Tag: question

Lost in a Good Footnote: The Final Number of the Saved

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Have you ever read something in a footnote that was just too good to leave there? If you are like me, you can get “lost in a good footnote.” This post focuses on another great footnote.

Conservative evangelicals share the traditional position of the Church down through the centuries with respect to a literal Hell. Universalism (the belief that all people will be eventually be saved) has had its proponents but has always been a minority position in the Church. The Bible teaches that there is a literal Hell where the unbelieving will endure conscious torment in punishment for their sins. Such torment is never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Mk. 9:43,48; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). While we don’t know exactly what Hell will be like, the pictures painted in Scripture aren’t pretty. And there is little basis for the annihilationist position either (the belief that the lost will have their existence mercifully ended rather than suffer continually). Jesus spoke more of Hell than of Heaven, and evangelicals traditionally have included a warning of Hell along with their appeals to believe in the gospel.

The idea of eternal torment is hard to stomach in our contemporary world, and it seems unjust by human standards. This makes the doctrine of Hell something that believers have always grappled with. Alongside a belief in Hell stands the assumption that the Bible also teaches that the majority of humanity will end up there. Such a belief is widespread in Christian circles, and many former Evangelicals condemn Christianity for it. They rejoice in denouncing as harmful a religion they see as teaching that a spiteful God gleefully consigns most of humanity to Hell.

But does the Bible explicitly teach that most of humanity will ultimately miss out on salvation and an eternity with God in heaven? Many Christians will point to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ explanation that a wide road goes to destruction with many are on that road; but a narrow road leads to life and few are the ones who find it (Matt. 7:13-14). To this is added the common experience of the Church over the years as being a “remnant” and a marginalized slice of society.

Here is where the footnote I mentioned comes in. In William Boekestein’s new book The Future of Everything: Essential Truths about the End Times (Reformation Heritage Books, 2019), we find the following in his chapter on Hell:

Other Reformed theologians have been even more optimistic: on the basis of God’s electing grace, “we have reason to believe…that the number of the finally lost in comparison with the whole number of the saved will be very inconsiderable. Our blessed Lord, when surrounded by the innumerable company of the redeemed, will be hailed as the…Savior of Men, as the Lamb that bore the sins of the world.”17 “In the lack of people is the downfall of a prince” (Prov. 14:28). Will God have such a problem? Will He not be honored by a multitude?

…The diverse and often unexpected ways God has fulfilled past promises “should render us modest in our interpretation of those predictions which remain to be accomplished; satisfied that what we know not now we shall know hereafter.”18
(p. 93-94, bold emphasis added)

This hints that it is possible that more than just a few will be saved. I was interested in hearing more and found the following footnote quite instructive:

17 [Charles] Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:879–80. B. B. Warfield also affirms that “the number of the saved shall in the end be not small but large, and not merely absolutely but comparatively large; …to speak plainly, it shall embrace the immensely greater part of the human race.” “Are They Few that Be Saved?” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 349. In this essay Warfield argues that the texts (e.g., Matt. 7:13–14) frequently adduced to sustain the argument that the total number elected are few, in fact merely reflect the situation of pervasive unbelief current in Jesus’s day. Most pointedly, they urge the hearers not to prognosticate about the proportion of the elect but that “salvation is difficult and that it is our duty to address ourselves to obtaining it with diligence and earnest effort.” He adds, “We can never learn” from these texts “how many are saved” (338). On a related text, Matthew 22:14, Calvin recognizes that while the apparent ratio of saved to unsaved persons varies throughout the ages, Jesus’s words, “For many are called, but few are chosen” ought not prompt us to “enter… into the question about the eternal election of God.” Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 2:175.
18 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:850–51.
(pg. 94, bold emphasis added)

I then found that the essay from B.B. Warfield is available online. It is a relatively quick read, you can find it here: Are They Few That Be Saved?

Warfield gives a treatment of the three passages most often claimed to support the idea that few are saved: Luke 13:23, Matthew 7:13, and Matthew 22:14. His treatment of Luke 13:23 and its immediate context is quite convincing, and serves to provide the background for his treatment of the other passages. His case is bolstered by appeal to others who agree with his position. His main point in the essay is to point out how weak the basis is for the doctrine that only few will be saved. Such a position “crumbles when subjected to scrutiny” (p. 10).

