sidebar on my home page for “Reformed Theology”, you would learn that there is much in Scripture which seems to strongly support the key doctrines of Calvinism.

    But in all honesty, since I have believed in Calvinism, I have found myself more willing to hope the best about others. I am far less judgmental about others and their doctrines. I can see that God is at work in many more people than just me and my fellow Calvinists. He is producing fruit in the live of countless millions who do not understand or embrace Calvinism. And in so doing, God is just making it that much more clear that He is Sovereign and that He is building His church and he does not depend on any one theological system to do His work.

    Brian, it sounds like you don’t really understand Calvinism. I would strongly suggest you read this booklet (a very easy read, not too long) by John Piper on the Five Points of Calvinism. You should read it first to at least understand our position from our own defense of it, before you so strongly (and it almost seemed “viciously”) denounce Calvinism as a clear departure from pure doctrine.

    Whether or not you ever embrace Calvinism, I am happy for the evidences of grace in your life. I am glad God is working a love for Christ and for His Church in your life. I really do wish you and yours abundant blessings in Jesus Christ.

    Your brother in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  25. Joshua C.,

    Just a quick answer to your question: I see the “new heart” (i.e. the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit) as causally or logically (but not temporally) preceding faith and repentance, which causally precede justification. I see this order indicated in several passages; perhaps John 3 is the most notable, where Christ informs Nicodemus that, unless a man is born again (regenerated, given a “heart of flesh” [cf. Ezekiel 37], etc.) not only can he not enter the kingdom of heaven, he cannot even see the kingdom of heaven (i.e. he doesn’t have the “spiritual eyes” which believingly embrace gospel truths). I John 5:1 might be the simplest didactic statement of the same truth: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God…” That’s all I’ll say, since Bob pointed out some more appropriate posts to deal with the issue — but I just thought, since you had a specific question, I would answer it first.

    By the way, I appreciate your take on dealing with doctrinal differences. I hope I didn’t come across as “mak[ing] personal attacks upon a person for God’s leading in their life”. I certainly didn’t intend my statements that way. I rejoice to see the Spirit’s guidance in the lives of those who comment here, and I hope I may sometimes help others in the pursuit of right doctrine, even as I am helped by others.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Nathan

    Reply

  26. Nathan,

    I am sorry that I didn’t clerify better, I wasn’t saying that you were making pesonal attacks, I was speaking more of Brians comment below.
    “It is no different than fundamentalism except
    for the fact that you are embracing false
    doctrines as a means of trying to be different
    from Fundamentalism.”

    In reading Bob’s last post he speaks of about how people getting caught up in calvanism to an extreem. I have to agree with him that if taken to the extreem calvanism can be very divisive issue, but probably not any less divisive than extreme separatist Indi-fundi movement. I believe that we need to approach these things in moderation with a heart of love toward fellow believers, otherwise we (Calvanists or Fundamentalists) become as the pharasies of Christs day or the Judiasers in the early church. In so doing we turn the grace of God into a religion which requires something other than repentance from the sinner in order to gain acceptance with God. (i.e. follow our creed or be cast out)

    Reply

  27. Bob,

    You surmise correctly that I am not an expert in calvanism. I would say that I am far more calvanistic now that I was, just a few years back when I was vehimently anti-calvanistic and viewed it as a distorted view of salvation.(which isn’t to say that I was Armenian. I never denied eternal security) Anyway thank you for the link to your other posts/threads which deal with this issue more.

    Reply

  28. Hey Bob,
    My brother does agree with me, and he is doing very well. He and his wife Rosa reside in Pennsylvania and they have a one year old boy. I apologize for coming across as being “viscious” in my last reply. I do appreciate you taking the time to reply and explaining some things for me. I am not an expert on these things and so I appreciate the attempts to try to educate me. However, there are some clear principles that are being ignored. I also appreciate the comments of the other fellows who responded. I don’t have the time right now to write much but I will say a few things very briefly.
    Spurgeon and some of those historical figures that were mentioned, if alive today would not call themselves Calvinists because of its widespread extremes today. I have writings of Spurgeon where there is no indication that he was a calvinist in sense that you fellows would say he was. When he referred to himself as calvinist he was not adhering to beliefs that all of you fellows hold to. This is clear in his writings. Its also clear in the memoirs and writings of some of the other historical figure who were mentioned. In fact they probably would not call themselves fundamentalists either because of its widespread extremes as well. Calvinism in its NAME may have alot of history and age to it, but that does not mean that its teachings are that old. Calvinism’s teachings are not as old as you may think. The name may be, but its teachings are relatively new. Calvinism today is not the calvinism of Spugeon’s time. Also Spurgeon was outright against many of Calvin’s Teachings and denounced them in some of his writings stating that most of Calvin’s teachings were derived from Augustine, a founder of the Roman Catholic church.
    I have a list before me of personally gathered beliefs and statements made by modern proponents of Calvinism that would make Spurgeon roll over in his grave. Somewhere along the line, it had its beginning just like fundamentalism. Old or new, they are both systems of thought. If you are a fundamentalist you think and do things according to that system, if a Calvinist you think and do things as CalvinIST. Many things about Fundamentalism when weighed against Scripture are wrong and the same is true about Calvinism. I believe there is Scriptural reason for not holding to either. I’ve studied more of Calvinism and fundamentalism than you may have gathered, and I’m not going to sit here try to display and debate and show off everything I know about these trends in theology and that is exactly what they are. (Both systems of thought are characterized by people who try to show off how much they know.) Not because I can’t, I just don’t want to. Its a waste of precious time. Most of the time these discussions are not edifying, and do more harm than good. I hope you would agree with that. Its as bad as the “local church” issue that used to be discussed and debated all the time at Bible college.

    Reply

  29. I discussed this issue with my dad at length the other day, and he seemed to have the same response about Calvinism that Brian had, that many of it proponents use the teachings of Calvin as an excuse to avoid evangelism. “If they will be saved, why do they need a preacher to preach to them the word of God?” With this system of Calvinism, I believe that Calvin himself would roll over in his grave. It is nothing more than Christian elitism. As you can understand this attitude and twisting of scripture is an affront to my dad’s entire ministry, he has been on the mission field for over 25 years trying to take the Gospel to people who have never heard. I think you can understand why his defenses might go up when someone mentions that they are strictly Calvinist.

    Brian, it looks like you may have looked over the pamphlet that was linked to by Bob, but I am not sure that you actually read through it thoroughly. It seems that the Calvinism that Bob is talking about is a much more evangelism focused (which is clearly what the Bible teaches, “Go Ye into All the World and preach ._._. Et-al) those who will be saved, will be saved indeed once they hear the gospel. I think you would agree that no one would have the opportunity be saved if they don’t receive the gospel, and that the very fact that the gospel is preached in its self is by the grace of God preached to those who have not heard.

    Because of the reactions created in response to unbiblical Calvinistic extremism, there is often a visceral response to the claim that one is a Calvinist. Like my dad told me however, when it comes right down to it, Biblical orthodoxy is basically more Calvinistic than Armenian. I think the Calvinism espoused in the booklet that Bob is talking about by Piper (at least in my understanding) is more of the nuts and bolts of Man’s Sin, God’s Grace, Faith, and Salvation, than the dogma of elitism that is taught by the more extremist elements of modern Calvanism.

    Reply

  30. Bob,
    I’ve already read so much on this blog and I don’t know where to begin! My brother just called to tell me to drop you a line. It really is a pleasure to hear about your little ones! They bring such joy, don’t they?! I can’t remember if I ever actually saw you anytime after you were married. I hope all is well.
    Let me say right off that I am not here to badger or attack you, we’ll leave that to Courtney. Also, I do have an opinion in regard to calvanism. I am not the type to display hatred over differences of opinion, i.e. “I can’t talk to you, you believe…” or “Don’t come near me. You go to …” Should we ever cross path again, I’m likely to greet you cordially and would love to talk much.

    You asked Brian if I am in agreement with him on his view of fundementalism. He affirmed that I am. I thought it would be better if you heard it directly from me as well. You may not know this since you were already gone at the time, but I left our infamous college/church in June of 2003 and joined a small Baptist church in South Haven, namely Emmanuel Baptist. You probably know where that is. I had made the decision to leave in light of many things. It seemed as if a lot of people there knew me, and since I lived very close, I became a sort of “Rescue mission” for many young men from that would get “excommunicated.” Sometimes late at night I’d get a knock at my door from some distrought guy who just got the boot and needed a place to stay. This happened more than once. Often times parents were encouraged to kick their child out of the house because of something they did wrong. This was at the advice of the church leadership! This was a red flag. The pastor had too much control over the family. I even met husbands and wives who were pitted against eachother in arguments where a woman placed the preacher in a more important leadership position than her husband. This type of pastoring was not the “example” type pastoring that Peter refers to. This was oppressive, dictatorial leadership.
    Yes, I have very strong opinions about the place that left us both with lots of memories, but even after I left, I stopped in once in a while, just to say “Hi, I’m still around. I haven’t gone off the deep end just because I left your church. I’m still doing right.” Bob, I tell ya, this baffled a lot of people!! When I would visit, many people were afraid to talk to me as if I were shunned. They weren’t sure if I was “Faculty approved” for fraternizing. One time, in town, I ran into an older couple who were, previously, always friendly to me. One of them said to me, “When you fall flat on your face, you’ll be back.” So much for brotherly love!
    Well, I’m sure that I don’t need to read you the whole “Rap sheet” about fundementalism. You already know. But, I was just tired of being asked, “Did you talk to staff?”, when I wasn’t sure what the will of God was. I was tired of seeing Godly friends shoved aside and replaced with personalities who could produce external success. We know about personalities, don’t we Bob. We were quintet buddies! We traveled with the ensemble! We know about being chosen for priveledges and recognition based on personality. We were recruiters! And having been on the quintet, we know that choice isn’t always made based on vocal quality. Remember “Amazing Love”?!
    Now before I sound too upset, I want to clarify that there are message boards out there for people who hate your Alma Mater. I have not been a part of them. I viewed them once, but found that they are places for bitter people.
    I hold no bitterness for fundementalists nor do I hold bitterness toward you for your choice of calvanism. A man once told me that often times, when people leave fundemenalism, they want so far away from it that they swing to an opposite extreme. Bob, I agree with your take on fundementalism. The doctine of fundementalists is often not the issue, but rather the methods and attitudes that are propogated. Truth be known, I’m still a member of a Bible believing Baptist church. I give no special credence to Baptists but to the Bible believing aspect of my church, and the Lord knows that if a non-baptist church down the road that holds closer to Scripture opens its doors, I’m going there! Bob, we will probably never be members of the same church due to the conclusions we’ve both made about the Scriptures, but you are my brother. We both serve the same Lord, and will see the same Heaven. The shame is those who do not serve the same Lord and will not see the same Heaven as a result of what we either do or do not do as believers.
    Bob, I’m glad to have caught up with you. I trust that the song Jerry and I sang at your wedding is still a very real part of your life. God bless you.
    Tom

    Reply

  31. Tom,

    Although I don’t know you, I was blesed by your comment. The graciousness that comes from knowing Christ was apparent. Keep pursuing him and following hard after the scriptures, and I will look forward to meeting you some day, whether or not in this world.

    In Christ,
    Nathan

    Reply

  32. Brian,

    Thanks for responding. I really am not out to convert you per se. I am just trying to defend myself and my belief system from false charges.

    We most likely will have to agree to disagree on this point. I want you to know that I am happy for you and do not think less of you for not subscribing to Calvinism. I understand it is an issue which is hard to discuss and can be complicated. Also there are misconceptions which abound about those on both sides of this issue.

    Regarding Spurgeon, I think you have been led astray.  I don’t know what beliefs you are referring to that Spurgeon would differ with me and other modern Calvinists on, but it is clear that Spurgeon was a full five point Calvinist.  Check out, for example, his “Defense of Calvinism”.  Also check out this post, where I link to a Spurgeon sermon which shows he also believed that regeneration must precede faith.  This post  (by a blogging friend of mine), also highlights some beliefs Spurgeon would share with modern Calvinists today.  Spurgeon has been misunderstood, and in fundamentalist circles he has been conscientiously edited!  This post and this post provide examples of times the Sword of the Lord has deliberately edited out Spurgeon’s Calvinism.

    There are Calvinistic beliefs out there that I strongly disagree with.  They are actually beliefs of hyper Calvinists, however.  Unfortunately, nonCalvinists tend to confuse historic, mainstream Calvinism with hyper Calvinism, and give the name Calvinism to any of these extreme beliefs.  Phil Johnson has an excellent post about hyper Calvinism which outlines five different beliefs that they have which the majority of Calvinists reject.  I too reject these five extreme beliefs.  The modern Calvinism so widespread today–the modern Calvinism I know of–also rejects these extreme beliefs.  Spurgeon argued against those beliefs, and modern Calvinists today do as well.

