Category: Theology

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

Baptism & Young Children

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

A quick update here. Grudem responded to Piper’s rebuttal of Grudem’s change of his position on baptism and church membership. (That sentence is a mouthful!)

Then Justin Taylor followed that up by highlighting two helpful articles by Vern Poythress. The first one is called “Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children“, and explores two attitudes to church membership and the nature of faith in little children (ages 2 and up). What Poythress says concerning the church in that paper is worth thinking through irrespective of the baptism position altogether — especially for us fundamentalist types.

The second paper is more overtly connected to paedobaptism (Vern Poythress is paedo), and is entitled “Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing“. It explores the implications of Jesus’ reception of the little children and the nature of our experiencing Jesus in the company of the saints every time we gather in corporate worship.

Both of the articles by Poythress are well worth your time. He is very humble and brings up some excellent points. What he says can also be taken to heart even without opening membership to those of the opposite baptismal position. I’d be interested to hear any of your thoughts on the articles!

Baptism and Church Membership

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

In the past, I’ve explored the baptism debate on my blog. A friend of mine, Nathan Pitchford, has 4 excellent articles covering almost all sides of the debate. He started out defending Baptism from a Reformed, Covenantal perspective, but went on to retract his position and affirm a paedobaptistic view. I summarized that view as clearly as possible in an attempt to hone in on the real areas of dispute.

Many a Baptist would roll his eyes at my attempts to understand the other side. What’s the point? I’m sure that would have been my view, back when I was a dyed-in-the-wool strict fundamentalist. Of course our view is right, its historical (think Trail of Blood, here)!

Even after coming to leave strict fundamentalism and embrace Calvinism, I still had much skepticism over any non-Baptist view. So I wasn’t prepared for the dramatic results of entering the debate. I quickly learned that the Reformed paedobaptistic view has a lot of Biblical support. This is apparent when you understand the view from their perspective. I also learned that much of my “unshakable” arguments were actually irrelevant. Paedobaptists affirm the need for adult converts to be baptized, the question surrounds what to do with the children of believers. Pointing out NT examples of adult conversions does nothing to address the debate.

Through the whole exchange I gained an appreciation and respect for Bible-believing, thoughtful paedobaptist brothers. And I was prepared all the more to agree with my pastor, John Piper’s contention that baptism should not be an issue to divide Christ’s church over. It should be a big deal to refuse someone membership into the local church. Church isn’t about being on the same team or membership in a club — its about recognition of membership in the Body of Christ. My friend Nathan has some strong arguments that an even more dramatic unity should be pursued, than that for which John Piper was calling for. And I do agree that believers in today’s specialized world take for granted the full array of choices for the Western church-shopper.

Piper advocated a compromise of sorts. Elders would need to affirm an explicitly Baptist confession of faith, but believers who conscientiously held to a Bible-based understanding that paedobaptism is valid, would be allowed into membership, and only after having submitted to a meeting with an elder who would try to convince them of the Baptist view. In this way, a Baptist church could affirm the salvation of fellow believers who differed over this point of what is a valid baptism. And a similar position was held by none other than John Bunyan, one of the most famous historic Baptists.

The proposal was rejected by our church, at least at this time. There is hope of its being revived and accepted in the future, perhaps. What I found interesting at the time, was reading Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology propose something very similar to what our church was considering. He also pointed to the Evangelical Free Church which has a similar compromise in place at a denominational level.

I am writing about all of this because Grudem recently revised his section on the Baptism question with regard to this issue, effectively taking back his previous proposal. Justin Taylor posted the reworded section on his blog recently. Today, John Piper responded with a rebuttal to Grudem’s reversal.

I think the issue is worth considering, and if you haven’t explored the issue you should. Baptists particularly have been extremely divisive on this issue and have probably been guilty of shameful ill-will toward fellow believers. But of course historically, the Baptists have been maligned and worse in years gone by!

If you are interested in understanding the paedobaptist position, you should really read Nathan’s articles. The comments are a virtual debate that for the most part stays very charitable, and extremely insightful. Also, I recently read an 11 part series on the Reformed view of Baptism which specifically interacts with the Baptist position by Drake Shelton of Post Tenebras Lux. His articles are actually a quick read, and the first few provide an excellent case for sprinkling/pouring as the Biblical understanding of baptizo. If you are rolling your eyes again, you better check them out — they really are quite convincing!

