Author: fundyreformed

The Danger of Dispensationalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

As my faithful readers know, I am getting ready to leave for a two week vacation. Therefore, my blogging will be limited to non-existent after this post (until around June 23).

That said, I wanted to point you all to another helpful article by my friend Nathan Pitchford. He has posted an article over at Reformation Theology Blog entitled “Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ (An Open Correspondence)”. In the article he defends his claim that dispensationalism is dangerous. It is a very thoughtful critique of dispensationalism and worth your time. In the comments, he links to an earlier post over on his own blog which deals with some of the main points in Scripture which dispensationalists see as demanding their system of interpretation. I’d encourage you to read that post, entitled “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” as well.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

"The Label of 'Fundamentalism'" by Dr. Dan Davey

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

I have recently updated my blogroll (although I plan to overhaul that completely when I get back from our trip this month) to include several other good blogs which critique IFB & IFBx fundamentalism. One of those blogs that I really enjoy is Bread and Circuses by Matt and Josh Richards. They both attended Hyles Anderson College and are doing a good job of providing a thoughtful and careful critique of the excesses of that ministry and IFBx in general, over on their blog.

Anyway, they recently posted a speech delivered by Dr. Dan Davey of Colonial Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, VA (also the president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary East, I believe) back in July of 2004. The speech was entitled “The Label of ‘Fundamentalism'”, and is a “great conversation starter in regards to true fundamentalism” as Matt Richards, put it. The Richards brothers asked for our comments, and so I gave mine. I definitely agree that the speech is worth reading and discussing, and so I am encouraging my readers to go check it out. They posted it in two parts, but it is really not all that long. You can see the first part here, and the second part here. I also want to reproduce my comments on the speech here for your benefit. What follows is my comment (almost verbatim) that I posted over on their blog. If any discussion ensues, you may need to follow the comments over on their blog.

 

As a former “cultural fundamentalist” (who thought of himself as more of a “historic fundamentalist” at the time) I was very interested in Davey’s lecture. [Thanks Matt and Josh for posting it!] For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts concerning it.

1) I am impressed that he used three general categories, rather than two. He separated between the Billy Grahams and the John MacArthurs within Evangelicalism. Some would rather conveniently prefer to just lump them all in together and mark poison on the pot.

2) like the “rabbi-philosopher” I was disappointed by Davey’s dismissal of Piper. I think “rabbi” made a good point when he stressed that “avoid” does not necessarily mean “leave a denomination that they are in”. Several things frustrate me about the “historic fundamentalist (HF)”‘s treatment of conservative evangelicals.

First and foremost, they conclude that if anyone does not apply the doctrine of separation exactly like they (HF’s) do such a person or group is not separating at all and hence does not believe in separation. Thus this person or group becomes worthy of separation since they are obviously disobedient. In fact, however, the person or group is only disobedient to the fundamentalist’s application of separation, not the principle of separation itself.

Second, they refuse to be as polite to others as they are to anyone in their own movement. What I am getting at here is that it took almost 40 years for HFs to leave some of their denominations completely (for example the history of the FBF). It took years before those trying to save the Southern or Northern Baptist Conventions finally left. For some of the HFs it was against their will that they finally decided to leave. Now the HFs of today expect Piper to leave the BGC at the drop of a hat! Talk about inconsistency.

Third, they fail to consider the nature of a Baptist denomination. Baptists by their very nature are independent and autonomous and this is respected in most of their denominations. On the one hand, independent Baptist fundamentalists criticize Southern Baptists, for instance, for being a convention or a denomination. Then on the other hand they criticize the convention when it does not immediately step in and intervene in the autonomous affairs of a local congregation. The truth is that almost all Baptist denominations are not much different from the independent Baptist fellowships. They do not have a lot of authority by themselves: they require the authority of other churches. To do any disciplinary action, it takes a long process and the cooperation of other autonomous churches.

Before moving on, I should point out that Piper (I have been going to his church for almost a year and a half now, by the way) has been influential in trying to get the Baptist General Conference to take a position on Open Theism. It has not happened yet. Clearly not every BGC church is open theist. Piper reasons that he can continue to have an influence for good in the BGC by remaining in it. And Bethlehem Baptist Church retains autonomy, so he is not losing too much by staying. This is not to say that at some point in the future that Piper and the BBC elders will determine it is best for the church to just leave the BGC. But for now, they autonomously choose to remain.

3) I am glad he does stress that “cultural fundamentalists” (CFs) are a problem and schism to the HFs (and the church at large). Yet I wonder if the HFs and CFs are not closer together organically then HFs might be willing to admit. Now I respect the HFs, and I am happy for any of the Fs who are genuinely serving God and trying to please Him according to their conscience (wrong though some of them may be). But I think that the CFs come from the same root as the HFs. Yes, some of the positions of the CFs are culturally based, but then so are some of the positions of some HFs (think music). Further, both groups practice secondary separation often to the nth degree. And further, as Davey’s speech admits, the HFs practically conclude that anyone not organically connected to their movement is not really a fundamentalist and does not really do battle royal for the fundamentals. CFs share this same movement-oriented, us vs. them mentality.

4) In conclusion, I hope that Davey and other voices like his do prompt the HFs to clearly separate from the CFs. But I hope that they go one step further, that they take pains to go out of their way to say that people outside of their movement are faithful to the Scriptural commands concerning separation. In other words, that they refuse to act and operate as if they are the only ones who practice separation, and that if you really did practice separation you would run from conservative evangelicalism into historic fundamentalism’s open arms. They should own up to the fact that their main difference is in application of separation. And they should welcome and affirm those without their group as Bible lovers too. Then, perhaps, HFs might be able to truly distance themselves from their CF brethren. And they may be listened to and respected. After all, when the HFs go out of their way to cast stones at any and EVERY one outside of their group, how can you blame outsiders if they choose to ignore such a group?

Ultimately faithfulness to the truth is more important than influence, I know. But they need to be honest by admitting that HFs do not have a corner on the truth.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

"Quiet Time Guilt", Legalism, and the Freedom of "Weakness Christianity"

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

I will not have time to do much posting this week. But let me encourage you to read this brief (about 4 pages long) article. It is entitled “Freedom from Quiet Time Guilt: The Rare Beauty of Weakness Christianity”.

Perhaps I will find time to comment later more fully on this article [update: I did–check out the comments!], but for now know that it does an excellent job at exposing the deceitful nature of legalism with regard to spiritual “disciplines”. It is worth reading, re-reading (I plan to do that), and pondering over. I would appreciate it if you all could share your thoughts and impressions of the article. For me, it was encouraging and convicting at the same time.

(HT: Sharper Iron Filings)

Regeneration, Reception, and Faith

~ fundyreformed ~ 47 Comments

Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike agree that unregenerate man is dead in his sins. He is lost and blind–even captive. In short, he needs help! And Christ provides the help. So far, so good, yet a fork in the road lies just ahead. One group (Calvinists) insists such a man needs regeneration before he can receive the word and believe. The other group sees the desperate sinner as hopeless apart from the gospel. Yet with the gospel’s proclamation, this dead man can receive the truth of the gospel and believe. Arguments over the interpretation of the death metaphor aside, a few Scriptural passages seem to plainly contradict the second view.

Both sides affirm that sinful man needs regeneration. Rom. 8:8 states, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Both sides also agree that faith and regeneration are intimately connected. Either faith immediately results in regeneration, or regeneration is seen as producing faith (and most would say this happens almost immediately after regeneration).

Now, I ask, how can non-Calvinists affirm that unregenerate men cannot please God, and also affirm that unregenerate men can become regenerated by believing in God–thereby pleasing Him (Heb. 11:6)? Can they just decide to believe and please God? Remember, they are in the flesh when they are unsaved. Not being in the flesh would indicate that they had been born again–regenerated. So just prior to their exercising faith (which pleases God), they are actually still “in the flesh”, and thus they cannot please God!

A solution is offered by some. Since God regenerates us with the Word of Truth (James 1:18), and since “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17), then with the preached word the sinful, unregenerate man is enabled to accept or reject the gospel message. The Spirit imparts life through the Word (John 6:63), so the argument goes, and thus the dead sinner becomes able to receive the gospel and believe.

Taking a step back, that last sentence sounds an awful lot like the Calvinist view which argues that the Spirit regenerates us, using the Word of Truth, before we are enabled to believe. And there is much in the non-Calvinist view which might attract people to its position. It offers a harmonization of passages which seem to imply unsaved man can respond to God’s message with those that teach he cannot. God is seen as extremely nice–giving all a supposedly equal chance. It saves face for mankind by proving that he is not a mere puppet.

Yet this view–that men are enabled to receive the gospel and believe through the preaching of the gospel and the interaction of the Spiritual Word upon their hearts–flies in the face of several key passages. 1 Cor. 2:14 seems very decisive: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” So this verse says that when the Word of God and the preaching of the gospel message interact with the unregenerate, these lost people do not accept the gospel because they think it foolish and further, they cannot understand it, since it is spiritually discerned! Far from enabling them, the preached word is trampled under foot like pearls given to swine. Paul explains this further in 2 Cor. 4:3-6: “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Here the lost are said to be blind to the message of the Gospel. Further, there appears to be no in-between-stage half way from sight and blindness. There is no period where the lost is enabled to believe, considers the message of the Gospel for a while, and later makes his verdict. Rather, they cannot see or even understand the message as an unregenerated person–but in a moment God shines in their hearts giving them the light of the Gospel of the glory of God in Christ. (Keep in mind that God’s word is describing what actually happens inside a person–we cannot use our experience to correct the word. It may appear to us that some are in an in-between-stage, yet Scripture interprets that experience differently.)

Now, I have encountered several people who claim to reject Calvinism yet affirm that repentance and faith are gifts of God. They claim God gives them to those who begin to respond to the Gospel, having been enabled by the life-giving words of the Spirit. I have yet to understand how this idea can fit in with verses like 2 Tim. 2:24-26: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” Here repentance is God’s gift to those who are captured by the devil. Notice, that God “may perhaps grant”. Now how exactly is repentance a gift? If all who hear the Gospel are enabled to repent and receive/believe, then the gift of repentance is not merely the opportunity to repent. And if before you have the gift you are captured by the devil and possess no repentance, it seems to me that when you receive the gift of repentance, you are set free and enabled to repent for the first time. One moment you have no repentance, the next moment you have it–as a gift of God!

More could be said, for sure! But this is to say that regeneration, reception, and belief happen in this specific sequential order. Regeneration happens internally resulting in a heart that receives the word and then believes in Christ. All of this is a gift of grace from a merciful and loving God to a totally undeserving criminal of a sinner.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Redemptive Historical Interpretation Compared to the Dispensational Hermeneutic

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

I came across an excellent article on Triablogue by Evan May entitled “The Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic vs. The Foreign-Eschatological Hermeneutic” (HT: Doxoblogy). The article does a good job explaining redemptive historical hermeneutics to a dispensational commentor. I will quote a few points he makes here, and then refer you to read the article–it will help you understand reformed hermeneutics and will be well worth your time (it is not that long of a read, actually).

1. The Pendulum swings both ways. The Covenantal hermeneutic interprets the Old Testament in light of the New testament. The Dispensational hermeneutic interprets the New in light of the Old. Both camps must defend their hermeneutical methods. We don’t simply assume a Dispensational hermeneutic until we find something better….

3. Much of the Covenantal hermeneutic isn’t so much “the way NT authors used the OT,” but simply being fair to a text in its own context. Dispensationalists habitually rip OT prophecies from their redemptive-historical context and force them into a foreign eschatological context. It’s almost as if Dispensationalists believe that the prophets couldn’t find a topic to speak about: one moment they’re talking about restoration from the exile; the next moment they’re talking about folks disappearing out of their clothes on an airplane….

5. But, it must be noted that the Covenantal hermeneutic is not some knee-jerk, arbitrary dogma of “spiritualize any Old Testament prophecy whatsoever.” Rather, we deal with texts on their own merit. We want to be fair to what the text itself states, and we exegete them on a case-by-case basis (and for this reason, I am glad that Bobby posed a text rather than simply speaking generically)…. [Read the whole article.]