    The church I am a part of is a very missions minded church.  They have sent literally hundreds of missionaries out across the world, many to unreached people groups, in the last 25 years.  And yet the church is solidly Calvinistic.  Our pastor John Piper has written an excellent work on missions entitled Let the Nations Be Glad.  Our church has also grown by leaps and bounds in the past five years, God has definitely been blessing us.

    Again I want to stress that I am happy for you and believe I can truly fellowship with you even if we disagree on this point.  I pray God blesses your ministry and helps both of us to always maintain a Berean attitude, being willing to search the Scriptures with regard to each and every teaching we encounter.  May God guide us into all truth through His Spirit, and may he foster a true and growing love for our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

    God bless you Brian.

    Bob

    Reply

  33. Tom,

    Great to hear from you as well. I pray the song is still true of me, that I am still serving the Lord.

    We are growing in the Lord in our new church here in the Twin Cities. And we are finding places to serve and minister. Glad to hear you have a family of your own!

    I agree that we share a great unity in the big things of the gospel and Jesus Christ, and we should not let smaller doctrinal differences cloud out that fact.

    It is good to hear, yet also sad to hear you go off about fundamentalism. Good in that others see it too, bad in that it still happens. You are right that it is not so much a doctrinal thing as it is an attitude or a culture. This blog is an effort to try to help others see the problems with this extreme form of fundamentalism and to help some who are already being awakened to the problems.

    God bless you and yours. I’ll be contacting you via email here, too.

    Bob

    Reply

  34. Bob,
    It seems that you and Tom (and others) have had bad experiences with what have been called Fundamentalist churches, I have seen some of the problems you describe in Fundamentalist churches as well, but I wouldn’t want anyone to think that all Fundamentalists are of the stripe that you or Tom (above) describe. I currently attend a very fundamental church. We are very conservative in most of the things we do in our worship and service, and yet we are very biblically focused. I too agree that the problems are more attitudinal and Cultural than doctrinal in most churches, but then again in some churches attitudes, cultures and personalities control what doctrines are expressed and suppressed. This is not biblical and churches that do such things should not call themselves Fundamental. But yet they do.

    Historically speaking Fundamentalist were those who stood up against Theological modernism today many Fundamentalists stand up modernizers. I am not saying that all things modern are good and acceptable for church, but trends of church operation of the ’30s and ’40s no longer are effective, our culture has changed and our churches need to adapt to reach the world that is dieing and going to hell. For example, in the past beards, blue jeans and wire framed glasses were a sign of counter cultural rebellion, but those items of style were not inherently wrong then and aren’t sinful today. Preaching fire and brimstone against those who wear beards, blue jeans and wire-framed glasses won’t attract anyone to the Gospel today. Preaching against these things back then was synonymous with preaching against rebellion, which was and still is a sin. Today other activities abound as outward expressions of rebellion. If we still preach against beards, blue jeans and wire framed glasses, we are out of touch.

    In the past Fundamentalists churches were those who claimed the fundamentals of the faith as found in the Bible. They were Biblically sound, or at least believed their positions to be Biblically sound, and stood in opposition to the Theological liberals that were taking over the mainline denominations, and seminaries. Fundamentalists were not all Baptists however, through the years Baptists somehow have adopted the name fundamental as their own, and now many use it as a badge to gloat over and brag about. Which would probably make some of the old time Fundamentalists who understood the cost they paid for standing by the fundamentals of the Faith shudder. This elitist attitude among fundamentalists is what has lead many to get a bad taste in their mouth over fundamentalism, and has lead to a misconception of fundamental churches in the general public, who now don’t see the difference between Fundamentalism and traditionalism. While some Fundamentalists are traditionalists not all traditionalists are Fundamental in their doctrine. For example the Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches do not hold to Fundamental doctrines of the Bible. I don’t think anyone would argue that they are traditionalist. Fundamentalists also are not descendants of the Puritans, yet Puritanism is often equated with fundamentalism. The puritans were those looking to reform the protestant churches of their day. They were attempting to remove all vestiges of Catholicism and sin from their churches. They stood against error and for the truth in their day. I don’t think very many Fundamentalists today would feel comfortable with many of the puritan beliefs.

    So who are the Fundamentalists of today, who are the churches that search the scriptures and stand up to and against theological liberalism? They are not the isolationists who think they are the only ones going to heaven; they are not the stodgy old churches that decry any type of fellowship outside of their own church family. They are not the churches that have hateful attitudes toward the lost and the sinner. They are the churches that search the scriptures and seek out purity in doctrine, who are working to reach the lost with the Gospel and who are actively standing for the truth and against false teaching.

    Finally, every church is different in the way they worship and serve the Lord, and I guess that is the beauty of independent Bible believing churches. I am a fundamentalist, and I am proud to claim the foundational doctrines of our common Faith, but if I found that the fundamentalist church that I attend was erring from scripture I would undoubtedly leave and seek out another independent church who’s teaching was Biblically sound.

    Reply

  35. Joshua C,

    Good thoughts on fundamentalism. If you are wondering what my definition and assessment of fundamentalism is, this post would give you a good idea. The comments under it help clarify my position even more.

    In short, my church that I am a member at now would be considered fundamentalist by many. We unashamadely stand for the fundamentals of the faith. However, fundamentalism has come to be defined by how stringently one separates over these doctrines and what kind of attitude one displays toward other churches which differ with you over how to separate over the fundamental doctrines. By no means am I standing against every sector of fundamentalism. I am standing against the extreme elements of it, and hope to work toward the reform of much of it. Again, for more info, check out that post.

    Thanks for continuing to interact with us over here. God bless you.

    Bob

    Reply

  36. Joshua,
    I totally agree. I dread the thought of leaving the wrong impression about my view of fundamentalism, so here’s my clarification. By the truest definition of the word, fundamentalist, I am a fundamentalist. This is because I hold the fundamental doctrines of Scripture. I do believe that the word is used rather loosely though. The conotation the word has today is not what I want to identify myself as. Say the word fundamentalist today, and people think of the first refernece they’ve heard to the word fundamentalist- islam!! They are called fundamentalists all the time, in regards to their belief system. The word fundamentalist has been married to the word extremist in the minds of Christians and non-Christian alike. I’m proud to say that I believe the fundamentals of Scripture and stand firmly on them, but I try to avoid the term fundamentalist because of what it has been made out to be.
    I agree that not all churches that call themselves fundamental are of the same stripe that the church Bob and I are referring to. I too attend a fundamental church.
    I also want to clarify myself in that when I say I have left fundamentalism, I do not mean that I have forsaken self control and have indulged in the things we were always told to avoid. I know what Bob has written about alchohol, and without elaborating, I will simply say that I don’t buy it; the argument he makes, or the alchohol. I still don’t know what it tastes like and I don’t plan to find out. I could give lots of Biblical reasons why I believe that, but all of those aside, I have seen what it does to people first-hand. Working in level-one trauma, I have seen that the majority, not occasionally, but most of the time car accidents are caused by drunk people, and it’s always the innocent other party that gets more seriously injured or killed. So you drink but you don’t get drunk! So! It’s still not for me! Not even a sip, but I digress.
    Long story short, I believe in fundamentals, but not in what is commonly thought of as fundamentalism, if you know what I mean. My wife does not wear pants, ever. Chapter and verse why? Not important! She doesn’t like them and I like the way she looks in skirts. As young as my wife looks, even strangers treat her with the utmost dignity and respect- as a lady. We like that.
    We avoid movie theaters. Is it a sin to go see a movie? No! Many IFBx’s who say that it is, just wait until it comes out on DVD anyway and rent it. We avoid it because one time I was talking with some co-workers (unsaved) who were referring to a movie they had gone to see the previous weekend. One girl attempted to bring me into the conversation, but suddenly stopped herself and said, “Oh, nevermind. Christians don’t go to the movies.” I never said to her that I don’t go to movies. She just somehow knew that. Case in point.
    I say all that to say this: a major difference between an IFBx’er and one who chooses to believe in the fundamentals of Scripture is exactly that- a choice. When Bob and I were in college, we had no choices. This “College handbook Theology” extended into the church and the members had no choice. “Conform or be labeled as mediocre, or even backslidden” over things that were not doctinal issues. As one who is free from that mentality, I am liberated to choose why I believe what I believe. I’m “Free from the Law,”! That’s exactly it! IFBx’ers are often time like “Whited seplechur’s filled with dead mens’ bones.” What we should have is liberty of conscience. I don’t we have liscence, but rather liberty. Not the freedom to do what I want, but to do what I should. Ifbx’ers have not choice, and when the leave their taken away from their oppressive environment; when their taken out of the mold, the lusts of their flesh, which for so long have been pressured out of them, run “Hog-wild.” The heart was never trained, only the behavior. I hope I’ve been clear. I’ve mentioned several issues above that I don’t want people to mistakenly think that I’ve accepted as doctrine, i.e. alchohol etc. Those are common issues that IFBx’ers throw in the face of people like me. My point is to display my view of the difference between being conformed by the preferences of men and conformed to the image of Christ. One affords liberty and the other oppresion. Joshua, I agree with your historical perspective and your take on fundamentalism. Fundamentalist churches are not unusable to our God. I believe that in places where the Word of God is honored, God will bless, even if sometimes bad attitudes and methods exist. Well, so much for making a long story short! Thanks for listening!
    Tom

    Reply

  37. Just for the record, I am glad that Tom has his own personal convictions on the matters he mentioned above. They are just that—personal convictions. Tom does not preach them as doctrine, nor does he claim they are Bible truth. He prefers them and they reflect his application of Biblical truth into the culture we live in.

    I too apply Biblical truth and conclude in similar ways on many different things as do fundamentalists. But for reasons I give here and elsewhere, I do believe Christians can glorify God while partaking of his good gift of Alcohol. And I believe that Christians have the liberty to go to movie theaters to watch movies which they believe are wholesome entertainment.

    Like Tom said, IFBx churches demand conformity from their members on their own exact application on any number of issues which Scripture does not directly address. As such they do not allow their people to make personal convictions, rather they police the people and condemn those who differ with them. This leads to a group-pride in who they are, and sadly leads to IFBx fundamentalists thinking they are better than those who do not hold to all of their positions. Rather than loving them and prizing the unity they have together with them in Christ, they make it clear that they are better than them. This needlessly and shamefully divides the body of Christ. And it creates a culture where performance and external adherence is so important that the internal matters of the heart become much easier to neglect.

    (Oh, and any readers out there, please read my articles on alcohol: here, here, and here, before you judge me for my position on this.)

    Reply

  38. Bob,
    Don’t think that I have passed judgment on you for your stand on movies and Alcohol. I would have to lean toward Tom’s conviction in this matter however as I too have witnessed the bad effects of drunkenness and have chosen that they are not for me. That being said, I don’t think that every sip of wine makes a person a drunk. Moderation and personal limitation of consumption may not necessarily even be all that bad. For myself, I know my personal tendency for indulgence, and have therefore chosen against partaking.

    As for movies, I have to agree that it is not any less sinful to watch a dirty movie in a theater than it is on a DVD or home video. If you are going to hide your sin, then how are you any better than if you sin openly. That is not to say that watching a movie in a Theater is some how sinful. Again like Tom, I avoid movie Theaters, not because they are inherently evil or that the devil dwells within, but because that is a personal choice that my wife and I have made. Just about everyone else I know in our age group goes to movies theaters and I don’t see that as a problem. Of course the moderation thing applies there as well. There are definitely movies that Christians should avoid.

    Pants on Women, I prefer skirts on my women (wife and two girls) but then again skirts are not always practical (especially in child safety seats) I think my wife likes to dress in a dress, but has no problem dawning a pair of blue jeans at any time other than going to church. (Not mind you because the church demands it, but again because of personal preference) My daughter has even picked up on this and has in the past literally thrown a fit because we forgot to change her into a dress for kids group on Wednesday night.

    I suppose that some Fundamentalists would throw a fit to read what I have written, yet, I agree with both of you that these issues are soul liberty issues and not doctrinal issues. However if I were to preach against these things somehow and dig up scripture to support my point but yet I indulge myself in these things then I would be a hypocrite. If any of these issues crossed the line into the realm of hypocrisy then there would be an entirely different issue on hand.

    By the way, I have never come across the acronym IFBx. It seems effectively descriptive of the movement, and I kind of like it.

