Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

How Should Fundamentalists View Conservative Evangelicals? Kevin Bauder Weighs In

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In the eyes of many fundamentalists (and by that term I’m referring to the card-carrying, independent Fundamental Baptist variety), if you aren’t either a fundamentalist or an out-and-out liberal, then you must be a new evangelical.   “Neo” is a derogatory term, mind you, not the name of “the one” who will save mankind, ala The Matrix….

Fundamentalists for the most part like solid lines of demarcation between their group and the others.   Those others, whether they be conservative evangelicals in general, or Southern Baptists, or Calvinists, their main problem is that they aren’t “one of us”. And this means they can’t be trusted. Furthermore, their problems run deeper than what Bible version they carry.   They must be linked in some way, with Rome or liberalism or any other bad thing we can think of.

Problem is, they are independent thinkers, they don’t toe the fundamentalist party line when it comes to “worldly” amusements or cultural taboos. They actually respect Billy Graham to some level, and they don’t think any measure of Calvinism is satanic.

Perhaps the biggest problem, at least it appears so to us who are on the outside looking in, is that these “others” are influential. Leaders like John MacArthur and John Piper, use the Bible carefully and are “building a following” (at least that’s what Fundamentalists might think). Young unsuspecting Christians are led away into all kinds of error and wickedness when they follow these “others”.

I’m not far from the truth. And now that I’ve painted that not too rosy picture, let me encourage you to go read Kevin Bauder’s thoughts on conservative evangelicals. He is incensed at the party-spirit of fundamentalists which view these “others” as enemies or opponents. Rather, they are to be esteemed for their “defense of the gospel”. And this esteem and even a level of partnership is possible without an all out embracing of their every peculiar position on questions of worldliness and matters of secondary doctrine.

I do pray Bauder represents a changing of the guard and that the fundamentalists of today will share their deep-seated faith in and practice of the Bible with their evangelical brethren, come out from their holy huddles and not be afraid of being impacted by some of the clear thinking, Bible-prizing conservative evangelical leaders God had graced the church with today.

Let me offer a few excerpts and then encourage you to go read Bauder’s essay which says all of this in a more scholarly way.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy….

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

…

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today….

Becca’s Story

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

I continue to hear from readers about how the story of my journey out of extreme fundamentalism has been a blessing to them.   From time to time, my readers share some of their own stories.   Recently, a young woman named Becca shared her story with me, and I received permission from her to share it with you all.   May it be a blessing and encouragement to you all.

2/12/2010

Bob,

I am twenty-three years old. I was born into a IFB family with all the fixins’. My parents were strongly KJV only; no secular music whatsoever was allowed in our household. We attended church every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday. I was in Patch the Pirate Club. I can remember my dad railing over and over again about “secular” music, the “world’s” music, and he had books about the beat of the music causing one’s heart to beat irregularly. I am surprised I got away with wearing pants. That was a non-issue, usually, with my parents, although my mom did tell me once that she wished she’d raised me to wear skirts only. My previous pastor was once noted for having said that parents would rue the day they allowed their daughters to wear pants. I have never worn pants to a church service at that church before.

I was “saved” at the age of four. I remembered bits and pieces, but did not remember what I prayed or really remembering I was a sinner. Thus, for years upon years, even when I was in college, I doubted my salvation. What if I wasn’t really saved because I didn’t mean what I’d said at the age of four? I went off to the WILDS (summer camp) of Brevard, NC, where my counselor told me that if I couldn’t remember my salvation experience and was having doubts, then I probably wasn’t saved. I was incapacitated by fears of eternal damnation.

All of my childhood and teenage years were spent observing rules and regulation imposed by my IFB church. I knew nothing of God, but everything about what I “should” be doing. I was strongly KJV only, but I couldn’t defend my reasons behind it. I was strongly against secular music, but probably couldn’t have given reasons why. By the age of nineteen, I realized I had built concrete walls on a foundation of sand. I had no logical reason for any of the convictions I held.

When did the turnaround occur? When I went to college. My parents were hoping I’d choose PCC, but I couldn’t wear skirts all the time and it wasn’t accredited. I chose to attend Clearwater Christian, the small, accredited university on the Gulf Coast. Dad wasn’t thrilled “they allow handholding!” and a visiting evangelist had told Dad that he would never advise anyone to attend CCC. Nevertheless, I had liked what I’d seen when I visited there and it was only by the grace of God that he led me there. The school changed my life.

