Note: If you want to see a more abbreviated critique of fundamentalism see this post (referring to Fairhaven’s brand of fundamentalism) and this post (re: Phil Johnson‘s critique of fundamentalism as a whole).
–continued from My Story.
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
Note: if you want to comment on this, please leave comments under this post. Thanks.