If you’re wondering, I am still a Baptist. But I view the issue as much less definitive, and have planned to do some serious reading on this issue in the future. For the sake of growing in your appreciation of other believers in Christ, I would urge you to consider the matter. We may not see eye-to-eye on some of the issues this brings up, and that’s okay! But I encourage you to study and perhaps enter a discussion in the comments below.

With that in mind, you might be interested in reading the Mark Dever’s thoughts on the matter (accessible here), at the conclusion of an address establishing John Bunyan’s open membership views.

UPDATE: I have a question: How far removed is the open membership question from the open communion question? The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 affirmed: “Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer… that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord’s Supper…” Is not the historic acceptance of open communion among Baptists not an historic support for an open membership view?

UPDATE #2: Grudem has responded to Piper’s rebuttal. (You may also be interested in the comments here on Justin Taylor’s blog).

Man-Centered Christianity (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

** first read part 1

Jesus is our buddy, and God is our friend. Christ is hip, and church is cool. This sentiment is alive and well in today’s American Christianity, along with: God has a special plan for your life. You are very special to Him.

The problem with the Church today is that we are using God. Like Aladdin, we depend on our genie to help us live a meaningful and happy life. Afraid of hell, or guilty over sin? Pray a prayer, and Jesus takes care of it. Worry on the job, stress in your family situation? The Bible has the answer, its God’s guidebook for life. Longing for true acceptance and love? No one loves you like Jesus does! In the church we all love each other and look out for one another.

It takes a trained eye, but do you see how the above concerns all center around self and self-esteem? Perhaps its no wonder, then, that Jesus is also offered among evangelicals today, as one who can guarantee that you will get what you want, that you will get rich, that you will prosper, or that you will be healed.

How did we get here? Man-Centered Methodology including the Sinner’s Prayer

I suppose that there have always been such errors in the Church, after all we are human. But with the rise of the revivalist movement in the 1800s, an emphasis was placed on crafting evangelistic appeals tailored to the likes and dislikes of the audience. Charles Finney invented the altar call, and appealed to the human free will to come forward and make a commitment to Christ. Later evangelists continued to employ pragmatic methods in a largely parachurch context as they drew ever larger crowds together in large mass meetings around the country, and the world.

The pledge a new convert would make eventually was replaced by a prayer. And under Billy Sunday, the prayer was changed into the modern “sinner’s prayer”. Never before in the history of the church had such a method been used. Now sinners were directed to pray for personal salvation, rather than given counsel and encouraged to believe and thereafter commit/pledge to follow Christ with all their being. This subtle change in methodology, like the many that preceded, became a new tradition that bound countless evangelists and ministers for generations to follow.

From a personal prayer for salvation, the “sinner’s prayer” became employed en masse. Crowds were instructed to repeat this prayer if they wanted to be saved. And then came the religious tracts, which today overwhelmingly call for a prayer to be repeated. These prayers have given assurance to thousands, and have transformed our modern view of salvation.

While Scripture speaks of those who are “being saved”, most evangelicals view salvation in the past tense. While past evangelists exhorted converts to continue steadfastly in the faith, modern-day converts are promised that even the most damaging sins will not result in the loss of your salvation — the salvation they “received” upon their just completed recitation of the “sinner’s prayer”. Today, multitudes struggle over whether they “said the right words”, or truly “meant it”. And assurance is often given based on Rom. 10:13 and whether the person remembers a “time and a place” when they accepted Christ.

Whereas before converts would often come from churches where they had heard countless Scriptural sermons, and been given personal Scriptural counseling, before finally coming to repentance, today’s converts are given a few (often very few) verses, ripped from their context and strung together in the form of a “Roman’s Road”, or “The Four Spiritual Laws”. Earnest and biblical preaching has sometimes been turned into a well-crafted psychological appeal. Often times seekers are manipulated into just “trying” the prayer, or giving Jesus “a test drive”. In some fundamentalist circles, almost any means is employed to get people to repeat the magical, soul-saving, prayer — including putting a foot in people’s doors so they can’t shut it and so they have to hear the soul-winner’s quick appeal to pray this prayer.

