Category: Fundamentalism

General critiques (and discussions) of fundamentalism (IFB or IFBx)

"Regeneration Precedes Faith", a Baptist Belief

~ fundyreformed ~ 25 Comments

Some say “ignorance is bliss”, but in discussions of theology, this is definitely not the case. Especially in fundamentalist Baptist circles, to bring up the topic of Calvinism is always to start a fiery discussion. And one of the chief factors in making this topic so heated and controversial (you could call it emotional) is ignorance.

As a former non-Calvinistic (some would say Arminian) fundamental Baptist, at one time I was quite ignorant concerning Calvinism. And one of the points Calvinists believe which was most repugnant to me was their belief that regeneration precedes faith. Such a doctrine seemed to make faith not essential. It made the human response less important. As a fundamentalist, I prized the “sinner’s prayer” and “altar call” methodology, and everything about this strange teaching about regeneration seemed wrong.

If you had told me then, while I was a non-Calvinist, that Baptists historically have believed in this doctrine, if you had told me my Baptist forbears were almost all Calvinists, I would have been astounded. And I am sure many other fundamental Baptists still would share my amazement. I have even seen some people on one particular fundamentalist forum site claim that the belief that regeneration precedes faith is a 20th Century innovation of “neo-Calvinists” like Piper and Mohler. And surely there are many fundamentalists all too eager to believe that such is the case. (Case in point, the widespread fundamental belief that Charles Spurgeon wasn’t really a Calvinist, and that he didn’t really believe in all 5 points of Calvinism—even though he wrote a booklet defending all 5 points!)

With the above background, let me provide a quote from the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession, one of the earliest Baptist Confessions of Faith in America. I recently stumbled upon this quote, and was delighted with what I found. In no uncertain terms, it declares that the Baptists who developed this Confession, believed that regeneration precedes faith. Let me quote from section 7, “Of Grace in Regeneration”.

We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again (Jn. 3:3, 6-7; 1 Cor. 1:14, Rev. 8:7-9; 21:27); that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind (2 Cor. 5:17; Ez. 36:26; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:28-29; 5:5; 1 Jn. 4:7); that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth (Jn. 3:8; 1:13; Jam. 1:16-18; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 2:13), so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel (1 Pet. 1:22-25; 1 Jn. 5:1; Eph. 4:20-24; Col. 3:9-11); and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life (Eph. 5:9; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:16-23; Eph. 3:14-21; Matt. 3:8-10; 7:20; 1 Jn. 5:4, 18).

If you are wondering what I am seeing here, let me make it simple. The above says that the “fruits” of regeneration are “repentance, and faith, and newness of life”. In other words, regeneration comes first and the result is repentance, faith, and newness of life. Regeneration precedes faith.

Just to prove that this doctrine was historically held by most Baptists does very little in proving that it is a correct and Biblical doctrine, I know. If you would like an explanation and defense of this doctrine, see my attempt in this post.

My 219 Epiphany

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

Have you ever had an epiphany? A moment when the lights come on…almost literally? I’ve had only a few, and one such moment surrounded an important verse in 1 John: chapter 2, verse 19.

Before I explore my epiphany, let me provide some background. As most of you know, I grew up attending strict fundamentalist churches. And while they sure inculcated us with an understanding of what good fundamentalists did or did not do, they were not always so clear on doctrine. “Theology” was almost a bad word. “Seminary” was always castigated by being referred to as a “cemetery”. But this is not to say that no important doctrines were stressed.

We learned the basic truths of the Gospel, and the bigger doctrines of the Bible: the nature of God, the Trinity, the Deity and Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Eternal State, along with a heavy dose of pre-trib eschatology and dispensationalism. Yet oft times the messages were fairly shallow.

In such an environment I remember learning two important doctrinal truths. We as Christians are eternally secure and you can’t work your way to salvation. In my soulwinner’s New Testament I compiled lists of verses proving eternal security and also disproving works salvation, and I did my best to use them. I knew my Assemblies of God relatives were very wrong on these issues, for instance.

