Category: Issues

various issues within fundamentalism specifically or evangelicalism as a whole

The Best Argument for Calvinism: Rom. 8:28 – 9:24

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

I had always heard people say that Calvinism is based on logical implications not required by Scripture. Basically, it was argued, Calvinists have gone beyond what Scripture clearly teaches to come up with their positions. Anyone who agrees with this assessment must grapple with this passage of Scripture: Rom. 8:28-9:24. Why? Because it is the single best argument for Calvinism–and it is simply Scripture.

From my experience, most people choose to ignore this passage. Chapter 9 practically never gets preached on. And the average Christian just turns his brain off when reading this. Or if he is disturbed by the passage’s seeming contradiction with his theories of the atonement and man’s free will, he quickly meditates on his understanding of John 3:16 and goes on his way. Some do deal with this passage, but they so blatantly come to it with their preconceived notions as to what Scripture already does teach, that they cannot simply sit at the feet of Romans 9 and learn.

The article I am about to link to, is a good and simply written exposition of this passage. I encourage all to read it and let Scripture speak to this debate. In my own experience, I have found that it is the non Calvinist who does not let the Scripture speak. They are the ones who depend upon logical arguments for their position. There are scores and scores of passages which plainly teach the various truths which Calvinists singularly affirm. As many have said before, the Calvinist really does affirm everything a non Calvinist affirms about the gospel and God. Yet they affirm more, because they are compelled by Scripture to do so.

So, here is the article, An Overview of Romans 8:28-9:24, compliments of Reformation Theology Blog. Do not let others do your thinking for you. Read and study, and let Scripture be the authority for you on this issue.

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

Reformed Hermeneutics: Christ-centered not Naturalistic

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford was recently made a contributor to Monergism.Com‘s Reformation Theology Blog! In his first post, he dealt with an issue concerning which he has written a book (he is currently seeking to get it published). It is an issue which is very important to our understanding of Scripture–the topic of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Everyone has a hermeneutic, whether or not they can spell the word, or know what it means.

Evangelicalism today largely favors the use of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. This approach takes each word in its normal sense unless the context or grammar demands otherwise. It also takes into account the historical setting of the author, book, and audience, in making interpretative decisions.

Nathan argues that this was the approach of the Reformer’s, yet with one important extra feature. The Reformer’s interpretive approach focused on finding how every passage of Scripture centered on Jesus Christ. They viewed the Bible as a unified whole, presenting one story–God’s redemption of fallen man.

Nathan points out that the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been used due to the influence of the Enlightenment and subsequent liberal theology, to stress a naturalistic approach to the text. Nathan contrasts the two approaches to Scripture prominent today as follows:

“What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate ‘a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament’? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, ‘How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage,’ in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther’s grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses’ striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.”

The approach Nathan advocates, is called a “redemptive historical approach” by Reformation Theology Blog, and others. Nathan gives six reasons why an approach which “does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.” They are:

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God’s ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul’s assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible — that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, Paul’s interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James’ citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading “on its own terms” .

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ’s own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

Be sure to read his entire article!

The List

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Take a ride on the Big Orange Truck!

A blogging friend of mine has posted his LIST of problems with the IFBx wing of fundamentalism. It is really good so I want to reproduce it here. But be sure to check out his blog–it is devoted to many of the same topics as mine. It is called the Big Orange Truck. Why? Check out this post and it will all make sense!

After some introductory comments and disclaimers, he presents the list which I reproduce here verbatim:

1. Weak theology – I should probably stop here because this problem has caused all of the following. Many of my IFB college courses were a joke. There were no systematic theology classes offered. The one Bible doctrines class that was offered was shallow, weak, and incomprehensive. Classes on specific Books of the Bible were basically Sunday school lessons for which I paid tuition.

A fellow alumnus once told me that our college concentrated more on methodology than theology, and that graduates were expected to learn theology later on their own. This is true, and this is what I did (and am still doing). I learned that my methodology was challenged by biblical theology. One or the other has to change, and I am finding myself leaving much of the methodology that was inculcated at my alma mater.

2. Shallow Preaching – Or I could say “unbiblical” preaching. Much of the preaching I’ve heard was shallow and unbiblical. The text was used as a launch pad into the preacher’s “private interpretation”. Most sermons were a hodge-podge of motivational speaking, psycho-babble, Bible quotations, and lots of volume. I call these kind of preachers “fire-breathing ear ticklers”. Expository preaching was not only avoided, it was criticized. Bible texts became contortionists in order to fit into a sermon. A sermon was considered good based on the delivery and not its substance. This is how preaching was practiced, and this is how I was taught.

