Tag: church

Quotes to Note 26: D.A. Carson on the Diminishing Authority of the Scriptures

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Here is another jewel by D.A. Carson from his recent book, Collected Writings on Scripture (Crossway, 2010; compiled by Andrew Naselli). In the conclusion to his essay, “Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture”, Carson turns his sights on conservative Christianity and our own contribution to the diminishing authority of Scripture. The following excerpt is a bit lengthy, but I trust it will prove helpful. I found it painfully close to home as I think about many sectors of fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism.

Carson starts this section with, “A high view of Scripture is of little value to us if we do not enthusiastically embrace the Scripture’s authority.” He goes on to allege that we “reflect the antiauthoritarian stance that is currently endemic to the Western world.”

He continues:

This libertarianism has engendered two surprising children. The first is a new love of authoritarianism among some believers: they do not feel safe and orthodox unless some leader is telling them exactly what to say, do, and think. Inevitably this brings some power lovers to positions of religious leadership, supported sometimes by a theology that ascribes “apostleship” or some other special, charismatic enduement to them, sometimes by a theology of churchmanship that makes each pastor a pope. The authority of the Scriptures is in such instances almost always formally affirmed; but an observer may be forgiven if he or she senses that these self-promoted leaders characteristically so elevate their opinions over the Scripture, often in the name of the Scripture, that the Word of God becomes muted. The church cries out for those who proclaim the Scriptures with unction and authority while simultaneously demonstrating that they stand under that authority themselves.

The second is a fairly conservative mood, a reaction to the times, that some interpret as a great blessing. But this conservative swing does not appear to be characterized by brokenness and contrition. Far from it: it is imbued with a “can do” mentality not far removed from arrogance. Many of the most respected religious leaders among us are those who project an image of total command, endless competence, glorious success, formulaic cleverness. We are experts, and we live in a generation of experts. But the cost is high: we gradually lose our sense of indebtedness to grace, we no longer cherish our complete dependence on the God of all grace, and we begin to reject themes like self-sacrifice and discipleship in favor of courses on successful living and leadership in the church….

Mere conservatism must not be confused with godliness, mere discipline with discipleship, mere assent to orthodox doctrine with wholehearted delight in truth….

Along with the arrogance has come the exegetical and philosophical sophistication that enables us to make Scripture support almost anything we want….

…even some of us who would never dream of formally disentangling some parts of the Bible from the rest and declaring them less authoritative than other parts can by exegetical ingenuity get the Scriptures to say just about whatever we want–and this we thunder to the age as if it were a prophetic word, when it is little more than the message of the age bounced off Holy Scripture. To our shame, we have hungered to be masters of the Word much more than we have hungered to be mastered by it.

The pervasiveness of the problem erupts in the “Christian” merchant whose faith has no bearing on the integrity of his or her dealings, or in the way material possessions are assessed. It is reflected in an accelerating divorce rate in Christian homes and among the clergy themselves–with little sense of shame and no entailment in their “ministries.” It is seen in its most pathetic garb when considerable exegetical skill goes into proving, say, that the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexuality but not homosexuality itself (though careful handling of the evidence overturns the thesis), or that the Bible’s use of “head” in passages dealing with male/female relationships follows allegedly characteristic Greek usage, and therefore, means “source” (when close scrutiny of the primary evidence fails to turn up more than a handful of disputable instances of the meaning “source in over two thousand occurrences). It finds new lease when popular evangelicals publicly abandon any mention of “sin”–allegedly on the ground that the term no longer “communicates”-without recognizing that adjacent truths (e.g., those dealing with the fall, the law of God, the nature of transgression, the wrath of God, and even the gracious atonement itself) undergo telling transformation.