In some of the circles we were in growing up, there was an overemphasis on salvation being simply a moment in time when one prayed to be saved. As a teenager, when my family travelled around to raise support to go to Africa as missionaries, I remember encountering several different churches where they would push for multiple “salvations” each time people went out soul-winning. Thankfully, such was not the practice of our church. And I am sure my dad never aimed to produce numbers, for numbers’ sake alone.

In my older teen years, I became fairly familiar with David Cloud’s Way of Life Bible Encyclopedia, and I began educating myself more in the way of doctrine. I learned why Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists were wrong, for instance. And I was further bolstered in the doctrine of eternal security and against the doctrine of works based salvation. And at Bible college, thankfully, I was further taught that a “quick prayerism” model of salvation was wrong. We were taught the importance of repentance, and also warned that many fundamentalists were minimizing its importance.

Yet still in this environment, I did not really have an answer to the scenario of someone who made a seemingly genuine profession of faith, and had stuck around for a while, but then drifted away. Some wouldn’t drift but they’d wilt. Yes preachers would often push for people to examine whether they had truly been saved or not, but somehow this always came across as making sure you had “said the right words” or were “sincere enough” when you initially “got saved”. Since my profession of faith happened when I was 4 years old, I was often trying to remember what exactly occurred on that day, to be sure it was a genuine profession.

This issue, of false professions of faith, was not really discussed much, that I remember. As I learned more about repentance, I found myself spending lots of time in my gospel presentations making sure everything was clear and that the person knew about everything I could think of before I led them in the sinner’s prayer. I came to eventually stop using the sinner’s prayer and just ask the person to pray on their own, too.

Something else, however, went with the environment I was in to stilt my thinking. It was assumed that there would be many “nominal” Christians. We were always encouraged to press on and become a “super” Christian, of sorts. No one really connected spiritual growth with genuine salvation. It was more or less connected with will power and character. We were encouraged to “just do it”. To do whatever it takes to get up early and be in the Word. And at times it was easy to get burned out as I strived to make myself do the things I felt I should.

Then we moved to California and were introduced to a ministry which prized expositional preaching. This was a completely new thing to both of us. And as we were fed, something kept coming up in the messages. Scripture assumed that true Christians would behave like true Christians. Scripture assumed that if conversion was genuine, then growth was inevitable. And then one day, the pastor pointed us to 1 John 2:19.

The light came on. I had an epiphany, and I began then to understand some things which eventually moved me to affirm Calvinism’s doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints”.

_____________________

Sorry to do this to you, but you’ll have to stay tuned until next time for the rest of the story. Tomorrow, hopefully, we will look at what 1 John 2:19 says and how it reshaped my thinking. I am expecting to finish this tomorrow, but it may take one more installment. We’ll see. Go to Part 2.

Calling all Critics…

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

So, are you a critic? Or are you more than a critic. Tom Pryde wrote an excellent piece in which he explores how critics often do noone any  good. They just create a “culture of criticism”. He challenges us to do more than just critique, but to reform and act.

As a “reforming” blogger myself, I admit it is very easy to criticize and very hard to act and reform. It can be fun to argue and easy to ignore or even despise/belittle  opponents, but very hard to build and help people. So I needed this fresh reminder to have a Christian attitude when blogging.

Many of my readers are those who see things that need fixing in fundamentalism. I challenge you to read Tom’s post and pick up a hammer rather than just telling all the foreman what to do. This is a post worth marking well.  

So here is the link to Tom’s post:  “NeoFundamentalist, Remonstrans, and the Culture of Criticism“. And to get you more excited about it, let me post Seeker’s 6 point synthesis of Tom’s post. (You’ll want to read Seeker’s post too as it adds to Tom’s.)

