The following is the text of a letter I sent to some of my college friends, which I had been keeping up with. This letter tells much of my story. I present it here with just a few minor edits. Feel free to jump to “My Critique of Fundamentalism and Defense of My Positions“, which is the last half of this lengthy letter.
 
 

My Story

September 19, 2005

Dear ——-,

Greetings! I apologize for not having written in quite a while. Many things have changed in my life since we last talked, leaving me somewhat at a loss for where to begin and how to explain these things to my friends. I apologize for the length of this letter, but I want to really bare my soul to you, and let you understand my mind in this matter.

Last I contacted you, I was still in the San Francisco area attending ——— Baptist Church. Carolyn was teaching first grade part-time for their academy, and I was taking an occasional class offered by the church at a Master’s equivalent level. I was laid off, though, in April 2004, due to my company’s financial woes. I spent several months in a fruitless search for work. We had already decided that Carolyn would not teach the next year to enable her to be a full-time homemaker. Thru my brother’s connections, I applied for a job in the Minneapolis area. There was a good church we had heard of… in the area, too. After praying and seeking godly counsel, we decided that God would have us move to Minneapolis and take the job. We arrived in July 2004. But we did not yet, at that point, anticipate the dramatic and comprehensive changes God was leading us to make.

We found an apartment and became actively involved as members of —— Baptist Church of ——-, MN. By this time, we had learned that God was going to bless us with another daughter, and so we began to eagerly await her birth (Megan Faith was born January 20, 2005 — we praise God for two healthy daughters, we also are expecting our 3rd child on or around Feb. 5, 2006-Ps. 127:5a). Also, my parents had come home on furlough, and we enjoyed much fellowship and time with them, during their visits to Minneapolis made more frequent due to my mom’s mother’s deteriorating health (she was in hospitals in either Duluth or St Paul, MN from August 2004 thru January 2005 when she went to be with the Lord). We also enjoyed a greater fellowship and connection with my brother and his wife (and daughter — they now have a son, too) as they were only a 6 ½-hour drive from us in ——-, ND where he has been pastoring since May 2004.

However, during this time God was giving me, more and more, of a feeling of distaste and frustration over our church. The feeling was practically tangible. I felt unfed, and dissatisfied. While there was a shortage of Biblical teaching and exegesis centering on Christ, there was an overabundance of preaching and teaching on the things fundamentalists separate over issues and standards. Even those messages that did focus on Christ were very shallow. I was also irritated by the poor scholarship that was presented (and accepted) as careful and scholarly Biblical teaching. More disheartening, though, was the feeling we both had that week after week, people came to church, went thru the rituals of church, enjoyed time with friends, and left without really experiencing any sort of passion for Christ. There was passion for standards, but no spiritual vibrancy and life. The pastor strangely did not talk about his messages or really about anything spiritual at all, before or after the services. The services were extremely formal and traditional, and it was very hard to worship in a meaningful and personal way. The impression we got was that everyone was completely satisfied with where they were spiritually and corporately as a church. We sensed no holy unrest of spirit, no burning desire for God, just a complacent traditional mindset, that this is what church/religion is and nothing more. We were, to be fair, impressed by a genuine testimony of witnessing for Christ that characterized many of the members. We also do not doubt that they sincerely love Christ. Yet, the church conveyed the false idea that the sum total of spirituality is consistent witnessing and adherence to standards. Worship, love, persevering faith in God and His promises, desire for God — these are at the heart of spirituality, not external acts which we can accomplish in our flesh. Equally alarming was the low view of salvation. It seemed to be understood as merely a decision. They did not accept what is termed as quick prayer-ism, yet the predominant view was that salvation was received thru a quick prayer. Children were being pressured to “get saved” by accepting Jesus into their heart. And anyone claiming to have given his heart to Christ was accepted unreservedly as a genuine believer. We were genuinely concerned for the spiritual wellbeing of our children. [disclaimer: Please note how I stressed this was what we “felt” and the “impression” we got. We do know many of the people at that church were sincerely loving God and living lives for Him, nevertheless, the “impression” we were getting of the church as a whole was as stated above. I do believe that this may be due to the fact of what God was doing in our lives more so than an indication as to the actual state of the majority of the people in that church.]

I believe God used this experience to finally push us over the edge and make some decisions that He had been leading us to for quite some time. We resigned our membership from that church and began searching for a new church. But before I talk about that, I think I should explain a bit of God’s working in our lives bringing us to this point.