While I fear that evangelicalism is heading for another severe conflict on the doctrine of Scripture, and while it is necessary to face these impending debates with humility and courage, what is far more alarming is the diminishing authority of the Scriptures in the churches. This is taking place not only among those who depreciate the consistent truthfulness of Scripture but also (if for different reasons) among those who most vociferously defend it. To some extent we are all part of the problem; and perhaps we can do most to salvage something of value from the growing fragmentation by pledging ourselves in repentance and faith to learning and obeying God’s most holy Word. Then we shall also be reminded that the challenge to preserve and articulate a fully self-consistent and orthodox doctrine of Scripture cannot be met by intellectual powers alone, but only on our knees and by the power of God.

(D.A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture [Crossway, 2010], compiled by Andrew Naselli, pg. 106-109; originally part of a chapter in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon [Zondervan, 1986], ed. by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Emphasis added.)

Doran, Minnick & Bauder Discuss Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 33 Comments

The following is an enlightening discussion among some of the leaders of today’s fundamentalism. The participants in this discussion are: Dave Doran, pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI; Mark Minnick, pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church and long-time professor at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC; Chris Anderson, pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH; and Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. The panel included some other members too, but only these and the moderator (who I assume was host pastor Mike Harding) were participants in the following exchange.

The panel discussion is from the Preserving the Truth Conference, and available as a free MP3 download there. This question and the ensuing discussion can be found at 8:33 – 26:38 on the MP3. I did the transcription below myself, so any errors or inconsistencies in punctuation are my fault. Anything within brackets was added for explanation. I thought having this transcribed would be of interest to many, as otherwise it is buried in an audio download that not everyone would take time to listen to.

This is a bit lengthy, but regular readers of my blog should find it interesting. For those wondering what fundamentalists think of evangelicals, this would be good reading too. I’ll reserve my comments until after the exchange.

———————————

Moderator: Much has been written about the differences between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. What do you consider to be the most significant differences and why? I’m going to address that to Dr. Doran.

[laughter]

Dave Doran (D): Well, let me begin by saying… that I… implied in what I said in my session is, that I think those are defective categories. Uh… So, I don’t think they are helpful for the discussion. They operate with a sense of us and them. When if I could just… My thought on it is… We’re not sure who “us” is, we’re not sure who “them” is. We’re not sure what makes us, “us”; and what makes them, “them”. So to… to have the conversation seems inevitably to run into significant ditches, and… and that’s the tension. Now if… if I could… uh… if I could go back to what was just being said. If we wanted to take a distinctive that I think must control our relationships and say what is a church’s and, for lack of a better term, minister’s belief and practice with regard to the defense of the faith. Do they believe that we cannot extend Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied the faith? And that in fact to do that is a disobedience of such a high order that we must withdraw fellowship or withhold it from them? If that becomes the… the… the ah, umbrella within which we can have fellowship, then I think you’re going to have a people who have a lot of different distinctives and you’re going to have people who are closer, more closely aligned with each other at various spots inside there. But it won’t be ah… we can’t have any connection to all of these, or else the rip cord side of it would be… I personally believe, that there are people who are accepted by fundamentalists with whom we should not, ah… we should not accept. And if people are part of associations or fellowships that accept them, do I have to now pull out of my fellowship with those people? And we’ve not done it to that direction. We’ve only done it to the other side. And my point would be to say, uh… that’s why I think it ceases to function well for us to have those 2 categories at this point. Because the “us” category, the “fundamentalist” category is such a mixed breed right now, personally. And, and… every time, like even, and I thought Matt did a great job in the creation thing but, when he was trying to ask the question… conservative evangelicals and young earth creation… he starts naming names. And they believe it, they don’t believe it; they believe it, they don’t believe it. So… so, is there actually a conservative evangelical position on it? Because we don’t even know who those are, like Tremper Longman. I wouldn’t necessarily even put [him] in a conservative evangelical [position], but some people might… But so that’s the tension. Who is “them”? And… so, I just think… I am personally of the view, that… um, that… that as long as we’re thinking of those categories and we’re trying to think of what distinguishes us from them… uh… we’re running into a wall, because we’re coming up with things that we wouldn’t separate from fundamentalists who think those things. That’s my thoughts.

Moderator: And it’s open up for discussion.

Mark Minnick (M): Yea… I… here’s… and I really understand what Dave is saying. Part of my way of trying to get at an answer is to ask what… what, do those people say about themselves in distinction from us. And when I’ve had opportunity of interchange with them, that’s what I try to get at. Because… because the distance here, is… is two way. It isn’t just that we have distanced ourselves, but they are self-identified as well. So when they look at us, what do they say is not true of them, that is true of us and important to us? What are those things?

D: I’ve not heard any. Because… because the people… the people they say that about, I say you’re right.

M: Oh, you mean… when… when they say, that’s not me.

D: Well, when they say… If I say to them, “What about fundamentalism…”

M: …and you say it’s not you either…

D: Right.

M: Yea. Right. [signifying agreement]

D: “…What do you do you reject about fundamentalism?” When I hear them describe it, I go, “I don’t believe that”.

Chris Anderson (?): Well, you add… you add to that… The conservative evangelicals are more likely to speak in ways to disassociate themselves from broad evangelicalism. You know… they’re they’re actually looking at evangelicalism saying, “We’re not that; we’re opposed to that; let’s you know…” Our church when we go through an orientation class… we kind of teach “Here’s where we stand historically”. We’ll go through “Fundamentalism and modernism have had their controversy, and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. “Fundamentalism and new evangelicalism had their controversy and so the pie gets cut again and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. And when we started that with a church plant, I would just stop there, “so… we’re on the… you know, that’s… that’s us”. And now I actually… you know go further… and say, “Now within this group of fundamentalists that separated, at least you know historically, they’re following those who separated from new evangelicalism… now there are so many other issues within this piece of the pie that we don’t agree with…” “And there’s actually some of the evangelical piece of the pie that is more like us than they are like the evangelicals, and that I agree with them more than I agree with…” It’s just become very complicated… And… uh, I agree… I agree that the “us” and “them” and… and those kind of categories… It’s probably simpler to say let’s take just one issue like music, and how do we relate to… you know… how do we differ on that issue. Well, within evangelicalism you’re going to have Sovereign Grace [Music] and you’re going to have Paula S. Jones. It… everything is just complicated and it needs attention on one issue, one person at a time, I think.

D: If if I could just… add one thing. My point would be to say, I don’t think we obliterate the categories so that we can cooperate with each other. Mine is to say, those categories are not functioning well. So let’s go to what was the category that preceded these categories, and that is about the defense of the gospel, the purity of the church. Where… where does a person come down on those issues? And this is where I would affirm, what I’ve always said, Do they agree with and demonstrate through application that agreement… So if somebody tells me “Yea, I’m a separatist”, and if they’ve never actually done it, then I’m not sure that… you know… So if they agree and apply with what seems… what seems to be a good… good conscience effort to apply it, then… then I know there’s at least something something there, to use a Bauderism, that we have in common, about which we can fellowship. But if we don’t, at that point… There’s share, share, there’s something we share…

[laughter]

Kevin Bauder (B): Um, Dave, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Dave.

D: Sure you do.

B: No, I’m…

[laughter]

B: No, I get it.

D: Come on, just cut right to the chase.

B: I don’t disagree with the point. But, here we are, we’re us and none of them are here.

[laughter]

Moderator (?): There’s a few of them out there.

D: Yea I was saying… I think based on what I said… Some of them are thinking they are.

B: And when it comes to T4G and the Gospel Coalition there they are. And I don’t know, Mark, have you… have you been invited to preach at T4G, Gospel Coalition?

M: No.

B: Dave, have you?

D: No.

[laughter]

D: But… but I don’t think that’s because of my fundamentalism. They, ah…

Moderator (?): It’s your goatee.

B: We’d like the list!

D: No, I’m just… I mean… who’s?.. They’re not going to ask me to speak it, they’re going to look at the list, and go “Dave Doran, who is that?” You know…

M: No but… but listen… that’s part of my viewpoint on this. I really share this with Kevin. Almost… almost all of the overtures in the last 10 years have been made from our side. In other words, we… we have been the ones…

D: I think you… you were invited to preach at Capitol Hill Baptist Church [Mark Dever’s church], weren’t you?

M: Yes.

D: So was I. So there’s at least one overture that…

M: Yea, but that was after we made the overture to him. In other words..

D: Not, not in my case.

M: And I would only use that…

D: He sought me out. We were in the same place, and he sought me out because he was trying to figure out fundamentalists.

B: Now, I’d be interested to know in both your cases, did you do it, and why or why not.

M: Yea… well, yea… but… but, the background on this…

[laughter]

D: You know that light… that buzzer that goes out when you’re backing into something? You just heard it. “Me-me-me-me-me.”

[laughter]

M: No… I mean, the broader background to this is… I know that for 10 or 15 years here… that men within our movement have made an effort to try to get some of these men together occasionally in private settings, and say “Let’s talk, we don’t really understand”, or “We don’t think you understand us, and we know we don’t… maybe understand your heart”. Um… And I think… I think we have been the initiators in general for that kind of thing. And in those talks there are differences that come out on the principial level. Um… and so… when those things are there, even though we in some cases have found we’re pretty close, when it comes to the consistency of application, it breaks down. And puts me, I know, in a position, where I would end up giving a very uncertain sound to the people that God has entrusted some responsibility of example to. Um… if I then join together with their glaring inconsistency of practice of the principle they agreed with, in private, with me. Because publicly, they’re not enunciating that principle, and they’re not known for articulating it publicly and they’re not known for consistently practicing it. Where, I am. I’m not saying this approving of myself. I’m just saying as part of the movement I am… I’m in. I’m known for being willing publicly to go to the mat on that principle, articulate it, and try to consistently practice it. So that’s… just what I run into.

D: And I would say in large measure I agree with you. The places where I would potentially disagree would be: I’m not certain that we have actually gone to the mat on our principles to the degree that we claim we have. Because we have tolerated aberrant doctrine and immoral behavior in the larger movement, in a way that, in times parallels what they have tolerated for greater good causes.

M: But have we? When you say we have…

D: Jack Hyles preached…

M: but he

D: …in the pulpit in Greenville [SC, near BJU]…

M: Ok.

D: …well after he had preached the eternal humanity of Jesus Christ. Well after people had suspicions about his moral behavior. So I would say yes. We have. Now I don’t think we’re all culpable for that.

M: Right.

D: But my point is to say… but we hold them all culpable for the glitches on the other side.

M: But are our glitches aberrations to what we try to consistently practice. Or, are they frankly what we are known for? At… at… actually…

D: But known to who? To ourselves?

M: No. I would say known to the world.

D: But see, and this would go back to the question of the invitations…

M: You guys on the right need to jump in here!

[laughter]

D: But I mean, but… and… and I’m not… I’m just simply…

B: You can forget about it, Bubba! This is really interesting.

[laughter]

D: You see, I’m… And honestly, I’m just saying if… If you… If we had, for instance… Let’s… let’s, look at this way. There has been for 12 to 14 years a consistent orbit of people who have criticized me on the translation issue.

M: I haven’t.

D: No, I know that.

M: I’m with you.

D: And I was glad you came along because then they jumped on you! So… but, but… so here’s the deal. Um… Let’s say one of those guys decides that they want to come over and say. “Hey, I really want to understand what you believe here”. And then he goes back to his friends and said, “Do you realize we’re the only ones that go talk to Doran and Minnick? Doran and Minnick never invite us over to talk to them.”

M: Who, who’s the…

D: These King James people.

M: Oh, okay.

D: We don’t invite them over. “Hey come on over and learn what we’re thinking here”.

M: I’ve never had one of them do that.

D: Right, but what I’m saying though… The reason would be… is, because we assume they are so hostile to us that they’re not going to… that we’re not going to seek them out. And… and, here are these guys that for twenty or thirty years we’ve been ripping the shreds out of them… And we wonder why they don’t invite us to ask what we think about them! I mean that’s the problem. So… so… so, the reality of it is…

M: I don’t know. I’ve had the shreds ripped out of me!

D: Right.

M: …from people that don’t even know me. So…

D: Right, ok.

M: …on the other side I’m talking about.

D: Yes, I agree. I agree but… what I’m saying though… is that I think logistically, that there’s conversations happening and us going and saying “I think you’re not representing what we believe properly”… is not that they have no interest in it. I don’t think that can be used against them, because we have had… uh… I mean I’ve had… you’ve had conversations, I’ve had conversations with these guys. And… and, all they know about… and I”ll say us… is the the stuff where they’re having their salvation questioned. They’re being accused of… of, apostasy, of aiding apostasy… of all that stuff. And we’re not talking about Billy Graham, and I mean… I’ve never had a conversation with Billy Graham. I’m assuming you haven’t. Maybe you have, I don’t know.

M: [laughs] No.

D: We’re not talking about those guys. We’re talking about the guys that generationally are our age… our age…

[laughter]

D: …and… and all they’ve done is… they’ve grown up… They’ve grown up hearing certain things, and have misconceptions. It doesn’t mean… My answer, to go back to Kevin’s . My answer was to Mark [Dever], “No”. “No I won’t come and preach, and the reason I won’t come and preach is because I don’t agree with stances that you’ve taken. And your church might be an anomaly in the fellowship that it’s in. But it’s not the the rest and… and I… I’m not comfortable with that.” Now obviously…

M: You took a harder line than I did.

D: Yes, I think I did actually. I mean, and… and that’s I… ah, and I’ll say it the bad way: everyone knows you’re a better Christian than I am.

[laughter]

M: So you are to the right of me!

D: I am. Honestly, I think that’s sort of the weirdness of this thing… it’s that, uh… I actually have, very conservative positions. But those are not, ah… I… What I believe, and what everyone must believe are not exactly the same. And… and, therefore… therefore, I feel like I have to give some latitude for others that disagree with me on some points… ah… that I wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable with, ah… for a variety of reasons that… that we would wrestle through principially and leadership-wise and everything connected to that.

———————————

This marks the end of the answer to that particular question, and the discussion goes on to other questions. I highly recommend you download the audio from the panel discussion.

I thought this section of the discussion was eye-opening and refreshing at the same time. It is a sneak peek at what’s going on as the leaders of today’s fundamentalism think through how to interact and relate with those who don’t claim the label fundamentalism. I think Doran’s explanations were helpful, but I can also see where Minnick is coming from. The best line of it all, I thought, was about how the fundamentalists hold non-fundamentalists culpable for all the bad decisions in their movement, but don’t want to be taken to task for the black sheep among them.

Take a listen to the entire discussion for a fuller sense of what went on, and drop a line to let me know what you think! You can also see a clarification from Doran on what he was getting at in this discussion.

Ephesians 3 & 4 on Unity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

I’ve been involved in an online discussion recently on the topic of unity and separation. And I’m finding once again, that for many fundamentalists (surprise), even convincing them that unity with other believers outside a local church is not strictly optional is proving a hard sell.

I won’t bore you with the entire discussion (although some may find it helpful). I will however, take the occasion to share some thoughts on how Ephesians 3 and 4 make a strong case for the idea that unity with other believers is urged upon us in light of our mutual membership in the universal church, which is Christ’s body.

…I believe that in the world we find ourselves in, with its thousands of churches with no real interconnectedness and cooperation between most of them, intentional unity becomes somewhat odd and so a default isolationism sets in. The American situation of freedom from persecution, and good ol’ American individualism also prejudice us toward a self-existant, sufficient idea of our individual local church. Add the history of sectarian fights and all that fundamentalism has endured from all quarters, and I guess it’s little wonder that we have to defend the very idea of the “essential fact of unity” bearing with it a responsibility to act out that unity in visible ways.

