|
Arnetts | Arnett Family | Speaking Policy | Charles | Union
Baptist Church | Links | Sermons | Letters | E-mail
Jack's Main Memorial Page
In the December, 1985 issue of "Fundamentalism Today", Ed Dobson said,
"Over the years, the word fundamentalist has been used in a disparaging way to describe bigots, fanatics, and extremist of all sorts."
The word fundamentalist is increasingly becoming a word of disparagement. In order to show your contempt for a particular doctrine or certain practice you simply call it fundamentalism.
C. H. Spurgeon, in "An All Round Ministry, spoke of the "Growing worldliness" among professing christian which wastes the "Masters money in worldly pleasures and doubtful amusements."
If anyone today dare speak against worldly pleasures they are sneeringly called a fundamentalist. Many would tell us there is no doubtful amusements, 'All things are lawful and not to be forbidden.'
For the purpose of this article we want to define Fundamentalism as "The practice of churches of having written standards for membership or for Church officers that are not explicitly spelled out in scripture." This would include the practice of preaching against tobacco, booze, cards, movies, short-haired women, and long-haired men. Those things are disparagingly called fundamentalism. That is the way we are using fundamentalism in this article.
We have chosen to write on this subject because, on the one hand there are churches that would call us liberal because we don't preach against women wearing slacks; then there are churches that would condemn us for having in our Church covenant a no-booze statement concerning Church members and a no-tobacco statement for our Officers and Sunday School Teachers.
First let us consider just what is legalism. We begin by reading two passages from Galatians. "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal. 3:2,3 & 3:10,12) Now it is patently obvious from Galatians that legalism is that teaching that would put the christian under law for justification or for sanctification. Putting the christian under law for sanctification is what one calls "The Galatian heresy," and another calls, "Weak and beggarly legalism." While the bible does not use the term legalism, yet we do find legalism condemned very thoroughly in the book of Galatians.
Old Covenant Theology is legalism: Keep in mind that the Westminster Confession (the standard of Old Covenant Theology) taught the moral law was the decalogue as given to Moses. Reading the Westminster confession Chapter XIX Paragraph V & VI Note the word bind in both paragraphs.
V. The Moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it; neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law , as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them, as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; .... (1)
Old covenant theology is legalism, pure and simple legalism. We all have heard the sentiment that the Mosaic moral law is binding upon the believer as a rule of life. In fact, it is a tenant of Old Covenant theology that part of the continuity of the covenants lies in the binding aspect of the Old Covenant moral law as given upon Mount Sinai to Moses.
Not many fundamentalist would say that, but yet it is the fundamentalist that is accused of legalism.
The Baptist Position: Let us now look at what the Baptists said in their Confession before they tried to appease the reformed. Reading the first London Confession Articles XXV & XXIX.
XXV. That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding Ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soule, as a sinner and ungody to receive Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen againe, being made a Prince and a Saviour for such sinners.
XXIX. That all beleevers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the new Covenant, and effect of the love of God, manifested to the soule, whereby the beleever is in truth and realitie separated, both in soule and body, from all sinne and dead workes, through the bloud of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and Evangelicall perfection, in obedience to all the Commands, which Christ as head and King in this new Covenant has prescribed to him. (2)
Did you notice? Justification or Sanctification did not need the law. The christian is sanctified to the extend that he or she is subject to the law of the Lord Jesus Christ. To that most fundamentalist would agree, even those with a long list of church standards.
It is not legalism for a church to have standards; we claim it is scriptural. It is only legalism if the church teaches that the law, as given to Israel, is the means of sanctification or justification. Christ only is our sanctification.
Now that we have freed fundamentalism from the charge of legalism let us see the legitimacy of fundamentalism having church standards that are not specifically spelled out in the Word of God.
The creation ordinance teaches fundamentalism: Dr. Winfired Corduan in his book, Handmaid To Theology, taught us that pragmatism, empiricism, and individualism are the three dominant philosophical traits in America. Individualism is vary prevalent in christian circles today in a denial, in practice if not in doctrine, of the rights of the body.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen. 1:27
In that image we see the one and the many. God is one and yet God is three. In creation, God made man a social creature. As such, man not only had rights and responsibility as an individual but also had rights and responsibility as a social entity. In marriage husband and wife are one and yet they are two. The New Testament Church is one and yet many.
As an individual, a christian has a responsibility to define for himself or herself the extent of his or her separation from the world. As a body, the church has a responsibility to define for itself the extent of its separation from the world.
I suspect that the great cry for license today comes not from the theology of christian liberty; but rather, from a cultural cry of individualism.
The Mosaic Law teaches fundamentalism: Most of learn through our five senses. We build our concepts from the things we learn from our five senses. J. B. Walker, in his "The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation," said,
"..... All ideas which admit of the signification of more or most perfect can be originated only by a comparison with another which it excels in one of these respects. By a series of comparisons, each one exceeding the last in beauty or purity, an idea of the highest degree of perfection may be produced." (3)
He went on to propose that "There was not an object in the material world which would convey to the mind the idea of God's holiness." (4) Dr. Walker pointed out that in the Mosaic Law that God selected certain animals from other animals and called them clean, then selected some from that class for sacrifice and the sacrificial animal had to be examined for an uncommon spotlessness. We know the priest was sep- arated from the common by tribe; and then, he could only make the sacrifices after special washings. The priest could not officiate in the worship of God if there were any blemish found in him.
With a series of comparisons the Lord God taught the Israelites the concept of holiness as being super pure and separated. The minute detail of their life was regulated by separation. They could cook with milk but not meat with that type of milk. They were even taught separation by how they were to patch their clothes.
