Author: Bob Hayton

I am a graduate of a conservative independent fundamental Bapist college who has discovered new life in Reformed Theology. This blog is where I chronicle my journey out of extreme fundamentalism (IFBx) while discussing the shortfalls of fundamentalism and the strengths of Calvinism. I'm under no illusion that I might transform fundamentalism, but I hope to share my struggles and discoveries with others who might benefit from my journey.

“Warfare in the Old Testament: The Organization, Weapons, and Tactics of Ancient Near Eastern Armies” by Boyd Seevers

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Warfare in the Old Testament by Boyd SeeversBook Details:
  • Author: Boyd Seevers
  • Category: Biblical Studies
  • Book Publisher: Kregel Academic (2013)
  • Page Count: 320
  • Format: hardcover
  • ISBN: 9780825436550
  • List Price: $34.99
  • Rating: Recommended

Review:
Most of us experience warfare only through classic “war movies” or by means of game like Risk. Oh, but then there are the stories in Sunday School too! We hear of David and Goliath, the conquest of Canaan, and the sack of Jerusalem. In truth, tales of war are foreign to our very makeup. If we haven’t served in the armed forces, we cannot really appreciate all that goes into fighiting for one’s land and the sacrifice and honor it brings.

Warfare was a fact of life in the ancient Near East (ANE), and Bible characters, like everyone else, were affected by the ebb and flow of the seasons, and “the time when kings go out to battle” (2 Sam. 11:1). The Bible is written in this context of ANE warfare and assumes we know what chariots and javelins are, and why it is that a people would want a king to “go out before us and fight our battles” (1 Sam. 8:20). (Chariots, by the way, were less like tanks and more like mobile platforms for archers.)

Boyd Seevers gives us a tool in understanding the concept of war in ANE history with his new book Warfare in the Old Testament: The Organization, Weapons, and Tactics of Ancient Near Eastern Armies. In this accessible and attractive volume, he itemizes the implements and tools for war as found in the dominant cultures represented in the Old Testament: Philistia, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and of course, Israel.

Strategy, history, numbers and weapons, boats and chariots, siege engines, and armor — all these and more are described in the detail a bible geek or armchair archaeologist-historian will love. Maps, drawings, diagrams and sketches fill the pages like a technical manual. Interesting facts are highlighted, like the difficulties with the Hebrew number system, the fact that Akkadian was a lingua franca as far back as the fourteenth century BC, and Persia’s invention of the first true “pony express.”

Seevers doesn’t just present dry historical facts ad nauseum, however. He offers fictional vignettes of typical soldiers on a campaign before each discussion of the military history of a given culture. This draws the reader in and adds the tool of imagination which helps flesh out the incomplete picture that too often emerges after the archaeological digs are done sifting through what remains we have left. His style is inviting, even if at times his rigid arrangement of the material comes off somewhat wooden.

This book will help situate the student of OT history, and will make a good addition to any scholar’s library. It may interest the casual reader, but it may not. The laser focus of the material will not appeal to everyone, but for those who are interested, Seevers leaves few stones unturned.

About the Author:
Boyd Seevers (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of Old Testament studies at the University of Northwestern St. Paul. He is an expert on ancient warfare and has participated in numerous archaeological excavations in Israel. He lived in Israel for eight years, during which time he was a visiting professor at Jerusalem University College. He has written numerous articles for the Baker Illustrated BIble Dictionary and was the author of “Joshua” and “Daniel” in What the Old Testament Authors Really Cared About.

Where to Buy:
  • Amazon
  • ChristianBook.com
  • direct from Kregel

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Publications. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

“IFBx”: A Definition

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Recently the question came up in a discussion group I’m a member in, as to what the term “IFBx” stands for. Defining that term is an interesting exercise and worthy of its own post.

I first heard the term from Ryan DeBarr, who was a regular at the FFF (Fighting Fundamentalist Forums) back in the day, and who had a blog back in the mid 2000’s. It stands for “Independent Fundamental Baptist extreme” or extreme IFB. I can’t remember all the details surrounding the use of the term, and I’m sure everyone uses it differently.

