Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

Why I’m Leery of the Manhattan Declaration

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Someone recently asked me what I thought of the Manhattan Declaration. For those who don’t know, the declaration I’m referring to links Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants together under the banner “Christian” to stand for life and traditional marriage in our culture. It’s an attempt to stick together as Christians in our opposition to these increasingly abandoned values in our culture.

Here is my response. I understand good Christian leaders to be with me against the declaration, and others have signed it in their desire to stand for life and for transforming the culture. I haven’t really read the arguments or taken a side necessarily. But here is my perspective.

I can appreciate it for what it is, but 2 things keep me from signing.

1) It seems to single out a prizing of life and heterosexual marriage as being what Christianity is all about. I don’t think it is the role of the Church specifically to be legislating morality, as that doesn’t work due to fallen human nature. Instead we need to proclaim the gracious gospel of Christ.

2) It joins hands with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in what could easily blur the distinctions between them and traditional Protestants. Again the gospel of salvation by grace through faith is what differentiates us from these other groups who claim the name Christian. That is an important difference that shouldn’t be obscured.

Still, I don’t think the declaration necessarily requires understanding it this way. It is just a declaration in one sense, so I can understand those who sign it. But the need of our country isn’t a united defense and legislative protection of marriage and preborn children, it needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that life is a small cause that we shouldn’t fight for. It is to say that heterosexual only marriage (in my view), isn’t such an important cause.

For more on what I’m getting at in point 1 above, check out my post: America — A Pagan Nation? My pal Jason Skipper over at Fundamentally Changed agrees with my assessment that this declaration represents a compromise with the gospel.

But what do you think? Why or why not do you support this declaration?

“A Reformation Reader” edited by Denis Janz

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Author: Denis R. Janz, editor
Publisher: Fortress Press (Augsburg)
Format: softcover
Publication Date: 2008
Pages: 453
ISBN: 9780800663100
Stars: 3 of 5

The Christianity that shapes our world today, was profoundly influenced by the Reformation — Roman Catholicism as much as evangelical Protestantism. For conservative evangelicals who prize the notion of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), the Reformation represents a great restoration of the importance of Scripture and a revival of the true and saving doctrine of justification by faith on the basis of the merits of Christ alone, and by God’s free grace.

Any study of the Reformation does well to focus on the many documents and books written in that era. Some of the truly great Christian writings hail from that era. Luther’s commentary on Galations, and Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion deserve the attention of Christians of our own era as much as they shaped those in the midst of the Reformation. But there are scores of additional writings by other lesser known figures of that time, which do much to open our understanding of what actually was happening in that time, now nearly 500 years ago.

A Reformation Reader, edited by Denis Janz, brings these lesser known documents, and figures, to light. Zwingli’s Swiss Reformation work and writings; the Anabaptist movement and their writings — most notably the the Schleitheim Confession; and the English reformers Cranmer and Cromwell all are illuminated through Janz’s inclusion of key documents and insights into their role in the Reformation era. The context of the Reformation is made more vivid and clear by his inclusion of pre-Reformation Catholic authors and sentiments, and a discussion of the counter Reformation and the Catholic Council of Trent.

Janz introduces each section with a brief introduction to that segment of the Reformation. The pre-Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Swiss Reformation, Anabaptist movement, English Reformation and the counter Reformation movements are all represented. Janz brings up various scholarly disputes in how to interpret the Reformation. He does a good job staying neutral and explaining what the questions are. He presents documents that are able to challenge both viewpoints, and he encourages a study of the texts themselves.

This book includes a wide array of material. It certainly would serve well as a text book for covering the history of that era. The role of women in society in that day is explored alongside the other more typical theological disputes. Janz includes the writings of female characters throughout the book to serve that goal.

The book is more than a textbook, however. It provides a fascinating amount of material for the average Christian lay reader to explore. I enjoyed the historical perspective and the inclusion of many of the original writings of the key players in the Reformation. Most readers today don’t acquaint themselves with historical writings of that era, and so the selections from Calvin’s Institutes and Luther’s writings, for instance, allows for a first encounter with some of the key leaders in the Church’s history. It is hoped that this book will spur on its readers to desire a deeper reading of the classic writings of the Christian faith. I know it has done that for me.

I will point out just a few of the many interesting selections I enjoyed here. They are selections from Thomas a Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ, Erasmus’ The Abbot and the Learned Lady, some of the actual indulgences of the era of Luther, Luther’s 95 Theses, Luther’s Preface to the New Testament, Zwingli’s Of Freedom of Choice in the Selection of Food, Zwingli’s 67 Theses, the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession, an autobiographical account of Calvin’s life, letters and judgment concerning Servetus, and Thomas Cranmer’s Preface to the Great Bible.

I highly recommend this book, and the study of this important time in Christian history.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Fortress Press.

New on the KJV Only Debate Blog…

~ Bob Hayton

You may want to check out my team KJV Only? blog. I’m continuing a series I started on this blog, called Testing the Textus Receptus. Today’s post centers on Rev. 16:5 one of the “certainly erroneous” passages in the KJV, to use E.F. Hills’ (a KJV defender himself) term.

Come on over and check out the post. Then consider linking to our blog, or subscribing if you’d like.

