Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Fellowship Redefined: David Cloud, Mark Dever and the Fundamentalist Notion of “Partnership”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 62 Comments

David Cloud has out done himself. As king of the fundamentalist “dirt alert” squad, Cloud recently declared that the original fundamentalists were all wrong. They cared about the fundamentals of the faith, as something to rally around and unite over. They actually stood by the age-old maxim: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” Imagine that! Boy were they duped. There is no such thing as a non-essential, don’t you know. Rom. 14 and Matt. 23:23 not withstanding.

Cloud has an article entitled “In Essentials Unity”, where he quotes disapprovingly many wise comments from other fundamentalists, like Charles Keen and Clayton Reed, who are waking up to the fact that standing with a brother for the gospel doesn’t imply a wholesale endorsement of every single doctrinal position he may espouse. In fact we can appreciate the contributions of those who differ with us on less important points. Cloud however disagrees, saying, “I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as ‘non-essential’ or to ‘stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals’.”

I have previously spelled out my thoughts on how important it is to accept that the Gospel and other core doctrinal truths are far more important than peripheral matters. And I could also point you to Al Mohler or John MacArthur for excellent defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin and even Thomas Manton, the old Puritan here too. I might as well throw in John Piper and D.A. Carson while I’m at it!

My point in this post, however, is to seize on a small bit of Cloud’s post which speaks volumes about how he and many other fundamentalists think about “fellowship” and “partnership”. This actually might reveal why Cloud and his disciples find themselves so far afield from their fundamentalist forebears.

Cloud brings up Calvary Baptist Seminary’s upcoming National Leadership Conference where they (a fundamentalist institution), will be inviting Mark Dever to be their keynote speaker. Dever, of course, is a leading conservative evangelical, who is not a fundamentalist insider, and certainly not acceptable for fellowship of any kind in Cloud’s book. Here is how Cloud lets us know this problem as to Dever’s credentials:

…and New Evangelical Southern Baptist Mark Dever in 2010. (Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, which is partnered with the very liberal American Baptist Church, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Baptist World Alliance. For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “Partners.”)

In Cloud’s mind, Dever’s association with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention makes his case even more egregious. Not only is he a “new evangelical” and a Southern Baptist, but he is “partnered with” the liberal organizations listed above.

What struck me about this is how completely far off the mark Cloud is in this assertion. Mark Dever is known throughout Christian circles as a conservative’s conservative in many respects. He defends substitutionary atonement and stands for a complementarian position on women in ministry, and he is certainly a champion of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dever encourages a very local-church-centric philosophy of ministry, and has some of the best resources available for Biblical church life. Before I go on to defend Dever, the charges against him are actually going to get worse.

Perhaps as a result of some feedback, Cloud recently sent out two clarifying emails about this statement, through his Fundamental Baptist Information Service newsletter. The second clarification expands on the original statement:

In the article “In Essentials Unity,” December 7, 2010, I made the following statement:

“Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is also a member of the liberal American Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the horribly apostate National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.”

I have been challenged on this, as the Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s web site only lists its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.

While Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not a member of the American Baptist Church directly, it is definitely partnered with the ABC, as well as the very liberal Baptist World Alliance and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, by dint of its membership in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention.

For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “DCBC Directory of Churches” and “Partner Organizations.”

Tod Brainard, author of “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” The Projector, Fall 2010, wrote to me on December 8 as follows:

“Before the publication of my article I contacted the DC Baptist Association in Washington to verify Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s membership with them. The DC Baptist director told me personally that Capitol Hill Baptist Church was a paying member of the association and current on their dues. He further indicated that they had not questioned or expressed concerns over the DC Baptist Association affiliates including all those listed in my article. By the way, Jesse Jackson is a member of the National Baptist Association [which is partnered with the DC Baptist Association].”

In “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” Pastor Brainard wrote:

“Capitol Hill Baptist Church is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention; and the Progressive National Baptist Convention. The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which are both blatantly apostate. In addition the American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church).

“It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together. To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive. Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. ”

———-

I cut off the article at that point where it continues to expound on the perceived dangers of such awful associations and partnerships and where all this can lead. From staunch conservative, Mark Dever has now been transformed into a closet Roman Catholic who collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity! Better be careful what kind of perceived associations fundamentalists will find in you!

Now for the killer. All of this is just a bunch of hooey. The only thing that is true is that Dever’s church is a member of the DCBC. But not a paying member, nor a compliant member. In fact, years ago, Dever led the charge in the SBC to defund the DCBC from any national convention dollars due to their liberal ties. Dever’s church in fact does not pay dues to the DCBC, in fact they don’t even charge dues, they just accept free will offerings (which Dever’s church does not send their way).

A contact of mine at Dever’s church, verified that the church secretary has been receiving calls about this and just this week called the DCBC to verify that they haven’t received funds from Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Dever’s church). In fact, CHBC is on a list of “non-contributing” member churches. The church is in the DC and perhaps there is some benefit to being listed in the DCBC listings. But their “membership” is anything but a complicit involvement in apostasy!