In my case, very soon after abandoning the IFB movement altogether, I came to realize that I was overstating things on my blog. I clarified my critique of fundamentalism to hone in on the IFBx part of fundamentalism more particularly. I have maintained since then (early 2006) that I do not believe everyone should abandon the IFB movement wholesale. There are healthy IFB churches and a positive trajectory to be found in many branches of the movement. Furthermore, Fundamentalism has much to teach Evangelicalism about the weightiness of truth and the importance of holiness. Far too often such matters are brushed off as “legalistic” without a second thought. That being said, there is much that is not healthy in IFB churches and particularly among those I would consider extreme fundamentalists.

To help flesh out more fully what I mean, I’m going to string together two excerpts from earlier posts that I think still capture the heart of what I believe should be understood by the term “IFBx”:

Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.

Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining…

[excerpted from “Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism“]

The [branch of] fundamentalism I came from is often termed IFBx (extreme fundamentalism). I think the definition fits, although I tend to think an asterisk is called for. My alma mater, for instance, is not into the blatant man worship and ultra traditionalism which permeates those who rightfully own the IFBx label. They find Scriptural reasons (using sound hermeneutical methods, for the most part) for the standards and positions they adhere to. In fact, I am thankful for the emphasis on Scripture and a serious devotion to Christ that I inherited from this branch of fundamentalism.

It is the positions they hold and how tenaciously they hold them, which makes that branch of fundamentalism extreme. Some of the positions they hold, such as KJV onlyism and the teaching that women should not wear pants are extreme in the sense that there is so little clear teaching in Scripture which demands these positions. The few verses claimed to support them have other obvious interpretations available. Yet only one interpretation is allowed. Other positions which may have a larger Scriptural support, are held in such a way as to say that only their own interpretation is correct. If one is not pre-trib rapture, or if they hold to less than conservative music style, or if they hold to any form of Calvinism, they are not only wrong, but worthy of censure and separation. The broader movement of fundamentalism might limit fellowship to some degree over these issues, but they do not “write off” those who hold differing views to the extreme degree that IFBx fundamentalists do.

A further consideration here comes with regard to the extreme emphasis on loyalty and allegiance to personalities. IFBx fundamentalists view any departure from their list of required positions as compromise and disloyalty. This sector of fundamentalism also places an undue emphasis on authority. Any questioning of a position, however sincere and non threatening, is viewed as an attack and a threat to the leader’s ministry. Such a situation begs a complicit adherence to the authority’s list of do’s and don’ts and facilitates an unhealthy separation of external conformity and internal heart worship. With such a stress on outward conformity, it is easy to seek to gain acceptance by men while neglecting the matters of the heart. While the particular circles of fundamentalism I came from were not as extreme in this regard as other IFBx groups, they still hold an undue emphasis on loyalty and conformity, which again puts them as IFBx* in my book.

Within this branch of fundamentalism, there is no liberty to contemplate changing one’s positon on a point or two. Any capitulation from any small point is seen as a departure from fundamentalism en toto, and in reality a departure from the faith! Thus, any break from this branch of fundamentalism (at least a break made by someone who was whole-heartedly embracing all of the points to begin with) is necessarily very dramatic and often final. It also results in much pain in the one leaving. When one emerges from extreme fundamentalism, they do so with a lot of disorientation and a feeling that they will never fit in anywhere ever again! More than doctrinal positions and standards are left behind, one’s very identity is left behind. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to leaving a cult.

[excerpted from “A New and Improved ‘About This Blog’“]

Feel free to chime in and give your thoughts on what IFBx should or shouldn’t mean. Where are you in your assessment of the IFB movement, and more importantly, in your journey of faith?

G.K. Beale on Living “In the Likeness of His Resurrection”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

As we think on Christ’s resurrection, this Easter, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that we are not mere bystanders, watching Christ’s resurrection. We are not just waiting to be resurrected only in the future. Christ’s resurrection does and should have a big impact in our lives now.

G.K. Beale in his massive New Testament biblical theology, argues that resurrection is perhaps the key theme in the New Testament. Resurrection involves a new-creation, and is simultaneous with Christ’s kingdom. His kingdom brings new creation, undoing the sin and brokenness of our lives and all of this world we live in. Believers have begun to experience new creation life and kingdom living, but one day we will experience it far more fully than now — physically as well as spiritually — in the ultimate New Kingdom of Christ Jesus.

