Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

The Big "If": John Piper's Father on Perseverance and Eternal Security

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

Regular readers of this blog know I am not big on the “once saved, always saved” idea. I think it belittles the Bible’s emphasis on the necessity of persevering faith, and I don’t think it represents an orthodox view of eternal security. Salvation is no “tattoo”, Pastor Charles Stanley, not withstanding (see post linked above).

Since I had my 1 John 2:19 epiphany moment, the Bible’s teaching on perseverance and continuance in the faith has become clearer and clearer to me. And always ever more vital. Yet whenever one tries to explain it, he inevitably encounters many deaf ears, or stunned looks. Modern Christianity has biased us against grasping that faith must be alive and enduring for it to be a true saving faith.

John Piper recently shared a brief 4 minute audio clip of his father preaching on Colossians 1:23 — “IF indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast…”

I thought that clip, from a fundamentalistic SBC evangelist, was excellent. He explains the double nature of perseverance excellently. If we are really a possessor, then we are going to endure. And if we don’t endure, we are just a professor. Yet all the possessors are eternally secure. There I go again: tripping over my words trying to explain an important point. Stop reading and listen to Bill Piper, won’t you?

And if you care to read more from me on this subject, check out my posts on perseverance.

The Underappreciated Calvin

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

Loved by many, yet hated by more. John Calvin, the great Reformer, has bequeathed us a schizophrenic legacy.

He is remembered largely for the movement which carries his name: Calvinism. Predestination, cold hard logic, spiritual deadness, fatalists. This is how many view Calvinists today. Sure there are some who earn such descriptors, yet the historical orthodox movement bears greater resemblance to its founder than it does to a hyper-Calvinistic heresy.

Some view Calvin as the dictator of Geneva, yet in truth he was run out of town a time or two. He was a respected pastor, but simply a pastor. The town council condemned Servetus, and Calvin pleaded for the most merciful death available. In this he was a man of his times.

And how did his contemporaries view him? Most definitely not cold and logical. He was later chided as “the most Christian man of his generation”. Benjamin Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, described Calvin as the eminent Biblical theologian of his day (emphasis on “Biblical” rather than “theoretical” or “speculative”).

I could go on, but I would be writing the article I intend for you to read. John Chitty recently highlighted several of Calvin’s positive contributions to today’s church and he also linked to a superb article by Benjamin Warfield on Calvin as a theologian.

Among other things, Warfield points out that Calvin was the first to give a full treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. And in fact, when with the Reformers, Calvin dethroned the Church of Rome, he put in its place the Holy Spirit. Let me continue with an excerpt from Warfield’s article:

Previously, men had looked to the Church for all the trustworthy knowledge of God obtainable, and as well for all the communications of grace accessible. Calvin taught them that neither function has been committed to the Church, but God the Holy Spirit has retained both in His own hands and confers both knowledge of God and communion with God on whom He will. The Institutes is, accordingly, just a treatise on the work of God the Holy Spirit in making God savingly known to sinful man, and bringing sinful man into holy communion with God….

Here then is probably Calvin’s greatest contribution to theological development. In his hands, for the first time in the history of the Church, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit comes to its rights. Into the heart of none more than into his did the vision of the glory of God shine, and no one has been more determined than he not to give the glory of God to another….And above everything else he deserves, therefore, the great name of the theologian of the Holy Spirit.

[read the article in its entirety]

Deuteronomy 22:5 — A Positive Interpretation

~ fundyreformed ~ 31 Comments

In the comments of my recent post on the women-wearing-pants controversy, I was challenged to basically prove my position is a legitimate positive interpretation rather than a mere reaction. To boil down the issue, fundamentalists often use Deut. 22:5 to teach that it is wrong for women today to wear pants. My position is that the text teaches that there is to be a designed gender distinction in the way we dress, but that today there are female-designed pants perfectly suitable for women to wear in most situations. (I do think women should wear dresses from time to time, as they are so expressly and beautifully feminine.)

In responding to that charge, I came across the following excellent treatment of the issue from Elmer L. Towns (former Dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University) in the King James Bible Commentary (edited by Edward Hindson, Woodrow Kroll & Jerry Falwell; Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1983).