    Reply

    1. With regard to the last part of your comment, I think that one of the most extreme examples of this hypocrisy is somewhat like this: televangelists who preach against that medium as being entirely of the Devil. What I mean by that is that they use their television ministry to preach against all television. Why do I believe that this is hypocrisy? It’s because they preach that it’s immoral while using it at the same time. I mean, you can’t use a medium to deliver sermons that are critical of that same medium. After all, what are we doing when we’re watching them preach against television? Answer: we’re watching television! Where’s the logic in that!

      Reply

  39. Tom:

    You are aware that there are Calvinist Fundamentalists aren’t you? Calvinism and Fundamentalism are not at opposite ends of the spectrum. They don’t even deal with the same things.

    If you think that Spurgeon, Edwards, etc., are different than contemporary Calvinists than I know for a fact you have not read enough. If there is any difference between contemporary Calvinists and older Calvinists, it is that we’re actually more accepting of Free Willies than the old guys were.

    Reply

  41. Ryan,
    I am aware that there are Calvanist Fundamentalists. Also, I have not yet even given my opinion regarding Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. and contemporary calvanists one this blog. Are you sure you’re not replying to someone else’s post? And just for the record, I’ve read volumes on the issue.
    Tom

    Reply

  42. Ryan,

    I think your comment was more directed to Brian than Tom. They are brothers however.

    Tom & Joshua (and others),

    I think you might find the link Ryan gave on the history of the term “IFBx” informative. Ryan was involved in popularizing the term almost from its inception.

    Reply

  44. I’m responding to whoever said Calvin, Edwards, Whitfield, Spurgeon, etc., wouldn’t have anything to do with modern Calvinism. That statement just doesn’t touch reality.

    Reply

  45. Ryan,

    I agree with you totally. What you said about modern Calvinism is true—they are actually less “firm” in their doctrine than Calvinists of yesteryear. We do allow for fellowship with non Calvinists more so than some of the earlier Calvinists. Of course, perhaps this is due to modern day “Arminians” are less committed to the aspects of their theology which are patently man-centered. Maybe the Arminians of yesteryear were worse than those of today. I don’t know. But I do know that modern Calvinism—the mainstream, that is—is in no way “hyper” and would definitely be embraced by Spurgeon, Edwards, et. al.

    Of course fundamentalist revisionists and people who twist history blatantly as does David Hunt, would say otherwise, however.

    Reply

  46. Hi – I appreciate your thoughtful letter. I do have a question re your understanding of I John 2:19. If you look at the context, the “they” refers to “antichrists” (see previous verse). Are you saying that each person who “falls away” is one of these antichrists?

    I think a more reasonable interpretation is that John is talking about people that have gone on to preach a false gospel. I don’t think it applies to everyone who falls away.

    I think vs 26 makes this even more clear – John says he is writing “about those who are trying to lead you astray.”

    I’m not necessarily disgreeing with your premise – that people who “fall away” never really were saved – but I don’t know if I John 2:19 really supports this premise.

    (Note this comment was moved to this post from the “my story” page.  I prefer to have comments on “my story” located in one place.  Thanks, Bob.)

    Reply

  47. Carl,

    You are probably right. I think the strict interpretation of that verse deals with antichrists. However, I think it is valid to draw an implication from this verse about salvation in general. John was making a statement about teachers that if they were truly “of us” they would not have apostasized but rather would have continued. If this is true of teachers, it is equally true of all believers, period. If the faith of any professor is genuine, he would remain with us—that is with the church. He would not depart into gross false doctrine or practice.

    Supporting this view is the teaching in 2 Timothy 2:18 that false teachers can “overthrow” the faith of some. This would mean that merely espousing the false doctrine is a denial of faith not consistent with a genuine regenerate heart.

    Thanks for commenting.

    God bless you richly in Christ.

    Bob

    Reply

  49. I applaud your inquiring heart to know truth and would inspire you not to stop here but to proceed forward to a website called _bible-truths.com_. I have been in search of the truth myself and believe I was led there by the Lord. This site was so wonderfully and scriptually based it caused me to literally cry as I read it. I remembered the scripture that said that the sheep will hear His voice and know Him.

    Reply

  50. Claudia,

    From looking at the site briefly, I can see that it departs from historic orthodoxy and Biblical teaching. It claims there is no eternal punishment of the wicked and that all will ultimately be saved. These doctrines fly in the face of the clear meaning of multiple passages of Scripture.

    I would think one must be wary of other teachings on that website also.

    I do hope that God will bless you richly because of Jesus and that you will grow in your understanding of the Bible.

    Bob

    Reply

  51. Your story about your journey through Ultra fundamentalism to where you are now, could be my husband and my story verbatim;literally. I mean down to reading Piper’s works and “Willing to Believe” by Sproul. Down to knowing deep down that the Bible HAS to tell us everything about worshiping God and knowing that some of these fundy churches are missing the point as much as the Catholic Church is. I attended Pillsbury Baptist Bible College and at about that time, I just knew there had to be more to the Gospel and becoming a real God follower, than just going through the motions, doing things a “certain” way, practices and ways of doing things that were nothing more than tradition, yet you’d have thought if you didn’t conform to an “image” you were in complete disobedience to Scripture. How sad to be repressed from true worship of the one true God.

    Through my husband’s layoff in Minnesota in 2002, God brought us to the greater Detroit area. We know why. God took us to a church (Berean Batist) who searches the Scriptures, who follows the regulative principle for worship, who digs deeply, knowing that all we need; we have. God gave us the Word and therein we can find all the answers we need.

    Praise God that the power to really know Him is possible, through His son Jesus Christ. Thank you for your story–I was praising God then and there for your journey, discipleship and sanctification.

    Reply

  52. Karen,

    Thanks for the encouraging word. Glad my story was a blessing. Yours was to me.

    It’s funny that I grew up in the Detroit area and now live in St. Paul, MN.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob

    Reply

  53. While reading your story I noticed a spelling error. I think you meant to say, “[a mutual friend]” not “[a mutual fried]”.

    The ‘n’ is missing.

    Very good read by the way.

    Reply

  55. Bob,

    Thanks for the critique and your story (as has been stated before) it is very similar to mine. However, you are much kinder in your response to fundamentalism than I am. I grew up in a non Christian home but went to a Christian high school and somehow ended up @ Bob Jones University. They brainwashed me with their personal brand of fundamentalism and I have been recovering ever since. Thank God that I also had someone in my life to question what I believed, much like you had your brother. From one recovering Pharisee to another, God bless you in your search to know our Master better.

    Bill

    Reply

  56. Hi, Bob… I too was raised the same as you. I come a very extreme IFB background. Imagine David Cloud types, but EXTREME followers of Hyles. Every college except Hyles Anderson was just no good. Our church didn’t start out that bad, but ended up that way. Especially, when all the bad publicity that came out about Hyles on the news in the Detroit area. I grew up in a church in a small town called Belleville, Mi. Our pastor was basically Hyles first apprentice. If anyone even questioned something Jack Hyles said or did they were immediately ostracized, or just about near it. We were also forced to wear humiliating culottes (try to climb a tree in culottes). For years I always thought everyone except folks in the Hyles type of faith were wicked. I lost many friends because I grew up to be so very judgemental towards people. I was never satisfied with any church I attended because their standards just weren’t high enough. I mean, how dare that pastor see that woman wearing pants to church, and not publicly humiliate her for it. That’s the type of thinking I grew up to expect. Now after all these years I finally realized how misled I was. I now can see that most of the things they dwell on is not even doctrine. All of my life, I thought that these things were what Christianity was, and everything else is just plain wicked and evil. IFBxers are like the Amish stuck in a different part of time. IFBxers are stuck in a time period of early 20th century, and anything new is wicked and of satan.Its so good to see there are others like me out there. Leaving the IFBx fold to me has been almost like losing my whole identity.

    Reply

  57. Rachel,

    Thanks for your testimony here. You said, “Its so good to see there are others like me out there. Leaving the IFBx fold to me has been almost like losing my whole identity.” I am glad this blog could help you with this.

    It was the same for me, although I wasn’t quite so sheltered. This system does demand such a total allegiance that in many respects it is similar to a cult. I am thankful I have learned more of God’s grace. I trust you have as well.

    I’ll have to email you as I think I know that church. I grew up in that area.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  58. Got the email, and yes that is the church. It’s funny that you mentioned God’s grace. Because I never even heard about God’s grace or any kind of talk like that until I met my Lutheran friend. Even though I was at the church and doing church activities every single day of my life. It was my quest to prove to my Lutheran friend that she had a sinful religion and was going to hell that made my eyes get opened wide. I’m not Lutheran. I still go to a Baptist church, but now I know about God’s grace and REAL doctrine and Theology for the first time in my life.

    Reply

  59. Great testimony. Praise the Lord for leading you to dig deeper into His Word in such an unusual way.

    May God continue to reveal Himself to you and encourage you to love and trust Him more.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  60. Bob, I appreciate your story and it’s a great encouragement. I also attended an IFB school and appreciated some of the same things as you- their love, respect, and serious attitude for the Word of God. At the same time, I saw how damaging it was. So much emphasis was placed on externals and not on Christ. During college, I was introduced to John Piper by some PCA friends of mine and my life was never the same. It was God’s grace that led me there. I now serve in a SBC church with a staff that’s devoted to Reformed teaching. Thanks again Bob.

    Reply

  63. Brother Bob,
    I just finished reading your story and I am greatly encouraged. It is a very similar story to what has been happening in the last year or so in my and my wife’s life. I am coming to the same convictions you have. It all started with reasearch on the “Law of the Tithe”. That began my total re-evaluation (biblically) that has led me to Calvinism and a change in most things I learned as an IFB. Most interestingly are topics like the Lord’s Supper, the transvestitism in Dt. 22:5, and multiple elders,which I can’t seem to find anyone in or near my church that agrees with me, and my Pastor has started the “I’m worried about you” comments. I work in a Christian rehab/shelter and my new convictions have caused some friction because I have a hard time with some methods now. However, if i leave my church for a reformed one, I lose my job. I have looked for other jobs but no open doors, and besides, I LOVE working with the men in the shelter. Anyways, thanks again for your story…blessings to you. SR

    Reply

  64. SR,

    I’m glad my story was a blessing to you. You are between a rock and a hard place.

    But at least the church you are at is full of people who love God and love others. Be sensitive to God’s leading, he may want you there for now, but at another time he may direct you to leave. And let me tell you, leaving is not easy.

    Regardless, stay true to Christ and open about your desire to gain your positions from Scripture alone. Be teachable and loving. Don’t lord over others, but do not shy away from trying to explain your point of view and lovingly help others reform as well. However, don’t be an occasion for a church split.

    I’m glad you stopped by, brother. I do pray Jesus will bless you and yours. May the Reformed faith increase your worship and love of Jesus, and not make you proud.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  65. Brother,
    For what it is worth you refer to (Douglas MacLauglin former president of Northland Baptist Bible College).
    Dr. Mac was never the President of NBBC. Dr. Wooster, Ollila and Olsen (current) are the only presidents NBBC have had. Dr. Mac taught there in the early 90’s and has been active in the grad program and is heading back there to teach this Fall.

    Reply

  66. Brother, just so you know my note previous was just for info sake from a good heart. God Bless you as you serve and live for God.

    Pastor JimD

    Reply

  67. Pastor Jim,

    You are correct. When I wrote this, I mistakenly thought he had been a president there, but he actually was the Chairman of the Bible Department there for 5 years or something like that.

    Blessings in Christ to you,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  68. I am glad you are finally settled on what you have chosen to believe. I think you ought to go full steam forward and find all the elected people you can and tell them to love and obey the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I don’t think the word sovereign is in the Bible.

    I know Dave Doran and Roger Voegtlin and have spoken to them both. They are good Godly men.

    I am glad the man that gave me the gospel spent his time giving the gospel to me.

    I have eaten dinner with the president of Northland and like him.

    I am sorry you had to give up your KJV only position.

    God Bless you
    Ron

    Reply

  69. I found your article very encouraging and settling for me. Three years ago I stepped out of legalism and into the realization that God’s love is not dependant on what I am doing. Within months I was asking God to give me the freedom to listen to music that ministers to me. At the time I was teaching in a Christian school that was in a very independent, fundamental Baptist church. The pastor highly endorced the book WHY I LEFT THE CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC MOVEMENT. No CCM would be heard in any way. I had struggled with music for decades and now wanted the freedom. God was gracious! Six months later I was asked to resign from teaching because I listened to contemporary Christian music in my home. I was quickly labeled as a liberal and cold shoulders appeared. My husband continued to teach in the school but wasn’t offered a contract the following year because I was considered a negative influence on the women. This was because we shared books back and forth that the pastor disapproved of. Books written by Max Lucado, Beth Moore, etc… We are no longer attending that church but have seen a side of Christianity that must delight the enemy. I know this, legalism is based in fear and that keeps people from looking for the truth. I applaud your desire and growth. My own journey continues. While former friends now pray I will come out of my “liberalism” they don’t understand I am closer to God than I have ever been! I spent decades rarely reading His Word and now devour it on a daily basis. Prayer is now a dialogue rather than a monologue. I am not the same person I was three years ago and I have no intent on returning to my old ways. I am finally on the right track spiritually and God is the only One whose approval I seek. Pam

    Reply

  70. Thanks Pam, for sharing your testimony. Yours is another example of someone who left strict fundamentalism not out of a desire to live it up, but because of a desire for truth.

