Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

Phil Johnson on Standing Firm

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

…And let me add this: if you do abandon Arminianism and become a Calvinist; if you leave one eschatalogical position and take up another one; if you undergo any major doctrinal shift””don’t suddenly act like that one point of doctrine is more important than all others. Don’t blog or talk about it constantly to the exclusion of everything else. Spend some time settling into your new convictions before you pretend to have expertise you frankly haven’t had time to develop.

I think the tendency of fresh Calvinists to become cocky and obsessive about the fine points of predestination is one of the things that makes Calvinism most odious to non-Calvinists. Don’t do that. It’s not a sign of maturity, and you’re not truly steadfast in the faith unless you are truly mature…. (from Phil Johnson’s recent post: “Stand Firm“)

This fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in theology, is always open to the pendulum swing and a general unstable perspective on all things. This tendency is something to be aware of and to guard against.

Does this mean we should all have a stable eschatology or all points figured out on every doctrinal position? Does it mean we should pontificate and criticize others not exactly like us? No. We shouldn’t be tossed by the wind, but neither should we root ourselves in something that isn’t connected to solid ground.

For those who are still developing in their pursuit of a stable and correct theology. Don’t rush things. Take your time. Be slow to talk and aim for wisdom. Take Phil’s advice. Study your Bible first, books second, and blogs last.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of not heeding this advice in the past. But by God’s grace, I’ve become settled on many things. And I’m not afraid to say when I’m not! May God continue to shape and mold us all.

Seriously, check out Phil’s article, it will be worth the read, and let me know what you think.

Doctrinal Disagreements (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue

~ Bob Hayton ~ 13 Comments

I just finished listening to the audio from the recent Standpoint Conference held at Southeast Valley Baptist Church in Gilbert, Arizona this past month. The conference was geared toward “young fundamentalists” and centered on Biblical fellowship (koinonia). Several of the messages were very good, and I plan to share some of my thoughts and commentary in the coming weeks.

The speaker for the last session was Mike Durning (a fellow ShaperIron member). His topic was: “How can Calvinists and not-so-Calvinists have Koinonia?” The message is worth listening to, as he hits on some important issues, particularly with relation to how bitter the Calvinism debate can get.

Toward the end of his message, however, he really hit the nail home. After mentioning that in the Bible church he pastors, at one time both a 5 point Calvinist and a very Arminian-leaning fellow were on the elder board together, he moved on to spell out some thoughts I find very important. I’m sharing my attempt at transcribing this section of the audio. I’ll give you the excerpt and encourage you to get the audio (it’s free) and listen to the whole thing.

Our church has been home to charismatics before. We politely insist that they not speak or pray in their imagined heavenly language. If they despair at someone for going to a doctor or, you know, they try to say that all sickness is of the devil, then we instruct them and if necessary we’d ask them to leave. But why close the door to helping someone grow in their understanding of Scripture?

We even had a charismatic on our board of deacons before, which is saying something because I preach against charismaticism a whole lot more then I would ever touch the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. What’s wrong with them being with us, though? They worship with us, they hear the Word, why cut them off?

Our church has been home to historic a-mil guys, pre-trib pre-mil guys and everything in between. Our church has been home to dispensationalists and covenant theologians. Our church is home to both cessationists and some soft-cessationists, a few non-cessationists.

Do we have a taught position? Sure. And some of these things I teach far more firmly then I teach the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. But those who truly know Christ and show up are welcome. And they’re our brothers and sisters.

Listen guys, once we know we’re dealing with believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. Did you catch that? If we know they’re believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. That’s the mindset.

You don’t have to march in lock-step with me to worship at my side. You don’t have to cow-tow to my view point to sit in my pew. You don’t have to agree with all things that I believe in order to work with me.

Is there a standard? Sure. Is unity based on a core of doctrine and practice? Sure. But to insist on 100% conformity to my viewpoint in order to fellowship, is arrogance — not separatism.

So, what do you think? I for one, think he is absolutely correct (when it comes to secondary matters). Let me know if you agree or disagree.

Why 1611 Makes All the Difference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Over at my team King James Only debate blog, Damien Garofalo has an excellent post up that’s well worth your time. The picture above captures the essence of it. Pre-1611 Bibles vary from the KJV as much as modern versions do. But to most KJV Onlyists, that’s okay. The modern versions are to be rejected but many pre-1611 Bibles are just fine because they are in the lineage of “Good Bibles” that eventually produced the 1611 gem, the King James Version.