3. Lack of unity – A better way to say it may be “reversed separation.” Many IFB preachers separate, fight, and feud for stupid and silly reasons. Unity is done under the banner of surface issues, but separation is rarely practiced over real doctrinal issues.

Separation is good, and often biblically required. The problem I see is that separation is reversed…IFB preachers often separate when they should unite, and they unite when they should be separating. As a result, IFB circles are full of contention, division, back stabbing, gossip, and one-upmanship.

4. Numbers Obsession – Bigness is everything. Size really does matter. Numbers are all important. Everything is done for more numbers…more “salvations”, more baptisms, more in attendance, more anything and everything.

This numbers obsession is so bad, many preachers, churches, and colleges “manufacture” results, or just flat out lie, in order to be top dog. More on this later.

5. Sloppy soul winning & Easy prayerism – This is a result of bad theology and the numbers obsession. Like a domino effect, it all begins with bad theology.

The soul winning method I was taught concentrated on manipulation, and the purpose of the process was to get somebody to say a prayer. I’ve seen many soul winners “lead someone to the Lord” in less than 5 minutes. Soul winning was often done with bravado and complete carelessness in regard to a “convert’s” genuine conversion.

6. Celebrityism – This is an especially egregious problem in IFBx circles. Pastors of really large churches achieve the coveted celebrity status. They are the ones that preach at all the conferences. They are the ones that steer the doctrine and methodology of their followers. They are the ones that define the different camps within Baptist fundamentalism.

It is natural for good pastors who have successful ministries to have influence in his circle of brethren. Being a megachurch pastor is not wrong. Great pastors will always influence present and future generations. It becomes “celebrityism” when only the opinions of the celebs are respected, and anything done in contradiction to the opinion of an IFB celeb is considered as heresy. Any critic of a celeb is considered an apostate. This naturally leads to cultism. I am a great admirer of Spurgeon, but even Spurgeon was human and prone to mistakes, and I do not consider him the final authority on anything. I just greatly value his knowledge and skill.

Celebrityism is not just an attitude in a megachurch pastor, it is the atmosphere in IFBx culture. Unless you are a big shot, you basically don’t matter. Your voice is silent. Your ministry is trivial, and if you happen to differ from a celeb on anything, then you are wrong simply because your church isn’t big enough to make you right. Whenever there are contradicting opinions, the guy with the biggest church is always right.

For what it’s worth, this is my list.

It’s helping me keep it ‘tween the ditches, and the greasy side down.

I think that list sums up some of the important problems rampant in some secters of fundamentalism today. Be sure to read his whole post here, too. You will see that Joe is not out to destroy fundamentalism or anything. He is seriously speaking out for change.

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

The Role of the Church in King James Version Onlyism

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

I have been following a rather interesting discussion on the KJV Only issue over at Sharper Iron. Since the key KJVO arguer is my former pastor Kent Brandenburg, the discussion originally picqued my interest. It is one of his first discussions over at Sharper Iron and it is a heated one. The discussion does not really pick up heat and intensity until he posts on pg. 5, I believe. The debate is worth checking out because it highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the debate.

Pastor Brandenburg’s main thesis, and the main point of the book he edited on the topic (Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture) can be summarized as follows. (The Scripture passages listed are the ones he refers to in the blog, more are mentioned in the book, I believe.)

  1. God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
  2. God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
  3. God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)

Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology, and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.

Now Brandenburg and other KJVO-ists have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.

Let me restate that this interpretation/application of these 3 points does not necessarily follow an acceptance of them. Most who say God preserved every word in the totality of the manuscripts (another application of point 1) affirm that there is really much consensus between the versions and texts. They point out that really only about 1-2% of the text is disputed, and of that significant differences are rare and do not affect the overall theology of the Scriptures. On point 2, we can note that this position cuts both ways. The Byzantine texts were not universally available–in all locales until the 1600s. They were not dominant until the late 900s. And even though they rose to prominence as far as numbers, the readings of the other text families did not die out. They were known and studied all throughout the period. The similarities the TR has with the Vulgate and the huge demand for more and more TR editions helped ensure that texts popularity. But Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and many another conservative leader or scholar adopted some of the non-Byzantine readings. Even the KJV marginal notes mention variant readings, and Erasmus’ notes on his original TR editions clearly question many readings he maintained in the text.

Point 3 is where I would like to center the rest of this post on. This point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism. Brandenburg and others use this point to find extra authentication for their position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.

The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.

  1. That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
  2. That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
  3. That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
  4. That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
  5. That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.

In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).

I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now Brandenburg would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.

With regard to assumption 3, Brandenburg would say that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.

Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?

The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists like Brandenburg can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!

In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.

I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this (see Thomas Cassidy’s comments in that Sharper Iron thread). But most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.

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

Clarifying My Critique of Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Recently, Jeff Voegtlin (Vice President of Fairhaven Baptist College, and an assistant pastor at Fairhaven Baptist Church) posted a clarification on his blog as to his view regarding my departure from fundamentalism. He had made one of the first comments on my blog in response to “My Story and Critique of Fundamentalism”, and apparently someone read a little too much into that comment. An email exchange ensued to see what exactly Jeff’s take on my story really was. Jeff posted an edited version of that exchange (as well as linking to my story) to make it clear that he does not support my positions.

Well, since Jeff’s post will introduce my departure from fundamentalism to his readers, I decided to comment on his blog. I wanted to clarify what my position exactly is concerning Fairhaven and fundamentalism in general. In doing so, I actually provided a more succinct critique of fundamentalism than my long biographical letter. So I thought posting this response to Jeff’s blog post would be beneficial to my readers as well. [I will link to this briefer version of my critique of fundamentalism in my original critique to let others opt for the smaller version if they desire.] So here is my response in full.

Pastor Jeff,I would like to say a few things and clarify my point of view for those now introduced to my departure from fundamentalism, if I may. (This will enable them not to have to read my long letter in order to understand my position.)

First, I want to stress that I thank God for you and your ministry. I learned much from you, and treasure the years I spent on your bus route. You, more than any other staff member at Fairhaven, had a tremendous impact on my life. Your example encourages me to think, learn, study, trust, and selflessly serve. There are few people who are as busy and devoted in God’s service as you. And through it all, you remain serious yet joyful. I want to emulate your example.

Second, let me add, that I also am grateful for my time at Fairhaven. I have no cause to question the seriousness or genuineness of any of those who have taught me during my years there. They are men (and women) of God who desire to please Him with all their heart. I have great respect for Dr. Voegtlin and his attempt to avoid being just another fundamentalist “big shot”. He humbly serves God with all his heart, and has left me an example of what sincere faith in God can accomplish. During my time at Fairhaven I was impressed with how the college was striving to improve and grow to be an even better place for education. I am thankful for the friends I had and the personal interaction with teachers (not to mention the many valuable things I learned from my classes). I also am glad the college stressed our involvement in the various ministries of the church.

Third, in light of this perspective, why have I abandoned fundamentalism? I explained that in my letter, which you have linked to in this post. But let me summarize (and clarify) that letter a bit. I have come to disagree with some of the interpretations of Fairhaven on certain issues. These issues include the KJV-only issue, local-church only ecclesiology, their position on Calvinism, their categorical rejection of pants on women and modern/contemporary music styles, their fundamentalist view of separation, and their stance on dispensationalism (and pre-trib. rapture). I also have come to see certain emphases of fundamentalism as being potentially very dangerous, such as the ease with which a performance-based Christianity (legalistic sanctification) finds root (both consciously and unconsciously) in the structures set up by fundamentalism, the tendency toward an extreme view of pastoral authority accompanied (usually) by a rejection of the Biblical (I believe) position of rule by a plurality of elders, a tendency toward emphasizing stylistic elements of preaching more than a careful and studious treatment of Scripture (which doubtless accompanies an avoidance of real scholarship as somehow antithetical to spirituality), and the tendency toward a hair-trigger approach to separation (looking for reasons to separate from others rather than for trying to unify with other believers) which results in real schisms and unnecessary divisions in the universal body of Christ (this can tend to a self-righteous, holier-than-thou view of other non-fundamentalist Christians which is extremely unChristian and unhealthy). Since there is a great degree of autonomy promoted within fundamentalism (which is not necessarily wrong) there exist many different forms/versions (or camps) of fundamentalism. My criticisms apply less to some groups than others. I do view Fairhaven as an example of extreme fundamentalism, yet only in this sense: there is now a large group of fundamentalists who agree that making such matters as the use of the KJV Bible only, pants on women, and a rejection of Calvinism a test of fellowship is wrong and that groups who do so are extreme examples of fundamentalism. [This sphere of fundamentalism is represented by Central Baptist Theological Seminary/Fourth Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN; Bob Jones University; Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary/Inter-city Baptist Church of Allen Park, MI; Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary/Calvary Baptist Church in Lansdale, PA; and also SharperIron.Com.] This group within fundamentalism sees such positions as minor differences which should not separate believers. They understandably see these positions as being held most often by groups which even Fairhaven would consider extreme (Hyles Anderson College/First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN; Texas Baptist College/Longview Baptist Temple of Longview, TX; the views of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger; etc.). I would consider Fairhaven a “modified extreme” or a “reasoned extreme” version of fundamentalism. This assessment has less to do with the practice of Fairhaven and more to do with the beliefs held by Fairhaven. I would say that all Independent Fundamental Baptists have inherited structures and procedures which were used by the extreme versions of Fundamentalism, and these structures have a negative impact to a varying degree on the practice and positions of every example of fundamentalism.

Fourth, let me state the obvious: I may be wrong. Further, I am not an authority on this issue. I have made personal conclusions based on my (short) lifetime within fundamentalism and have found such things to be true. I have come across many others who are wiser than I am who say the same things (some are even within fundamentalism still), though. I do not want to posit myself as the Know-It-All. But I understand some will write me off as such (since they know it all!). Nevertheless I feel compelled to speak out against these problems with fundamentalism, since I believe they are serious and have hindered my growth (and others’) in Christ. My blog is an attempt to think through the issues and discuss what I believe concerning fundamentalism, as well as to be a catalyst toward greater unity.

Fifth, I have tried to make it clear that I do not view fundamentalists as enemies [see this clarification post as well as my original reply to your comment to my letter/(story & critque)]. I greatly respect their high view of Scripture and their adherence to the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. I would say I share that belief. I further respect their courageous stand for truth. I too strive to stand for truth (my applying separation differently does not mean I do not believe in and practice separation). I am very encouraged that fundamentalists make the gospel central to all they do and emphasize salvation by grace through faith alone (although some segments of fundamentalism–Fairhaven not being part of them–have abandoned a Biblical doctrine of repentance for an easy believism/1-2-3-repeat-after-me view of salvation). From my perspective I can agree to disagree on the truly minor areas of disagreement I have with fundamentalists and unify around the huge gospel truths and essential/fundamental doctrines of Scripture that we tenaciously hold to in common. Yet, having been on the other side of the fence, I understand that from their perspective I have abandoned the faith, practically. I cannot be associated with or fellowshipped with for fear of my negative influence or in respect to their position on separation. This does not change the fact that I desire to have a greater unity with fundamentalist brethren around the great Name and cause of Jesus Christ.

Sixth, let me say that I was encouraged by your original comment in response to my story/critique. You did not summarily write me off as others have, and rather seemed to welcome criticism of fundamentalism. I took that as your being sincere in trying to pursue the truth for yourself, yet I also understood that for you it most definitely meant you were just trying to ensure your brand of fundamentalism was Biblically rooted and you were interested in how others saw your positions. Your clarification of that comment here is basically what I gathered from your comment. I am encouraged to see you have been thinking about some of the excesses and errors perpetuated by some fundamentalists, and I am glad you are trying to avoid those errors. I also originally understood the tongue-in-cheek nature of your coming “to know the truth also” comment. I took your comment partly as a plea for me to treat fundamentalists with more grace. And that comment and other feedback I received led me to clarify my views and attempt to be sure I was not overstating my case and just simply bad-mouthing a group of people who are sincere in their desire to please God and hold the doctrines the Bible teaches. It ultimately lead to this post, which reflects my desire to glorify God in and through everything on my blog.

Seventh, I want to let you know I did listen to one or more of your sermons, and was impressed (as I usually was with your preaching back in college). I also have read almost everything on your blog. I particularly enjoyed your post about the ditch. I purposely did not comment for a few reasons. I did not want to be seen as aggessively attacking Fairhaven or seeking to gain recruits away from fundamentalism. I wanted to respect your church and ministry and not disrupt it. Also, the circumstances surrounding the correspondence you disclose here made me uncomfortable in commenting on your blog before now. In the future, I probably will not comment much, if at all. And if you request me to not comment at all, I would certainly understand. I do not want or intend to change your blog into a debate forum on fundamentalism.

Finally, let me explain that I disagree with your friend’s interpretation of my story. That is probably obvious to you. I am currently still planning on answering a letter posted by someone else on my blog which gets into specifc discussion of the doctrinal beliefs I hold; but in light of other discussions I have already had, I will probably not continue my correspondence with your friend in question. That discussion has broken down into a he said/she said debate. It is my word against his, and since memories are fallible, I cannot absolutely prove he is trying to destroy my reputation or something. I still hold him in high respect, although that has lessened somewhat from the recent exchanges. If more needs to be said from me, I will let you or your friend ask for it. It is already clear we disagree. It seems pointless to continue marshalling arguments back and forth in a lost cause.

I pray God’s blessing on your family and ministry. Oh, and unfortunately you were right in regards to the length of my writings! 🙂

In Christ,

Bob Hayton

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