    Praise God for liberating you, and I pray others will be blessed with your testimony here as well.

    Blessings from the cross,

    Bob

    Reply

  71. LOL : ) when I first came across your blog, I just passed it by… when I saw the word fundamentalist. I’m glad I came back and really read what you have to say. Blessings to you on your continuing journey.

    Reply

  72. Ann,

    Sorry, but on this post you REALLY had to read what I said! It’s my longest, probably.

    Back when I didn’t know much about blogging. But you’d be amazed at the numbers of people who’ve read it or at least skimmed it, and those who’ve been helped. All praise to Christ.

    Thanks,

    Bob

    Reply

  73. Bob,

    What an interesting blog.

    While I was previously a part of the IFB “movement” (although not at Fairhaven, but at another school not too far up the road), He Who began His work in me has continually shown that He is, and will be, faithful to complete it.

    I am so appreciative of your careful wording and the love of Christ that you display in your responses, even to those who attack you, viciously or otherwise.

    No doubt I cannot defend the break from the IFB movement and your truly enlightened stance on Biblical doctrine as kindly (or as thoroughly, for that matter) as you have done, as I still struggle with my own anger and hurt over the vicious attacks of former “Christian” friends who have judged that I am no longer worth “saving” and who have preached against me from their pulpits. I know this anger and hurt are at present a target of the Spirit’s refining fire in my life, and I’d be very appreciative to know if you have experienced similar things, and how Christ has helped you overcome it.

    I do think it is important to note that the IFB movement has been used to produce thousands of people (active members of IFB churches, and many other churches, for that matter) who are comfortable with what you described as the “shortage of Biblical teaching and exegesis centering on Christ” and an “overabundance of preaching and teaching on the things fundamentalists separate over—issues and standards.” The current IFB movement is strikingly similar to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, in that the current movement is thinly veiled as a “defense of the faith”, but when examined thoroughly, is actually revealed as a defense of traditions of men, with a little bit of Biblical doctrine sprinkled in here and there (I can’t tell you how many times I heard, from the pulpit, that something was right “because I am God’s man, and I said so!”). This similarity becomes even more evident when IFB leaders (and followers) are confronted with Biblical doctrine which they cannot refute (as you have done here), and often times simply resort to attacks on the person, vs. defense of the truth (as in the case of the person who cited your financial situation at Fairhaven).

    Every IFB institution I was involved in (for 20+ years) always taught that satan was not concerned necessarily with destroying your life completely (i.e., leading you into a life filled with men with long hair, women wearing pants, adultery, fornication, drugs, drinking and no hope or true joy, etc.), as long as he could do just enough to keep you from being completely dedicated to Christ. I still believe that much of this statement is true, but have now recognized that what you described as “poor scholarship that was presented (and accepted) as careful and scholarly Biblical teaching” and church members leaving “without really experiencing any sort of passion for Christ” is much too often the norm in the majority of self-titled IFB, KJV-only churches, at least every one that I have been exposed to. Amazingly enough, the very thing that is preached against has become another fervently defended tradition of the IFB movement.

    I’m so glad to say that Christ has broken away the chains that had been placed on my mind and heart by the IFB movement, and the Holy Spirit has been freed from the tiny little box (as He must be, if He dwells inside a person) he’d been confined to by IFB teachings. But as I admitted above (to the tune of the song) He’s still workin’ on me, to make me what I ought to be …

    Just out of curiosity, have you ever studied “Systematic Theology” by Wayne Grudem? It is not a series of books, but rather a single book which covers the “major” Bible doctrines from what I believe the author refers to as a “reformed evangelical” stance. I’d love to hear your thoughts of it, if you have read it …

    God bless you and your scholarly defense of the truth. I covet your prayers and the prayers of every Christian who reads this, as God leads me along the same path He has led you.

    Reply

  74. My apologies … I just visited another page on this blog, and saw that Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology book is one of your recommended books.

    Reply

  75. Truth Made Plain,

    Thank you for your kind comments here. I will pray for you. I hope some of the resources I’ve collected here will help you, and if you ever need anything else feel free to email me.

    I do love Grudem’s Systematic Theology. He models grace in his interaction with opposing positions, and he shows how doctrine can be something to be delighted in not a tedious bore.

    I also agree with most of his positions.

    Blessings from the Cross,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  76. Very interesting. I have a daughter who has joined herself to a Fundy Ind Baptist Church.

    But I just wish I knew whether I was a fundamentalist or not. (I presently fellowship very happily with a “Brethren” assembly.)

    Reply

  78. Would it be safe for me to call you a reformed catholic?

    I know two little kids, I am worried that God has chosen both to go to Hell, what do I do?

    My NIV Bible is missing verses what do I do?

    Huckabee is a pawn of the New World Order, what do I do?

    ronpaul2008.com
    vancepublications.com Baptistchristianworldview.com seem to be destroying my huckabee/reformed catholic/NIV bible beliefs what do I do?

    David

    Reply
  79. Pingback: Noteworthy KJVO conversion stories « Phil’s Mind Map

  80. This is Steve with NTRF. We noticed that you have us listed/referenced
    on
    your website. Thanks! We wanted to let you know that we have changed
    our
    name from New Testament Restoration Foundation to New Testament
    Reformation Fellowship. Could you please make this change on your
    website?
    Thank you,
    Steve Atkerson
    http://www.NTRF.org

    Reply

  81. Bob, I’m enjoying reading your blog.

    I’m a 75 year old pastor. Have been preaching since 1956.
    Still pastoring a church in Albuquerque, NM where I’ve been for the past 19 years.

    I encourage you to check out my HIdden Treasures web site
    by going to http://www.alamedabiblechurch.com On that site I have over 500 blogs on numerous topics. I encourage you to check out SEPARATION and BEATITUDES. On the Separation series, I have some comments on the KJV ONLY controversy.
    My FREEDOM series is a study of Galatians and deals with the legalism issue.

    Many pastors have been influential in my life.
    Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones of England, perhaps the most influentual. I found his book on Sermon on the Mount and his sermons on Ephesians to be he most life changing for me.

    As a pastor, I’ve been having the time of my life all these years- and getting paid for it! I’ve never been bored a day in my lifel

    A new friend in Christ,

    Mal Bicker mgbpjb@msn.com

    Reply

  84. Hey Bob, You are living my story. I too came out of an IFB church, KJV only, No pants, shorts – the whole 9 yards. I was obnoxious in my judgment of others and would challenge professors at Cedarville University early on concerning radical fundamentalist ideas (Cedarville College, at the time). I too broke free (my freedom came in two distincts phases) and I am now a reformed baptist pastor. John Piper’s teachings and books were food to my soul through the process. No other single human individual has been used by the Holy Spirit up to this point to shape my theology like JP has.

    It has been refreshing perusing your site – It brings back incredible memories of unbiblical bondage and reminds me of the joy of being free in Christ and free to let the Bible say whatever it ACTUALLY SAYS!

    Making Much of Jesus,

    Mike

    Reply

  86. I just published a book which in part tells my story of leaving IFBx and I decided to read about other people’s experience so I found your story using Google. I needed to get my courage up for when people actually start reading it and commenting on it.

    I’m amazed that they’re still into the KJVO and fussing about women and pants. I thought for sure that was just my weird church in the 1980s. That was reassuring because that was how i wrote it.

    I was so at the end of my rope that I didn’t even bother with Baptists when I left. I went to the nearest church and it happened to be a liberal Lutheran church and there I stayed. I struggled a lot but I don’t think it was quite the struggle you’ve had. Mostly I struggle with the old anger and bitterness about all the shame and guilt I grew up with and that I put my own kids through. What a waste!

    I hope you learn from me that you don’t need to defend your decision all that much. I mean, my church is fine with homosexuals and recovering drug addicts (like me) and even addicts who aren’t recovering so well. You really didn’t make that big of a change.

    Take care and don’t torment yourself,
    Janice Brookshire

    Reply

  87. Thanks for your comments, Janice. Sometimes people go on to leave confessional Christianity altogether due to their hard experiences in legalistic environments. How sad that is.

    I have left legalism, but I haven’t discarded the Bible. It affirms homosexuality is wrong, but it offers salvation to all who repent of that lifestyle as well as other natural / fallen lifestyles (promiscuity, adultery, murder, idolatry, covetousness, greed, theft, etc.). And former drug addicts are welcomed as well.

    A grace-focused church, that majors on the gospel, will affirm its truth and the exclusivity of Christ even as it welcomes those who will embrace the cross. We love and minister to others, and part of that love sometimes includes challenging them to forsake their sinful and self-damaging ways.

    I pray you gain healing but more than that. That you don’t forsake Christ in favor of everyone getting along.

    You are welcome here. Thanks for your perspective.

    May God richly bless you,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  88. Bob,
    Thank you for your words of affirmation and acceptance. Even after all these years it’s nice to hear–or see–someone who calls himself a Christian can also accept me as I am.

    When I walked into the ELCA church for the first time I told the pastor that I was “conquering a drug problem” and he said, “I’m a recovering addict.”

    It was like a chorus of angels had stepped down from heaven and started singing, “Janice, you’re home.” I didn’t tell him that I had been rejected by my church because of the drug problem.

    I had been a Sunday school teacher, interpreter for the deaf, and volunteer for everything else. I went to Christian school as a kid and got awards each year in high school for best Bible student in my class.

    But I had epilepsy. I also was in an abusive home and then married an abusive–born-again Christian–man to get out of the abusive home before someone killed me. I took medicine for my epilepsy and the seizures became more of a problem with more stress. Finally I was taking the maximum dosage–as prescribed by my doctor–when I decided to try and quit.

    That’s when the church had problems. I either didn’t show up or showed up shaking as I tried to quit. It took over a year. At one point the pastor told me to “just stay home when you aren’t feeling well.” But no one called or tried to help or showed any concern during that year. So I walked down the street to the ELCA church and had my eyes opened wide.

    That was over 20 years ago and I’m still clean and sober. Never did alcohol because that was sinful. Never even saw pot until years later I helped a lady flush some before she smoked it. But I was a drug addict and should have been coming in from the outside not having become addicted from inside the church. They didn’t know what to do with me.

    So I feel at home with the Lutherans. It was that or forget it all–which is what many people do. They’re kind and loving to me and their weird talk of remembering your baptism and holy sacraments and stuff like that just touches my heart as a result of their love. I decided that if I have to choose between being theologically right and being loving, I hope I choose loving.

    My book is entitled “Tomato Blossoms” and it’s a work of fiction with a lot of truth in it. It will be available soon, I hope, on Lulu.com.

    Thanks again for your kind words.

    Janice B.

    Reply

  89. Bob,

    I am glad to see you keep your articles “alive” even though you wrote them so long ago. I just recently viewed and commented on your blog.

    I was affected by IFB doctrine (I attended some services), though I never actually joined such a fellowship. Your explanations have made me understand why we “lost” friends who joined an IFB. After years of trying to regain a once warm and vibrant friendship, we have given up. I understand now that we are just too sinful in their eyes.

    I attended many different denominations, but that quest for the truth drove me to a Reformed position. However, I was not persuaded by any particular Reformed writer (i.e. Piper). Keeping this brief, being involved in a passionate argument concerning free will (my position at the time) and Calvinism, I began using the KJV for study. I read E. F. Hills defense. Something happened, and the wonderful Doctrine of Grace filled my mind. Yet the KJV also became the most valuable Bible. (I must confess that I do not comprehend from the newer English versions, and in fact, I find them to hide truth so many times. This is not from a perspective given by the KJV-only crowd – I have not actually studied them. It is a more spiritual thing: I just “get it” from studying KJV.) I do not make any issue of someone’s use of another version, I just think they are missing out. E. F. Hills defense had more to do with my understanding Grace than it did with the KJV. I was also impressed with his knowledge of nuclear physics. (I tested his words on a real nuclear physicist- she was impressed – and I was lost!)

    Sorry for taking so long. The major emphasis of Reformed theology is Jesus Christ Himself. This new “position” caused Jesus words concerning the Scriptures (John 5:39 “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”) to change my whole approach to the study of God’s Word. His peace is real – in all situations.

