Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

Together for the Gospel: A Call for Unity and Doctrinal Purity

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

April 26-28, 2006 may well be remembered as an historic occasion. This was the first Together for the Gospel conference. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and C.J. Mahaney and included guest speakers R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and John MacArthur. But the conference was not about great men, it was about a greater message–the Gospel! The conference, attended by over 2800 people (mostly pastors) had a rare concern for both unity and doctrinal purity. It attempted to address the problems of denominational partisanship on the one hand and doctrinal paltriness on the other. Together for the Gospel was just that, a call for our unity to be in the most important and absolutely defining truths which are fundamental to the Gospel. True unity only exists around the true Gospel, and the true Gospel demands a true unity.

I am thrilled at how this conference exalts the Gospel as the true source of unity. As a former fundamentalist, I was inculcated with a knee-jerk reaction against virtually any call for unity. Why? Unity is most often trumpeted to the detriment of doctrinal purity. This does not have to be, but often is. My friend Nathan Pitchford has written an excellent article detailing how unity and doctrinal purity are not in opposition with one another at all, I recommend it highly.

In my own opinion the fundamentalist solution to the problem of rampant ecumenism has its own glaring problems. In almost every sector of fundamentalism, to one degree or another, unity is sought in each and every doctrinal (and often practical) position. The result is minor doctrines and personal interpretations and preferences have been exalted to a level greater than the doctrinal truths essential to the Gospel itself! Rather than prizing the actual unity we have as fellow believer-partakers in our Divine Lord Jesus Christ’s glorious provision for our sins as an altogether adequate basis for a mutual fellowship and unity which welcomes each other in spite of our differing positions on comparatively minor points, the minor points we disagree define us as we esteem them of greater importance than our commonality in the Gospel. Our own applications of separation, views on baptism, and beliefs about the finer points of eschatology and ecclesiology and other doctrines become stumblingblocks to the real unity of the faith the One True Gospel calls us to, and the world is robbed of a clear witness to the Oneness of Christ and the Father, and of Christ and His Church, and ultimately God is denied a unified voice that glorifies His name (Eph. 4:3,13, Jn. 17:20-21, Rom. 15:5-7).

I did not have the joy of attending the conference, but I have been blessed by others descriptions of it in the blogworld. Let me share the blessing by sharing some of the pertinent links below.

CONFERENCE LINKS:

I hope and pray this conference has a lasting and tremendous impact for the cause of Christ and His Church.

Pictures taken from Together For the Gospel’s Picture Pool.

Announcing…The KJV Only Debate Resource Center!

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

Announcing...

Announcing…a new resource center for the KJV Only Debate. I have put together a blog (functioning more like a website) devoted to the KJV Only Debate. I hope it will become a portal where one can find all the best resources on the issue along with simple, straightforward explanations of the terms and main points of the debate. I also hope to present both sides of the debate offering links to the more reasoned pro KJV-only material.

If you click on the banner below, you will see the site and what I have compiled so far. It is not much, I know, but I believe it represents the best of the best. Just so you are aware, notice that this is linked to from my sidebar as well.

 

The King James Only Debate Resource Center, click to enter

 

The reason I mention this here is that I would like some help! My readers may be aware of other books, websites, and helpful articles worth posting. Bible version debate forums you know of, and any other relevant info (historical stuff, etc.) would be helpful. Just go ahead and leave comments here, or feel free to email me. And again, remember, I would love to have info from the more rational/reasonable KJV-only side as well. I have not yet listed any pro KJV resources but plan to, as I figure out just how I will design the site. (Hey, if anyone has site-design ideas, I would appreciate them as well!)Thanks, and God Bless!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Selective Scholarship and Wishful Thinking: The Misinformation that Supports KJVOism

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

This chart is a classic example of wishful thinking and selective scholarship. I found the chart posted on the Fighting Fundamental Forums here. It is illustrative of a pervasive problem in KJVOism. The selective use of facts to present the greatest possible “defense” or “proof” of their position. After they have painted the evidence with a wide brush, then they are ready to defend their position. This is unscholarly and dishonest, but sadly it is all too common.

Take a good look at this chart, and then read my response to it that I gave in the thread on the forums mentioned above. [You will actually be able to see it easier by clicking here–where it was originally posted.]

KJV Only ChartThis chart upon first study appears very scholarly. It presents a clear case for the superiority of the KJV. Most KJVO’s who see this will print it and put it in a prominent place. “Ahh!!, a key reference for future discussions or thought!” they will think. But actually, this chart is symptomatic of the problem rampant in KJVO circles–selective scholarship! The chart simply parrots facts from other KJVO books by authors who got their facts from other KJVO books whose authors got them from who knows where. The chart (or the books it is based on) picks and chooses among the facts to decide which ones to present. It sadly paints the case to make it look convincing. I want to briefly point out some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this chart, just to showcase how the chart does not tell the whole story and does not present all the facts.