Here’s a snippet from the post, but I encourage you to go read the whole thing.

…I’m not sure if this sort of view has been pointed out before, but I refer to the “Trail of Blood View of Preservation” as basically the one that I was taught in Bible college. We can also call this the “It’s There Somewhere View.” Obviously, I get the label from J. M. Carroll’s Book, The Trail of Blood, which basically serves as an end-all textbook (though it’s paper-thin) to the question of Baptist origins for many independent Baptists. The basic premise is that independent Baptists like the groups of the 20th century can be found all throughout history if you just look hard enough (and revise along the way). Heretical groups like the Cathari along with questionable groups like the Donatists and Albigenses are listed as forerunners of modern day independent Baptist churches. Though some of them may not have believed the deity of the Lord Jesus, they were opposed to the state church or even practiced anabaptism, so they were included in the lineage. When a reconsideration is brought up against this view, one is quickly reminded that the “winners write the history books” and we must “take by faith” that these groups were all Baptists.

Likewise, the Trial of Blood view of preservation does the same thing. Since the premise of this view is based on biblical passages of preservation, and the conclusion of this view is that the preserved words are in the King James Version of 1611, then logically there must be a version that is just as much the Word of God as the KJV for Christians throughout the ages. However, it doesn’t have to be mainstream. It doesn’t have to be the most widely read or known. It simple has to exist. So it’s not the Vulgate, though the majority of Christians only knew of it for 1100 years. But less popular Bibles like the Italic, Old Latin, the Peshitta, and the Waldensen Bible make the list. Because some psuedo-scholars point out possibly Byzantine readings in these older versions, the Trail of Blood adherents believe they fulfill the requirements for a pre-1611 KJV. Where was the Word of God before 1611? Why, the Italic version of course! It is mainly this view that I am calling into question in this post.

The fact is that these versions do not fully agree with the King James. And this is the double standard. How can we approve of pre-1611 Bibles even though they’re different than the KJV, but whole-heartedly reject modern versions for their differences? In all likelihood, many modern versions are closer to the KJV than any of the Bibles listed on the “good” tree. The Peshitta, for example, omitted entire books from its NT cannon. This means the NIV, ESV, NET Bible and others are closer to the KJV than the Peshitta. Yet, the Peshitta enjoys a place on the “good line of Bibles” in many a King James Only work….

My Explanation of “The Five Points of Calvinism”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 19 Comments

For a while now, I’ve wanted to do a series on the five points of Calvinism, or at least, in my own words, answer the question: “What is Calvinism?” The wait is over, and my brief (for me) explanation of Calvinism is ready. You can check it out at my Calvinism page, but I want to share it here for your benefit as well.

———————–

This is my own work on the five points here. I recommend John Piper’s clear and concise booklet as the best explanation of Calvinism to those who are ignorant of what Calvinism is and what it teaches. His treatment is respectful and very Biblical, it is available online here.

When it comes to Calvinism I think of it as a description of what happens “behind the scenes” with respect to our salvation. We are confronted with the gospel and asked to believe, we feel conviction and then relief when we trust Christ. Biblically, however, what happened in our heart was more than us independently deciding what we would do with the gospel. I have found that the more we know of what Scripture teaches about the inner workings of salvation, the greater will be our respect and regard for the One who saved us. All of this should tend toward a greater degree of personal worship, a sincere humility, and more glory to God, not a higher degree of pride or party spirit.

T – stands for Total Depravity. This means that every aspect of man is tainted by sin. No one is as evil as they can be, but evil affects every part of our being – mind, will, heart, etc. We do not seek after God, naturally. And apart from God’s initiative, we cannot please God. In fact, we are enslaved by the devil and are lost, blinded to the truth of the gospel and in need of God to mercifully reach down and intervene. (Rom. 3:10-18, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:3-6; 2 Tim. 2:24-26)

U – stands for Unconditional Election. Since we are helpless and totally depraved, we need God to intervene. God doesn’t sit on the sidelines and see who is worthy of being chosen, God chooses. And because of His choice, the “elect” live lives worthy of their calling. Scripture is quite emphatic that neither our belief nor our works fit us for being elected but rather, flow from our election. (Acts 13:48; John 6:44, 6:64-65; 10:26; Eph. 1:3-6; 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13)