    So now I can say (for convenience) that I am a Reformed five point Calvinistic Christian that leans Amillennialistic – the very two things I was taught were absolute heresy. I find them both to be absolutely Scriptural. And Christ Jesus really is Lord, Saviour, and now reigning and soon returning King of Israel and Head of the Church, the vine into whom I am grafted by God’s mercy.

    Reply

  90. Joe,

    I really appreciate your testamony. *: ) I was saved at the age of 14 in a Baptist Church, but I never really studied doctrine…just read the Bible (KJV, this version only because it is the first one I ever read cover to cover. I also have no problem with other versions)…As the Living Word gets placed in your heart, and is activated by the very Holy Spirit who breathed it…your doctrinal questions naturally take care of themselves. *: )

    Amazed by His Grace
    Amazed by His Power
    Amazed by His Word

    Reply

  91. Nancy,

    Your comment is very encouraging. I think some of the fundamentalists brought contempt the the KJV, yet I still believe it is the best English version ever written. So I will not let them take this away from me. You should not either. You are very correct when you give credit to God for revealing his word to you. I just happen to think the KJV focuses us better toward the spiritual understanding. At least, I think, it does for me. I suppose God can use any version, but he did not choose to use the NIV nor the NASB when revealing to me. Then again, maybe I am mistaken. Yet that faith he put in me yields not to the temptation that I do not understand. He does, through the KJV, keep me centered on Christ Jesus.

    Ezekiel 16:60-61 “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed,…”

    The Lord remembers his everlasting covenant, and when we are reminded, we are ashamed. And yet we are grateful to God for his mercy toward us.

    Amazed by his person, our God and Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ!

    Reply

  92. Joe,

    Thanks for stopping by. Sorry to respond so late to your comment. I have nothing against the KJV. I don’t think it is the best version, but it is an excellent one.

    I am concerned with those who elevate it to the position of the Only Correct Bible. Especially as many of their arguments flow from an experiential — “it works for me”, or “it was the most blessed version” — basis.

    If you study the issue out, there are complex facts involved. For years the KJV was the best version available. Today, we have others that are conservatively produced, faithful to the text, and sound: NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc. There are 3 different kinds of printed texts available: TR, Majority Text, the “Critical Text” (i.e. NA27/UBS4). Most Bibles follow the Critical Text, and I believe for good reasons.

    However, at the end of the day, there are no major doctirnal differences between the versions. Looking down your nose at others who use different versions is wrong. Claiming they are in blatant sin for using them is even worse. At the very least, other positions should be tolerated given the complexity of judging the manuscript evidence and all the swirling arguments etc. Sadly, most KJV Only proponents are not lenient at all, but quick to condemn multitudes of sincere believers.

    This does not please God in my opinion.

    You can learn more about this issue by clicking on the “KJV Only?” tab above.

    Blessings, brother.

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  93. I believe that we as christians all believe that we understand the truth. I am a Independent, fundamental, KJV only baptist and proud of it. I do not condem any man for his beliefs as long as he truely believes them. I meet many christins who argue points that they dont live. Always up for an argument bet never walking the walk. If you have accepted Christ as your savior, then that is as far as most arguments should go.

    Reply

  94. Bob,

    I understand you. I never intended to use the KJV when I was first aware of the reality of Christ. I began using it while reading a study book, where the author referenced the KJV. As you said, it is still an excellent version. However, there are many Christian writers that say wonderful, educational things, and they use a variety of versions. If I stayed “hung up” on the KJV, I would not learn too much from them. Likewise, I could not read some of my favorite theologians (i.e. Calvin). The majority of Reformers did not have the KJV. It had not yet been written! So to me, the version used is not the issue. The truth revealed is, so long as that truth is centered on Christ Jesus.

    Never-the-less, I prefer the KJV, and I trust that version above all other English versions. I will admit, because it was shortly after I switched (from the NIV) to the KJV, doctrinal problems were removed one at the time. The NIV did have me confused over several doctrinal issues: trinity, God hood of Jesus, prophesy, etc. The KJV is much more consistent, and I began to comprehend theology. I also moved into the reformed camp, and gradually left dispensationalism. I also enjoy knowing the size of the intended audience (one or more than one – the thee’s and ye’s). I like how the language slows me down, and I remember the words better. I also enjoy the prophetic statements otherwise missed by modern language (“God will provide Himself a lamb…”)

    I have had many problems with some so-called Christians since switching almost exclusively to the KJV. Perhaps this is a reaction to the many KJV-only folks that go too far. Yet I do not think that should give others license to say harmful and rude things to me for using the KJV. I have endured the most hateful attacks from pastors. Early in my switch, I was ridiculed by a PCA pastor. Lately several TMS graduate pastors, though not directly attacking the KJV quotations, refused to even read the reformed arguments I made because I conveniently quoted from the KJV. (A little research of these guys revealed that they pride themselves in attacking KJV-only people. The only problem is that I am not KJV-only.) So there is a horrid reverse reaction, and from history, I gather that many in the mid to late 19th century ridiculed the KJV. Perhaps the first reaction was caused by that ridicule and created the ultimate KJV-only crowd.

    So as a Christian, I can agree with both pro and non pro KJV people. As I am human, I do not enjoy being attacked for my choice of English translation. The only question I have for any Christian when discussing this issue is, “Do you have the inerrant Word of God to read and study?” The correct answer in faith is “Yes!” God promised He would provide his Word. Lately too many folks who prefer the more modern versions will only answer this question with a reference to the “original manuscripts.” This is faithlessness and I may also say foolishness. This reasoning would leave us without an absolute foundation, and combining 200 plus translations cannot equal faith and the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

    I also teach a Sunday School class where most of the members are men over 65 years old. We have chosen the KJV as the common version for the class so that we can all read the same thing at the same time, and because these older members have access to an “old” KJV. Perhaps this is a return to a more traditional fellowship, but we sure have become a special people. Instead of the young men avoiding us, several have in fact become permanent and normally attending members. (ages 22 through 30 so far, with one high school young man joining us in early group prayer.) So the bottom line is that it is not the version that brings knowledge, but the Holy Spirit. It is not the version that brings unity, but faith in Christ.

    Thanks for your patience in my ramblings.

    Reply

  95. I understand you too, Joe. Personally, I think the NKJV would be a mite better. The ESV and NASB both in my opinion surpass the NIV.

    Sadly the KJV Only crowd have earned some of the backlash they receive. Unfortunately some don’t have enough wisdom to not give that to you as well. There really are serious problems with some of the KJV Only arguments. Problems worthy of serious response. But for the most part, it is a benign argument and there are good people on both sides. None of us should be such a snob with our preferred version that we cast others out over this.

    Blessings to you from Jesus,

    Bob

    By the way, feel free to quote from the KJV around here. Even I do, sometimes.

    Reply

  97. Bob,

    Thanks for the freedom. Just for the record, the modern version crowd has also and always gone too far, most of the time dismissing any faith based spirituality in comprehending Scripture. Some of the statements of the modern version crowd are equally ridiculous and full of erroneous assumptions as well as is the KJV-Only crowd. There are, however, moderate speakers on both sides. They just do not get the “media” attention because they speak in peaceful terms. Besides, the news I am recieving on the Greek translation front is that the “New” Greek and the old Textus Receptus are coming more and more together.

    I will continue to use the KJV as authoritative for years to come because I trust it. Even the NKJV has some strange changes and adds notes that, in my estimation, denigrate the scholarship of our forefathers, and the faithfulness in which they translated God’s Words. It is impossible, in my mind (I am a mechanical engineer with a depth in thermodynamics: entropy seems to exist in all things and particularly so in the minds of men.) to believe that men are smarter or more intellegent today than they were in years past. I also disagree that our forefathers knew less of the Scriptures than our scholars of today know. The old ways need to be studied and retained. (This is why I am now reformed, the reversal of thinking took place, and the old replaced the modern.) And finally, history reveals that the old Byzantine manuscripts were chief during a time that excels in the work of the Holy Spirit toward the spread and practice of the Holy Gospel. Comparitively, since the 19th century, when “new Greek” scholarship began to reign, we have experience a decline in truth probably equal to the multiplication of modern versions.

    However, lest you suspect I am not truthful when I say I am not KJV-only, I will stop this line of reasoning and confess that through the ages God has used a multitude of versions in a multitude of languages to call His people out of the nations through the preaching of the Gospel. His truth is still His truth in any version or language, and the fruits are the product that proves His truth lives in us. And even those good fruits belong to the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Psalm 12:6,7 “The words of the LORD [are] pure words, [Like] silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.” (NKJV)

    Joe V.

    Reply

  98. Great Site! I was helped very much by this article and the posts that follow. I am tired of the typical Independent Baptist standards preaching that has overwhelmed our churches. It truly is sad. Through three years of attending a Bible college and at least a decade of being in Independent Baptist churches i have seen what harping on standards has brought on our young people. I am 21 and I know many people my age who have seemingly “dropped off the face of the earth” in terms of spirituality. I obviously cannot know if their profession of faith is genuine or not, but i do know that the lack of Biblical teaching has caused resentment towards Christ and the church rather than a love for Him. Many of these people who went to my Christian high school and the Christian camp i went to are in jail or are not doing anything for Christ. Its time for us as Christians, whether Reformed or Fundamental, to be Christians! Sorry for the long rabbit trail. thank you again for your site. In Christ, Matthew

    Reply

  100. Wow, we’re all on a journey aren’t we. All of these issues are pertinent and extremely important. I simply find it rather obvious that everyone speaks of whom they have studied under, read after or been discipled by, but no one talks of the Jesus we claim to love and serve. A little Spirit filled, Bible studying discernment will go along way to answering all of these questions. Most true disciples of Jesus eventually walk this path. It will come to an end. The best Christians I ever met knew way more of Jesus than Calvin. Religion rears its ugly head way too much these days. Jesus said, “My sheep here my voice and they follow me.” Who are you listening to today?
    Buck

    Reply

  101. Dear Bob,
    Some time ago I wrote to you and very viciously attacked you and some of the views you hold to. I want to apologize to you for this. Will you forgive me? I was speaking out of a hurting heart while going through some difficult struggles in my life. I praise the Lord for His continued faithfulness to me through those struggles. He is truly a Great and Mighty God and I love Him with all my heart. Through following Him and studying His Word in a more closer way I want to say that I HAVE NOT forsaken fundamentalism, but rather the kind of hardnosed and controlling attitude. Anyone can adopt this kind of an attitude. Spiritual Abuse can and does take place today and I myself by the grace of God will seek to forsake it. I stand by the Word of God, it’s fundamental truths and the Holiness that God produces in our lives through it. I praise God for your love, respect and prayers. I know that He will use us both mightily for only His honor and Glory. Sorry it took so long to write this back to you.

    Your fellow Brother in the Lord,
    Brian Balzamo
    Psalm 18:30

    Reply

  104. Good work Bob,

    Keep open, Keep Growing.

    I also thought I was going into ministry and realized my education was faulty and I needed to get into a good church and sit under good preaching to get my thinking cleaned up. It takes years, be patient.
    The key is understanding the covenant. The covenant people are all in the church and not all are converted just as not all Jews were converted. So much of scripture, written to Jews primarily even in the NT, is with that understanding. In fact often it was reminded that Jesus is the savior of all, the whole world, not just the Jews. Keep the mindset of a Jew as you read. It is one unfolding story of God’s one plan of redemption not plan A and B. Sounds like you have a great start. Greenville Seminary has a scholarship program and Heritage is a good seminary as is Mid America Reformed. GPTS.edu has a distance learning program live in class also. Listen to semonsudio.com, look up sermons by Joel Beeke, Lawrence Bilkes, Arch Alison, and Stillwater Revival books have lots of audio books of puritans.

    Reply

  105. Thanks Don. I’m with you on the no plan A and plan B. I’ve come further since I wrote this letter. Covenant Theological Seminary is another good one, in St. Louis. We’ll see what God has in store for us.

    Blessings, brother.

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  106. It is amazing you now embrace John Piper as a positive influence and reject Fundamentalism.

    Piper believes Mother Theresa is the classic type of sanctification, that Francis Xavier was a great Christian Missionary, that CCM is wonderful, that the Toronto Blessing was a move of God, and pals up with the swearing Driscoll for his conferences.

    Sounds to me that you need a whole lot more insight! Cue another round of hand wringing and self-flagellation!

    Reply

  107. Sam,

    It’s easy to write people off by over-simplifying and reducing what they believe and who they are by various statements they may make (and your interpretation of them). It’s much harder to actually listen to someone or evaluate them and see what they really believe.

    I could just as easily condemn fundamentalists for being legalists, schismatics, crazy, irrelevant, cultists. Some fundamentalists would fit the bill on some of these categories. Some could be construed to fit the bill if I took certain sentences out of context that they’ve made.

