Tag: Unity

Introducing The Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Cross-posted from the group blog, Re-Fundamentals.org. This represents the latest version of what I started a long time ago with the Fundamental Reformers blogroll.

We now have The Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network up and running. Past members of Transformed by Grace and fellow contributors of Re:Fundamentals.org were included as members of the network. Anyone interested in joining can visit the network page here on this site.

Please note, if you are listed as a member of the network, we would still ask that you please take the time to add the blog network to your blog sidebar.

The following is from the description of the blog network.

The Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network is a listing of blogs maintained by people connected to the independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement. The IFB movement is widespread and includes a vast assortment of various fundamentalist camps. Most of these could do with some reformation. Some of the problems members of the network are standing against include: man-centered pragmatism; domineering leadership; emotionally-high, doctrinally-shallow preaching; rules-based, performance-oriented sanctification; and a lack of charitableness to other Christian groups.

Members of the network are at various stages in their journey with the Lord. Some work for change from within the IFB movement. Others view themselves as historic fundamentalists who embrace the fundamentals of the faith but not necessarily the fightin’ fundy mindset.

These blogs should all have some content devoted to the fundamentalist problem, but by no stretch do we think that members must all be crusader-blogs. This blog network is intended to spread the word about the new movement of young fundamentalists who care about the Bible and want to right the fundamentalist ship. The network is also about getting to know one another and sharing our common experiences. Often seeing what someone else went through and how similar it was to your own experience, can have a healing affect. It can also sharpen our thinking.

My hope is that continued interaction among the members of the network will help us realize Eph. 4:13-15: “Until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ…. (ESV)”

The Real Meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22

~ Bob Hayton ~ 26 Comments

Anyone with roots in conservative evangelicalism, and particularly fundamentalism, will have heard 1 Thess. 5:22 used as justification for all sorts of personal standards. Going to see a movie, drinking from a dark bottle, using playing cards, wearing facial hair (for men) or wearing pants (for women) — all of these activities and more are condemned with the words: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess 5:22, KJV).

These words are used as a bully club to keep people in line with the group’s expectations, or more usually, that of the leader. What appears as evil to one is not necessarily going to appear as evil to another; and so, taken to an extreme, the careful Christian could hardly do anything for fear of it somehow being misconstrued as evil.

This basic interpretation of the verse has surprisingly wide attestation. A wide variety of commentators uphold this understanding: Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Harry Ironside, J. Vernon McGee and Albert Barnes. It certainly is not good to rush into things which appear to be evil. But the nuance I see as unwarranted is more adequately found in these thoughts by Ironside: “All of us should remember that others are watching us and taking note of how we behave. We ought to abstain from all that looks like evil…” Or as McGee puts it: “This… is the answer for questionable pastimes and amusements. If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Scripture does teach that we should watch out for weaker brethren and not put stumbling blocks in their way. But this particular verse is taken to teach a testimony should be maintained and things avoided which might at a far glance from a passing stranger appear to be sinful, even if upon closer examination they are not. Consider some of these modern applications of this verse in a fundamentalist context.

Fundamentalist Applications of 1 Thess. 5:22

The verse is used in a list of “67 tests that can be used by a believer to decide upon a course of action“. It is the “Appearance Test”. “Would what I do assume any appearance of evil? Would my actions be misinterpreted or seen in a negative light?”

It is used in a church statement of faith in relation to the dress styles church members should have. “We believe that Christian people should look and act like Christian people and not like those who love the things of this world…. Appearance shall be neat and clean, with short hair for men and longer for women. If any statement is to be made by means of dress, it should be a positive statement for Jesus Christ.”

It is used in a church constitution as follows: “The life of the pastor and his family should be an example of godliness and spirituality. They should not indulge in worldly or sinful practices which would tend to weaken the testimony of the church (1 Thess. 5:22 ).”

In a statement copywrighted by BJU Press, a group called the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible, lists 1 Thess. 5:22 as one of 5 reasons why “Christians… separate from the world and from worldliness…” The reason is “To make clear to Christians and non-Christians alike by their actions that they belong to God, not to the world (I Thessalonians 5:22).”

Cooper Abrams of bible-truth.org applies this to ecclesiastical separation: “This verse too is dealing with biblical separation from evil and sin in any form. It is the broadest of all the verses and plainly states to “abstain” from all appearance of evil. To “abstain” means to “hold one’s self off from” or to “refrain from.” Is not false doctrine evil? God clearly throughout His word over and over again condemns sin and false and idolatrous teachers. Is standing beside them, and working with those in doctrinal error “refraining” evil? The answer is obviously no. It is in fact standing with them.”

A popular King James Bible Only site, lists the NKJV’s rendering of the verse as “every form of evil” instead of “every appearance of evil” as one of 337 changes removed from the AV 1611.