Now tallying up the teaching on unity is a bit of a tall order, but just focusing on Ephesians 3 and 4 should suffice for my purposes. Given the setting I’ll just try to draw a brief sketch and not get too detailed.

Eph. 3:1-13 The inclusion of the Gentiles into the “one body” of the Church, (alongside Jews equally), is the mysterious “eternal purpose” of God. And through this new reality in the universal church, heavenly beings can see the manifold wisdom of God.

Eph. 3:14-21 Paul prays for the Ephesian believers individually to experience more fully and to know more deeply the love of Christ, together in a shared experience with all the saints. And he prays for Christ to receive glory in the universal church throughout all generations.

Eph. 4:1-3 On the basis of this cosmic purpose of the global and universal church, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to walk worthy of their calling (shared with all saints), and to bear with one another patiently aiming to maintain this unity of the Spirit (that God is working throughout the universal church as described previously) in a bond of peace. A bond between their brothers in their own city, and a bond which extends beyond even (by implication in the cosmic nature of Ephesians as the wider context).

Eph. 4:4-6 As a further ground for this activity of living together in light of the unity of the Spirit, Paul lists how unified the Ephesians are with all the saints, they share one Lord, faith, baptism and one Father God. God being over all and through all and in them all, as well as in all believers.

Eph. 4:7-10 As a practical reality working out from this existential unity, grace was given to Paul and the Ephesians, indeed to all of us, according to the measure of Christ’s gift that he gave to man in general. And this gift is tied into cosmic realities again as Jesus is ascended above all heavens, and filling up all things through this gift.

Eph. 4:11-16 The gift includes the offices of apostles and prophets and evangelists (all universal church offices, I would think), as well as pastor-teachers, and these men God has given the church (and by the way that means historical theology is important as the teachers of yester-year remain a gift to the church) are to equip all the saints for ministry-work and for mutual up-building of the universal body of Christ (as well as it’s local manifestations). All of this with the goal of all of us attaining to “the unity of the faith”, and knowledge of the Son of God.. leading to maturity and growth and experiencing the fullness of Christ, himself. Christ being the head joins the entire body, so it may grow and build itself up in love.

I would contend that yes, the local church is included in this picture. But everything about the context roots the local church reality in a context of global unity. And just as all believers want to have the fullness of Christ and true knowledge of the Son of God, so too, they should all have unity of the faith and work toward unity with one another.

Since Christ is head of the universal church, what right have we to act as if our own church is all that matters in a given locale? Why ignore other gospel preaching churches and seek to do everything on our own without recognizing and finding ways to celebrate our unity in the faith with these other believers? The mentality is wrong, not just the practice. Yes it’s easy to do nothing, given our current culture and background. It’s easy to focus on our own church and act independently of others. Easy, but is it right?

Fellowship and the Evangelical Spectrum by Kevin Bauder

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In Kevin Bauder’s latest article, he discusses the nitty-gritty details of how fellowship and separation pan out in his view. This is the culmination of a long series of articles on the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. I think quoting his conclusions at some length here, would be helpful for my readers, but I encourage you to go read the entire post.

Finally we come to the hard part. I have been writing about fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. In the process, I have tried to articulate briefly a vision of Christian fellowship and separation. This vision involves a boundary (the gospel), outside of which no Christian fellowship is possible. It also involves a center, the whole counsel of God. Increasing levels of fellowship necessarily index to this center.

In my thinking, separation is simply the absence of fellowship. Outside of the boundary, separation is absolute. No Christian recognition should ever be given. Inside the boundary, separation is decided by the extent to which we Christians mutually hold the faith (the whole counsel of God) in its integrity.

Even among fundamentalists, certain separations are unavoidable. These separations are forced upon us when we cannot jointly hold the whole counsel of God in its integrity. In that sense, each separation includes some element of censure. Nevertheless, separation at one level does not necessarily require separation at every other level. Nor do these separations necessarily require that we adopt a contemptuous attitude toward one another. To the contrary, separations can and usually should be carried out with grace and charity.