    It’s easier to write off all music but your own than to exercise discernment and accept the good in CCM while rejecting the bad.

    I doubt you’ve ever read any booklet or pamphlet much less a book that John Piper has written. I bet you haven’t even listened to an entire sermon of his. Ah, but you’re quick to condemn.

    I was once like you, so I understand where you’re coming from.

    For those of us outside fundamentalism’s little bubble, such a characterization of John Piper is laughable.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  108. Hello,
    I am new to your blog, and I am a believer from Indonesia. I knew few names you mentioned (like Thomas Strouse used to teach in our seminary back in Jakarta, Indonesia)
    I must said that you have convicted me with a few things that I used to believe (and yes, you are right… it have no biblical proof, it’s just a fundamentalist tradition to be precise).
    Thank you for writing, and God bless you.

    Jessica

    Reply

  109. Thanks Jessica. Glad to help. Feel free to follow my blog and contact me if you have any questions or if there is any way I can help.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

    Reply

  110. Bob,
    I read your testimony and found it a blessing as I did your comments and those of others prompted from the article. Although I was never part of an IFBc, my path in coming to believe in the reformed faith in terms of soteriology has been very similar to yours. A faith I honestly knew nothing about where I was totally ignorant of church history (which sadly many folks today are) and the great cloud of witnesses we are surrounded by. And in my ignorance I railed against the supposed evils of “Calvinism” and stood proudly on the famous free-will proof-texts which did nothing but give ample testimony that I really knew nothing as I should.

    In time though the Spirit mercifully opened mine blinded eyes to see grace in a way I never perceived before. And not only was grace revealed, but also more of myself and my true Adamic nature which, apart from Christ, is as black as the darkest night. Where today, as never before, I can from my heart of hearts truly echo Paul’s words in testifying that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.

    In terms of classification, I do not consider myself as a “Calvinist” (I Cor 1:12 ), yet I most assuredly hold tooth and nail to the doctrines of grace. I can see no other way as per what the Scriptures reveal from Genesis through Revelation about man’s absolute and total hatred of God. For the carnal mind is at enmity against God; that is, it is at war against God as it employs all of its weapons and fallen wisdom to exalt itself above the stars of heaven and to sit as a king on the throne of God. Not unlink what we see manifest in a little child who throws a temper tantrum in order to get what he/she wants. Sure, as we grow older we hopefully do not throw temper tantrums, but this in no way negates the reality that the rebellion is still there. Rebellion that has not become less sinful, but rather more exceedingly sinful as it has been honed and perfected as the flesh learns more crafty and subtle ways to get what it wants.

    I will also add that I too by God’s grace been divorced from Dispensationalism. A “world view” that I now believe is a doctrine of devils as it splits God’s word, his people, Christ’s return, and his redemptive plan into two distinct camps. Rather, I believe the historical position of prophetic interpretation that has been held by scores throughout history with the key being that the papacy is anti-Christ (see William Mencarow on Sermon Audio for great messages on this). In writing this I will testify that I still have myriad questions, but I rest better at night having left behind “Left Behind.”

    My hope is that you will continue your journey as the Reformation accomplished much but it did not go all the way in purging out the leaven of Romanism. Even today there is much Romanism creeping back into in the church. Romanism that is not shrinking but rather growing where much of the ground gained in the Reformation through blood and tears, is being surrendered without a fight as the church in many circles is looking more and more like a daughter of Rome. For those of the Reformed faith can shout “Sola Scriptura” from their pulpit, but this is meaningless if they continue to hold to the un-Biblical and Romanist traditions of men. Case in point includes the regulative principle of worship which covers what is the proper Biblical, New Covenant way to worship God per his will and not our inventions. Rome’s liturgical calendar and her “holy” days being a perfect case in point.

    Finally, someone mentioned in one of your posts Steve Atkerson at ntrf.org. I have never met him but have corresponded with him and read his book Ekklesia which I highly recommend.

    Blessings to you –
    bro Michael

    Reply

  111. Bob, I was blessed by your letter. I have come from a nearly identical background and was introduced to Reformed Theology by a good friend in college. I am now a member of a wonderful church that I thank God for every day.

    http://www.gracechurchministry.org

    If you’re ever in the CT area, pay us a visit!

    Christ only, always,
    Nathan

    Reply

  112. Very long, but well worth the read. I would be interested in discussing the pants on women issue, because I have never really heard the arguments on either side. I never thought of it as an issue people would be dogmatic about.

    Reply

  113. Bob,

    I literally cried w/ joy upon reading your story–because it conveys the same substance of what God had done to me –> it’s the story of God in us –> it is His Faithfulness.

    I’m from the Philippines, and not only literal idols surrounding but all possible sort of idols you could imagine even inside the professing mainstream ‘born-again’ and the mainstream christians. It’s like hopelessness all around. It’s religion all around.

    to contemplate everything in the deepest possible theological, cultural, political perspective, it’s the same all over the world. And the ‘wisdom’ cries and shouts because of the gospel-famine all over the w/World/s. So many movements & shiftings are happening across the globe every minute due to the differences of all sorts. This problem, is a problem of the gospel. The Gospel is Jesus Christ himself. He is the perfect example of being God-centered; they are One.

    Every single fiber of personal, corporate, political, denominational, etc –> ALL problems under the sun roots from the total absence, famine, scarcity, usury of Jesus Christ; instead having GOD as the Greatest treasure in all the universe/s; the rests are just consolation; unfortunately most of the time, consolation prizes becomes idols; these idols are the differences & variables i’m speaking about. Surprisingly, these variables looks good; such as doctrines in worship, calvinism, faith, repentance, goodworks, grace and the rests; THEY ARE DANGEROUS to become an IDOL and can CONTAMINATE THE SOUL, NOT UNLESS WE ARE ALL CONSUMED BY HIM ALONE; all this means are not end; as God is the end of all this precious means.

    Brother, we thank God for He overcame our rebellion; Oh what a great Salvation. Oh what a great Hope! What a great God we have!

    God is indeed most glorified in Us while we are most satisfied in Him. He is the greatest Hope that this world has been longing and looking for!

    in Christ Jesus,
    Don
    email: benchlopez@webmo.org
    url: http://www.webmo.org
    blog: benchlopez.webmo.org / gospel.webmo.org

    Reply

  115. Bob, I believe there are different degrees of Dispensationalism just as there are different degrees of Reformed Theology. I have tried to steer a middle of the road course, not emphasizing either extreme. I believe in the Fundamentals of the Faith but do not see myself as a “Fundy” I’ve been in the heat of the battle with Liberalism from my first year in the ministry in 1956. Dr.Martyn Lloyd Jones writings are as dear to me as
    Harry Ironside. Praise God there will be no sub labels in Heaven. Only Christians.

    Reply

    1. Amen to that, Mal. Since I first wrote this post, my views have of course developed. I now realize that I was raised in a classical or slightly revised dispensationalism — the Scofield/Ryrie/Chafer variety. There are lots of differences among dispenstationalists particularly with progressive dispensationalism. I still am not dispensational, but I can respect progressives and certainly understand brothers who don’t see eye to eye with me on that point.

      Reply

  116. I’m going to be what I am going to accuse you of.

    You seem to be just a tad judgmental of the churches you’ve attended as well as of the folks in them.

    I’m a 60 y.o. Conservative Baptist. Our church believes that Jesus was very big on UNITY… As long as we can agree to disagree but remain pretty much Bible centered we do pretty well.

    An example; Our pastor believes in Millennial Exclusion. Many of us in the church don’t. We didn’t tear the church down or split it as so many do… instead we went to the pastor and discussed it with him. We didn’t change anyone’s minds but we did come up with a much better understanding of all parties.

    He believes his views are Bible centered. We believe we are Bible centered. We agreed he could preach his views once in a while and our views once in a while…. He pre-explains what this is all about, in case there are some newbies in the congregation that day.

    Both sides believes we will obey the Lord by deciding on UNITY rather than demanding our own ways. Why leave a church over one or two issues that have nothing to do with our salvation?

    Our pastor is a great teacher/preacher and teaches us how to live within the Scriptures on a daily basis. How do we put to use what we learn from the Bible?

    You sound like a youngster who liked to argue in his college youth group about various jots and titles. As an old fellow who’s seen a lot of this world and Christians of many stripes…. It seems if you concentrate on what is important to the Lord…. REALLY important to Him, you and He will be much happier and freer from frustrations…..

    Another example: Except for some really far-out leftist translations, Many of your Bibles are doing a pretty good job. IF you are KJV only…fine…. IF NOT, fine…
    This will not determine if you get to Heaven or not. IF someone else in your acquaintance thinks NIV is best…well, let him… it won’t affect his or your salvation.

    On the other hand, if you are pro-abortion… I’d work really hard at seeing how you can obey God and NOT condone murder! …If someone else isn’t pro-abortion, follow him…he seems to be more in line with God’s teaching and all this WILL affect your eternal life.

    See the difference? It’s like they say, “Pick your battles carefully.” Don’t waste your efforts or energy on stuff that matters little in your eternal life.!!!

    You seem like a nice fellow…just cool your jets, take a deep breath and let yourself mature in mind and spirit a bit more.

    Reply

    1. John,

      Thanks for taking the time to write me. I wrote most of this 5 years ago now and indeed I have cooled my jets and matured.

      The group I was in was dogmatic about the KJV being the only correct version and in some churches I was in the views I had on the Bible would get me voted out of the church. I agree that leaving is not the best or only way to handle differences. In some cases it is, but not always.

      For us, we took every care to not split the church or do anything like that after we left. Some of the doctrinal problems were so severe we felt our children’s souls were at stake and for our own spiritual growth we felt we had to leave.

      If you read other posts around here, you’ll notice I aim for unity and try to promote it. The group we were in did not, they separated from everyone and didn’t even pursue unity with churches nearby which agreed in many points of doctrine. It was just to risky to pursue that because most likely there’d be some difference and then they’d have to separate.

      That’s the mentality I was reared in and it’s what I try to warn against.

      Again thanks for stopping by. I keep this up so people can see where I’ve come from, and it continues to bless many people who’ve been in such a scenario.

      In Christ,

      Bob

      Reply

  117. Bob,
    I read you article finally and enjoyed hearing about your journey. I have experienced some of the legalism and KJV only you were in but never embraced it myself. Sometimes being in the military and stationed different places it was the only church in town. I would take issue with you on dispensationalism though. Do not be too quick to throw that out just because Fighting Fundies also believe in it. Some of my favorite authors, pastors etc believe in many of the dispensational view points and do not even speak of or quote guys in the Fundamentalist camp. I think what happens at Pipers church is young eager students are shaped by Reformed teaching and just assume since Calvin, Luther, Owen, Edwards, etc got it so right on Soteriology issues that they must be right on eschatological issues too. But that is not the case. Origin and Augustine started the allegorical method of interpreting scripture as they picked it up from the Greeks who came up with that hermeneutic to interpret their own literature to make it less offensive. Also Augustine did not care for Jews and said God only kept them around to show that Old Testament stories were true. Fast forward 1000 years and Calvin and Luther just adopted his views. Luther did not care for Jews either and wrote a harsh book against them at the end of his life. Calvin denied the allogorical hermenuetic of studying scripture for a literal one but wouldn’t change his views so compromised and said except when interpreting prophetic passages. The puritans carried on without forsaking the allogorical or spiritualizing method of interpreting scripture when it came to prophesy or OT texts. Another problem with Augustine is he believed in some of the ascetic teachings that the material isn’t important only the spiritual non material is. So when he read that there was going to be a literal 1000 years full of enjoyment for earthly bodies he just could not accept that. So combine his new allogorical hermenuetic, prejudice toward Jews and ascetic beliefs and so we have Amillennialism. Fortunately Piper is still a premillennialist and so is Grudem but others at the church are all over the map and I can never tell what kind of hermenuetic is being used. I think the best approach is to stay at a literal (not wooden literal) but literal plain meaning as long as you can make since of it- even when symbols are being used and no matter what the genera of Scripture is. As far as Interpreting the OT thru the lens of the NT allogorically I think the NT authors inspired knew how to do that but I think we fail at that miserably. For example I believe a 1000 years means a 1000 years but just glance at some reformed commentaries and see what they think. You come up with no two views alike. Lets see 1000 is 10 to the 3rd power and its 1/3 the age of fullfillment. What? I know, how bout it means 1000 years! And 7 days means 7 days of creation. And 3 1/2 years or 1200 and something days means just that. Well, brother that is my pet peeve with the reformed movement which is sweeping Christianity who do have it right on Salvation issues. I am also bothered by their acceptance of the third wave movement of miraculous gifts but that will be another post. Love you, Jeff

    Reply

  118. Bob,

    Oops, I didn’t read all your posts-especially a recent one which said you have since done some reading on progressive dispensationalism, etc. Sorry. Jeff

    Reply

    1. Jeff,

      Sorry, I didn’t see these comments until this morning.