  • The chart shows 2 text families, but in reality there are three or four (or more). The Western and Cesarean families are not mentioned.
  • The chart dates the Peshitta at 150 A.D., but modern scholarship is nearly unanimous in dating the Peshitta sometime after 420 A.D. This fact is not noted in the chart, and should change the weight of that evidence. Further, the chart does not point out that the Peshitta has multiple readings which favor the critical texts over the TR. For instance it has “God” rather than “Son” at John 1:18; it has a relative pronoun in 1 Tim. 3:16 rather than the word “God”; and it lacks entirely John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; I John 5:7 (and other passages found in the TR).
  • The chart counts the Greek mss but not the Latin mss. While a majority of Greek mss support the Byzantine family, a huge majority of the Latin mss favor a text more similar to the critical text of today. Further, the Latin mss outnumber Greek mss nearly 3 to 1!
  • Also, the chart oversimplifies the data by claiming 99% or so of mss clearly support the Byzantine text. It does not deal with factors such as the time period of those mss or the location. The vast majority of mss that are still extant are from the same locale and time period (9th to 14th centuries in the Easter Roman or Byzantine Empire). During this time period virtually no one else was using Greek as a language, hence no desire or need to copy the Greek mss outside of Byzantium’s general area. Fewer mss remain from other locales and time periods and the statistics for which of those other kinds of mss support the Byzantine text are much less favorable to the Majority/TR text (KJVO) postition.
  • The chart claims the Waldensian’s Bible was based on the Traditional Text. No evidence supports this. All the evidence we have indicates the Waldensian’s Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. KJVO-ists may wish that the Waldensian’s Bible was a Traditional Text Bible, they may even suspect it was, but with no evidence they cannot claim it was. Or worse, present it as fact, like this chart does.
  • The chart points out that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss disagree over 3000 times and indicates this means they are bad mss. It fails to point out that scholars view these differences as a testimony to how significant it truly is when these two old mss agree in places. The agreement attests to a single text type much older than either of those very old mss.
  • The chart claims Westcott and Hort were apostate, but does not mention that Erasmus was not only “partial to Romish ways”, he never left the Roman church! He even publicly debated Martin Luther over his views.
  • The chart classifies the Vulgate as Alexandrian, yet it fails to mention that several readings of the TR (and KJV) come strictly from the Vulgate, like 1 John 5:7, Rev. 22:19 (“book of life”), and Acts 9:6.
  • The chart does not mention that the Byzantine/Traditional text which is the Majority, differs greatly with the TR–well over a thousand times!
  • Another inconsistency is that while the chart takes the time to mention that the Vatican mss has the Apocrypha, it does not mention that the KJV 1611 had the apocrypha also!
  • The chart ends with 1611, but the KJV was revised as late as 1769. Further, the NKJV is a translation from basically the exact same text as the KJV. Due to the NKJV’s footnotes (which are not in every edition of the NKJV), the chart relegates it to the Alexandrian column. However, the KJV 1611 had footnotes, many of which pointed out alternate readings, or pointed out that some mss do not contain certain verses. In fact, the KJV translators defend this practice of using footnotes to point out alternate readings in their preface to the KJV 1611.

Well, more could be said, I’m sure. But this should suffice for demonstrating that this is a slanted and biased presentation. It is not an honest presentation of the facts. Rather it is a work of selective scholarship.

Note: in the comment thread on the forum, Thomas Cassidy (who actually prefers the KJV) pointed out some other inaccuracies of the chart. You can read that thread here.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

"Whosoever Will" and Calvinism

~ fundyreformed ~ 15 Comments

Recently in a forum I read, this question was posed:

QUESTION:
Acts 10:13 states For whosover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rev. 22:17 whosover will let him take the water of life freely
Acts 2:21 states whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be savedThe Bible states several times that it is a whosoever will salvation. How can calvinism be true without updating the definition of the word whosoever?

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved. The only two conditions are belief and confession. There is no you must be elected first. It is whosoever will May Come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I posted a response which I felt I should share here too. This is a common objection, and perhaps some of my readers will be benefited by my brief and I think helpful response.

RESPONSE:
Good question. This is a real argument in many people’s minds. Let me try to explain.

The above verses along with John 3:16 and others use the term “whosoever”. Do Calvinists have to redefine that term in order for their position to be true? Not at all. First let us notice what these verses say, and then look at what Calvinism says.

