Defining
Points
I have recently received some criticism
from my peers over an article I wrote entitled - The
Subtlety of “Good Words and Fair Speeches.”
The criticisms are accepted. I am
a big boy. I can handle it. I just do not agree they are viable
criticisms. I stand by the article and
what I wrote. There may be a few
statements I would like to have clarified because they were ambiguous to
some. Those that know me know I do not
like to be ambiguous (maybe verbose, but not ambiguous). The criticisms have come from a wide
diversity of theological positions. It soon
became quite apparent to me that we were all using the same words, but those
words had significantly different meanings to different people involved in the discussion. This is of course a common problem in
theological discussions. I guess it is appropriate to disagree with our
peers as long as we do not discredit them in any way. Yet, criticism is often not intended to be
constructive. My article was not
intended to be a criticism. It was intended
to be a rebuke and a call to repentance.
I have received far more calls and notes of agreement and encouragement
than I have criticisms. Thank you for those!
Baptist
fundamentalism and Interdenominational Fundamentalism
When independent, fundamental Baptists
(I.F.B.) practice separation, most churches that are interdenominational are excluded
by that separation without other considerations. This practice has certainly always included
all those believing in paedobaptism and those holding to any sacramental views of salvation. Therefore, independent, fundamental Baptists would
not cooperate with fundamental Presbyterians and Congregationalists without
consideration of any other doctrines to which they might agree. This would be true of fundamental Pentecostals
and Charismatic churches as well. In most
cases, this was true of any churches that did not believe in the eternal security
of the believer. These were doctrines
that resulted in separation from those believing them.
The contradiction of all this is that
men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Doug McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, Dr. David Doran,
and Dr. Matt Olson all profess to be independent, fundamental Baptists. However, their new definition of the practice
of separation is like that of the interdenominational Fundamentalism. They want most other doctrines other than the
Gospel to be eliminated from the
practice of separation. Independent,
fundamental Baptists do not agree and do not like what they are trying to
do. They are convoluting what it means
to be an independent, fundamental Baptist.
Certainly we can agree that the Gospel
of Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, Pentecostalism, the Full Gospel
churches, and the Charismatic Movement is corrupted in numerous ways. To ignore these differences is just – well it
just plain ignorance.
The way I.F.B. churches practiced
separation is not true of interdenominational Fundamentalism. In fact, in most part their agreements were
more upon the things they opposed than upon the things with which they
agreed. There are certain groups of local
churches, such as the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (I.F.C.A.)
that held to similar as the practices of I.F.B. churches. The I.F.C.A. had fundamental Presbyterian and
fundamental Congregational churches in the membership of their
organization. They excluded Pentecostals
and Charismatics from their organization.
I was a member of the I.F.C.A until 1984. Dr. Ernie Pickering was a leader in the
I.F.C.A. for years. I left that
organization because of the influx of numerous New Evangelicals into the
organization. Dr. Pickering left years before
I did. I personally would consider the
I.F.C.A. and the Southern Baptist Convention to be New Evangelical
organizations. Although there is still what
would be described as fundamental local churches within those organizations,
because those churches do not separate from the organizations, they cease to be
fundamental in their practice of separation. Separation is a fundamental of
Fundamentalism. Dr. George Dollar, one
time president of Central Baptist Seminary, spoke of both the S.B.C. and the
I.F.C.A unfavorably in his book A History
of Fundamentalism in America[1]
published in 1973. The reason for this
view of the I.F.C.A was the progressive capture of the organization as the
membership became dominated by men moving away from Fundamentalism, to
Evangelicalism, and then into New Evangelicalism.
Clear or
Clever
Sometimes it appears that some in this
discussion are trying to be more clever
than clear. I think they know the differences to which I
refer above. These are not uneducated or
ill-informed men. Therefore, their talking points have to be
calculated. They are providing more confusion than they are clarity.
They are trying to draw independent, fundamental Baptists into interdenominational
Fundamentalism by redefining how separation is going to be practiced. They consider their new Fundamentalism to be Authentic Fundamentalism. What is Authentic
Fundamentalism? Authentic Fundamentalism is now interdenominational
Fundamentalism. Do not fall for this bait and switch. If this is what Fundamentalism is going to
become, then I.F.B. need to abandon the term altogether. It is a term that has become useless to
define anything anymore.
Hyper-Fundamentalism
Dr. Bauder wrote a number of articles
from his blog defining what he calls Hyper-fundamentalism. Part of one of the articles is quoted below.
“Of course, the King James Only movement
is only one species of hyper-fundamentalism. Hyper-fundamentalism may revolve around
personal and institutional loyalties, idiosyncratic agendas, absurd ethical
standards, or the elevation of incidental doctrines and practices. The thing that characterizes all versions of
hyper-fundamentalism is the insistence upon draconian reactions for relatively
pedestrian—or even imaginary—offenses.
“Hyper-fundamentalism and the new evangelicalism are
mirror images of each other. The old
neoevangelicalism damaged the gospel, not by denying it, but by attacking its
role as a demarcator between Christianity and apostasy. The
hyper-fundamentalist does the same kind of damage by adding something else
alongside the gospel. If anything, King
James Onlyism is worse, for it shows contempt for the Word of God. It attacks
the heart of Christianity by sitting in judgment over its source of authority.
“Neoevangelicalism and hyper-fundamentalism are equal
errors. Whatever we should have done in response to the new evangelicals is the
same thing that we should do now in response to hyper-fundamentalists.