L – stands for Limited Atonement. The choice of “limited atonement” to fit with the TULIP acronym is unfortunate. Actually TULIP doesn’t date back before 1900, and “limited atonement” wasn’t widely used much before then. “Particular redemption” or “definite atonement” give the sense better. Jesus’ death is of infinite value and is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect only. Jesus didn’t just make salvation possible (if “activated” by one’s own contribution of faith). He actually redeemed and saved a people through His death. These are the sheep for whom He died and the church whom He purchased with His blood and the bride whom He died for. He died in some different sense for these than He did for those He knew would reject His atoning sacrifice. He actually bore their real punishment and substituted on their behalf in a real way — He made true propitiation for these. (John 10:11 compared to 10:26; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:9-11)

*It should also be noted that there have historically been varying positions regarding this point among Calvinists. All Calvinists hold that Christ died for everyone in a general sense and for the elect in a specific sense (1 Tim. 4:10). Some take this to mean the typical understanding of “L” must be flawed and so they call themselves 4 point Calvinists, others take this as a “multiple intentions” view that in the atonement, God had more than one purpose. The majority today hold that God’s purpose in the atonement was the saving of the elect, other benefits such as common grace extend to all as an extension of what Jesus did on the cross, but the cross-work was not performed on the behalf of all, but only for the elect. (This does not mean we should not preach to all, since we have no way of knowing who the elect are. Hyper-Calvinists are the ones who do not preach the gospel indiscriminately to all, and they do not speak for Calvinists in this extreme and errant practice.)

I – stands for Irresistible Grace. This point does not mean no one can resist God’s grace. People do resist. But for all who have been elected, God will overcome their resistance and graciously save them. This captures the idea of regeneration preceding faith. Calvinists believe faith flows from a heart that has been regenerated. A dead heart can’t believe. Faith is the sign of what happened behind the scenes in the internal workings of the heart. So while it may look like faith causes the new birth from our perspective, it actually is the new birth which evidences itself in faith. (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)

P – stands for Perseverance of the Saints. This means more than the common understanding of the eternal security of the believer. God preserves all the elect so that not one of them is finally lost, but He also so works in them that they persevere in their faith. When they fall, they aren’t utterly destroyed, they get back up. They bear fruit and have good works which testify to the genuineness of their professed faith. For those who fail to persevere, we are not the ultimate judge God is. But we should exhort one another daily to “fight the good fight of faith”. When understood properly, this point allows believers to take seriously the many warning passages and “if” statements in Scripture. It also gives us confidence to trust that “He who began a good work in [us], will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ”. (Phil. 1:6; 1 Cor. 15:2; John 10:28; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Heb. 3:12-14, 6:11-12, 10:23-25, 12:14; Col. 1:21-23; Matt. 3:8-10, 7:15-23;)

——————-

I’m open to critique and feedback on this; so please use the comments to let me know what you think. We can have a charitable debate on the topic too, if you’d like.

News Flash: Tune in to an Interview of Bob Hayton on the Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Broadcast with Chris Arnzen

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Interview Details: Live
call-in radio broadcast
Date: Monday 3/8/10
Time: 6-7pm EST / 5-6pm CST
Host: Chris Arnzen
Interviewee: Bob Hayton
Subject: Reforming
Fundamentalism through
Reformed Theology
Station: WNYG-1440 AM
On-Line: www.rcnam.com
& click “Long Island 1440 AM”

 

I’ll be LIVE on the air with Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron radio, on Monday 3/8 at 6pm EST / 5pm CST. Here is the teaser that Chris is sending out about the interview. Please tune in and feel free to call in with your questions or comments.

Bob Hayton, founder of Fundamentally Reformed (see www.FundamentallyReformed.com), will address the theme: “Reforming Fundamentalism Through Reformed Theology”.

Bob is a former Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB), who now embraces Reformed Theology. He blogs to: 1) spread a passion for Jesus Christ, 2) help people harmed by extreme fundamentalism, 3) encite wider reform in fundamentalism & beyond, and 4) defend his theological positions. Bob also operates the “King James Only?” blog spot, the King James Only Research Center web site and other helpful blog spots and web sites.

According to our guest, Bob Hayton, “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… 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…”

Tune or log into this live, controversial, call-in broadcast and learn how Bob Hayton discovered and made the journey to embrace Reformed Theology, the *truly* old “Old Time Religion”.

To call in with questions, dial 631-482-8300. You can listen live to the broadcast at www.rcnam.com [you will have to click “Long Island 1440 AM”]. And the audio file will be freely available soon at sharpens.org.