Let me quote Beale on the importance the Resurrection should have for Christian living:

In Romans, Christ’s resurrection is sometimes viewed as the basis for believers’ resurrection existence that begins in this life (6:4-5, 8-9, which could be taken to indicate the saints’ future resurrection). That present resurrection existence is in mind is apparent, since in 6:11, 13 Paul understands the references in 6:4-10 to form the basis for concluding that believers presently should be “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11) and should “present [themselves] to God as those alive from the dead” (6:13).

Consequently, Paul’s affirmation of believers’ possession of “eternal life” (6:22-23) is likely an already-not yet reality. Hence, saints are not merely like resurrected beings; rather, they actually have begun to experience the end-time resurrection that Christ experienced because they are identified with him by faith…

That [Paul] intends to refer to literal resurrection is apparent from observing that he parallels it with being in “the likeness of his death” in 6:5a, which refers to real identification with his death, such that “our old man was crucified with Him” (6:6) and believers have really “died” (6:7-8). Paul does not refer to identification with Christ’s death in a metaphorical manner. So likewise believers are in the “likeness” of Christ’s resurrection because they actually have begun to be identified with it and participate in it…

If saints are only like Christ’s resurrection, then Paul’s exhortation to them to live as resurrected beings is emptied of its force: if Christians have begun to be end-time resurrected creatures, then they have resurrection power not to “let sin reign in [their mortal bodies]… but present [themselves] to God as those alive from the dead” (6:12-13).

The relation of the “indicative” to the “imperative” in Paul’s writings has been an issue of some debate. But if the above is a correct analysis of the saints’ resurrection life, then the basis of Paul issuing commands to people is that such people have the ability to obey the commands because they have been raised from the dead, are regenerated, and are new creatures who have the power to obey. In fact, in 6:4 Paul refers to this resurrection life with new-creational language: “newness [kainotes] of life” ( or “new life”), a cognate of the word kainos found in 2 Cor. 5:17: Gal. 6:15 in the well-known inaugurated eschatological expression “new creation,” where in both cases it refers to resurrection life….

Thus, Paul does not give commands to live righteously to those outside the community of faith. This is because they do not have this power of the inbreaking age of the new creation, but are still part of the old age (the “old man” [6:6]), in which they are dominated by sin, Satan, and the influence of the world (so Eph. 2:1-3).

Not taking seriously enough the resurrection language applied to the Christian’s present experience to designate real reschatological resurrection existence, albeit on the spiritual level, has unintentionally eviscerated the ethical power of church teaching and preaching, since Christians must be aware that they presently have resurrection power to please and obey God. This is why in Rom. 6 and elsewhere Paul employs Christ’s latter-day resurrection as the basis for believers’ resurrection identity and for his exhortation that they rule over sin. (G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, [Baker Academic, 2011], p. 250-251)

Three Historic Approaches to Separation

~ Bob Hayton

Just wanted to call your attention to Justin Taylor’s brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that he recently shared on his blog. A key section in this brief history, which focuses on the years 1920 through 1962, is Taylor’s thoughts about “three approaches to separation.”

Three Approaches to Separatism

Emerging from this 1957 division, and continuing through the intra-denominational controversies of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention into the 1980s, there was conservative agreement that personal holiness was a necessity and that separation from moral sin was required. But beneath this general principle, there were three overlapping approaches to separation within fundamentalism.

First, there were denominational reformers who believed they should stay within a denomination and fight for its doctrinal and moral purity.

Second, there were denominational separatists who believed that faithful Christians should extricate themselves from denominations and professing Christians influenced by modernism and therefore apostasy.

Third, there were ecclesiastical separatists who were also secondary separationists, refusing to have fellowship with fellow conservative dissenters who did not withdraw from apostate denominations.

What must be noted here, and is often overlooked in discussions of fundamentalism, is that the original fundamentalists were in categories 1, and sometimes 2. But category 3 was largely the result of post-1957 fundamentalism and represents a new phase of development. (Read Taylor’s whole article)

I agree that historically, the third viewpoint on separation gradually grew over time. What fundamentalist critics of John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and others fail to note, is that often these conservative evnagelical leaders have a lot in common with historic fundamentalists who held to the first approacth to separation. The conservative turnaround of the SBC is testament to the fact that the second and third approaches to separation are not always necessary.