While Warfield does not make a case for why we should believe that the majority of mankind will be saved, he does offer some brief thoughts: “Christ must reign until He shall have put all His enemies under His feet—by which assuredly spiritual, not physical, conquest is intimated” and Christ came “to save the world [and] nothing less than the world shall be saved by Him” (p. 10). Earlier in the essay he does look to the Kingdom parables of the mustard seed and the leaven as pointing toward a world-wide conquest of the Gospel as well.

Now this doesn’t answer all our questions around Hell, but it does underscore that the question about how many shall be saved has not been explicitly addressed in Scripture. We can trust in God, whose wisdom is exceedingly above our own. He will right all wrongs and settle all scores – and we can trust in His goodness and kindness.

You can read my review of Boekestein’s book here.

UPDATE: The Gospel Coalition just published an article today (3/13) by William Boekestein on this very subject: Are Only Few People Saved? This is an expanded treatment of the topic I bumped into while reading his footnote. Go read his whole post!

Sunday Evening Services: Helpful or Not Helpful?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

smallchurch“I Want to Be More than a Sunday-Go-To-Meeting-Christian,” says an old-time song. For many, that means we take pride in attending church every time the doors are open. Some church traditions have a mid-week service and others have a Sunday evening service, with many having both. These, of course, are in addition to the Sunday School hour and the Sunday morning worship service.

But in Evangelicalism lately, more and more churches are abandoning the Sunday evening service. Is this a move toward a “lite” version of Christianity? Are such churches compromising or lowering their standards?

Most of the time the answer is clearly no. There are a variety of reasons for abandoning the Sunday evening service. And one reason is that the tradition of a Sunday night service is relatively new. The notion of a Sunday evening service dates to the revivalist days of the 1800s where this service would often be evangelistic in nature – and an early draw was the modern innovation of gas lamps or even electric lighting. But this is not entirely a new idea. Earlier, in both the Reformed and Puritan traditions, there were often second services held in the afternoon (when it was still light). The second service was often for catechism, and spending the day at church helped prevent people from profaning the Sabbath.

There is nothing wrong with additional church services, but we must remember that the very notion of a church service is not possible in some scenarios where the church is persecuted. Certainly the custom of the Church has had to change over the years. It appears that an evening service was the only one possible when slaves were members in NT times (and they had to work 7 days a week). Culture and regional preferences resulted in a variety of traditions over the centuries. The Bible doesn’t mandate specific meeting times, other than an emphasis on meeting on the Lord’s Day. We should not be hesitant to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in. Our age is so busy, that packing in an extra service on the Lord’s Day usually doesn’t lead to a more restful and worshipful reality. More services might be better, but must all worship and study be done in a formal church gathering? In many churches, the faithful are worn out from all the service they render for the church and don’t have enough energy left to get much out of the final service of the day. It seems the more active a church is, the more services it requires of its members–and the more obligated and stretched these members feel.

Many consevative churches eschew the evening service to make small groups easier to schedule. It isn’t about avoiding church so much as encouraging more effective ministry and fellowship. Other churches don’t want to ask too much of people preferring their members to focus on the primary message and enjoy rest and fellowship with their families.

An extra service may weigh down the congregation. It can become a measuring stick to see who is performing well. My legalistic heart and background probably clouds my perception, but I find such demands burdensome and have a hard time resisting the urge to measure up every chance I can. Worship should be about the Lord, not about us checking off boxes or jumping through hoops. Personally, I enjoy the freedom of an extra night with family – and more time to think on the things I’ve heard and studied. Every other Sunday afternoon we host a small group in our home. We can do this much more easily without the extra burden of another service.

I’m spurred to share my thoughts on this in light of a recent article from a Fundamental Baptist leader, Paul Chappel. His article is not intended to offend, but it is almost impossible not to read between the lines and see what he really thinks of churches that don’t have a Sunday evening service. Another pastor recently shared a response that was charitably written and helpful. Reading the two posts back to back can give a fuller picture and provide a helpful contrast in evaluating this topic.

Don’t get me wrong, Sunday evening services can be wonderful. There is nothing wrong with churches choosing to meet regularly in this way. But neither is there anything wrong with churches choosing to drop such a service. May we view people on both sides of this question with respect and love. May God bless us as we seek to follow Him more closely, in our families and our churches.

Here are the posts for your further consideration and I welcome any comments below.

“IFBx”: A Definition

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Recently the question came up in a discussion group I’m a member in, as to what the term “IFBx” stands for. Defining that term is an interesting exercise and worthy of its own post.

I first heard the term from Ryan DeBarr, who was a regular at the FFF (Fighting Fundamentalist Forums) back in the day, and who had a blog back in the mid 2000’s. It stands for “Independent Fundamental Baptist extreme” or extreme IFB. I can’t remember all the details surrounding the use of the term, and I’m sure everyone uses it differently.

In my case, very soon after abandoning the IFB movement altogether, I came to realize that I was overstating things on my blog. I clarified my critique of fundamentalism to hone in on the IFBx part of fundamentalism more particularly. I have maintained since then (early 2006) that I do not believe everyone should abandon the IFB movement wholesale. There are healthy IFB churches and a positive trajectory to be found in many branches of the movement. Furthermore, Fundamentalism has much to teach Evangelicalism about the weightiness of truth and the importance of holiness. Far too often such matters are brushed off as “legalistic” without a second thought. That being said, there is much that is not healthy in IFB churches and particularly among those I would consider extreme fundamentalists.

To help flesh out more fully what I mean, I’m going to string together two excerpts from earlier posts that I think still capture the heart of what I believe should be understood by the term “IFBx”:

Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

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

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

[excerpted from “Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism“]

The [branch of] fundamentalism I came from is often termed IFBx (extreme fundamentalism). I think the definition fits, although I tend to think an asterisk is called for. My alma mater, for instance, is not into the blatant man worship and ultra traditionalism which permeates those who rightfully own the IFBx label. They find Scriptural reasons (using sound hermeneutical methods, for the most part) for the standards and positions they adhere to. In fact, I am thankful for the emphasis on Scripture and a serious devotion to Christ that I inherited from this branch of fundamentalism.

It is the positions they hold and how tenaciously they hold them, which makes that branch of fundamentalism extreme. Some of the positions they hold, such as KJV onlyism and the teaching that women should not wear pants are extreme in the sense that there is so little clear teaching in Scripture which demands these positions. The few verses claimed to support them have other obvious interpretations available. Yet only one interpretation is allowed. Other positions which may have a larger Scriptural support, are held in such a way as to say that only their own interpretation is correct. If one is not pre-trib rapture, or if they hold to less than conservative music style, or if they hold to any form of Calvinism, they are not only wrong, but worthy of censure and separation. The broader movement of fundamentalism might limit fellowship to some degree over these issues, but they do not “write off” those who hold differing views to the extreme degree that IFBx fundamentalists do.

A further consideration here comes with regard to the extreme emphasis on loyalty and allegiance to personalities. IFBx fundamentalists view any departure from their list of required positions as compromise and disloyalty. This sector of fundamentalism also places an undue emphasis on authority. Any questioning of a position, however sincere and non threatening, is viewed as an attack and a threat to the leader’s ministry. Such a situation begs a complicit adherence to the authority’s list of do’s and don’ts and facilitates an unhealthy separation of external conformity and internal heart worship. With such a stress on outward conformity, it is easy to seek to gain acceptance by men while neglecting the matters of the heart. While the particular circles of fundamentalism I came from were not as extreme in this regard as other IFBx groups, they still hold an undue emphasis on loyalty and conformity, which again puts them as IFBx* in my book.

Within this branch of fundamentalism, there is no liberty to contemplate changing one’s positon on a point or two. Any capitulation from any small point is seen as a departure from fundamentalism en toto, and in reality a departure from the faith! Thus, any break from this branch of fundamentalism (at least a break made by someone who was whole-heartedly embracing all of the points to begin with) is necessarily very dramatic and often final. It also results in much pain in the one leaving. When one emerges from extreme fundamentalism, they do so with a lot of disorientation and a feeling that they will never fit in anywhere ever again! More than doctrinal positions and standards are left behind, one’s very identity is left behind. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to leaving a cult.

[excerpted from “A New and Improved ‘About This Blog’“]

Feel free to chime in and give your thoughts on what IFBx should or shouldn’t mean. Where are you in your assessment of the IFB movement, and more importantly, in your journey of faith?

Another Reader’s Story

~ Bob Hayton

Often I receive emails from readers who have stumbled across “my story.” Most of them thank me for taking the time to share as they have gone through similar circumstances and are helped by my own experience. Sometimes these emails or Facebook messages include a detailed story from the reader — of their own journey with respect to fundamentalism. I have shared a few reader’s stories so far, and now have another story to add to the mix.