David Cloud, an influential fundamentalist leader, applies the verse to everything from alcohol and TV to a new evangelical approach to ministry.

A Closer Look at 1 Thess. 5:22

Key to understanding 1 Thess. 5:22 is appreciating it in its context. Determining the meaning of the Greek word ειδους‚ (eidos) translated “appearance” by the KJV but “form” or “kind” in most modern Bible versions is also important.

Leon Morris in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians covers both of these points quite well. I’ll let him explain:

The positive injunction is followed by the negative. The form employed is a strong one with the preposition apo (as in iv. 3) used to emphasize the complete separation of the believer from evil. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the word eidous rendered appearance… as in AV [another abbreviation for KJV]…. The word eidos means the outward appearance of form (Lk. iii. 22, ‘shape’), without any notion of unreality. It is also used in the sense ‘sort, species, kind’. AV takes it in a third sense, ‘semblance’ as opposed to reality, but this does not seem to be attested elsewhere, and it is unlikely that the apostle would be concerned only with outward appearance (there is no word ‘even’ here to give the meaning, ‘even from the appearance of evil’). Our choice seems to be between ‘every visible form of evil’ (with no notion of unreality), and ‘every kind of evil’. The use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament favours the former; but there are enough examples of the term meaning ‘kind’ in the papyri to make the second quite possible. And in view of the context I am inclined to accept it. Paul is urging his friends to eschew evil of every kind.

The change from that which is good (lit. ‘the good’) in the previous verse to ‘every kind of evil’ in this is significant. The good is one, but evil is manifold, and is to be avoided in all its forms. — pg. 106, Eerdmans 1958 (1982 reprinted edition) [italics original, bolded emphasis mine]

I would add that The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown (Zondervan, 1975) also explains that the modern concept of “semblance” is foreign to the Greek mind.

The distinction is commonly drawn between outward form and essential substance. Whilst this distinction is also found in Gk., the Gk. idea of form does not imply that every kind of form is a mere outward appearance…. [Speaking now specifically of the classical usage of ειδος]: the modern distinction between the external and the internal, the visible and the invisible, the husk and the kernel, and between the outward form and essential content is inappropriate and foreign to this aspect of Gk. thought…. The LXX uses eidos to translate mar’eh (sight, appearance, vision) and to’ar (form). Here too the outward appearance of the whole being is meant (cf. Gen. 29:17; Isa. 53:2 f.), and not merely the outer shell behind which something quite different might be supposed. — pg. 703-704 (vol. 1)

The closest that the Greek comes to the idea of “semblance” is with the word σχημα.

Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, present many papyrii examples contemporary to the NT of the meaning “kind” or “species” for the word ειδος. They also explain that the Greek word (ε)δικος‚ meaning “one’s own” comes from the word ειδος.

The meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22

Given the above closer look, I want to draw out what I believe is an appropriate interpretation and application from this text. I’ll be drawing from the immediate context of the verse beginning with vs. 19 – 23.

Don’t quench the Spirit by despising the role of prophecies in the local assembly. Instead of despising prophecies, you are to test everything (including prophecies). That test should result in your holding fast to “the good” and abstaining from every manifestation of evil. Some prophecies are evil, but the attitude of despising prophecies are also evil. As we test everything, we must approve the good and reject the various forms of evil. In fact we need God Himself to “sanctify (us) completely” so that we are “kept blameless at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ”. Abstaining from “every form of evil” certainly fits in with that.

Now don’t be put off by the mention of prophecies. It is right there in the Bible. Whether or not prophecy applies to times beyond the NT is beside the point in our argument here. One thing is for sure, this teaching can be applied to the preaching and teaching of the Word. We shouldn’t despise teaching which we don’t like, but we should test it.

If it is legitimate to find a distinction between the appearance and the true nature of something in this passage, it would most appropriately apply to the prophecies which appear good but actually are forms of evil. I’m not convinced the Greek would allow this. The passage clearly addresses prophecies we don’t like but that are true. I don’t believe the opposite variety of prophecies (seem true but are bad) is referred to in this passage.

Other Articles

I refer you to the following articles for more on the real meaning of 1 Thess. 5:22.

Eph 2 & Dispensationalism (part 2)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

–continued from part 1

We are discussing Ephesians 2 and dispensationalism.   In yesterday’s post, we saw that Gentiles are added to the “commonwealth of Israel” and become full fledged members. They with believing Israel become “one new man”. At the very least this teaches that in the dispensation of the church age, there is no distinction between Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians. But I believe given the context of Ephesians as a whole, and the other end times passages in the NT that there is no going back to a 2 people structure.