Israel's whole life was a demonstration of and an object lesson of the holiness of God. We might argue the holiness of God was seen before the giving of the ceremonial law; however, we see it after our senses have observed holiness in the law.
The prophecy of the OT teaches fundamentalism: Cf. Jer. 31:31,33 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: ... But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." All agree that Christians are in the New Covenant. Why then, do Reformed men desire to find this new law written in Exodus through Deuteronomy? It is written on the heart, not on tables of stone. Nature itself teaches you. Judge in yourselves. Don't look to the law of Moses to find a law that women should not look like men and men look like women. Nature itself teaches you that.
Holiness is separation from and opposition to all defilement of sin. Holiness is purity, moral and physical. The Holy nature of God is hostile to all defilement of heart and life. Let the church have some standards of separation from defilement.
The continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament is seen in two passages of scriptures. Comparing Deut. 26:18,19 with I Pet. 2:9 we see that God wanted under the Old Covenant a separated people to show forth His praises, and God wants under the New Covenant a separated people to show forth His praises.
The worship of the church is to be a message of the Holiness of God. Looking at Rom. 12:1 and Heb. 13:13-16 (just to name a couple), we see the sacrifices in the church are to be the lives of the members. God certainly used the practice of separation so that His people as the nation of Israel would teach his holiness in the O.T. We can expect him to use the practice of separation, from the common and vulgar, by his church to convey to the world that He is different that their gods.
It is true that fundamental churches make standards for their officers and/or for membership that are not found spelled out in scripture. But that does not mean they are pharisaic, legalistic, or anti-scriptural. We would like to show that the New Testament scripture does support the position and practice of the fundamentalist.
Support for fundamentalism in the Gospels: Matt. 23:23 says, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Wm. Hendriksen, in his commentary on Matthew, pointed out the tithing of these garden items was not prescribed in the law. The Pharisees were going beyond the law in this practice. Judge for yourself what Jesus said about the practice.
The teaching of fundamentalism in the Epistles: Read I Cor. 11:3-16. Now this is not part of the Old Covenant. Also, there is nothing particularly spiritual about a head covering or veil. I think it goes without saying, if you don't have a reason for not teaching women to wear a veil today you should teach them to wear a veil or covering.
Most believe this had a cultural significance that is not significant today. If this is not an ordinance of God to be carried out during this dispensation, then there is a principal for us to observe today. If we are not to interpret this in a wooden literal sense then we are to practice this principal. That should go without saying, but we said it anyway.
Listen to the comments of the reformed exegete Charles Hodge on chap- ter 11 verse 13; "This is an appeal to THEIR OWN SENSE of propriety. (emphasis mine) The apostle often recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative. Rom. 1:32 & 3:8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the laws which he has impressed upon it, are as much a revelation from him as any other possible communications of his will. And to deny this, is to deny the possibility of all knowledge." (5)
If this passage teaches us anything it teaches us that the church should have standards against the cultural practices which are against good sense. The pagan women worshiped their gods in a very immodest way. The Christians were not to be like that. Was not the church at Corinth to demonstrate the holy, pure, or separate character of their God, as contrasted to the profane character of the pagan gods, with this standard of head dress? Can the apostle Paul be accused of legalism for suggesting such a thing? If so, then accuse the fundamentalist of legalism.
Some pertinent applications: With the great damage we see incurred from the use of booze in our culture, does not even nature itself teach you that a christian should stay away from booze?
Commenting on I Cor. 11:16, John Gill said,
"That is, if anyone will not be satisfied with the reasons given, for men's praying and prophe sying with their heads uncovered, and women's praying and prophesying with their heads covered; but will go on to raise objections, and continue carping and caviling, showing that they contend not for truth, but victory, can they but obtain it any way; for my part, as if the apostle should say, I shall not think it worth my while to continue the dispute any longer; enough has been said to satisfy any wise and good man, any one that is serious, thoughtful, and modest; ..."(6)
I agree; verse 16 tells us that Christians should submit to the standards of the church. A church should have a no-booze clause in its covenant. Now for smoking. Nature itself teaches you that smoking is wrong. Judge in yourself, what do you think of a parent who buys their 14 year old cigarettes? Of course, a church should have a standard against their Sunday School teachers smoking. Consider where movies have came from, where they are and where they are going. Does not even nature teach you that a church should preach against a christian attending the movies.
I heard a pastor say, "He who does not know history is condemned to make the mistakes of history." Our (those of us who are Baptist) fathers in the faith, the Anabaptist, were known for their holy living. Martin Luther was said to compare his communicants to pigs because of their unholy lives. Could it not be a lot of the difference was the standards of separation taught and preached by the Anabaptist?
The saying may be trite, but it is true, "The only bible some people have is the lives of church members." May they read that the Prince of the church is different than the prince of the world.
We can preach all we want that God is Holy, but that is as foreign to the world today as it was in Moses's day. Let us again have some brilliant harangues that directs Christians to separated lives. Let churches demonstrate, with their standards, that our God is pure, separated, and holy.
References:
1. The Publications Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scot- land, Westminster Confession of Faith, (Inverness, Scotland: John G. Eccles, 1976), 82 Rinehart and Winston,1963), 19
2. W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith,(Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 163, 164
3. James B. Walker, The philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship inc. org. 1887), 81
4. Ibid, 81
5. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians,(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 212, 213
6. John Gill,Gill's Commentary ,(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,1980), Volume VI,225