Verse 5 has caused divisions and confusion among sincere Christian brethren. Some have used this verse to maintain that women should not wear slacks. The word “pertaineth unto” (Heb keli) in the original language is used elsewhere not only of clothes, but also of decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. The intent of this law was to maintain the distinction between the sexes. Today, it would apply to any unisex clothing that would cloud the distinction between men and women. The New Testament recognizes such a distinction (1 Cor. 11:3) and maintains that long hair on women was a sign of that distinction (1 Cor. 11:6-14). During the days of Moses, garments (Heb simlah) worn by men and women were similar (robes), so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness (to deceive the man). The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation, and not their cut. The principle taught by this passage is that the proper distinction between men and women in all cultures should be maintained. The passage does not teach against slacks per se (or hats, shoes, gloves, etc.–all worn by both sexes), but against men or women wearing any item specifically ornamented for the opposite sex (e.g., a man wearing female slacks, lipstick, etc.). The wearing of slacks by ladies today is not an attempt to deceive men, although some may be immodest and improper in certain situations. The final crieteria are that women look like females, that they are modest (1 Tim 2:9-10), and that their outward appearance reflects their inner character (1 Pet 3:3). ¹

 ¹ Pg. 168. Words in quotation marks are bolded in the original.

I also want to mention another good article on this issue that I came across: “Is It a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants?” by Craig Hostetler.

Holding on to the Cultural Norms of a Bygone Era: A Look at Fundamentalism's "No-Pants-on-Women" Oddity

~ fundyreformed ~ 51 Comments

Hardly anyone today would consider the wearing of pants by women to be a breach of decency or a sign of rebellion against the God-given roles of manhood & womanhood. This is the 21st century, women have been liberated, and times have certainly changed, haven’t they?

The Fundamentalist Position

Yet for many sincere and well-meaning Christian fundamentalists (& by that term I mean those who both hold to the fundamental doctrines of the faith & practice some form of secondary separation with regard to those doctrines–specifically the fundamentalist Baptist movement represented by Bob Jones University and a host of even more conservative institutions) today’s situation is lamentable. Feminism’s triumph, in their minds, is what is most responsible for the abandoning of a generally common distinct dress styles for men and women. After all, the bathroom signs distinguish the sexes on the basis of pants for men, and today’s abandonment of the long accepted cultural norm of pants for men only can only lead to a sinful unisex culture which promotes all kind of sexual sins and spurns the God-ordained unique roles for men and women.

While rooted in the biblical teaching of male headship/leadership in the home and church, this position finds support in these verses as well:

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deu 22:5)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(1Co 11:7, 14-15)

From these verses comes a doctrine of “designed distinction” between the sexes. And specifically on the warrant of Deut. 22:5, it is deemed a grievous sin to blur the line between the sexes by donning the apparel of the opposite sex.

Now the above careful argument is often not what one finds with the more conservative fundamentalists. Often Deut. 22:5 is quoted with the harsh conclusion that women who wear pants are “sluts”. The position is not carefully taught, but rather enforced, with ushers trained to escort women caught wearing pants out the door! Visitors who carelessly forget to check the dress code, are asked to wear a dress or not come back. If you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Such is the sad case in all too many fundamentalist churches. They don’t want to be tolerating abominations to God!

Modern Attempts to Dodge the Force of Deut. 22:5

To get around this exegesis of Deut. 22:5, many modern Christians claim it is ceremonial law (like Deut. 22:10-11 for instance) . Others will stress that transvestism or cross-dressing is primarily in view, or that some practice associated with idolatry is in view, hence the strong “abomination” label. Yet these interpretations on the surface feel like a transparent attempt at dodging the force of the text.

The Historic Position on Deut. 22:5

Older commentators don’t flinch at offering some alternative views while at the same time affirming what Calvin says below:

This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, her sex deserting?” Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty. [from John Calvin’s online commentary here.]