CCC is conservative, yes. It is fundamental. But it is not “fundamentalist,” in the derogatory sense of the word. It is Scriptural, but it couldn’t be compared to a terrorist regime in the standards it holds. At first, when I discovered that the girls I lived with had versions of the Bible that weren’t KJV, I wrote them off. Little by little, when I saw my godly Bible professors using other versions, I gave them a chance. Finally, I broke down and bought an ESV. It was also at CCC that I was truly introduced to Reformed Theology. RT had always been referred to in my circle as being not biblical or even heretical. My mom said, “I can’t accept that God would die for me and not my daughter” (my sister). I was, surprise, surprise, strongly opposed to Reformed Theology, although, once again, I could not back up my beliefs against my more knowledgeable friends. My parents and my church had raised a child with a delicate egg shell of beliefs; on the outside, the shell looked nice, but if it developed the slightest crack, the whole thing would crumble because there was no support on the interior of that shell. My ESV Bible made the clarity and the flow of the words so much clearer and cleaner; for the first time, the Bible was real to me. The more I read, the more I stumbled upon words like “chosen,” “drawn,” “gift,” “grace,” “mercy,” “God wills,” “hardens,” and the whole shebang of those words that make up the “Calvinist’s Dictionary.” I couldn’t ignore these words, however. They were there after all. I read them and reread them in context and they presented truths which I could not deny: the sovereignty of God, his mercy, his love, his ultimate glory. I walked away from reading, came back later. The truths were still there and again, they were undeniable. My professors and our chapel speakers backed up these truths and little by little, I was drawn into the beauty of Reformed Theology. When I finally accepted it fully, I was awestruck. My doubts were taken away for no longer did I need to place what little hope I had in that wimpy prayer I prayed as a four year old. My full trust was put in Christ alone. I was awakened to what “grace” really meant. I saw Christ as he really was. No longer, no longer was I entrenched in doubt, guilt out of not meeting the standard, fear of hell’s fires…. For the first time, I began learning about Christ, not about what I should be/shouldn’t be doing.

Now, as a twenty-three-year old, one year out of college, teaching, I am a full-blown Calvinist. . . .or, “Biblicist.” I attend a Reformed Presbyterian church. I wear pants to services. I have high-lighted and annotated my ESV until the pages are soft. I keep finding new references to being “drawn” to Christ. I am finding music that backs up my theology. I am reading Piper. And I have never been more in love with Christ, more on fire for Him, more wanting to scream my new-found freedom from the rooftops. When I was entrenched in the IFB circle, I was shallow, foundationless, searching, confused, disoriented. I was fully confident in nothing at all. However, by God’s grace, I have now been led into the light of His glorious Gospel, and I thank God for opening up my eyes to the truth. I wish everyone could know what I know and I am so happy to have found your site because you do know what I know; you have found what I found. Aren’t you grateful? I am.

Vern Poythress, John Walton & “The Lost World of Genesis One”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

IVP recently published John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton brings ancient near-Eastern (ANE) cultural and linguistic parallels to bear on the text of Genesis chapter 1. I found the book both fascinating and challenging. His method of developing his argument proposition by proposition, kept the argument clear, comprehensible and concise. Ultimately, I found it quite convincing. I will be reviewing that book on my site in the near future.

Of course, a big sacred cow has been tipped in this book. Against the very real attacks by atheistic evolutionists, Christians in general have united around a Creationist perspective that upholds a literal, six-day, young earth, non-evolutionary model of the origins of the earth and all life. Over the last few decades, a steady stream of scientific analyses of Scripture have hit the shelves of Christian bookstores. If you stop to think about this from a wider perspective, you would have to think that many church leaders of old would be amazed at the degree of scientific specificity that modern creationists find in the pages of Scripture. It should be obvious that Scripture wasn’t written to answer every question in our science books.

I am currently exploring this issue in more depth and looking to Scripture for what perspective to have on this issue. John Piper’s thoughts on the matter are similar to mine at present. In a recent online Ask Pastor John event, (the answer is not yet posted on their site), Piper says he leans toward Sailhammer’s view (as explained in the above link).    After reading Walton (as well as G.K. Beale), I agree. I don’t think the issue has to be as divisive as some make it out to be.

Everyone doesn’t agree that such matters should be open to such variation, however. Vern Poythress, who I highly respect, recently offered a decidedly negative assessment to Walton’s book in World magazine. His review, obviously bound by space constraints, did not adequately explain Walton’s position. It misrepresented the book. Now, John Walton has responded to that review. Both Poythress’ assessment of the book, and Walton’s rejoinder are short reads and will provide a peek into the nature of the debate (and of course, the book). I encourage you to take the time to read both articles, and let me know what your thoughts are.