  1. [Don’t assume] an incredulous posture.
  2. Constructive criticism comes alongside,  [destructive criticism]  aims to alienate.
  3. Being critical attracts mostly embittered, critical people.
  4. Be an example and a reformer, not a critic.
  5. How should we handle our critics?
  6. We must have a bias for action, not for criticism.

[words in brackets above  are my slight edits to Seeker’s points]

Like Hearts

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

Just a quick post here. This week in an exchange of emails with one of my readers, a phrase was brought up that has stuck with me. The gentleman mentioned that so many people strive for “like-mindedness” but what is most important is “like-heartedness“.

I tend to agree. Certainly if we are like-minded we can have more cooperation and greater fellowship, with each other. But there are many issues about which we will never be totally like-minded with anyone! But we can be like-hearted.

We can agree to hold to different positions on lesser issues and yet still acknowledge that we share a similar heartbeat. And if our hearts are pointed in the same direction, we should be able to have meaningful fellowship, even if our heads get in the way at times.

Since starting this blog, I have encountered many different people. And I have found that even when I differ with some on mind-issues, I can appreciate that their heart is pointed in the right direction. Early on I found that I needed to tone down my posts and acknowledge that there are many fundamentalists who are like-hearted with me. And many from even the more “hyper” circles have right hearts.

Scripture asks us and demands us to maintain the unity of the Spirit with fellow believers. We should yearn for such unity and look for the good hearts in people, even when our minds might be contradictory. Hopefully as fellowship continues a greater like-mindedness will develop. But ultimately it isn’t important if you agree with me, or if I approve of your distinct positions on any number of issues. What matters is that God approves of our hearts, and that we don’t disown and malign fellow believers.

By all means stand for truth. And defend your positions. (You know I will!) But please listen for the heart of those whom you may be quick to condemn. Let us all  strive for like-heartedness! [Oh, and take a moment and look up the verses supporting my motto  in the top right sidebar]

Bobspotted Blogroll: January 13, 2007

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

Well, I have been exceptionally busy this week and have not kept up on the blogosphere (or contributed to it) as much as I’d like. So I thought I’d put together a good blogroll for you all. And in truth, there really were a lot of good posts out there to highlight. Some of these, particularly the last two, I could devote whole posts to, but won’t due to time constratints.

Expositional Preaching

  • Joe at the Big Orange Truck recounts the benefits of his first full year of expositional preaching.

    • …I have learned more Bible in one year of expositional sermon preparation than I did in 4 years of Bible college….

The Bus Ministry

  • Mike Hess of Extreme Fundamental Makeover wrote an interesting piece entitled “Bowing at the Altar of our Methodologies“.

    • …we have become dependent and downright addicted to particular methodologies in fundamentalism. If you don’t believe me, then I challenge you to go into your average IFBx church and propose to them that it may NOT be a good idea for them to have a bus ministry…. To say that every church should have a bus ministry is like saying every church should have a gymnasium or Christian school. It simply does not fit into the framework of every church.

Fundamentalism Happenings

  • Dan Burrell gave a list of the Top 10 Fundamentalist Stories of 2006 over at Sharper Iron. It is a good read for sure, and you might want to check out his picks for the top 10 stories in Evangelicalism too. From his list of Fundamentalist stories, two in particular grabbed my attention:
    • The first is of more examples of strange doctrine coming from First Baptist of Hammond, IN. In fact, it seems more like blasphemy than just “strange”, as Jack Schaap in a book on marriage claims that the believer has “spiritual sex” with Christ through communion. Just to be clear, Dan provides solid documentation for these claims.
    • Then, Dan highlights the move among fundamentalists to work closely with the Southern Baptist Convention. His own church hosted the first meeting of the International Baptist Network, last year, which saw representatives from independent groups as well as the SBC meeting together. He also mentions a couple churches which have officially joined their local Southern Baptist organizations, while keeping ties with independents as well. One of those churches happens to be one I have visited before: Decatur Baptist Church in Decatur, AL. I, for one, think such moves toward fellowship between independents and the SBC is a great thing. Imagine many of the different varieties of Baptist working together to advance the cause of Christ! Hey, this might be more than just a dream.