Hold on a second, Bob! Where’s your proof, and aren’t you exaggerating a bit here? I knew someone was thinking that. You were, weren’t you?

In the next few days I will be reviewing a book which offers some historical background and proof for many of my assertions here. I’ll even be having a book give away (so stay tuned!). But at this point, I should insert a caveat. I do not think, that a “sinner’s prayer” experience is necessarily void of any merit. I think countless believers started believing in Christ right around the time they prayed that first prayer. The prayer didn’t save them, faith did; and the prayer was merely a vehicle by which to express their faith.

Problems with the “Sinner’s Prayer”

But at the same time I see some serious problems with this methodology. The “sinner’s prayer” can lead people to trust in an act they did as a means of salvation. They are saved because they prayed and did their part of Rom. 10:13 — they “called”, so God has to “save”. But salvation is not a mere transaction. And often the prayer is merely a recognition that you believe certain facts — the Gospel facts. No one is saved by believing facts, people must repent and trust Jesus alone for salvation.

Further, a “sinner’s prayer” gives people a false hope. Assurance is tied to the act, not to faith. And beyond that, it fosters a point-in-time prevailing view of salvation. It does not encourage people to take seriously the many Biblical warnings for those who do not persevere in faith.

And lastly, the “sinner’s prayer” fosters a self-orientation and a man-centered view of Christianity. Because God died to save people, people are important. I am important. My needs were met by God, so I should thank him and live for him. But still everything centers around me, even God is bowing down to serve me, having done all He could to save my soul.

Looks like these posts are turning into a series. Next time, I will discuss the theology of the “sinner’s prayer”, and Bible arguments against it. Then I will get into a Biblical view of eternal security/perseverance. And finally, Lord willing, I will explain what a God-centered Christianity looks like.AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Man-Centered Christianity?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

Many times labels are a bit self-serving. After all, “I” am God-centered, Gospel-centered, Christ-centered, God-saturated, etc. etc. And of course you aren’t. Oh, and I’m orthodox, my beliefs are historical and Biblical, and Spurgeon agrees with my position! Labels are at the same time helpful. There is an orthodox position. History does matter, and gospel-centered does mean something.

Perhaps an aversion to any kind of theological pride in labels is behind recent blog discussion (by those Phil Johnson calls “post-evangelical”) centering on the question, “Can you be too God-Centered?” While some good points are raised concerning that question, from my vantage point the overwhelming problem in evangelicalism today is that far too many are man-centered.

I don’t want to merely throw out such a label in hopes of scoring points. And I realize no one will be standing in line to claim the label I’m describing here! But this is a very important issue, and I hope I can gain a hearing.

The problem I’m discussing is especially big among strict fundamentalists, yet it’s present among many more liberty-conscious evangelicals. From the TBN-watching Arminians, to even the staunchest, doctrine-loving Reformed — man-centered Christianity finds a home.

It’s sometimes overt, yet often dangerously subtle. And since we are all recipients of Adam’s sin nature (and the pride of our one-time father the devil), we would do well to at least explore whether perhaps we might have slipped into being too man-centered.

“I suddenly saw that someone could use all the language of evangelical Christianity, and yet the center was fundamentally the self, my need of salvation. And God is auxiliary to that….I also saw that quite a lot of evangelical Christianity can easily slip, can become centered in me and my need of salvation, and not in the glory of God.” — quoted in Tim Stafford, “God’s Missionary to Us”, Christianity Today, Dec. 9, 1996.

I read the above quote in John Piper’s book The Legacy of Sovereign Joy (pg. 118), and felt I just had to comment on it. Man-centeredness can be successfully cloaked in a religious and even conservative garb, and therefore it is even more dangerous.

So central to American revivalist evangelicalism, is man’s personal need for salvation. For many — the majority, I would say — in evangelicalism, the need of personal salvation brings them into the church, and is very soon taken care of. Then other needs find central place.

A wide segment of the church today emphasizes the emotional and physical needs of the congregation, straining to serve and help everyone become successful and happy. And another more Biblical (in my opinion) aim centers on the need to live a holy life and obey God’s commands. Serving the poor, reforming one’s own character, contributing to the common good by volunteering and giving to the church, sacrificing to reach the lost, these all are good things which become central. Even in worship, an emphasis on personal tastes and being accepted is quite common. Others stress a personal experience.