      Thanks for taking the time to read my LONG story! Your comments about dispensationalism along with similar comments from many others, are an impetus for my new series of posts that I started today: Ephesians 2 and Dispensationalism.

      We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point, but know that I respect dispensationalists and held to that system of theology for quite some time. I’m still growing in my understanding of God’s word, so feel free to interact and challenge me on this.

      I certainly wouldn’t follow Augustine in all matters. And I do think there were allegorical / spiritualizing interpretations that are outrageous. That said, I think many in the church today fail to see how much they were influenced by the rationalism inherent in theologians of the last 2-300 years. A rationalistic mindset limits the spiritual elements of things, since it favors a naturalist tendency that everything knowable can be known through scientific study — or through applying the right hermeneutic consistently. This fails to account for the spiritual element of illumination and texts such as Luke 24:44 and 1 Cor. 2:14, etc…. Furthermore, the beginnings of dispensationalism stem from an amateur movement that reinvented theology. Names and figures such as C.I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer were hugely important in the rise of dispensationalism, and they were also self-taught theologians.

      Ultimately it comes down to Scripture and that is what tipped me over the edge.

      Check out my new series on Ephesians 2, read this post for more background on my thinking with dispensationalism, and re: amillennialism, see this short paper from Vern Poythress on one of the passages in the NT which seems to resist a dispensationalist, pre-trib/pre-mil approach quite strongly.

      Or in your case, we can chat sometime in person. Thanks again for taking the time, Jeff. Hope all went well with your trip to AZ. I’ve been praying for you guys during this time.

      In Christ,

      Bob

      Reply

  119. Bob,

    You wrote: “I contend the Bible clearly reveals that regeneration precedes faith, which itself precedes justification and salvation.”

    Could you give me the verses that support your premise?

    I’m not trying to be a trouble maker, but I would contend the Bible clearly reveals that faith precedes regeneration.

    Thanks

    Don

    Reply

  120. Don,

    Short answer: John 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 John 4:7, 5:1 [note Greek tense on both of these = “has been born of God”]; Deut. 30:6; Ez. 36:25-27; Heb. 10:15-16; James 1:18; Phil. 2:13

    Medium answer: I would say regeneration logically precedes faith, but that this happens instantaneously with faith. A baby doesn’t birth itself, and we too are “born from above”. Faith is the evidence of the Spirit’s work in our hearts. This is a historic doctrine held by Baptists and Calvinists alike. The very nature of regeneration is that it is an act of God, not man. God gives life, we don’t earn it.

    Long answer: check out some of these earlier posts where I discuss this.

    Regeneration, Reception and Faith

    “Regeneration Precedes Faith” a Baptist Belief

    Spurgeon on Regeneration and Faith

    My Explanation of the Five Points of Calvinism

    Thanks,

    Bob

    Reply

  121. Bob,

    Thanks for responding.

    I checked your texts and read your other posts. I still contend the Bible clearly teaches that faith precedes regeneration.

    I’m one of those dumb KJV Extreme Fundamentalist’ so I learn slowly.

    However, if you would be willing, I would like to go back and forth one text at a time. In other words you present a text that you feel regeneration precedes faith and explain why. I’ll then respond with a text showing faith precedes regeneration and why.

    I realize this is your blog and you are not obligated to dialogue with me. You choose who goes first.

    Thanks

    Don

    Reply

    1. Don,

      I don’t really want to start a debate like this. It probably won’t change either of our opinions or be all that productive. It could be just a matter of semantics in some sense, too. If faith is a gift of God, then you can call the giving of the faith “regeneration” (as I do), or you could call it something else (as you probably do). Still it is God’s initiating which precedes our believing. That I think is emphatically clear in Scripture.

      Thanks,

      Bob

      Reply

  122. bob, i appreciated you sharing this spiritual journey with us. i also have been on somewhat of a spiritual journey myself. i agree with much of what you have written and disagree with some. one thing that is glaring and concerns me is w/in your journey you relied on or consulted with/read after alot of people like piper and others, your brother etc. you well pointed out the peculiar problem with fundamentalists being nearly worshipful of leaders and yet turn around and sort of put piper and others on a pedestal. on my spiritual journey, i have also read after others including piper, james white, and many others and have gleaned some understanding in areas where i wasn’t real strong, and yet it seems to me that i didn’t rely quite so much on what others said. i feel that i went more to the source (the bible)and prayed about all these things. He is faithful and just and longsuffering and wonderful and wants to lead us to a fulness in Him, so God is definately on our side in these matters. i have looked into calvinism for years and just cannot for my life get past whosoever will, i have honestly evaluated the claims and have good friends i’ve debated with and by now can fairly easily counter most all calvinistic arguments. mind you i don’t think i’m ready to take on james white! that’s another thing, what a wonderful saint of God white seems to be and i believe is, i think we would get along fabulously, no doubt he loves God and God’s people and his teaching ability is enormous, similarly with john mccarthur. i don’t doubt these men’s sincerity for a minute, but as it relates to calvinism and reformed theology i believe they are sincerely wrong. precious babies going to hell because they weren’t part of the elect! bob all you said about the fundamentalist movement is spot on. i myself had to leave a legalistic, leader worshipping church that i had been a member of for over 20 yrs, because of kjv idolatry and several other reasons, so continue on in your quest. when you read the precious Word of God please don’t read it with piper or anyone else whispering in your ear about what this verse or that one means. read what thus saith the Lord, thats what we can stand on. in Christ, greg

    Reply

  123. Greg,

    You are correct leader worship is wrong, either in fundamental circles or Calvinist. Unfortunatly it happens in both camps.

    You are also correct in stating Calvinism can easily be shown to be wrong with the Bible.

    I’m a little curious though. You stated you left fundamentalism but did not join the Reformed Calvinist camp. Where if you don’t answering did you go?

    Thanks

    Don

    Reply

  124. Don,

    Thanks for asking. I see from alot of reading that folks have many ideas about what fundamentalism is, Bob does a pretty good job defining what he thinks it is. Actually in some ways I still consider myself a fundamentalist. I believe strongly the fundamentals of the faith, salvation by grace through faith, seperation from the world (system) standing strong on the precious and powerful Word of God (and I’m not speaking only about a 17th century,shakesperean translation) the kjv is a fine translation but just have a look at 2 Corinthians 6:11-13, I don’t believe this type of english leads to a great understanding of our Lord’s Word.(this is but one example I could have used hundreds) If it had not been for the idolatry of the kjv, leader worship, and the demand of strict adherence to whatever the pastor’s convictions were I would probably still be there. The pastor mellowed over the years somewhat, but I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard the pantsuits for women sermon, the mixed bathing sermon, the anti-beauty pageant sermon, and the tithing sermon. That is something I don’t see written much about, I think most IBF churches are strong on mandatory tithing (which is not for new testament churches, I believe)

    Where did I go? I had some friends that attended a Southern Baptist Church, so we tried that, and loved it. They have communion on the 1st Sunday of the month, and we were so touched to be told that everyone was welcome to partake as long as they were born again and had accepted the Lord Jesus in their hearts. My wife and I were elated. The old church would only allow members to partake, my wife and I had only been married 5 yrs and she had never technically “joined” the church, which is another topic. I believe church membership is by participation and not by letter or anything else. I don’t think I will ever “officially” join any church. I simply don’t see it in the scripture. If someone can show it to me, maybe they can change my mind. This church was just so gracious in accepting us into their congregation. They preach from the kjv, but their Sunday school classes have books that teach from that has the kjv and another translation side by side, I’ve seen articles by fundies that lambast the Southern Baptist for using these materials, but I never found anything objectionable in them.

    We attented there for about a year and then an old friend of mine started a small church in a shed on his property. It might hold 25 people. My friend had also left an IFB church, I have told him the differnce was that his pastor was sorta militaristic, where my pastor had a sweeter spirit (if that’s possible while condemning women for having pantsuits on and allowing your daughters to be in beauty pageants) he was ordained out of that church and he calls his church a Baptist church, but the Spirit is wonderful at this place and I am anxious to see what the Lord is going to do. He loves his kjv but not like my old pastor, for instance he understands that there are errors, like Easter instead of passover, I am concerned about some of the things he has said about the kjv though and just wrote him a long letter 2 weeks ago about it. He is speaking from ignorance what he has heard and I just encouraged him to stick to things he knows. I just wish everyone out there particularly pastors, don’t talk about things you know nothing about especially translations!

    Now about Calvinism. I respect their views however I couldn’t disagree more strongly with them, and I realize this is a reformed site, and I want to be respectful Bob! It seems that calvinsts, somewhat like catholics rely heavily on tradition. They will quote White, Piper, Calvin of course, Mccarthur and on and on. When I stand on my faih and what I believe I quote Jesus, Paul and so on. Get my point. I don’t rely so much on what men say. I just appreciate so much our Lord coming to this planet to seek and to save that which was lost (me) thank you Lord, and that whosoever will may call upon the Lord for salvation, how He made a way for everyone. The Lord says in His Word that we can accept or reject Him. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?

    Don, you probably didn’t want a novel. I see from some of your posts that it looks like you are a kjv man so I probably didn’t make you very happy with some of my comments. If you keep looking at Bob’s info on the translation matters you will get a great education, he’s done a wonderful job.

    In Christ,
    Greg

    Reply

  125. Greg,

    I am a KJV man. Not to worry I don’t offend easily.

    I trust things work out well at your new church.

    You right this is Bob’s site so I’ll lay off the Calvinism stuff.

    It was good to see that you went to the Bible and prayer before making your decision.

    God Bless,

    Don

    Reply

  126. Hey Bob, Just found your other “Bob’s story,” wasn’t a place to comment so I thought I would do that over here. One thing I’m wondering, do calvinist call upon the Lord to be saved? More specifically did you ever cry out to the Lord Jesus to save you? I read both stories carefully but never found your personal testimony of you calling on the Lord to save you. I’ll never forget how the Precious, Holy Spirit moved on a 6 yr old little boys heart and I called upon the Lord to save me just as the entire new testament teaches. (The Lord has given to everyone a measure of faith)

    I feel alittle odd preaching to you, your education dwarfs mine, but none the less the Word says that there are many that are gonna look right at the Lord and say didn’t we do maricles, cast out devils etc in your name. The Lord looks at them and tells them to depart I never knew you!

    For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. So have you friend.

    In Christ,
    Greg

    After reading your stories I feel alittle odd “preaching” to you, but I just feel compelled to even though your education dwarfs mine. The bible says that if we confess ours sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It would be terrible to have such a wonderful education and to have taught many others then for yourself to miss heaven because of some sort of

    Reply

    1. Greg,

      I called on the Lord as a four year old boy. I also had an experience where I called on him in faith again, thinking that I may not have been genuinely saved previous to this time, so at 22 years I called in faith again.

      I appreciate your words Greg. I certainly don’t just quote authors and follow them blindly. I studied things through in the Bible and prayed through this all as well.

      I’d encourage you to check out some of my posts on Calvinism (use the category drop down in the sidebar to find them, or click the Calvinism tab. Feel free to debate on specific points there, I’m certainly up for studying the word more.

      On the “call” point, most often it is a description of what the believers do. Not a single one-time call only, but a continual calling on God. 1 Cor. 1:2. I do believe that Is. 55 is clear that a call on the Lord for salvation is part of faith. But I disagree that a sinner’s prayer is the usual or necessary means of salvation. I’ve written on that in my blog. Study the historic understanding of Romans 10 and you won’t find it as a magical formula whereby men pray and God obligates himself to save them.

      I appreciate your kind words. Please forgive me for not responding. I had been busy and noticed your comments but hadn’t read through them yet until now. I saw bits and pieces and I wasn’t sure if you were just writing me off or something (as others have done), so I didn’t relish replying.

      Now that I’ve read your words I want to thank you for taking the time to comment. We may not see eye to eye, but I appreciate your respect for the Bible and desire to interact. I don’t consider myself above you by any stretch too.

      In Christ,

      Bob

      Reply

  127. Bob,

    I’m elated that you called upon the Lord for salvation, truly this is the greatest gift ever given to mankind, and all for the asking and accepting.

    I have a good friend and we occasionally “argue” the 5 points of calvinsim, I think he enjoys it as much as I do. But from my perspective and I feel from what the bible clearly teaches, that if he does not call upon and accept God’s free gift of salvation he’ liable to split hell wide open when he dies. I told him after our last debate, I said please do me a favor and call upon the Lord for your salvation, just in case.