Looking back, I can see God’s hand in this all along the way. He gave me a burning desire to know the truth, since I was a child. He equipped me with a critical-thinking, sharp mind. In college, I would not have been considered to be someone who just floated along with the crowd and accepted anything anyone taught me; no, I wanted to know and embrace the truth. My days at ———- Baptist College were when I really commenced my quest for holding the right Biblical positions on issues and standards of conduct. I evaluated everything and had a serious approach to life, I think. Gradually, my convictions became more and more shaped by my growing understanding of Scripture. God led me to Carolyn and then led us to ——- Baptist Church. There we both were challenged to be more thoroughly Biblical in everything we did. We saw how that church had changed its practice in significant ways fairly frequently, to align itself closer with Scripture. Tradition and peer-pressure were certainly backseat to Biblical exegesis and teaching. My understanding of Scripture grew, particularly in respect to what salvation is. For some reason, throughout my college experience I had never heard 1 Jn. 2:19 taught on in this regard before. The verse powerfully cuts to the heart of the issue of salvation and eternal security. It teaches that those who seem to fall away never were genuinely saved. Conversely, those who are saved will never ultimately fall away. Pastor ———- continually preached about how saved people characteristically live. He held out Biblical expectations of genuine believers, and did not cavalierly assume that all who profess salvation possess it. He also completely rejected the popular assumption that there can be perpetually carnal Christians. Salvation is something supernatural and will inevitably result in a changed life.

During this time my convictions seemed to be becoming more cemented, and more directly founded on Scripture. Yet I still had a problem: my brother. My brother went to Northland Baptist Bible College (now Northland International University), and early on in his college years, he changed dramatically. His standards became much less than they had been (in my eyes), yes. But the real startling change was a positive one. He became much more spiritual than I had ever known him to be. He genuinely loved Christ and constantly talked about Him and Scriptural things so much that I hardly recognized him. God changed him in a dramatic way — a good way. He attributed much of the change to reading part of John Piper’s book Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Since we were both very busy with college and our ministries, we did not get together that often. When we did, though, we inevitably ended up arguing with one another for hours on end in at least one debate session. We discussed all the issues I thought were important — local church only theology, personal separation issues (pants on women and music), Calvinism, and of course, KJV-onlyism. I would go into the debate each time more and more prepared (I thought) to face him with good, clear, Scriptural arguments for these issues. Yet I would be frustrated as my arguments fell on seemingly deaf ears. The feeling I got, however, was not that he was directly despising God’s word. Rather, I felt that my arguments were being found to be baseless. I felt helpless. While I was always so confident in talking with others, who agreed with me, about these issues, I felt inept and unable to answer many of his arguments. This happened time and time again in our discussions.

While I was at ———– Baptist, I felt like my convictions were given more Scriptural support because I was around people who used clear Biblical exegesis to support their positions. Still though, I did not seem to gain ground against his arguments. However, as a result of my time at ———– and my acceptance of their more Biblically precise teaching on salvation, he and I started to enjoy greater fellowship and unity. He wholeheartedly agreed with my beliefs regarding salvation. We had several good conversations about the gospel, putting our differences aside. Actually, he wanted to have real communion with me all along. He stressed that the Bible presses for unity and fellowship in the gospel (Phil. 1:5). He was willing to reach out to me despite the areas in which we disagreed. However, for my part, I was uncomfortable with that, because in some way my positions were so much a part of me that I could not genuinely unite with others who did not hold to some of the major positions at least.

In the midst of this struggle for truth and precision in doctrine, God brought a book to my attention (Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life edited by Steve Atkerson and published by the New Testament Reformation Foundation), which I read in either the fall or winter of 2003. While I did not necessarily accept all of the views the book argues for (it stresses the need to let the Bible, rather than tradition, shape our church polity, arguing for house churches, multiple elders, and observing the Lord’s Supper as a meal rather than a mini-cup and wafer among other things), the book had the effect of shattering many preconceived notions and widening my vision. Many things I had been encouraged to assume and take for granted to be Biblical, now became things I felt compelled to evaluate under the light of Scripture. I began to see how much of what I believed and practiced was really tradition and not revealed truth. This changed my perspective quite a bit, and made me willing to see things from other points of view. Moreover, I was made aware that my church and my sphere of fellowship were not the only ones with a deep commitment to Scripture and a desire to conform to it rather than tradition.

The debate with my brother gradually centered on a couple key issues. Early on, we were concerned with the KJV-only debate. He gave me articles by William Combs, a professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (a fundamentalist institution similar to Northland in their stands {i.e., not KJV-only and less separatistic than most independent Baptists}), and Daniel Wallace, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, and recommended D.A. Carson’s book The Bible Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. I recommended books by D.A. Waite at first (when I was only beginning my research into the issue, since then I would not recommend his books to anyone, as they contain factual errors, faulty reasoning, and naive scholarship) and then by E.F. Hills. At ————– Baptist I was privileged to be able to interact with some of the sharpest KJV-only proponents available…. Yet, I was never able to find satisfactory answers and I felt like some of my concerns were not even really acknowledged. This severely limited my ability to convince my brother of what I believed to be was the right position.