This account is documented in Christianity Today which did a story on the controversy surrounding the DC Baptist Convention and their defunding by the SBC national convention. Here are some quotes from CT documenting Dever’s stance to all of this:

Most area pastors line up with the local convention. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not among them.

“They [DCBC] are presenting this as a political move,” Dever says. “But these agreements presume a common understanding of our purpose. I would encourage the SBC not to give a penny to the D.C. convention.”

…

Dever believes the district convention has a confused theology.

“There’s no personal animus,” Dever says. “That’s what I keep hearing from the DCBC, like somebody’s out to get them. I don’t think they have a good category for genuine theological disagreement.”

So the record is plain for all to see, Dever is not partnering with the DCBC in any theological sense. But David Cloud and his like, see it differently. Any membership or association of any kind, entails a complete agreement, not only of the association itself, but all the associations each group has which is associated with the other group. I don’t see how most of those Baptist groups are really and truly connected in spirit with the Pontiff of Rome. But the fundamentalist notion of “partnership” can magically make this happen.

This isn’t just a crazy story. This isn’t just a ludicrous blunder by Cloud. This is a travesty of Christian fellowship. If this is how we treat fellow ministers of the Gospel, woe be to us! Such foolishness crowds out the Gospel, which becomes just another hill we will die on. With the Gospel as “just another doctrine”, we lose a Christ-centered, Gospel-rooted faith. The result is a schismatic, piety which is no one’s true friend. And grace is left out of the mix. I’ll close with some wise words of old, from the Puritan, Thomas Manton (commenting on Phil. 3:15):

…when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity…. Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.

Quotes to Note 22: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Altar Calls

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

When asked if Scripture justifies the use of public invitations (altar calls) or not, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones responded quite directly.

“The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit….

…I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.”

You can read the entire response by Dr. Lloyd-Jones on this subject over at Banner of Truth [HT: Aaron Sauer]. Also be sure to check out a few posts I’ve done related to this issue, of the “altar call”:

Are We “New Covenant Believers”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 31 Comments

In the comments on a recent article I came across, someone made the following statement:

…Then move to something controversial: Zech. 12:10-14 and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In guiding our people responsibly through that passage, we need to wrestle with similar “outpouring” language in the NT, but also with the limited object of the outpouring in Zech. 12:10, “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

If we leave behind the matter of literalness, who is to say our application isn’t heresy (to quote Haddon Robinson)? Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)… [emphasis added]

As I was typing up a response to the idea that we are not “new covenant believers”, I thought my answer might make for a good blog post. So I’m sharing my response for your benefit. Do I hit the mark? Does this make sense? I’d love your input after reading my reply below.

I want to challenge this a bit. And I’m just using Ted’s words here it isn’t about him it’s a bigger issue. What John is doing is trying to do justice to the NT teaching which is quite clear on how much continuity there is between God’s people before Christ and afterward. The comments here by the opposing view center only on Zecharaiah mostly.

If we just had Jer. 31, then yes, we aren’t “new covenant believers”, to use Ted’s terms. But the New Testament tells us the new covenant has begun. Jesus said as much in his inauguration of the Lord’s Supper ceremony for the church. “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” (Luke 22:20 ESV) Paul tells us that he is a minister of the new covenant:

“Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)

In context, the ministry of the new covenant is Paul’s ministry of spreading the gospel among the gentiles (4:1 “this ministry”… and 4:3-6 “our gospel”).

Furthermore, Hebrews says the old covenant is passing away and insufficient because the new covenant is here, see chapters 8 and 10 of Hebrews where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted and applied as a current reality.

Not only are we “new covenant believers”, we are inhabitants of “Jerusalem” who is our true mother (see Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22) and seek a heavenly city in the same sense that OT believers sought a heavenly (not earthly) city (Heb. 13:14, cf. Heb. 11:13-16).

This NT language means something. The NT description of God’s people being a living temple is something that goes beyond OT realities. Something is happening in the NT and it will affect how we understand the OT. 1 Peter tells us that the OT authors often didn’t know what they were writing of, but were writing for our benefit (1 Pt. 1:10-12). And what happened to the OT saints is a lesson and instruction for us and was written for our encouragement (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4).

I believe that following the lead of the NT apostles and Jesus, in how they used OT Scripture and saw that it culminated in Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace, is how best to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn’t leave us without a hermeneutic. A redemptive-historical hermeneutic aims to follow the teaching of the Bible about itself and to understand how Christ truly sums up all things in His own ministry. He fulfills the Law.

I think John Davis’ last paragraph captures the NT age experience well. The new covenant is here but we aren’t experiencing it in all its fullness quite yet. That may mean a millennium, but it certainly means more than a millennium. Christ will reign and we will live on a restored earth for all eternity.

This post follows on the heels of my recent entry on Gal. 6:16 which I’d encourage you to read, if the thought of the NT depiction of the church in OT terms is new to you. Again, I’m interested in any input you might have regarding this question. Are we, or aren’t we, “new covenant believers”?