The danger in all of this, becomes the tendency to center everything around self. God saved me, so He deserves my love and praise. I want a better life, so I enjoy and benefit from teacher so-and-so’s practical teaching….

This can lead to lives that are not much different from the non-churched. God has a part, but He is not central. The here and now matters an awful lot, as does economical and emotional well-being. Helping each other, and feeling good about ourselves are essential.

But where is the light on the hill? How is this all that different from the world? Do you find a feel-good invitation in Scripture? Come follow Jesus, and there’s no cross to bear, and all your problems get fixed! God loves you so much he did everything just to help you. Shouldn’t you love such a God in return?

The problem with this is that we don’t need a great and glorious God to make it work. Its not all that different from secular health-and-wellness seminars, or the new age movement. Substitute yoga for God and you get about the same thing. Yoga can transform your life and give you real meaning and purpose….

All I’ve done here today has been to introduce the problem. I hope to explore what God-centered Christianity would look like. And I hope to point out how the popular methodology & doctrine concerning salvation has a profoundly negative impact with regards to this problem.

So for now, ask yourself: Am I too man-centered? And please, let me know if you think I’m off base in my assessment that this is 1) a widespread problem, and 2) this is a big problem.AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 25 Comments

Recently, I was startled by a sharp contrast over how 2 different men responded to error. These two responses provide a comparison study which illustrates just why fundamentalism (IFB) and hyperfundamentalism (IFBx) should be distinguished.

Definitions

Before we move to the study, we should pause and provide some definitions for those who may be unfamiliar with the independent Baptist fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.

Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining, as this comparison study will demonstrate.

The Comparison: Case #1

I have not followed the Joe Zichterman case fully, but his departure from fundamentalism provides the background for our first example. He had been a professor at Northland Baptist Bible College, a solidly IFB institution. Now he has left the movement altogether and has joined Willow Creek Community Church (pastored by Bill Hybels). Evidently, he has great respect for Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, and recommends Joel Osteen. I don’t know all the details, but apparently he is encouraging others to leave fundamentalism, and has emailed hundreds of people on fundamentalist email lists in defense of his departure. I may disagree with some of Joe’s theological leanings, but I do empathize with how big a deal it was for him to leave the fundamentalist movement. I also read his fictional work “A Tale of Two Amishmen: Inside the mind of a Spiritual Defector”, and I agree with many (not all) of the concerns with fundamentalism in general as highlighted there.

Now in response to Joe’s defection, I’m sure there has been much said in the fundamentalist blogosphere. To be honest, I haven’t read all that much of it. I did, however, read Brian McCrorie’s recent post “Is Joe Zichterman a False Teacher?” That post applied the results of his recent study on false teachers to Joe’s specific case. He concluded overwhelmingly that Joe Zichterman does not fit the bill of a false teacher, according to the following Biblically-derived definition.

False teachers are unregenerate people who have rejected the Gospel and are now intent on corrupting it for the sake of monetary gain. They use deception and lust to entice spiritually immature believers to their heresy. These teachers have no spiritual discernment, are addicted to sin, and are arrogant, especially toward authority. They deny Christ and the words of Christ.

While some in fundamentalism might be prone to apply that particular label to Joe, most of them do not doubt his salvation, nor his sincerity. They would agree he is in error, and many bloggers have taken the time to show why. Some fundamentalist leaders, however, even call for his message to be appropriately considered and pondered. So this is a fundamentalist response to theological error: a reasoned rejection coupled with warnings, and a sincere prayer that God would bless and help Joe Zichterman see the error of his ways.

Case #2

I was recently made aware of a new controversy within hyperfundamentalism. It surrounds Jack Schaap, the son-in-law of Jack Hyles, and current pastor of First Baptist of Hammond, IN. I knew that mainstream fundamentalists had been pointing out the wild and unbelievable stories, and strange doctrine of Schaap, but I was not aware that other hyperfundamentalists and Hyles devotees were also pointing out Schaap’s errors. For all I know, this controversy could have been brewing for some time, but many of the official letters that I found were written in the past month or so.