Our debate then shifted to the topic of Calvinism. He was more passionate about this issue, since to him a denial of Calvinism was a root cause of the widespread errors regarding the nature of salvation. My brother’s wedding, which I attended, was themed around God’s sovereignty. Afterward, he and his wife began attending John Piper’s church in Minneapolis: Bethlehem Baptist Church. He sent me a booklet on the five points of Calvinism written by Piper and the elders of his church. Our church, had been dealing with the issue around the same time. They kicked out a member primarily for his acceptance of Calvinism (which had led him to leave and attend a Calvinistic Baptist church in the area). I was not pleased with the fact that the church did not just let him leave, but decided to kick him out over this “false” doctrine. It troubled me that someone coming to a different position on this one issue would bring on himself such negative consequences. Still, though, I remained convinced that Calvinism was not Scriptural. I had read David Hunt’s book What Love is This?  — a critique of Calvinism. Yet when I read Piper’s booklet, I was amazed at how Biblically based it was. I took issue with only a few points of what that booklet had to say. Later, I was directed (by Pastor ——————-, no less) to Dr. David Doran’s critique of Hunt’s book. (Doran is the pastor of Inter City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.) He does not so much debunk Hunt’s thesis as he shows Hunt’s ignorance and bad writing (one could call it outright deception!). Several of Hunt’s quotes use ellipses in an extremely suspect way (like claiming Spurgeon called limited atonement, heresy, whereas the material left out of the quote by the ellipsis is a direct affirmation of the doctrine of limited atonement). {Incidentally, a friend at our church pointed out to me that even Vance, a critic of Calvinism himself, critiques Hunt’s errors and ineptness.} He had previously given me Willing to Believe by R.C. Sproul. I purposed to begin reading this only after I had read Hunt’s book.

As I began working my way thru Sproul’s book, I continually encountered challenging arguments for Calvinism. I still did not agree with Calvinism as a whole, but found myself less hostile to it and willing to agree with some of its points (or at least the spirit of them). When I left ———— Baptist to go to MN, I was still not ready to accept Calvinism, and was working out a better understanding of their position which is very much more Calvinistic than Arminian, while not embracing Calvinism (they believe both faith and repentance are gifts of God but that thru the preached Word of God sinners do have the ability to respond to God’s call after which they are given the gifts of faith and repentance).

When we came to MN and sat under the teaching of Pastor ——, this issue and many others were constantly brought to mind. What to me were complex issues were treated with little care as to accuracy or scholarship. Opposing views were misrepresented as often as they were demonized. While I sat stunned under the preaching, which I found largely shallow, illogical and full of poor hermeneutics, I was reminded of many similar sermons I heard in chapel at —————. [disclaimer: I am describing my perceptions. I also heard several good sermons and evidence of obvious scholarship as well from the above pastor. At the time, however, I was really “jolted” by some of what I was hearing.] As I was evaluating the teaching and preaching of that church, I found myself evaluating much of the independent Baptist movement I was a part of. With closer contact and more conversations with my brother, and with more research and contemplation, I embraced Calvinism, came to reject a strict KJV-only position, and began thinking thru other issues as well. I was also reading more and more of John Piper’s works. He continually impressed me with the substance and soul of what he had to say, as well as how Biblically based his assertions were. It became very apparent to me that the passion he wrote of was largely missing in my life and in the lives of many I knew. I came to connect much of the blame for this with what fundamentalism did and did not emphasize. External conformity to standards and leader-worship are advanced by the movement. Whereas there may be much preaching on having a heart for Christ, a guilt-driven, man-pleasing process is built into the heart of fundamentalism that invites the all-too-common reality of cold-hearted people going thru the motions of church-ianity, secure and smug in the approval their external performance has given them. As I read Piper and other non-independent Baptists, I found a sincere desire to be Biblical and a genuine passion for Christ that exist outside our camp. Our movement conveys the impression that we are the only true followers of Christ — everyone who is not a fundamental independent Baptist is either misled or outright sinful (in a somehow worse way than all of us are sinful). I found, however, that such opinions are pure fiction. Slowly, God was bringing what I had been thinking on and searching out for two or three (or more) years together into a sharper and sharper focus. I found myself staring at the very real possibility of simply walking away from this movement, into something else which would be more Biblically based.

