Tag: Southern Baptist

How Should Fundamentalists View Conservative Evangelicals? Kevin Bauder Weighs In

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In the eyes of many fundamentalists (and by that term I’m referring to the card-carrying, independent Fundamental Baptist variety), if you aren’t either a fundamentalist or an out-and-out liberal, then you must be a new evangelical.   “Neo” is a derogatory term, mind you, not the name of “the one” who will save mankind, ala The Matrix….

Fundamentalists for the most part like solid lines of demarcation between their group and the others.   Those others, whether they be conservative evangelicals in general, or Southern Baptists, or Calvinists, their main problem is that they aren’t “one of us”. And this means they can’t be trusted. Furthermore, their problems run deeper than what Bible version they carry.   They must be linked in some way, with Rome or liberalism or any other bad thing we can think of.

Problem is, they are independent thinkers, they don’t toe the fundamentalist party line when it comes to “worldly” amusements or cultural taboos. They actually respect Billy Graham to some level, and they don’t think any measure of Calvinism is satanic.

Perhaps the biggest problem, at least it appears so to us who are on the outside looking in, is that these “others” are influential. Leaders like John MacArthur and John Piper, use the Bible carefully and are “building a following” (at least that’s what Fundamentalists might think). Young unsuspecting Christians are led away into all kinds of error and wickedness when they follow these “others”.

I’m not far from the truth. And now that I’ve painted that not too rosy picture, let me encourage you to go read Kevin Bauder’s thoughts on conservative evangelicals. He is incensed at the party-spirit of fundamentalists which view these “others” as enemies or opponents. Rather, they are to be esteemed for their “defense of the gospel”. And this esteem and even a level of partnership is possible without an all out embracing of their every peculiar position on questions of worldliness and matters of secondary doctrine.

I do pray Bauder represents a changing of the guard and that the fundamentalists of today will share their deep-seated faith in and practice of the Bible with their evangelical brethren, come out from their holy huddles and not be afraid of being impacted by some of the clear thinking, Bible-prizing conservative evangelical leaders God had graced the church with today.

Let me offer a few excerpts and then encourage you to go read Bauder’s essay which says all of this in a more scholarly way.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy….

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

…

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today….

The Concept of "Fundamental Doctrines": Modern Reductionism or Historic Protestant Doctrine?

~ fundyreformed ~ 45 Comments

Often I labor to reply to important questions in the comments on my blog, only to have my thoughts buried and hidden in the weeds, so to speak. So I thought I would craft today’s reply into a post.

I’ve been debating with Pastor Kent Brandenburg on the appropriateness of ranking doctrines as fundamental/essential and secondary/tertiary. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, gives a positive treatment of this: he terms it “Theological Triage“. Brandenburg contradicts this view, believing it belittles the importance of all doctrine, and our obligations to hold to sound doctrine and separate from those who don’t. I side with Mohler, as well as John Piper and D.A. Carson (and others), and recently posted my belief that excessive separation actually belittles the Gospel.

In the debate, which has included “Grace” defending my view, and “Truth Unites…and Divides” who recently joined the fray, three basic points have been raised against my view. This “ranking” of doctrines is a new-fangled doctrine, it finds no support in Scripture, and it ignores the Biblical call for separation from false doctrine. I will respond briefly to all these points, yet major on the first one.

A couple qualifications are in order. First, I unequivocally affirm that we are obligated to obey all of God’s commands and accept all of Scripture as authoritative. Whatever God teaches in His Word, we must believe and obey. However, Scripture teaches that we are fallible and fallen creatures. And God-given common sense affirms that good people disagree and fail to understand one another on any number of subjects. People vary in terms of their backgrounds, intellectual prowess, and even how they reason and learn. So it is no wonder that good Christians often disagree on various points of doctrines. Is it a sin to be wrong? My answer is “not necessarily”. I believe on some issues like Baptism, for instance, good Christians out of a desire to follow Christ, and with Scriptural reasoning and proofs, hold to an incorrect view of Baptism (only 1 view can be the truth) and yet are not guilty of conscious sin.

A second qualification relates to the importance of doctrine. In affirming the primacy of fundamental doctrines, I am not negating the importance of secondary and even tertiary ones. As my own church’s elder affirmation of faith (one of our elders is John Piper) affirms, it is right and good to hold firmly to secondary doctrines and yet still pass beyond those boundaries and extend Christian fellowship at appropriate times. There are different purposes for various organizations and there are different levels of fellowship [1]. When I am warning against “excessive separation”, I am specifically aiming at an extreme sectarianism which allows little to no fellowship at all with any but those who agree on virtually every point of doctrine and practice.

A New Doctrine?

Does the concept of “the fundamentals” stem from the fundamentalist controversy of the late 1800s, early 1900s? Is it a new doctrine that carefully cloaks a reductionist view of Christianity? Is it all about cutting the Bible down to size so we can comfortably hold to the essentials while living how we please?