Historic, mainstream, biblical fundamentalism has no more in common with
Pensacola, Crown, and West Coast than it had with Ockenga, Carnell, and Graham.”[2]
Is this statement, Dr. Bauder has
declared me to be a hyper-fundamentalist,
along with thousands of other pastors just like me. In the same breath, he equates hyper-fundamentalists to be synonymous with
neoevangelicals. So I guess I, and all those that believe like
I believe, are now both hyper-fundamentalists
and neoevangelicals. That is his right. I only use the King James Bible in my
preaching and I believe God has preserved His inspired Words in the Received
Text. However, such a belief has never
been an exclusion from historic independent Baptist fundamentalism. In fact, in most part, it has been a tenet of
historic independent Baptist fundamentalism.
For the most part of history since A.D. 1611, it has been a basic tenet
of historic Protestantism. It was never
any different until the Anglo-Catholic
influence of such men as Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort came on the textual
scene and Eclectic Textual Reconstructionism (Lower Criticism) began to
infiltrate Protestant Christianity. In
the book One Bible Only, Bauder
refers to those defending the preservation of God’s inspired Words in the Received
Text as controversialists[3]
because they believed this translation was the only English translation that was
actually translated from the Received Text.
Although there are many Seminaries and Bible Colleges that pay lip service loyalty to the KJV, behind
the scenes they use and promote the Eclectic (Reconstructed) Greek text. They did this to keep pastors who were loyal to
the KJV recommending students to their schools.
I think this manifests a real lack of moral integrity. I do give Bauder credit for being honest
regarding his position on the Eclectic Text and Textual Reconstructionism. That has not been true of many theological
schools.
I think Eclectic Textual Criticism and
Textual Reconstructionism essentially abdicate the practical aspects of verbal,
plenary inspiration since no one can be sure they have ever reconstructed the original
texts. If Reconstructionism is true,
than Preservationism is false and no one can be sure of the jots and tittles of the Words of God any
longer. This certainly explains why these
same men are willing to except translations by the methodology of Dynamic Equivalency. Men can believe what they want to believe
about these things. They can even
declare men like myself to be hyper-fundamentalists
if they so desire. However, if they do,
they are declaring a very large number of independent, fundamental Baptists to
be hyper-fundamentalists. Are those who are declared to be hyper-fundamentalists then wrong to
declare the Textual Reconstructionists as hypo-fundamentalists? Or, is it just a one-way street?
Hyper-Calvinism
Undoubtedly there are all kinds of
Calvinists in the world today. We have
many people who say they are Calvinists simply because the word election is in the Bible and because
they believe in eternal security. Personally, I reject all points of Calvinism
as defined by Theodore Beza. However,
many consider Beza’s Calvinism to be hyper-Calvinism,
because they do not find limited
atonement in Calvin’s Institutes (yes, I have read his Institutes and have
many of Calvin’s commentaries). This is
how I define hyper-Calvinism. Therefore, by brother Bauder statements, he
would not be a hyper-Calvinist in my
opinion. However, there are many
extremes of Calvinism that go far beyond where Calvin went. According to my understanding, John MacArthur
does believe in limited atonement (I
have read almost every book he has written).
He has therefore gone beyond Calvin’s
Calvinism.
Is MacArthur being a Calvinist or a Hyper-Calvinist really the big
issue? It is to me. However, when it comes to separation, I would
separate from MacArthur simply because of his Resolve Conference if nothing
else. I would separate from him because
of his Lordship Salvation. I would
separate from him because he rejects Congregational Polity.
In the doctrinal statement of the Midwest Independent Baptist Pastors’ Fellowship[4],
we have excluded pastors who hold to Calvin’s Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and
Eschatology from leadership or preaching.
However, they are welcome to attend and be encouraged in their
ministries. Our next preaching
conference will be August 12th and 13th, 2013 at
Ravenwood Baptist Church in Chicago, IL.
The subject of the preaching will be – The Local Church: the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Dr. Clay Nuttall will be the main
speaker. By the way, Central Baptist
Theological Seminary will not be allowed to set up a display there either.
Theological
Reactionism against Extreme I.F.B. Pastors
There are undoubtedly many Baptist Popes in many pulpits in I.F.B.
churches. Some of them deserve this aberrant
title as they lord over God’s sheep. Most
of the other I.B.F. pastors are just trying to hold the line in the church “over the which the Holy Ghost hath
made” them “overseers” (Acts 20:28). Unfortunately,
the Young Fundamentalists tend to
lump most I.F.B. pastors into this Baptist
Pope category. That is painting with a very broad brush. Almost all the I.F.B. pastors I know (I have
over 7,000 in my data base) are just humble, godly men struggling to survive in
their ministries while being resisted by many of the very people they love dearly. I do not like it when some Academian gives people ammunition to shoot at these men and harm them.
Apply the label where it is due.
Just do not use a spray gun to
put it on all I.F.B. pastors. This kind
of broad brush labeling is unfair and
unjust. Doing so manifests a real lack
of biblical ethics and character.
[1] Dollar, George W. A History of Fundamentalism in America. Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press.
[2] Bauder, Kevin. http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/in-the-nick-of-time-archive/100-now-about-those-differences/229-now-about-those-differences-part-twenty-three-sinister-et-dexter
[3] Bauder, Kevin. One Bible Only?. Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel Publications, 2001, page 15.
[4] Midwest Independent Baptist
Pastors’ Fellowship Doctrinal Statement. http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Midwest%20Independent%20Baptist%20Pastors%20Doc%20Statement%20booklet.pdf.
Pages 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, and 11.
Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment