Tag: debate

King James Only Research Center

~ fundyreformed ~ 12 Comments

Introducing my newly redesigned King James Only Research Center.

I’m really excited about the redesign. The site is now a normal website rather than a website-wannabe using blog software.

The site is very user-friendly with simple built-in navigation. And it includes a site blog, where I hope to blog about additions to the site and other KJV-only related finds I come across.

I still have more work to do with the site, but I’m satisfied with the new design, and feel I have the infrastructure in place to finally fill out my own writings on the topic.

If you have linked to the KJV Only Debate Resource Center in the past, please update your link to the new site: http://www.freewebs.com/kjvonlyresearch/index.htm and edit the name to the new site name: King James Only Research Center. Some may not have linked to the old site, because it was difficult to use. I hope the new design will bring more visitors and encourage more to link to what I hope is a useful resource.

Essential Doctrines

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

Recently we’ve been discussing whether doctrines can be secondary, or if they should all be essential. In my post “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation“, I argue that only fundamental doctrines are essential, and when we separate over secondary doctrines, we are belittling the Gospel.

John MacArthur agrees with me it seems. On Pulpit Live there is a 3-part series entitled “What Doctrines are Essential?” [click to read part 1, part 2, and part 3]. He helps me make my case. Stronger words and harsher warnings surround denial of cardinal doctrines. Doctrines expressly stated to be essential to one’s salvation, are thus expressly identified as fundamental.

Check out MacArthur’s posts, and then scan through the debate on my blog. Let me know if you think I’m wrong about this, or if you have further Scriptural arguments for the ranking of doctrines.

Charles Spurgeon and Wine

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Charles Spurgeon was by far the most influential Christian preacher of the last 200 years. And today, Christians of all sorts pay attention to what he thought and said on any given topic. Given the nearly unparalleled length of his written works (almost every sermon recorded for us), and given the length of his ministry, one is apt to find Spurgeon statements that can be construed to support both sides of any given debate!

Wine, it seems is no exception. Among fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals, the prohibitionist movement is alive and well. Many claim not only that abstaining from wine and alcohol is the wisest course of action, but some even claim the Bible only supports a strictly tee-totaler’s view on the subject.

Spurgeon converted to the prohibitionist cause, but apparently never held that wine in Bible times was not fermented–at least the wine Jesus drank.

Doug Kutilek, at Sharper Iron, shared some interesting quotes on this topic recently. Here is an excerpt from the early Spurgeon (1877):

“˜UNFERMENTED wine’ is a non-existent liquid. Mr. Wilson [in his book The Wines of the Bible: an Examination and Refutation of the Unfermented Wine Theory, by A.M. Wilson (Hamilton, Adams & Co.)] has so fully proved this that it will require considerable hardihood to attempt a reply. The best of it is that he is a teetotalert of more than thirty years’ standing, and has reluctantly been driven “˜to conclude that, so far as the wines of the ancients are concerned, unfermented wine is a myth.’ While total abstainers are content to make no assault upon the cup used at the Lord’s table, they work harmoniously with all who seek the welfare of their fellow men; but when they commence warfare upon that point they usually become more factious than useful: everything is then made subordinate to their one idea, and the peace of the church is disregarded. [Read the whole quote at Sharper Iron]

10 years earlier (1857), Spurgeon had said:

I am no total abstainer. I do not think the cure of England’s drunkenness will come from that quarter. (Pg. 380, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Lewis Drummond)

By 1887, however, Spurgeon had donned the blue ribbon of the Temperance Movement. It was not just his position change which could cause confusion, but even as an abstainer he acknowledged both sides of the issue, to some extent.

In the book Charles Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, by Lewis Drummond (Kregel, Grand Rapids: 1992) one finds the following contradictory quotes from Spurgeon from his later years:

“I don’t need it for myself, but if it will strengthen and encourage a single soul among the 5,000 that are here, I will put it [a blue ribbon] on.”

“Next to the preaching of the Gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become abstainers.” (Both quotes, pg. 440, Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers, Lewis Drummond)

So there you have it. Next time you are debating this topic, cite Spurgeon for support. No matter what side you’re advocating!

For further resources on the alcohol debate, check out my previous articles on wine:

Pictures borrowed from Wikipedia articles on Charles Spurgeon and Wine.

Puppets, Popoli & The Open Theism Debate

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I’m sure my astute readers are all up to speed on the open theism debate. Then again, some of you probably aren’t. And I haven’t really ever debated the issue, so I had to do some homework too.

The Issue

Open Theism is the belief that God is in a sense bound by time. He knows as much as can be known, but not absolutely all things in the traditional sense of “omniscience”. He can’t know the free decisions of humans before those decisions occur, otherwise they wouldn’t be completely free.

This is obviously not a Calvinistic idea, but even most Arminians would repudiate the idea as just plain wrong. Yet the open theists have some verses they will marshal, verses showing that God changes his mind, repents, is surprised by things, and gives contingent prophecies. They also have some logical arguments at their disposal. It can sound plausible, and even helps make Christianity more palatable for the post-modern atheists of today. And– surprise, suprise– open theism is gaining in popularity among evangelicals today.

Puppets & Popoli?

I mention all of this because my friend “jamsco” runs a blog named “The Responsible Puppet“. His title stems from his adherence to what he dubs “hyper-compatibleism”: God is the puppetmaster, yet we are totally responsible for our actions. He is still working out his position which is not quite 5 point Calvinism, he tells me.

Jamsco links to Vox Popoli (with the “read at your own risk” warning, for Vox’s sometimes-edgy views & speech), who he knew personally in college, largely because he takes issue with Vox’s adherence to OT. Vox does a great job of tearing down popular atheistic arguments, yet he often employs OT in his efforts to disarm his opponents. Jamsco wants to defend a compatibleist view and I’m sure wishes he could convince Vox of the error of his ways.

So Vox for most of this year has had Jamsco on his blogroll under the section “target-rich environments”. And he has promised to interact on the issue.

Round 1

So round 1 of the debate has begun. Vox has responded to Jamsco’s “A Defense of the Omniderigence of God” (where Jamsco had interacted with some of Vox’s views). In his characteristic witty style, Vox does a good job advancing his argument (and answering Jamsco). Jamsco has yet to respond, but its easy to get lost in the hundreds of comments Vox’s posts generate.

Now Vox mentions me in the post, since I had commented under Jamsco’s original post. I stand corrected, yet I did follow up with some comments of my own on the issue. I look forward to Jamsco’s response, and Vox’s promised follow up of Scriptural proof for his view. It will be good to be aware of what kind of arguments are out there on this, and gain an education on this issue.

Recommendations

In doing my homework for my comment under Vox’s post, I came across some excellent articles I should recommend here. A couple are fairly short and yet give a good overview of a conservative response to OT. They are worth reading at some point.

Baptism & Young Children

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

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

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

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

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