Quotes to Note 21: Melancthon & Zwingli on the Fruit of Faith

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The following is excerpted from Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings by James R. Payton Jr. (IVP, 2010), pg. 124-125.

Today many mistake the Reformation emphasis on “sola fide” (“faith alone”) with an easy-believism where faith is all that matters and works are downplayed to the extreme that some view them as completely optional in the life of the Christian. James Payton in his book, explains that to the Reformers, faith was never so “alone”. Rather, they expected faith to always be accompanied by good works.

I found the following quotes from Philip Melancthon and Ulrich Zwingli quite helpful on this point.

Philip Melancthon [from his 1521 Loci communes theologici in Melancthon and Bucer ed. Wilhelm Pauck, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), pg. 92, 109 and 112] —

Faith is nothing else than trust in the divine mercy promised in Christ…. This trust in the goodwill or mercy of God first calms our hearts and then inflames us to give thanks to God for his mercy so that we keep the law gladly and willingly.

Faith cannot but pour forth from all creatures in most eager service to God as a dutiful son serves a godly father.

For although faith alone justifies, love is also demanded…. A living faith is that efficacious, burning trust in the mercy of God which never fails to bring forth good fruits.

Ulrich Zwingli [from his 1531 An Exposition of the Faith, in Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. and trans. G.W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), pg. 272] —

But we must add at once that the pious will not cease from good works simply because it is impossible to gain any merit by them. Rather, the greater our faith, the more and greater our works…. For since faith is inspired by the Holy Spirit, how can it be slothful or inactive when the Spirit himself is unceasing in his activity and operation? Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.

You may also be interested in reading my review of Getting the Reformation Wrong by James R. Payton Jr.. See also a previous “quotes to note” post where I shared some good thoughts from Zwingli on the gospel. And

Galatians 6:16 and “The Israel of God”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 has long been a matter of contention. Scholars and theologians, as well as pastors and church leaders have debated whether or not the Church should be included in Paul’s descriptor “the Israel of God”. Dispensationalists in particular are very concerned that we not include the Church as part of “the Israel of God”. Obviously the interpretation of this verse has theological implications.

What I find interesting is how much trouble has been spent on this verse to avoid the Church (believing Gentiles and Jews) being referred to by the precise term “Israel”. Why should that term be more important than the following terms which all clearly teach that the Church shares much continuity with Old Testament, believing Israel?

Gentile Christians (who, in part make up “the Church”) are called:

  • those who share “the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”, and thus share in “the promise” (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)
  • Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)
  • “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29)
  • children of “the Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” (Gal. 4:26)
  • “like Isaac”, they are “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28)
  • formerly, Gentile Christians were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” now they are “no longer strangers and aliens” but are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12,19)
  • “the real circumcision” (Phil. 3:3)
  • “the offspring of Abraham” for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)
  • recipients of the “new covenant” (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)
  • “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion“, “elect exiles“, “sojourners and exiles” (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)
  • “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)
  • formerly they were “not a people, but now” they “are God’s people“; formerly they “had not received mercy, but now” they “have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)
  • “a kingdom, priests to… God” (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)

This list doesn’t include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5). Sure one or two of the terms in the list above might be open to dispute. But the cumulative result of all of the titles above seems to be undeniable — Gentile Christians share many titles and privileges with believing Israel of old.

Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, “the Israel of God”? Again consider Paul’s statements below:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)

Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish “Israel of God” seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, “all who walk by this rule” (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the “peace and mercy”.

I have read and reviewed O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and found his arguments concerning the verse quite compelling. Recently I came across 2 additional articles which deal well with this question.

G.K. Beale’s “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b” (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) is fantastic. He shows that Isaiah 54:10 is most likely alluded to in Paul’s very unusual linking of the terms peace and mercy. He demonstrates that the terms are not commonly found together and demonstrates convincingly that the “new creation” motif of Isaiah 54 is likely in Paul’s mind when he penned Galatians 6:16. His analysis sides with the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (i.e., the Church).

Andreas Köstenberger around the same time as Beale, independently worked on an article entitled: “The Identity of ‘Ισραηλ  Ï„ου Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16″ (Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001], pg. 3-24). His article approaches the issue from a wider angle analyzing the passage syntactically and theologically. He concludes that the term refers to all the believing Church, whereas the “them” earlier in the verse is more specifically focused on believers at Galatia. He also shows how this verse harmonizes with Rom. 9-11 and Paul’s emphasis there.

The articles above (as well as the book mentioned previously) would be a good read for this topic. Michael Marlowe also includes some historic quotations from earlier commentators on this particular question, at bible-researcher.com.

I don’t think that the term “Israel of God” by itself settles the dispensationalist/covenant theology debate. But I would have to think some nuancing is required for strict dispensationalists. For more on the dispensational / covenant debate, I would also point you to my series “Understanding the Land Promise“.