The ringleader (from what I can tell) of the opposition to Schaap from the conservative fundamentalist ranks is Tom Neal of The Baptist Contender. His website highlights a sermon preached by his son, Greg Neal entitled “Schaap’s Fables”. The website also boasts a collection of audio clips of Schaap espousing various heresies.

Now I am glad that Tom Neal and the other men behind that paper are holding Schaap accountable for his wacky and errant theology (more on that later). I find it odd, though, that this same paper endorses Jack Hyles 100%. David Cloud’s article “I Am of Jack” singles out The Baptist Contender and Tom Neal for an almost cultish devotion to all things Hyles. And if you want to speak of wacky theology, Jack Hyles was king in that category. This site lists just some of the many crazy and absurd things Hyles taught. (And this is beyond the questions about Hyles’ personal integrity.)

As for Schaap, the charges against him center primarily on his overemphasis (possibly a mis-emphasis) on a comparison between marital relations and the intimacy which should characterize a believer’s relationship to Christ. Christ is the husband and the church is the bride, remember. Schaap gets very pointed in his application of this “principle” and goes so far as to claim that the Lord’s Supper (in which we partake of or receive Christ’s body) is all about this “spiritual intimacy”. Details of this shocking teaching can be seen here.

That was the primary charge brought forth in that sermon, I mentioned above. The second primary point had to do with Scaap’s humanizing of God. Various quotes were given which did seem to bring God down somewhat to our level. Schaap’s motivation seemed to be to help us understand God more and get us to see things differently.

Now that is pretty much the sum total of the accusations Neal and company throw at Schaap. Other things are mentioned, but it seems to me that they are mostly stretches. For instance the list of sermon excerpts which supposedly confirm that Schaap teaches heresy fails miserably. I honestly don’t have a clue on some of the excerpts as to why they were included; perhaps the page is still being created and they are “on the hunt” for evidence, I’m not sure. Most of the clips have Schaap decrying racism. Is that heretical? On this page, they provide a 14 minute clip which shows Schaap belittling pedophiles and making a mockery of sin. If you listen to it, Schaap is not doing any such thing. He is calling for people to have an understanding of others and to try to reach them rather than just condemn certain people and write them off. Another point of evidence the site appeals to is Schaap’s calling a non-fundamentalist black megachurch pastor James Meeks his friend.

I emphasize the scant evidence of other charges to make this point. These men take what is certainly questionable and errant doctrine, and conclude that Schaap is denying the deity of Christ and preaching another gospel. Greg Neal said he did not believe Schaap was saved. The site links to some very mean-spirited letters written to Schaap and Ray Young by Tom Neal that were copied to a veritable “Who’s Who” list in hyperfundamentalism. There is also a letter to a pastor John Shook, where Tom Neal doubts his salvation and refuses to call him “brother” because he defends Jack Schaap.

Is such a fierce response warranted? Certainly Jack Schaap has some doctrinal problems, and he could benefit from more Bible study time, it seems. He should be more careful with his teaching, and ensure that his teachings on marital intimacy don’t become license for sin or occasion for a blasphemous view of the believer’s relationship to God. But is he consciously denying the deity of Christ? Is he really preaching another gospel? Is he a “false prophet” to use Greg Neal’s words?

Conclusion

I can’t believe I just defended Jack Schaap! But the sad truth is hyperfundamentalists are so extreme, that they often think the worst they can of everybody who doesn’t agree with them completely. To them, there is only so much error one can have before we start doubting their salvation.

It should be painfully obvious by now just how wide the gap is between hyperfundamentalists and their fundamentalist cousins. That is what struck me so much in thinking through both of these cases. Now I know that Tom Neal and company may perhaps represent the radical right extreme of hyperfundamentalism, and Brian McCrorie could be close to the left extreme of fundamentalism, but I think this comparison does illustrate an important point. Fundamentalists are prone to think through things more slowly and carefully and Biblically, whereas hyperfundamentalists quickly default to an extreme separation from anyone they deem to be in error.

One more thing, this again highlights the important question I raised a long time ago “Is It a Sin to Be Wrong?” And again I point you to Tim Challies’ answer (which was recently highlighted in the comments of one of my recent posts).AddThis Social Bookmark Button