Vern Poythress: Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result, he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation…. In short, Walton’s book has mixed value. Positive insights about the practical focus of Genesis 1 mix with some unsound claims. (read the entire review)

John Walton: I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion. (read the entire response)

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this in the comments below!

You can purchase the book at Amazon.com or Westminster Bookstore, or direct from IVP. Westminster Bookstore has a .PDF excerpt available as well on the book page.

If You Liked “My Story”…

~ Bob Hayton

When I first posted “My Story” on my blog back in December of 2005, I didn’t have a clue about blogging.   I posted an enormously long letter, with some slight formatting changes, as one big post.   By God’s grace, that post has blessed my readers more than any other.   I’ve received dozens of comments over the years, on the blog or by email, thanking me for sharing that story.   It’s not “my” story, really, It’s God’s.

I think I now have found another story as long as mine.   However this one is formatted much nicer and contains many hilarious vignettes.   You will really enjoy Greg Wilson’s personal story, if you take the time to read.   Anyone more personally familiar with fundamentalism will especially be blessed.   Greg’s story narrates a similar “wake up” experience.   He continues in a faithful pastoral ministry in a Bible-believing (albeit non-IFB, non-KJVO) church.

Here’s the link, enjoy the read.   May his story also be a help to those who may be “hurt” or confused by extreme fundamentalism.   And as Greg concludes his story: “Soli Deo Gloria“!   (To God alone be the glory.)

A.T. Robertson on Textual Variants

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Today it is common to speak of four hundred thousand variants to the Greek New Testament. Agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman, like to stoke the fires of public mistrust in the Bible by pointing out the “textual corruption” of the New Testament. Closer to home, “King James Version-Only” advocates like to emphasize the differences between the Greek text behind the King James and that behind modern versions.

What are we to say to this? How shall we respond to the valid claim that there are thousands of textual variants? Indeed there are hundreds of thousands!

A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar extraordinaire and author of a classic 1450 page advanced Greek grammar, can help us in this regard. In the introduction to his book An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1925), he clearly explains what textual criticism is and why it is needed. He then goes on to discuss the condition of the New Testament with regard to its textual purity. I offer an extended quote below, that I trust will prove useful. He is writing in 1925, so many more variants are known today, but the general principles he explains and the viability of all such variants hold true. You can read his entire book online at archive.org.

…the current New Testament text must be adjudged, in comparison with a well printed modern book, extremely corrupt.

On the other hand, if we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must render the opposite verdict, and declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied,–a care which has doubtless grown out of a true reverence for its holy words,– such has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes. The divergence of its current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books; its wonderful approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every modern reader of ancient books.

When we attempt to state the amount of corruption which the New Testament has suffered in its transmission through two millenniums, absolutely instead of thus relatively, we reach scarcely more intelligible results. Roughly speaking, there have been counted in it some hundred and eighty or two hundred thousand “various readings”–that is, actual variations of reading in existing documents. These are, of course, the result of corruption, and hence the measure of corruption. But we must guard against being misled by this very misleading statement. It is not meant that there are nearly two hundred thousand places in the New Testament where various readings occur; but only that there are nearly two hundred thousand various readings all told; and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many are counted on a single word. For each document is compared in turn with the one standard, and the number of its divergences ascertained; then these sums are themselves added together, and the result given as the number of actually observed variations. It is obvious that each place where a variation occurs is counted as many times over, not only as distinct variations occur upon it, but also as the same variation occurs in different manuscripts. This sum includes, moreover, all variations of all kinds and in all sources, even those that are singular to a single document of infinitesimal weight as a witness, and even those that affect such very minor matters as the spelling of a word. Dr. Ezra Abbot was accustomed to say that about nineteen-twentieths of them have so little support that, although they are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings; and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages where they occur. Dr. Hort’s way of stating it is that upon about one word in every eight various readings exist supported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; that about one word in sixty has various readings upon it supported by such evidence as to render our decision nice and difficult; but that so many of these variations are trivial that only about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in deciding between the readings.

The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, “the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact; … nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost… choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, cut of the whole lump of readings.” If, then, we undertake the textual criticism of the New Testament under a sense of duty, we may bring it to a conclusion under the inspiration of hope. The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism in so immensely the greater part of the volume, that we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the Church of God, His Book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [pg. 12-15, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament] (emphasis mine)

— cross posted from my team KJV Only blog