At the risk of publicly embarrassing a friend, let me cite an example. Some years ago, God in His grace allowed me to make the acquaintance of Dr. Michael Barrett, president of Geneva Reformed Seminary. Dr. Barrett is a committed Presbyterian, while I am a Baptist by conviction. He is a covenant theologian (though a premillennialist), while I am a dispensationalist (though hardly of the Hal Lindsey variety).

It should go without saying that Dr. Barrett and I find our fellowship limited in a number of areas. Both our ecclesiology and our eschatology differ at important points. He is not going to ask me to lecture on baptism and I am not going to ask him to make speeches about pretribulationism.

More importantly, we cannot be pastors in the same church. Dr. Barrett probably could not in good conscience pastor a church that strictly forbade infant baptism. I could not pastor a church that allowed it. Consequently, Dr. Barrett and I are not likely to plant any churches together.

In other words, we separate from one another. We separate in every area that requires a commitment to those areas of eschatology or ecclesiology over which we differ. We cannot cooperate in any way that would require either of us to surrender his obedience (as he understands it) to Christ.

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that Dr. Barrett and I see one another as enemies or even opponents. Far from it. When it comes to an understanding of the beauty of holiness, of the majesty of God and the mercy of the Savior, of the importance of gracious affections and the role of sober worship, I find that I have far more in common with Dr. Barrett than I do with most Baptists or dispensationalists.

For the sake of those things, I have a deep respect and love for Dr. Barrett, and I am convinced that he reciprocates. Each of us shares concerns with the other that we share with few other people. We pray for one another. Both of us yearn for God’s best blessings in the ministry of the other. Most germanely, we are committed to fellowshipping and collaborating wherever it is legitimately possible.

To put it baldly, I grieve to be separated from Mike at any level. I see our separation as an evil, and I yearn for the day when our fellowship will be utterly unhindered. If there were a legitimate way of overcoming that separation now, I would pursue it.

Our separation is an evil (an evil circumstance, not an evil act), but it is a necessary evil in view of the alternatives. One alternative would be for one of us to abandon his commitment to obeying Christ. The other alternative would be for us to pretend hypocritically that we are not divided in those areas where divisions really exist. I would sin against Dr. Barrett by asking him to do either of these things.

Until one of us can convince the other of the error of his ways (not a likely prospect at this point in our lives), Dr. Barrett and I will continue to separate from one another where we must. We will also fellowship and work together where we can. We will do both to the glory of God, precisely because we care about one another.

This ought to be our attitude toward all fundamentalists with whom we differ. Indeed, it ought to be our attitude toward all other Christians who stand in some degree of error. We ought to separate where we must, fellowship where we can, and love one another withal.

In my opinion, the now-old new evangelicals were guilty of a very serious error. It was as serious as a Christian can commit. I also believe that hyper-fundamentalists are guilty of errors that are (nearly?) as serious. Very few levels exist at which I can overtly cooperate with exemplars of either group. Fellowship in both instances is severely truncated. Nevertheless, I find leaders in each group who challenge me spiritually and whose examples (at least in limited areas) I wish to emulate. Furthermore, where they are obedient to the Lord and genuinely trying to serve Him, I want them to succeed.

Other fundamentalists do not necessarily draw the lines where I do…. [and] might very well choose to separate from me. That, too, is part of the judgment that they must make, and I must grant them liberty to make it. I am not the one to whom they will answer.

For my part, the dictum is pretty simple. Let us separate where we must. Let us fellowship where we can. Let us love one another withal.

Please do read the whole thing as he includes even more practical examples as to specific decisions he’s had to make. Oh, and plan to read his entire 24 part series while you’re at it! I like the vision of separation and fellowship that Bauder gives. I’m not so sure absence of fellowship entails everything Scripture says of separation, however. Let me know your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks.

Are We “New Covenant Believers”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 31 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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