This brings me back to early January 2005. We (Carolyn was agreeing with my observations and did some reading and studying on her own with many issues we faced — she is wholeheartedly behind me in the decisions we have made each step of the way…) felt that God wanted us to leave ——— Baptist Church and go elsewhere, but we still did not know where. By this time I was a Calvinist, and while I still favored the TR, I believed that both it and the KJV (as well as the Hebrew Masoretic Text) had errors {an admission that led me to be more willing to review the evidence in favor of the Majority Text or the Critical Text as opposed the TR}. With such large changes in my thinking made, I still was not ready to join Piper’s church. I thought that we might end up joining Fourth Baptist Church in Plymouth, MN (a suburb of Minneapolis) pastored by Douglas MacLauglin (former president of Northland Baptist Bible College). This church is fundamental and independent Baptist, yet it does not prefer that women wear pants and uses the NKJV. It has conservative music but embraces Calvinism (although many of its seminary professors [Central Baptist Theological Seminary] are 4-point rather than 5-point Calvinists). We attended several times, but I still did not feel at peace about the church. We also visited Bethlehem Baptist (Piper’s church). We prayed about and discussed our decision and believe God has clearly directed us in this matter. We have been attending Bethlehem Baptist now since February and plan on joining the church at their next Covenant Affirmation Sunday.

I did talk with my parents about our choice and they were behind me. They have not agreed with much of what they see as extreme views among fundamental, independent Baptists. Dad has always lamented the tendency of independent Baptists to be busy shooting one another rather than shooting the devil. Dad actually recommended that we attend John Piper’s church, when he heard what I felt about many of these things. That surprised me, because at first, Dad and Mom had been leery of his attending there. Yet, they came to really appreciate Piper’s messages and books. [disclaimer: My parents still are solid fundamentalists. They have tried to focus on the important issues rather than getting bogged down on debates over smaller things. They use only the KJV in their ministry, and would not join our church. The advice they gave was given in light of decisions I had already made. And they do not agree with every thing John Piper holds to.]

Let me make a few things absolutely clear. First, this was not an easy decision to come to. There has never been a harder decision for either of us to make. I basically had to write off my whole life as being part of a movement I believe to be seriously flawed. We had to look at our friends and realize that most if not all of them will simply write us off as liberal compromisers and cease any fellowship with us. We would completely understand, since we have been there ourselves before — ready to separate from people at the drop of a hat. From our perspective now, we long to have continued fellowship with our friends — fellowship based on the glorious gospel of Christ. We can charitably agree to disagree on what are minor issues in light of the hugely unifying truths we hold in common — the authority of and inerrancy of the Bible, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, justification by grace thru faith alone…. I had to come to grips with the fact that if we had come to this decision while still members at ———– Baptist in CA we would no doubt have been voted out of the church! I had to accept that my education is not adequate for me now. I am not confident that it has adequately prepared me for ministry, as most of it was focused on methods of ministry I largely disagree with now, while the rest of it was largely shallow on Biblical exegesis and scholarship, leaving me without enough knowledge of doctrine to be able to chart the troubled waters that face evangelicalism as a whole now. I will have to look at going to a seminary for 3 years or more, probably, before I feel competent to enter the ministry at the level I believe God ultimately wants me to. We had to look ahead to feeling very uncomfortable at whatever church we would join, and having to find all new friends. We have no family in Minneapolis, so we have really felt isolated the past six months. It has not been easy. It would have been much, much easier to just go with the flow. But, at the end of the day, we want to be a part of a church that is consumed with knowing Christ and desiring God and His glory rather than one consumed with keeping a preconceived set of standards, personal and ecclesiastical, that will somehow make us more faithful and thus more valuable to God. I want my children encouraged to love Christ and know Him personally, rather than have them pressed to conform by praying a prayer and keeping external standards in order to be/look holy.

Second, I want to report that we have seen this drastic change bring about much good already. We have been challenged spiritually like never before thru the Christ-saturated and Biblically substantive preaching. We both appreciate our salvation and God’s grace so much more than we did before. The atmosphere of the service facilitates a deeply personal and serious worship. The music, we have both found, is incredibly deep and very worshipful — not pervasively secular and detracting from the message as we were brainwashed before to pre-assume. Our church thinks through every aspect of its worship, preaching, and ministry and tries to base everything on Scripture. The nursery programs have been very helpful in directing our children toward God at an early age. We have benefited by many seminars and teaching that our church offers. We have also seen how Christ-oriented and real, so many of the people we know at church are. We have joined a small group as part of our church’s Biblical response to Heb. 3:12-14 and 10:24-25, and been greatly encouraged by the personal exhortation and fellowship in a small, more intimate setting. This has greatly helped me in my struggle to remain pure from impure thoughts in this impure world. In short, we are growing in the Lord and are very excited that he has brought us to this church. We are probably more spiritually focused than we were before, and we are certainly growing. God has graciously helped us adjust to the changes, bringing us positive and lasting spiritual blessings.

Now, I know you are coming up with many “Biblical” objections, and you are wondering how I could so easily and flippantly, it seems, cast off so many distinctive standards of independent fundamental Baptists. I cannot possibly see every thought you have right now and answer every argument that comes up in your mind. I do want to give a general defense, though, of some of my new positions. I will try to be brief. Above all, I want to be charitable. I do see many things that are good with the movement Carolyn and I grew up in. I also see many people that are good and sincerely godly people who are committed to this movement. We believe that there are some elements of mind control involved in the movement as a whole. We also understand that God leads people in different ways and that he has made us all human enough that it is impossible that everyone will be able to agree in every point. We understand that there are many illogical thought structures used by various groups to support a host of opposing claims, and we realize that our fallen intellects are all flawed and thus we may be wrong and you may be right in some areas. We also know how hard it was for us to see some of these things, and how hard we kicked against the pricks in some of these areas ourselves. In fact, these last few sentences are a key argument I have concerning so many of these distinctive stands. I believe there should be room for disagreement in many of these areas just because there is so much ambiguity and problems with two people and groups seeing exactly eye-to-eye when debating these issues. I believe there are certain truths that are more clearly revealed in Scripture than others. And while no truth should be treated lightly, we still have a greater obligation to separate over, or stand for those truths that are more clearly revealed in Scripture (like the deity of Christ, inerrancy, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, etc.).

I want to briefly address the following issues: KJV-onlyism, local church ecclesiology, music, dress standards, church government, separation, Calvinism, Covenant Theology, Post-tribulational rapture. I will also try to address some general concerns I have with fundamentalism as a movement. I will not use this exact order in addressing these issues. In fact, I am going to reproduce most of a letter I wrote to Pastor —– explaining why we left their church, yet I will be making some additions. (The first paragraph that follows here is introductory and somewhat repetitious to use here, but I want you to be able to see clearly what I see that makes me so leery of fundamentalism as a whole) There might be some things I am forgetting, but you are more than welcome to correspond with me and open a debate on these or any topics.

My Critique of Fundamentalism

Often in fundamentalism, doctrine and Biblical exegesis are downplayed, ignored, or avoided. Topical or shallow messages prevail. Church members learn their do’s & don’ts but not what the Bible actually says (the arguments Biblical authors use, the context of favorite proof texts, or Bible doctrines in general). While fundamentalists claim to be standing on the Bible alone, rare is the church that actually opens itself up to Biblical scrutiny. For instance, it is an assumed thing that the Bible will not actually be shown to teach Calvinism, post-tribulational rapture, or covenant theology. So anyone who would espouse one of these positions or another similar position is immediately identified as a heretic and the church never actually carefully reviews what the Bible says on the matter.

Fundamentalists assume that their practices, standards, and positions are Biblical to the point of reading into the Bible what is not there to support their traditions and viewpoints. In the vacuum of solid Biblical exegesis, ignorance and faulty reasoning/logic prevail. In short, while fundamentalists claim to be the stalwart defenders of true doctrine, they are in fact the defenders of old-fashioned (actually late 1800’s early 1900’s) tradition. (For example, while today most fundamentalists would decry any church not having Sunday School, or a Sunday Evening service, or not having an altar call, prior to the 1850’s no church had any of the above. SS and Sunday Evening services were evangelistic in nature and origin, and the altar call was a human method originally designed to help out the Holy Spirit in bringing awakened sinners to the point of conversion/repentance {it was popularized by the rank Arminian Charles Finney, who explicitly denied substitutionary atonement and exalted human efforts in the work of “revival” actually judging the validity of methods [the altar call among them] by the success they brought [the end justifies the means sounds like contemporary leaders like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels]}.

Additionally, fundamentalists universally decry the use of worldly music to attract the world to services where they can be reached. However, the music fundamentalists sing, almost to the exclusion of music from any other period of church history (music from the mid to late 1800’s thru the early 1900’s) was created in the same way. It was music that intentionally moved away from a more complex harmony/melody to something the average unchurched person would like. Soloists sang the verses and the congregation joined in for the catchy {at that time} chorus. Evangelists D.L. Moody, R.A. Torrey, and Billy Sunday attributed much of the success of their large-scale revival campaigns to the music written and sung by their various song leaders: Ira Sankey, Phillip B. Bliss, Charlie Alexander, and Homer Rodheaver. The position of song leader and the prominence of the piano were born during this era. The music written in this era also deliberately downplayed doctrine and encouraged personal experience: thus an emphasis on Jesus as a friend rather than Lord and Judge. This resulted in many flocking to revival services and many denominations turning their backs to the older hymns richer in doctrine and substance. {See Confronting Contemporary Music by H.T. Spence of Foundations Bible College published by Foundations Press for documentation of the part about music})