Frankly, no. The idea of fundamental non-negotiables can be seen as far back as the Apostle’s Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed and so on. Perhaps it can be traced back even more. With the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church and her treatment of church dogma and papal bulls as equal in authority with Scripture, it is no surprise that a complete unanimity of doctrinal belief was levied on one and all. But with the Reformation, the concept of fundamentals of the faith which are necessary for salvation, was once again advanced.

Many Protestant writers grappled with this concept in the 16 and 1700s, as they sought to explain how Protestantism can enjoy real unity across denominational lines yet without Roman Catholicism’s unanimity. I came across an article in an online Catholic encyclopedia which details the key figures in the ongoing debate on this subject between the RCC and Protestantism. Of course the article is written from a Catholic perspective, but it makes clear that both the concept and the phrasing “fundamentals” were used almost from the very onset of the Reformation.

Further historical proof is this article on John Wesley, which shows he also held to a fundamental approach. He emphasized a “catholic (i.e. universal) spirit” and sought to have unity with other Christians despite differences on what he termed “opinions” (see especially section 3). Additionally, John MacArthur draws heavily from Herman Witsius’ Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (from the mid 1600s) as he discusses this very issue in his book Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994; see pg. 108-117). I recently linked to a 3-part blog series by MacArthur on how to determine if a doctrine is essential, which is a summary from the above book.

Is It Scriptural?

My critics claim this doctrine has no basis in Scripture. I grant that it is largely inferred from Scripture. Yet such inference doesn’t necessarily render it moot. More on that later.

I recently cited a list of commentaries proving that the phrase in 1 Cor. 15:3 “first of all” (KJV) or “of first importance” (ESV) [same Greek words here: en protois] can refer to importance rather than time-order. In fact the conservative Greek scholar A.T. Robertson asserted this. My list also showed that this is no new interpretation of that verse, as several older commentators like Adam Clarke and Matthew Henry understood this verse as teaching that the Gospel is “of first importance”.

Scripture goes on to explain the Gospel as being chiefly important. Paul wanted to preach nothing but Christ crucified, and vowed to boast only in the cross. This certainly implies that the Gospel is the main and most important thing.

Jesus similarly held that on the greatest and second-greatest commandment (to love God, and to love one’s neighbor) all the law and the prophets hinged (Matt. 22:34-40). He further taught that God desires mercy more than sacrifice (Matt. 12:7; see also in a similar vein, David’s assertion in Ps. 51:16).

Matt. 23:23 speaks of the “weightier provisions of the law” as the ESV phrases it. The Pharisees were scrupulously tithing of their herbs, yet were neglecting “justice and mercy and faithfulness”. The word “weightier” can signify either “burdensome/difficult” or “weighty/important”. Calvin interpreted the passage with the latter idea–justice, mercy, and faithfulness were “principal points of the Law” and tithing was “inferior” in comparison. And indeed, the smallness of the herbs in question seems to point to the triviality of their scruples in comparison with these more important matters. Such is a common interpretation of the passage today (see D.A. Carson’s commentary in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary set, as but one example).

These specific proof texts are coupled with arguments that MacArthur explains at length. Scripture explicitly ties certain doctrines with eternal life, and more strongly condemns deviation from others. D.A. Carson, in a lecture on doctrinal causes for divisions in churches (obtainable here for 99 cents), illustrates how in 1 Corinthians, Paul responds in varying degrees to different doctrinal problems. He most strongly reacts to the resurrection question, and the communion problem, as well as the expulsion of the wayward brother. But his reactions to other problems are tempered and more moderate. Obviously this plays in with how important Paul sees the various doctrines in view. Again, I encourage you to read Carson’s entire lecture (transcript) on this point.

Suffice it to say that Scripture generally conveys the idea of a varying level of importance of doctrines. And while this is generally inferred, it remains valid. The Gospel is chiefly important. And doesn’t common sense confirm this? Who would disagree that the Gospel is not most important? Can we not find cause for fellowship/participation in the gospel with our fellow believers? Are not the commands to have unity and avoid schisms in the church important?

What about Separation?

This article has run on too much to discuss this point in depth. I need to treat this at length in the future. For now suffice it to say that every time “doctrine” is mentioned as important, are we to conclude every single particular point that Paul taught? Or the chief body of truths over which we are to contend: the faith once delivered? Many times the separation passages explicitly attach themselves either to a denial of the Gospel, or sinful practice. And while we talk of separation we must talk of unity too. Even in Rom. 16, Paul tells us to separate from the contentious and divisive among us! So unity is so important we should separate over it. Paradoxical thinking, I dare say.

I know that one’s view of the church comes into play here as well. Some Baptists hold that only a local church is revealed in Scripture. No universal church idea exists. Such a view is a minority and I believe a stretch, even for Baptists. Most do not hold to this view. And those who do, often act as if each local church is totally independent and doesn’t need anyone else for anything. I submit a faithful reading of the book of Acts, or any of the Epistles, does not permit such thinking.

Hopefully this will end the debate around here for a while, until I open up the subject at a later time.

Footnote:

[1] See also “Why, When, and For What, Should We Draw New Boundaries?”, by Wayne Grudem, published in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity (ed. by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Helseth [Wheaton: Crossway, 2003]), pg. 365. Chapter is available online in PDF, and DOC.