An additional implication of this teaching, that there is only 1 people of God during the church age, would be that the book of James cannot address Jewish Christians independently of the church. So as it addresses the “twelve tribes in dispersion”, that would be seen to be a descriptor of the church which is like Israel, and was scattered throughout the world being spread through persecution (Acts 8), and also being considered “strangers” or “pilgrims” as 1 Peter ch. 1 describes them. The church finds solidarity with the patriarchs of the faith in Hebrews, and we find in Hebrews 8, and especially 10:15-25, that the new covenant is given to the Church as well.

Now we’ll pick up Ken Gentry’s next point, from his Ephesians and Dispensationalism post.

Paul sees Gentiles as receiving Jewish promises.

In our last comment we noted that Paul saw Jew and Gentile merged “” permanently “” in one body, the church (Eph 2:11–19). Now we would note that in the early part of that text he teaches that this new, merged body “” the church “” receives the Old Testament promises given to Israel. Consider Paul’s statement to these Gentile Christians:

“remember that you were at that time [before your conversion] separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph 2:12).

What is happening here? Paul is speaking of matters involving “the commonwealth of Israel.” He is declaring that before these Gentiles came to Christ they were “strangers to the covenants of promise.” This necessarily means that now that they have come to Christ they are no longer strangers to the covenants of promise.

Thus, they are now recipients of “the covenants of promise,” which include the distinctive Abrahamic Covenant with Israel (Gal 3:16–18). After all, he goes on to say that though they were “a that time” (Eph 2:12) excluded and strangers they now “have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13) and that Christ “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” that separated Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14).

Thus, if Gentiles are no longer “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” if Gentiles are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise,” if Gentiles “have been brought near,” if Jew and Gentile are merged into one body , and if that which distinguishes Jew and Gentile has been “broken down” (the “dividing wall” ), then by parity of reasoning: the Gentiles receive the promises given to Israel. How can it be otherwise? The two are now one, so that the promises to the old covenant people belong to the new covenant people who have been merged with them.

As members of the commonwealth of Israel, we are partakers in the covenants of promise. In my “understanding the land promise” series, I show how Rom. 4:13-16 teaches that we partake in the land promise as well (Matt. 5:5 & Eph. 6:1-3). Stay tuned for at least one more post in this series on Eph. 2.

Together 4 the Gospel: 2010 Conference Audio Up

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just a quick note that the audio for Together 4 the Gospel’s 2010 Conference is now up. I am looking forward to listening to the messages. I hope that some of the breakout sessions and the interview of Matt Chandler will also be available online as well.

You can find the audio and video for streaming and download here: http://t4g.org/resources.

Back at the first T4G conference, I posted the reasons why I am enthusiastic about the idea of Together For the Gospel. You may still enjoy my thoughts from back in 2006. And don’t forget my recent post: “United by the Gospel & Together for the Gospel“. This gives additional reasons on why I think the Gospel should unify us.

United by the Gospel & Together for the Gospel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Over at Christian Book Notes, there is a contest currently running to win copies of the 2 book-compilations of messages from the previous 2 Together for the Gospel conferences (2006 & 2008). Both books are published by Crossway.

To enter the contest, you are to leave a comment, “regarding how the essential truths of the gospel unifies all (true) believers”. That got me thinking and I thought I’d share my thoughts here for my readers’ benefit. I also encourage you to go enter the contest yourself, it runs through Monday.

One more thing before I share my thoughts. You can download most of the 2010 T4G messages now, and the rest will be up shortly I assume.

The cross humbles us. It lays bare all our evil hearts. No one can raise his head when faced with how wicked his own sin is. Sin’s extent is displayed in the gravity of Calvary. There, the Creator God manifested in human flesh, died a tortured and bloody death to pay sin’s terrible price.

The cross then gives us all the same hope. The hope that our sins are dealt with and grace and mercy can come to us from Christ our crucified and risen Savior. The same hope of eternal glory and joy that never ends in Christ’s presence, acceptance with God, forgiveness of sins– this same hope is extended to all who believe in Christ as the sufficient sacrifice for their sins.

The cross, then, should also unify us around an appreciation of gospel truth and the spreading of it’s gospel glories. Smaller points of disagreement find their perspective when weighed in the light of the cross. If we share a joyous faith in a gospel of grace that flows to us from the cross of Jesus, then that is a big thing indeed. It is so big and so important, that differences over baptism, eschatology, church government, preferences of music or dress styles, and the like should pale in comparison.

When we magnify every relatively minor position on any given question, the gospel loses its status and becomes just one more point to agree or disagree on. This is the tragedy of sectarianism run wild. It makes mountains out of mole hills, and minimizes the importance of the truly central and cardinal truths related to the gospel.

Sorry I got a little carried away, but this is why I love the concept of T4G and The Gospel Coalition so much. There is great potential for unity when we see how glorious the Gospel really is.