My Defense of my Positions

(Moving on to specific issues now…) While not every question concerning the sovereignty of God & the free will of man can be answered by any system completely, Calvinism best accounts for the fact that repentance (2 Tim. 2:25, Acts 11:18, and Acts 5:31) faith (Acts 3:16, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, and Rom. 12:3 {also Acts 15:8-9 and 18:27}) and conversion in general (Jn. 6:64-65 explaining v. 44, Acts 16:14, Jm. 1:18, Eph. 2d:8, and Jn. 1:13) are gifts from God. Eph. 1:19 clearly states that we believe according to the working of God’s power (not our own). 2 Thess. 1:3 teaches we should thank God for the faith of believers, since by implication it proceeds from Him. Phil. 1:6 states that God started a work in us. He did not pick up after we contributed self-wrought faith. No, He started it and He will bring it to completion. How else can you think of a gift other than as given freely and wholly undeserved? God does not look for who is responsive to him, before giving them faith, because without faith it is impossible to please Him at all (Heb. 11:6, see also Rom. 8:7-8). In fact 1 Jn. 5:1 clearly says literally “everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” The Greek tense could not be clearer in the original)the birth happened before the belief, since the text seems to clearly teach that the belief is a proof/result that birth happened. I challenge you to provide any text that more clearly speaks to the specific relation of regeneration and faith other than maybe Jn. 1:12 with vs. 13 or James 1:18. (Keep in mind regeneration is not salvation or justification, both of which only happen to those who have already believed. Regeneration is a heart change performed by God the Spirit. I contend the Bible clearly reveals that regeneration precedes faith, which itself precedes justification and salvation.)

1 Cor. 1:23-24 clearly teaches that there is a call that is not the universal call of the gospel. The gospel is preached to all and the Greeks count it as foolishness, while the Jews count it as a stumbling block, but those who are the called (from both Jews and Greeks) see it as the power of God to salvation. So the general call of the gospel is only heeded by those who are called by a different, sovereign call. This is why Rom. 8:30 says that all who are called (and only the called) are justified. Thus those who are not justified were not called. This fits with Jn. 6:44. Jn. 10:15, Eph. 5:25, and 1 Tim. 4:10 teach that Jesus died for the elect in a different way than he died for all men. This is why Jesus could teach in Jn. 10:26 that the reason people do not believe is because they are not elect (of Jesus’ sheep) instead of teaching what fundamentalists primarily believe, that people are not elect because they do not believe (cf. Acts 13:48 and Jn. 8:47). All who are unbelievers do not seek God and are blinded by Satan. They need God to shine the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” in their hearts just like He commanded light to shine out of darkness on Day 1 of Creation (see 2 Cor. 4:3-6) also I challenge you to access John Piper’s sermon on 2 Cor. 4:1-7 preached May 1 2005 accessible in print or audio for free here. I challenge you also to explore Biblical arguments for Calvinism more by accessing for free John Piper’s booklet on the 5 points of Calvinism. Also be sure to read Romans 9 and notice how Paul anticipates the very arguments that arise from our human understanding against the reality of God’s total sovereignty (vs. 14 and 19). Also it should be apparent that if God is dealing with an individual in Pharaoh the context and individuals are the ones bringing up the questions, that Esau and Israel are to be understand as individuals (see vs. 11 and 24 for extra support of the obviously clear teaching of this passage). It is amazing to what hermeneutical lengths people go to force Romans 9 not to teach what anyone reading it is shocked to see that God has sovereignty over individual’s destinies. See also Romans 11.

I also am leaning toward a post-tribulational rapture position. I do not believe Scripture is clear enough on this for people to separate over pre-trib. vs. post-trib. position. From my studies into this I believe the post-trib. position best represents Jesus’ teaching in Matt. and Luke and the apostle’s teaching in the epistles. The pre-trib. position forces a strange dispensational element on Jesus’ teaching and turns the clear teaching of the epistles that there is only one parousia (revealing or coming) of Jesus into there being two parousias. For the sake of getting this letter finished, I will here quote four of John Piper’s arguments for post-tribulationalism from a 2 or 3 page paper on the second coming.

1. The word for “meeting” the Lord in the air in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (apantesin) is used in two other places in the New Testament: Matthew 25:6 and Acts 28:15. In both places it refers to a meeting in which people go out to meet a dignitary and then accompany him in to the place from which they came out. One of these, Matthew 25:6, is even a parable of the second coming and so a strong argument that this is the sense of the meeting here in 1 Thess. 4:17-that we rise to meet the Lord in the air and then welcome him to earth as king.

2. The wording of 2 Thessalonians 1:5-7, when read carefully, shows that Paul expects to attain rest from suffering at the same time and in the same event that he expects the unbelievers to receive punishment, namely, at the revelation of Jesus with mighty angels in flaming fire. This revelation is not the pre-tribulational rapture but the glorious second coming. Which means that Paul did not expect an event at which he and the other believers would be given rest seven years before the glorious appearing of Christ in flaming fire. Vengeance on unbelievers and rest for the persecuted church come on the same day in the same event.

3. The wording of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 suggests that the “assembling to meet him” is the same as “the day of the Lord” about which they are confused. But the assembling is the “rapture” and “the day of the Lord” is the glorious second coming. They appear to be one event. Supporting this is the reference to “gathering” the elect in Matthew 24:31. Here there is a gathering (same word) but it is clearly a post-tribulational context. So there is no need to see the gathering and the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians as separate events.

4. If Paul were a pre-tribulationist why did he not simply say in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that the Christians don’t need to worry that the day of the Lord is here because all the Christians are still here? Instead he talks just the way you would expect a post-tribulational person to do. He tells them that they should not think that the day of the Lord is here because the apostasy and the man of lawlessness have not appeared. (See the AM sermon of 8-30-87 for more on this one.)…”

I also am leaning toward covenant theology, as I see that much of the dispensational position is forced and does not adequately deal with how the NT authors and characters clearly saw the church age as a fulfillment of OT prophecy (which dispensationalists say applies only to the tribulation/millennium). Also Rom. 4:13-16 teaches specifically that the promise given to Abraham concerning his inheriting the land is given to all the spiritual seed of Abraham not to his physical seed. This alone negates the central premise of dispensationalism. Gal. 3 also clearly teaches that the blessings promised to Abraham are given to those who are Christ’s–Abraham’s spiritual seed. I challenge you to see how the NT authors used OT quotes. It is so very apparent that they saw the current reality of the church age as embodied in God’s chosen people in OT times. They see the NT era as a fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. Over and over again in the NT we see the physical promises (and by no means were the promises only physical there are many clearly spiritual promises given; part of the problem of dispensationalism is enforcing an unbiblical dichotomy between fleshly and spiritual realities) reinterpreted spiritually. Matthew clearly spiritualizes OT quotes to show that they really pointed to the Messiah coming to usher in a spiritual kingdom.

I also have been awakened to the fact that much of what fundamentalists separate over is not even clearly revealed in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say how much beat/rhythm in music is acceptable or not. Jewish music was much more peppy than the average fundamentalist’s music today. In fact, there is no Biblical basis for concluding that an emphasis of beat in music is inherently sensual. A sampling of music and dance from a diverse group of cultures clearly reveals that folk music which in no way is sensual is represented by many different styles unique to the different cultures. Fundamentalists, by and large have no problem tapping their foot when listening to marches or Western hillbilly/cowboy-type music because they understand it as a separate genre of music not inherently evil. Yet fundamentalists refuse to accept any more modern styles of music, although once again they enjoy a more antiquated bluegrass-style country sound. What infuriates me most about the debate over music is the incredible Scripture-twisting lengths some people go to in order to have a Biblical reason to say some music forms are evil. The classic example in my mind is the twisting of the story of David ministering to Saul with his music to mean that the beat in music should be emphasized the least while the melody the most (an argument used by Frank Garlock in Music in the Balance). Another equally wrong attempt is made by comparing the heartbeat with the beat of music, and somehow then making the jump that Scripture supports this comparison (no beat=dead, erratic beat=sick, steady and measured beat=healthy). While most fundamentalists would decry someone lifting their hands in a church service or clapping, both of these actions are commanded in Scripture (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8, Ps. 47:1).

On a similar note, Dt. 22:5 is a matter of interpretation. Several valid interpretations exist (the Bible does not specifically say that pants are male clothing, for instance), and so one should not separate over a matter that is not clearly defined as unbiblical. There is considerable historical support for the understanding of the text as speaking to transvestism associated with the false worship and pagan idolatry of the Canaanites. Also, someone can legitimately accept the principle of gender distinction in clothing (which may be supported by Dt. 22:5 and seems clearly taught in 1 Cor. 11), and apply that by being careful to wear only modest, woman-like pants. In fact, culottes and skirts are often least likely to be modest in the situations they are worn (and at the lengths they are typically worn).

I have thoroughly thought through the KJV only issue (reading scores of books–thousands of pages worth of research) and am convinced of three things. First, that the KJV only movement is a relatively new movement started around the 1950’s, {although some scholars like Dean Burgon defended the KJV prior to this, their defense was categorically different than that of the KJV only movement, due to their views that the TR, and the KJV, had many errors and needed revision} which was originally based on a scientific/rationalistic defense–the many MSS outweigh the few, TR is as old as the “older” texts which support the modern versions, Church Fathers and other language versions support the TR against the Critical Text, etc.