Keil & Delitzsch, the Hebrew experts, are even stronger:

As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” כְּלִי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God. [emphasis added, quoted from E-Sword‘s (free for download) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament]

Examining the Fundamentalist Position

So why do I allow and encourage my wife and daughters to wear pants? Am I consciously violating Deut. 22:5 and blurring the distinction of the sexes? I don’t believe so. Upon a closer examination of the fundamentalist position, I hope you will agree with me. At the onset here, I should note that more and more modern fundamentalists disagree with this position, and I’m sure there have been exceptions for many years. Also, there are some conservative Baptists who don’t like being dubbed fundamentalists, preferring to be called historic Baptists, and avoid the perceived problems with fundamentalism today. Fine, whatever. Still I object to their position on Deut. 22:5, and most people would call them fundamentalists.

What Scripture Actually Teaches

Now if we accept the “designed distinction” view of Deut. 22:5 (which I do), here is what Scripture actually affirms. 1) The sexes should be distinct. 2) Christians shouldn’t wear garments or ornaments associated with the opposite sex. We could infer from this that we are to maintain culturally appropriate gender distinctions in dress.

Now Deut. 22:5 doesn’t teach that we must have male-specific items and female-specific items, per se, it just assumes that a culture has them. It doesn’t specify what the items look like, nor to what degree they are actually distinct. It just says don’t use the female or male items.

The 1 Cor. 11 passage seems to say there is a certain propriety which makes it “natural” for the sexes to be distinguished in some visible way. It doesn’t specify how long or short, “long” and “short” hair is, necessarily, however. Yet it asserts that women should have long hair, and men shouldn’t. (Again, I agree with this point here.)

The Role of Culture

Now we have this Scriptural teaching and we are to apply it to our present situation. Culture can obviously be immoral, and cultures promoting little or no clothes are obviously errant and should be corrected from a Biblical perspective. Yet culture by definition changes over time.

In Bible days, men and women wore long flowing robes. There were inner and outer robes, and a girdle for both men and women. Only men were said to “gird up their loins”, meaning hike up their robes to do manly actions, like fighting in a battle. But there is no indication that their robes were materially different than women’s robes. Instead it was the fit, decoration, and style of the robes that distinguished them from women’s robes.

In our culture 100 years ago, pants were a distinctly male item, but today men and women both wear pants. Still there are differences in fit, decoration, and style that differentiate male pants from female pants. Although it is true that a unisex pants style is in vogue these days. While 100 years ago wearing pants was a trespass of cultural norms with regard to gender distinction, today that is not necessarily the case.

In viewing culture, we hopefully can agree that the Bible doesn’t set up the culture of the 1800s as the most Godly culture ever. There is no reason to view it as more godly than present culture, necessarily. Each generation had its sins, and surely today’s generation has some awful flagrant ones, but there is no Scriptural justification for inferring from this that all present cultural norms should be abandoned in favor of those from the 1800s.

Consistency

In examining this topic, it appears that the clear cut, simple distinction provided by pants versus a dress is desirable by the fundamentalists. And so they have honed in on this item of clothing particularly for applying Deut. 22:5. But there are a host of items which have changed in their gender-designating function over the years. Stockings and T-Shirts were originally male-only dress items. Today stockings are generally regarded as female-only and T-shirts are used for both sexes. Fundamentalists often have no problem with their teenage or college-age girls wearing the high school or college sports jackets of their boyfriends, but wouldn’t that violate the mandates in Deut. 22:5 too? And what about women’s suits (even with a dress skirt rather than pants)?

Some view questions of consistency with suspicion. “It is just an attempt to dodge Deut. 22:5”, they assume. Yet these questions must be addressed. Just because an item doesn’t appear on a bathroom sign, doesn’t mean it has no gender distinction. And then again, why is a bathroom sign so definitive for culture? Isn’t it just a convenient tool for communicating which bathroom is which? It is not authoritative in any sense (well, unless I’m looking for a bathroom…).

Conclusion

Based on the above examination, I conclude that how one applies Deut. 22:5 is up for grabs. The specific application is not mandated by the text. You may feel that the weight of centuries of gender distinct use of pants warrants no pants on women. That may be important to you, especially as you study history and see that feminism and a desire to break the cultural norms in regard to distinction of the sexes played a big role in the modern use of pants by women. Yet Scripture does not specify that I must conclude like you do in my view of the cultural norms of a bygone era. In today’s world, many a woman doesn’t think twice about putting on a pair of pants, because that is what our culture does. I would encourage such women to dress femininely and maintain modesty in light of Scriptural principles, rather than simply condemning them on the basis of cultural norms of a hundred years ago.