Those Five New Points of Calvinism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Almost everyone reading my blog is familiar with the acrostic TULIP as standing for the five points of Calvinism. Probably most of you know what each point stands for: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. Then the number goes down as to who knows what each point means. I would venture to guess that there would be disagreement over what people think “L” should mean, or what “T”, “I” or “P” actually imply.

If you’ve read any Calvinist literature, you have seen a recasting of the points. Some turn it from TULIP into ROSES (Timothy George), others like my former pastor John Piper, choose to consider the points in a thematic order rather than their order in the word TULIP. Piper’s pamphlet on the points spells the Calvinist flower: TILUP. I’ve seen books and essays advocate “efficacious grace” or “particular redemption” as opposed the the TULIP title of the point in question.

What very few of you who read this blog know, and what I just learned, is that the acronym TULIP is a very recent development. It apparently hails from the early 20th Century, first appearing in Lorraine Boettner’s 1932 book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. I just finished reading an article by Ken Stewart [pdf] which traces the development of TULIP [HT: Dave Doran]. Stewart rummages through the literary remains of the 18th and 19th Centuries in a vain attempt to find any use of our flowery acronym. He finds many treatments of Calvinism in the first half of the 20th Century totally bereft of any mention of TULIP as well. Stewart cites Roger Nicole as one who also noted the newness of the TULIP scheme. From his preface of the 40th anniversary edition of Steele and Thomas’ Five Points of Calvinism, Nicole states: “Ever since the appearance of Loraine Boettner’s magisterial The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination it has been customary to refer to the five points according to the acrostic TULIP.”

A couple months back, Justin Taylor entertained this same theme on his blog, and in the comments proof of the use of TULIP was given in a 1913 article of the New Outlook, which cites a Dr. Cleland McAffee as using the term as a mnemonic device in his lectures back in 1905. So that is apparently the earliest documented use of the TULIP acronym found to date.

Stewart’s piece is well worth the read, as he concludes with a call for Calvinism to be more irenic and pleasing in its tone, especially when interacting with the wider Christian church. So I guess true Calvinism, isn’t all about fives. I for one, would be glad to let the TULIP wither. I love the heart of Calvinism, but a strict adherence to five points that aren’t adequately explained is not helpful. This might be a good time for all of us to go read the original Five Points in their entirety– I‘m referring to the Canons of Dort, of course.

UPDATE: I forgot to include the link to Stewart’s article initially. Here is the link (it’s a pdf file).

A Fundamentalist Self-Critique

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

The last few years have seen the world wide web do a number on fundamentalism. I speak particularly of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement, and the influence of blogs like Sharper Iron (SI).

Jason Janz, SI’s founder, published his young fundamentalist survey, and soon thereafter Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniac fame), delivered his speech “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism“. A maelstrom of web action, interaction and reaction ensued which has yet to calm down. The fundamentalist blogosphere has been a place for theological critique and development, and has been the occasion for a slow exodus from the IFB movement.

Some, like myself, left the IFB from other considerations. Others were awoken to errors in extreme fundamentalism (IFBx) through the web. For all, the availability of conservative evangelical materials produced by John Piper and John MacArthur and others, has given a greater intellectual freedom to many as they can see what life outside IFB (or IFBx) halls looks like.

With the winds of change blowing strong, and with the emergent movement and other bleak theological developments on the horizon, many a fundamentalist leader and institution has taken a skeptical view of the web and of Sharper Iron and other fundamentalist blogs. This should not be surprising.

The reactions have not all been so stick-in-the-mud-like, however. Many fundamentalist leaders are jumping into the fray and being honest and open about the problems they see. Leaders like Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder and other contributors at Sharper Iron, give hope to fundamentalism as a willingness to change is displayed. The idea and merits of fundamentalism are being clearly put forth, and many a young man stays within the IFB ship hoping to play a part in righting it and seeing fundamentalism play a part in helping wider evangelicalism see the errors of its way (and there are many).

Now that I’ve brought you up to speed, let me encourage you to read this fundamentalist self-critique by Kevin Bauder. He has just started a series that will detail a history and critical examination of fundamentalism. His posts come first as essays in his online publication In the Nick of Time, from Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. Then they are showcased at Sharper Iron. Andy Naselli tipped me off to the article being available, and I’m sure this week SI will be publishing it there. You can read it now here (pdf). [Update: here’s the link for the article on SI]. Let me add an excerpt or two from it to entice you to read the whole thing. Part 1 is also available here.

…Because they are cut off from the Christian past, fundamentalists have little sense of the extent to which they have truncated the whole counsel of God. While they rightly insist upon the necessity of confessing certain fundamentals, they have little patience for careful doctrinal exploration and articulation, even when the doctrines under consideration are fundamental. They profess to love the Bible as an object, but even in the better neighborhoods of fundamentalism it is not difficult to find people who despise the attempt to understand biblical teaching in any depth.

Fundamentalists are all about defending the faith. Too often, however, all that they are willing to defend is a truncated faith of slogans and clichés. Even the most important areas of doctrine are reduced to rather pat formulae. Non-fundamental areas of the faith may be left completely unexplored.

Comparing Fundamentalist faith and practice to the faith and practice of historic Christianity is like comparing a hamburger to a filet mignon. The two obviously have something in common, but it would be misleading to say that everything in the steak is also in the hamburger.

Kirsopp Lake said that Fundamentalism is the “partial . . . survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.” To the extent that he is correct, Fundamentalists should probably be a little less enthralled with his description. And I think that he is right.