Second, that later KJV only defenders started saying that the Bible’s teaching on preservation would require that the KJV only position be true Important to note, is that the position did not arise out of Bible believers desiring to defend the doctrine of preservation, but that KJV defenders reinterpreted the doctrine of preservation to help defend their KJV only views. The Bible does not teach that every letter and word of Scripture must be preserved or else the document cannot be considered Scripture and thus cannot be valid. In fact, the Scripture clearly teaches that for a time part of the revealed Scripture was not available and actually was lost–Josiah rediscovered it. A helpful article along these lines is William Comb’s article in the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal Fall 2000 on “The Preservation of the Bible”.

Third, that both the texts underlying the KJV (Masoretic Text & TR) and the KJV itself have errors. One or two examples of each kind of error are enough to prove my claim that the KJV is errant (although many more examples could be provided). Errors in the Masoretic Text: Example = Ps. 22:16, the MT has “like a lion my hands and my feet” whereas the KJV following the Vulgate, Septuagint, and all ancient versions (only 2 Hebrew MSS are known to contain the reading of the MT) have “pierced my hands and my feet”. (It is interesting to note that the KJV in 20 or more places goes with the marginal reading of the MT instead of its text reading.) Errors in the TR: Examples= Acts 9:6, the first half of the verse has no Greek support of any kind (although there is some support from other ancient language versions)–see Edward Hills Defending the KJV, pg. 201. Erasmus claimed to have copied it from the Latin Vulgate into the Greek New Testament (TR). (It is also interesting to note that in Acts 22 and 26 when Paul recounts what is recorded in Acts 9:6 this phrase is not repeated and a different phrase is mentioned both times as what Paul said in response to Jesus’ statement.) Rev. 16:5, the TR underlying the KJV has “which art, and wast, and shalt be” whereas all Greek MSS and other Greek Texts, all Latin and other ancient versions, and all church fathers’ quotes have “which art, and wast, the Holy One“. There is no support for this reading at all. Hills says it is a conjectural emendation that Beza made to the text–see DKJV, pg. 208. Errors in the KJV: Example = Is. 13:15, KJV has “every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword” whereas the Hebrew MT, Greek LXX, Latin Vulgate, and all other versions, quotes, etc. have “every one that is captured shall fall by the sword”. There is not one scrap of support for this reading. It is very possible that the KJV translators mistook one Hebrew letter for another, as that is the only difference between the words. In light of these errors and facts, I am not KJV only.

In fact, in studying this further, I now lean toward the critical text position. I challenge you to read One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible edited by Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder and published by Kregel. All the contributors are professors at Central Baptist Theological Seminary and thus understand the KJV only camp much better than most academicians. The book is fair and accurate in representing the views held by the more informed KJV-only (or TR-only) people. However, the book is absolutely amazing; try to refute it! The following articles will be helpful. Perhaps the single best article to encompass all the arguments is Doug Kutilek’s critique of David Sorenson’s book Touch not the Unclean Thing. His history of the rise of KJV-onlyism is very informative. Links for two articles will follow here which prove that godly scholars before the influence of Westcott and Hort (and the finding of some of the papyri and early manuscripts discovered since the late 1800’s) came to the same conclusions which such findings added proof for see Turretin and Tregelles. Also here is one article, representative of the wealth of accurate information available that has been written by Dan Wallace that totally overturns the arguments for the superiority of the TR so parroted in the circles I came out of.

Briefly, I want to address a few remaining issues. First, multiple elder rule is clearly taught as opposed to single-pastor rule of churches. The closest thing to Biblical warrant for the belief in single-pastor rule is the implication drawn from the singular for bishop versus the plural for deacons in 1 Tim. 3. Any argument based on Rev. 2-3 has to first pre-assume that angels=pastors — an assumption not necessitated by the text. In contrast to such skimpy support is the clear teaching that churches had multiple elders (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1, and many others). Also Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 clearly teach that the NT intent was to have a plurality of elders in every church and town. Second, the local church only ecclesiology is patently forced and unnatural in many texts (the whole book of Ephesians, Gal. 1:13, and clearly Rom. 12:4-5 where Paul sees himself united to believers he has never met as part of the church of God — for which Christ died Acts 20:28). Local churches are very important, and every believer should be a part of one (Heb. 10:25) but there is a sense of a unified and universal church that the vast majority of thoroughly Christian scholars has believed in and clearly affirmed (Eph. 5:23 and 3:21). Third, there seems to be an overemphasis of separation in fundamentalism and a total neglect to follow the many Biblical examples and imperatives of unity/interdependency among churches. I believe that the tenor of the NT positions/preferences Scripture indicates that we should separate over major doctrines, not minor .

This concludes my defense to you of my positions. I encourage you to have a Berean attitude. I also am glad for the many blessings I have received spiritually from my friendship with you. I hope we can maintain good ties and love one another as fellow believers truly as we should. Keep serving God and loving Him remembering all His benefits to us in Christ Jesus.

Your friend in Christ,

Bob Hayton