It is fine if you disagree with me, but I am applying Deut. 22:5 and not rejecting Scripture.   And so, fundamentalists and others who insist that only their application of Deut. 22:5 constitutes obedience are really being schismatic. They are needlessly disrupting the unity of the faith, in their defense of their particular application of Scripture to today’s culture. The oddity of the traditional fundamentalist view on women and pants sadly often becomes a disgrace to the name of Christ.

Before I go, if you want to see some debates over this issue, where both sides (mine and the standard fundamentalist position) being defended and advocated, check out the links below.

Anyone else have more links for good discussions on this?

Considering the "Multiple Intentions View" of the Atonement

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

In my last post I introduced the debate on the atonement that Seth McBee is hosting over at Contend Earnestly. Seth calls himself a 6 Point Calvinist, and dubs his view the “Unlimited/Limited Atonement” position. Yet Bruce Ware also calls that same view “4 Point Calvinism”, and I read an article which claims Benjamin Warfield interacted with what we would call “4 Point Calvinism” today, when he took on “Post-Redemptionism”. To confuse matters even more, Eric Svendsen posits a similar view which he calls “4.5 Point Calvinism”. Then there is the historical variety of this position called Amyraldianism, which seems to be specifically what Warfield was opposing.

In light of the confusion of determining whether we are really discussing 4, 4.5, or 6 point Calvinism, and to simplify things somewhat, I’m going to simply go by another name Bruce Ware has for this position: “The Multiple Intentions View”.

Now if someone else can straighten me out on how the various positions listed above differ from each other, by all means make an attempt! But for now, let me update where I’m at in evaluating the “Multiple Intentions View”.

1) I recently read an excellent article by Dr Roger Nicole entitled “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement“. Nicole explains why it is that both sides of the debate can claim Calvin for support. He makes a good case for Calvin actually supporting limited atonement, and does an excellent job tracing the history of this particular debate surrounding Calvin. Of special note was this quote from Calvin: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

So all that is to say, quoting Calvin one way or another isn’t going to really win the debate. And ultimately Scripture matters much more than the opinion of Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else.

2) Next, I should point out a convincing exegesis of John 3:16 which does not demand a universal atonement and does not do violence to the term “world”. In this open letter to Dave Hunt, James White gives a good exegesis of the passage (scroll about half-way down and look for the heading “John 3:16”). [So far only John 3:16 has been discussed in the debate at Contend Earnestly.]

3) While I do see how this “multiple intentions view” would be easier to hold to, when it comes to explaining some seemingly universal passages, I have to wonder how different it actually is to the normal limited atonement position anyway.

a) In both systems a bona fide offer of the gospel is made. There is no necessary connection between such an offer and an actual payment/provision for sins having been made. It is enough that God knows who will respond to the offer and has secured the payment for those as part of his intent in Christ’s death.

b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

c) Basically, I see no reason to have to hold to a universal atonement for sins in order to legitimately hold to a universal preaching of the gospel to all people.

4) Another problem area concerns the bearing of God’s wrath which Christ accomplished in His death. His death satisfied God’s wrath in a substitutionary way for a certain people. I don’t see how the “multiple intentions view” adequately owns up to a substitutionary idea of the atonement. Is not an intentional substitution for certain, specific people inherent in the idea of substitutionary atonement?

5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

6) I also found the following summary by Bruce Ware to be helpful in explaining and distinguishing the three main positions.

7) Finally I should admit there is much more that can be studied with regard to this position. David of Calvin and Calvinism has compiled tons of info and quotes from various theologians which touch on this topic. Browse his “For Whom Did Christ Die?” category for many pertinent articles. Personally, I want to review my blogging pal Bnonn’s articles on the issue as well [here, here & here]. And I think it would also be worthwhile to explore Eric Svendsen’s posts on his “4.5 Point Calvinism”.

Now if there were just more time for all this reasearch!……