These verses say who so ever calls (Acts 10:13 and 2:21), wills (Rev. 22:17), or believes (John 3:16) will be saved/drink of water of life freely/receive everlasting life. In other words they say who ever wants to be saved may do so, or who ever believes/repents/chooses to receive salvation can. In fact Jesus said in John 6:37b “him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” So these verses are affirming that anyone who comes to Jesus, anyone who truly wants to come to Jesus will be received and thus will be saved.

Calvinists have absolutely no problem with that at all. What Calvinism addresses is the “behind the scenes” root cause in all of this. In other words, Calvinism seeks to answer this question, “why do some people want to come or want to believe and others do not?” The only reason Calvinism is interested in that question, actually, is because many passages of Scripture speak to that very issue. For instance John 6:37 (a & b) says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” The Calvinist sees this verse as teaching that anyone who comes to Jesus was first given to Jesus by the Father. They also were first drawn by the Father (Jn. 6:44). And further they were enabled to come by the Father (Jn. 6:65).

This is why Calvinism does not at all have to squelch evangelism. In fact, historically, many of the great revivals and great evangelistic endeavors of the Church have been initiated by diehard Calvinists. Calvinists see no incongruity between “whosoever will may come” and “all who come were chosen before the foundation of the world”. Calvinists simply preach the gospel to everyone, since God’s word assures us that people will come to salvation from every people group (Rev. 5). They preach and when people respond, Calvinists see those people as evidencing the fact that they were first elect and then given a new heart by God’s Holy Spirit. Calvinists see that while all are invited to come, no one will come (or even want to come) apart from the work of God (see Rom. 3:10-12; Rom. 8:7-8; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 2 Cor. 4:1-6; etc.). But Calvinists are greatly convinced that God is at work in the world and thus can have confidence in His Sovereign ability to give increase to the seed of the gospel in every situation where we are called to labor (1 Cor. 3:5-7). This actually gives added strength for ministry endeavors in hard areas where fruit is not quickly evident. (For instance, a Calvinist, Adoniram Judson, labored for seven years in Burma before seeing his first convert.)

So I affirm that Calvinism in no way needs to redefine “whosoever” in order for its claims to be true.

If you are interested in following the discussion (if one develops), you can see the thread here. Update: the same question was posed as the beginning of another thread which has had some discussion–you can see that here.

More on Redemptive Historical Interpretation of Scripture

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

Lately I have been thinking alot about hermeneutics. I have been contemplating the merits of the redemptive historical interpretation of Scripture. (Learn what that means here, in a previous post.) The article by my friend Nathan Pitchford, linked to in the post mentioned above, points out that the literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic of the Reformers is different that that of today. And the reason this is the case, is the growth of rationalism due to the pervasive influence of the Enlightenment. (Be sure to read that post, I have mentioned!)

Anyway, last week I heard a presentation by someone on hermeneutics which dealt specifically with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The speaker was teaching that we should not allegorize the parable at all, but that it only conveys a main basic point that Christ was attempting to draw from it. Yet in his presentation, (I suppose to show how this allegorizing kind of interpreting can get out of hand), he quoted many different leaders throughout church history, and only John Calvin did not give an allegorical view of this parable. The first person to push for the interpretation this guy was advancing was in the late 1800s and was a German intellectual. This presentation seemed to push me the other way, totally! It sure seemed to illustrate how rationalistic thinking has changed our hermeneutics. Now granted there have been some extreme examples of rampant allegorization, but by and large a Christ-centered hermeneutic has been employed throughout church history. I cannot bring myself to conclude that the “enlightened” modern (and post-modern) world has finally been able to recover sound hermeneutics, and that the Holy Spirit was somehow unable to bring Christ’s church to unity in a true and sound hermeneutic until He was helped by the Enlightenment.

In thinking through this issue, I came across a good (and brief) article which gives a “how to” plan for interpreting Scripture (specifically OT Scripture–which is where the differences of opinion are strongest, today). As you will see when you look at it, this article does not throw out many of the advances made in interpretation today, particularly greater understanding of the different genres and forms of literature the Bible contains, etc. These insights are very helpful for interpreting the text correctly. However, it stresses that we must compare the teaching of each OT passage with all of redemptive history, particularly the gospel of Christ. Only then can we learn all that God intends for us with this Scripture. The article is called, “How a Christian Can Read Any Old Testament Passage” and is by Robert A Lotzer. [He draws from Beale and Greidanus among others.]

Stay tuned, for more posts on this topic. I think it is as important as any topic I discuss here. May God bring us all to a better understanding of and a clearer apprehension of Christ through His Word.