I have made some slight edits and changed some of the details to protect this reader’s privacy, but she is a real person sharing her thoughts and questions about fundamentalism.

Hello, Bob. I ran across your blog on the internet again, from when I first saw it, 2 yrs ago. 🙂 You took my thoughts and words right out of my mind and heart as I read your Story.

I’ll put this as short as I can. We ended up moving to the deep south in 92. We were invited to an IFB revival meeting week. My husband gets saved, and we are for the next 7 yrs immersed in an IFB church and culture and all that you describe. As a wife and mother, the church ladies made legalism, dress code, and etc. look very holy and right.

7 yrs later, we move to a rural Westerm state where there was no IFB church at all in a 50+ mile range. So we took a daring step to attend a local Bible church. Boy were our eyes and hearts opened to our once KJV-only, strict ideals of a Godly life! We were opened up to a world of other Christians (imagine that!), who were not hindered by all the IFB oddities. We saw for the first time in 7 years what real grace, love and joy in the Lord looks like! We realized we can sing praise and worship songs and hymns in the same service and still be OK!!

Move forward about 14 more years. We are still out west and about 2 yrs ago now, we move closer to larger town. This time we tried to go back to an IFB church and drove 45 miles to attend one in a larger town. 10 months later we realized we aren’t as IFB as we use to be! God had opened our eyes, grew our hearts and we then saw how actually depressing, small minded and small world this IFB church is.

We now attend for the last 2 years a non-denominational community church where God is passionately preached and worship is so real that it just brings tears of joy to my eyes! 🙂 The people are very kind, loving, REAL, and have a zeal for life we’ve not really seen in most IFB churches we attended.

My question is… is this normal to swing so far away from the IFB ways? Are there more ex-IFB attenders seeing what I’m seeing and you have seen? I feel we are all saved by grace, and we’re just filthy rags in God’s eyes, but through His grace and love we are HIS, and I no longer feel pressured to have more children because that’s what other IFB ladies do. Or pressured to wear skirts all the time, etc…. I think you get the picture.

We are pondering going to a revival in the IFB church we left on good standing, but that now has a new pastor. The evangelist is ——— ———–. We would like to attend because we sometimes miss that “good old fashioned” preaching like when my husband got saved. Do you know of this evangelist? Is he a moderate IFB or from the “I will not be moved at all” type? LOL

Also I might add, expository style preaching, verse by verse is where it’s at!! Our pastor we have now is awesome. We don’t miss the topical style preaching. I’ve always felt it was lacking a good Bible base, and has too much of pastor talk or shout.

Well, thanks for your input, like I said, you took the words out of my mouth! I do sometimes feel guilty for us moving on to a non-denominational church, but God is putting peace in me as the years go by.

Peace and God bless!

Part of my reply to her was:

Hi ——.

Thanks for your note. You are not alone. So many have traveled the same road and learned the same truth. Not all IFB churches are bad, but so many just miss out on a wider world of God’s grace and goodness. That isn’t to say there aren’t problem churches that aren’t IFB. Not just anything goes, mind you. But there are so many sincere, godly churches that just don’t do church by IFB rules.

I haven’t heard of Evangelist ——— …. There can be good preaching, but so much is shallow and emotional. And IFB churches are so focused now (more than ever) on keeping people in the fold. As long as you know what you’re getting into, it wouldn’t hurt to attend one night. But that is up to you and your husband and how God directs you.

Enjoy the freedom in Christ. I loved your story. From time to time, I like to share stories like this on my blog with personal names and details removed. If you were interested in letting me share it, I would. But I never do so without permission. I’ve had literally hundreds contact me and thank me for what I’m doing or share part of their story like you did – so know that you are not alone.

Either way, God bless you and yours. Glad you stumbled across my blog.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton
FundamentallyReformed.com

She replied, giving me permission to share this with my readers. Here is part of her reply.

Thanks for writing back so quick. You are welcome to post my story — it is the shortened version. 🙂

I do believe it took the straightforward, hard evangelist-style preaching to get my husband’s attention, short of a tallking donkey. 🙂 Tthe IFB church was his first real introduction to church, so it is near and dear to his heart….

3 of our 5 kids have prayed with Dad to accept Christ as their Savior. The 2 youngest are too young to understand, but they will not know the stressful lifestyle of the IFB church upbringing. Instead they will learn how to have a life in Christ full of grace and a good biblical world view.

Have a great day~

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).