Calvinist-Arminian Debates in Perspective

  • Apparently, the Pyromaniacs has been involved in a disagreement involving Calvinism, lately. It involves an evangelistic video and some Calvinist criticisms of it. Of course I’m sure the whole Calvinist-Arminian debate has entered into the fray, too. To be honest, I haven’t read the debate enough to take sides, but I wanted to point out a great post that Dan Phillips gave in the midst of the debate. He quotes an exchange between the Calvinist Charles Simeon and the Arminian John Wesley. That exchange is well worth a brief read, as it puts the whole Calvinist-Arminian debate in its proper perspective.

Movies and More

  • If you have been following Sharper Iron’s posts on whether movies are an acceptable medium for Christians or not, you’ll already have seen this. But the rest of you may be interested. Kevin Bauder, whose opinion is always worth reading, is giving a series of posts on the nature of theater or film and its use among Christians. The latest post again stresses that for 1900 years the church largely rejected the medium, and so we would do well to learn why. I don’t disagree that it would be important to know why, and so I am looking forward to future installments of the series. But I tend to agree more with Chuck Hervas, whose recent reply to Bauder’s third article was posted on Sharper Iron’s front page.
  • My friend John Chitty, is also a movie enthusiast, and he directs our attention to the upcoming movie on William Wilberforce’s life. He also points out where to get a free pdf file of John Newton’s Olney Hymns.

Anyone Seen the Big Cheese?

  • Tom Pryde of NeoFundamentalist has a great post entitled “Fire the Big Cheese“. That post details how some leaders, fundamentalist or otherwise, abuse their leadership and are like a big stinking hunk of limberger cheese. (Okay the nasal slam was my innovation.) He offers some good advice in both spotting and dealing with such individuals.

Destructive Theology

  • William Dudding of The Reforming Baptist has a stinging post entitled deductive theology. He does an excellent job of showing how one’s theology influences their philosophy which then affects their methodology and ultimately the end result. He is right on in describing this connection. Unfortunatley, however, he is just as right in describing a typical scenario in many IFB or IFBx churches. And it all starts with man-centered theology. You have to read his post, but let me quote a few sentences to convince you to go over and read it.

    • The philosophy behind the music is that they don’t want to be like the world, so they adopt a style of music that isn’t popular anymore, they are against immorality, so they put lot’s of restrictions on people to keep them from getting close to being immoral…however, the weak ones can’t follow the rules and they fall and ruin their lives; people drop off the bandwagon, so they preach faithfulness and put guilt on people for missing a service. New people seem to come and go like a revolving door because they push a hard soul winning and bus ministry agenda that keeps the numbers up, yet the majority of them don’t stick around for any substantial length of time. Why does this church think this way and do these things?

Answering KJV Only Accusations

  • I hope to post more on the KJV issue in months to come, and I hope to do more work on my KJV Only Debate Resource Center. But I recently read three great articles on the topic from Fred Butler at Hip and Thigh. Fred has an 11 part series dealing with the primary arguments for KJV Onlyism, as well as several other good articles on the subject. You can read all his stuff on the KJV issue here. The articles I want to point you to, however, are from his answering a list of 33 questions from a KJV Onlyist: questions that modern Bible version (MBV) people are supposedly afraid to answer. In all reality the questions are more like baseless accusations than honest questions, yet Fred does a great job treating each one. He does so in three articles under the heading “Answers that KJV onlyists are afraid you will provide” [part 1, 2, and 3]. A sentence (from part 2) that highlights a point I have tried to make before myself, follows:

    • The Received Text was used, not because it was considered orthodox and the pure Word of God over other rival texts, but because it was the only one really accessible to the general public for use in translating.