    I’m glad you spoke about salvation being a gift, I often do because thats the way the Word of God describes it, but I would like to take your analogy alittle farther. I can call you up on the phone and tell you to bring your family over to my house, and that I have gifts for you all, but until you show up and accept your gifts you do not possess them. I could use hundreds of verses about this gift being for everyone but one of best is 1st John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

    Bob I know already that you have an answer for this and every other verse that I would use, but understand this about yourself, you do really and sincerely believe this reformed theology, I believe that, and since you have turned to it I’m sure you have studied it deeply, so now with all these blogs and other ministry outreaches you are invested in it. In other words it would be difficult if these words I’m typing this evening touched your heart to turn back from your “theology”. I think your other belief system was much closer to the truth regarding salvation than your current one (remember I came out of a similar system) but it appears that you sorta threw out the baby with the bath water.

    If today you will pick up your bible with no preconceived notions and no one whispering in your ear (Calvin, White etc) and see what thus saith the Lord you could never, I don’t believe, come out thinking that God’s plan was to have robots on earth forcing them into worshipping Him, sending precious babies to Hell. God is no respecter of persons, if He will save me He will save anyone. His Word says so. God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. The bible says how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? The answer to this very real question is that we won’t. Jesus Christ came to planet earth to seek and to save that which was lost. In the calvinist way of thinking, I really don’t understand why God would sacrifice His Son, I also don’t send any need for evangelizing anyone, according to your theology they will come whether they want to or not. That is an extremely hard concept for me. Say for instance Hitler was one of the chosen ones and he never wanted anything to do with God or His precious Son Jesus, but because he was pre-selected he was forced into salvation. Now in my theology God’s grace is sufficient even for a sinner such as Hitler, but he would have to repent and call upon the Lord for salvation to be saved. Seems to me to make alot more sense.

    Bob there are many mysteries in God’s Word and many things that I don’t understand but I know nothing of the God of calvinsim, it truly goes against nearly everything that I believe, and study from the Word. How sweet was our Lord to lay down His life for my salvation, I praise Him today for His blessed salvation.

    I feel certain you are saved from reading your posts and by your testimony, how bout doing as I did my calvinist friend and tell folks that you minister to “just in case this calvinism stuff isn’t true how about we call upon the Lord to save us just as the entire new testament tells us to”

    In Christ,

    Greg

    Reply

    1. Greg,

      Again I appreciate your reply. Let me please ask you to read my explanation of the five points of Calvinism (Click on the Calvinism tab, and read everything down to the “What is Reformed Theology” heading). It is very brief and to the point. It gives you why I believe them to be biblical, and it explains that I don’t hold the third point to be as clear as the other four. It explains them from a Scriptural point of view. Please do that and then we can continue this conversation. What you are describing in this most recent post is not what I believe. Read what I believe then we might get somewhere.

      Thanks,

      Bob

      Reply

  128. Bob,

    I do truly understand your beliefs. I had read your explanation of the 5 points before writing my last comments. I even took the time to look up many of the verses you list. Its ironic because most of the verses you use to support your beliefs I use to support mine. I just feel those verses have to be tortured to get them to say what you want them to say. Let’s take your very first reference. Romans 3:10-18 Paul here has pulled some old testament verses mostly from Psalms to make a very simple point that no one is righteous, he goes on in v-20 explaining that no one will be declared righteous by observing the law, its through the law that we become conscious of sin, continuing in v-21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the law and the prophets testify, and now the clincher – v 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. So Bob the way I understand these verses, clearly we are sinners and not at all righteous, but God allows us His righteousness through belief in His Son. To (all) who believe. So while this does teach that we are all sinners or unrighteous or even depraved, he made a way of escape, if you will, if we will simply believe. So you see my problem with calvinism, instead of teaching me that I’m totally depraved and can do nothing about my lost, depraved condition, read just a few more verses and I find the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ that I’m not any type of robot that I have complete free will to accept by simply believing. v-22 is really quite powerful and answers other questions if you will allow it to. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

    I don’t think I’m changing your mind with any of this. I’m a simple man that does study the Word and believes it, I really haven’t found any calvinist doctrine that can’t be systematically taken apart just as has been done above, but I also know that you have answers that will try to rebut the above. Just another point here, I haven’t followed any man to get to this understanding of the scripture, this is just ol Greg setting at the house and studying the Precious Word. Don’t get me wrong I have had a few good bible teachers but always questioned everything they said and would study it out for myself.

    Bob I know that that Jesus Christ died for me, I placed my trust in Him when I was just a little child and he wonderfully and graciously saved me, just as the entire new testament teaches. I could have just as easily rejeceted Him and ended up in hell. The angels rejoiced when I got saved, hey that brings up another point, why do the angels rejoice? They rejoice because I was snatched from the cluthces of Satan. Why would they rejoice if they already knew I was coming, that would be kinda anti-climatic wouldn’t it? I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t even go to the football game if I knew the outcome before the game started and I certainly wouldn’t bother with cheering!

    In Christ,

    Greg

    Reply

  129. Greg,

    Bob has already said he doesn’t want discuss to the Calvinism issue.

    Do you know of any blogs that are willing. It appears you are very interested in discussing the subject. All the Calvinist sites in which I’ve commented on either shut down the thread or simply will not reply. Just wondering if you’ve had any better success? And where if you did?

    Thanks

    Reply

    1. Greg and Don,

      Your comments over here have been hard for me to track because my comment notifier doesn’t work on old posts like this. I want to provide a place to hash out a debate like your wanting on Calvinism so I posted a new post today on the subject where you can feel free to interact. I’m copying Greg’s comment over there and will respond under the new thread.

      Here’s the link: https://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/06/24/debating-calvinism/

      Thanks for understanding,

      Bob

      Reply
  130. Pingback: Debating Calvinism « Fundamentally Reformed

  131. More than one service on Lord’s Day goes back WAY BEFORE 1850’s. The American revivalist tradition adopted Sunday evening services in the 1850’s.
    See this link.

    Reply

    1. Interesting, MD77. Thanks for sharing. I took that from a book I read, but they may have been referencing the evening service due to the oil lamps without realizing that afternoon services were common. I’m sure not all traditions had more than one service but many did. Thanks for clarifying that point.

      ~Bob

      Reply

  132. Thanks to you and your posts. I do consider you an important part of my transition from “fundamentalism” to where I currently stand. When I posted my comments several years ago I did not know the trouble or heartache that lay ahead. This trouble and heartache did not involve leaving my church, but instead involved the more extreme elements leaving our church. What is left isn’t really pretty, We went from a church which was full of young families running in the 100-150 range down to where we average 35-40 members a Sunday. This has been a shrinking process for the church but a growing process for me. Through this process I have been able to be involved in the steering of our ministry away from the not so Biblical IFBx positions. Though we have never officially met, I do consider you a good friend because of your encouragement and leading.

    Reply
  133. Pingback: Noteworthy KJVO conversion stories | Phil's Mind Map

  134. If God has preserved His Word in the English language then He would no longer preserve it in a dead Greek. So the “originals” you are using to correct the kjv would not have His authority. Your train of thought is flawed in that regard, with respect. I have a list of 17 verses where God calls, commands, asks and pleads with sinners to repent, but they refuse in their sovereignly appointed free will. Calvanism is also clearly flawed, respectfully. It appears that your story’s result is one that ends with a stand against certain body’s of Christ, against His Word which He magnified above His name and drawing others away as well. The last state of the man in this story is worse than the first.

    Reply

  135. I recently left my non-denominational church and now attend a Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) but when one my IFB friends found out she tried to convince me to attend her church.

    I went to her church once and it was okay until she saw me with my ESV bible and said it was corrupt. She said that the KJV was God’s true word. After church, we went out to lunch with her youth pastor and he tried to convince me what was wrong with the PCA and why the IFB was the true church.

    He told me that IFB churches like theirs only have the the authority to baptize and they receive that authority from the John the Baptist. That all other churches like the PCA came from the Roman Catholic Church and are phony churches. The KJV bible was true word of God and all other modern English bibles were corrupted. He also said I was not saved and not baptized because the PCA does not have the authority to baptize. When I asked if he knew about the Protestant Reformation and John Calvin he said no but that John Calvin was a heretic.

    I explained to him that the KJV bible is considered by Reformed Christians as a Reformation bible and that other Reformation bibles were used to create the KJV bible. I told him that a majority of the KJV translators were Calvinists.

    He then changed the subject to creation and asked if I believe it was a literal 6 days and I said yes. He then wanted me to watch a video on his laptop computer from IFB creationist named Dr. Kent Hovind. I told him I was familiar with the Kent Hovind and that his degrees were from diploma mills and he was convicted tax cheat. He said I offended him and began to compare Hovind’s arrest and conviction to the arrest Jesus Christ. He told me if I continued to attend the PCA church I would be going to hell and left us very upset.

    I later learned that the IFB church I visited was a Baptist Briders/Landmarkism church. My IFB friend said we could no longer be friends because her youth pastor said I would take her to hell because I attended a phony church.

    Are Baptist Briders a cult?

    Reply

    1. The definition of “cult” can vary. But if you mean a manipulative group with an “insiders-against-outsiders” menatlity, then yes, they could be. And certainly this pastor who met with you could qualify. I don’t see concern for you and a willingness to teach and let people become persuaded there… I would stay away from that group.

      That doesn’t mean the PCA is a perfect church either. Everyone has their own problems, but it sounds like it could be a good place to grow.

      Thanks for sharing your story – sorry I didn’t see your post until now.

      Reply

  136. Interesting positions. I’m a Fuller grad so somethings like KJV only are not really up my ally; I typically say I’m fundamentalist with one Caveat that I was eager to see your view on… but you didn’t get to.

    As a Reformed thinker, I take issue with the view of inerrency as too Catholic. They made the bible like a Quran when Aquinas picked up Averroes. It’s a magic book, and that’s how they justify the “magasterium.”

    I more feel like Calvin that scripture through the Spirit proves inspiration of itself to the believer and is non-sense to the non-believer; moreover, that it is not magic but a record of a God who came in flesh working through fallible people. This wasn’t even the infallibility position of Fuller that made God kinda “write” the important bits.

    For me scripture’s truth lay more in the Spirit that inspires it and it instills in people, and agree with Augustine that the Holy Spirit could so transform a heathen that theoretically he didn’t need it (the goal is Christ not the multiple choice test). And use it as a doctrinal norm because we can see if a Spirit really agrees with that in the early church/ scripture or not.

    I’m no carismatic; I think we do need God to lead the Church and sometimes we try to pull scripture into our attempts to lead him.

    Where do you stand on the issue as a reformed thinker yourself? I think we’ve kinda edited the spirit out and that’s not a safe place to be.

    Reply

    1. Paul,

      Thanks for commenting. Good questions. I wouldn’t say I have arrived on this point completely. I have seen inerrancy become a “god” of sorts, and I sympathize with Dan Wallace who grounds his view of inerrancy in a high Christology.

      I also have encountered a spirit-less approach to Scripture of the sort that divides the testaments and the 66 books, and even sections of those 66 books to be analyzed and scrutinized in a dry scientific way. This is so different than the reverential and “whole-Bible biblical theology” approach of the sort you find in Jonathan Edwards and Matthew Henry.

      I am convicted more and more that the Spirit needs to be present in more of our Bible study too. I’m open on the question of all the spiritual gifts being active in the church today, and feel that we can blind ourselves to the wider work that the Spirit is doing outside the four walls of our own gathering or demonination.

      All that being said, I have tremendous respect for Reformed theology and don’t think it necessarily eliminates the Spirit’s role at all. John Calvin would be a good illustration of someone who gives much more room to the Holy Spirit than many of his theological forbears.

      Blessings in Christ,
      Bob

      Reply

  137. Hi Bob,

    Why do the Independent Fundamental Baptists (who are usually staunch critics of what is commonly regarded as “Lordship salvation”) maintain such legalistic standards? Is it just me, or does that not seem like a theological inconsistency?

    Reply

    1. Jesse,

      Part of it is their conservative holding on to a bygone era, perhaps. Part of it is a quietism, and a performance-based sanctification model. Those against Lordship salvation are often trying to preserve their numbers (easier conversions = more numbers), but it might fit in with their faulty sanctification model too. Salvation is all of grace because sanctification is all of effort. So lots of people are saved (anyone who professes), but not very many stick to the “old paths” and progress in sanctification as much as we do.

      Now, some fundamentalists have no problem with Lordship salvation or that teaching under a different name, and are more consistent with their teaching on sanctification – and just have a high standard from their cultural identity (as a holdover from an earlier less careful fundamentalism).

      These are just loose thoughts and not fully developed. You do bring up a good point. It is contradictory for sure.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      Sorry for the delay in a reply (I’m working through some kinks on my blog lately)…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.