fundamentalism by blunt instrument
I’m not going to make my blogging simply a point-counterpoint with Dave Doran, but he asks an important question today that does get to part of the current controversies roiling Fundamentalism.
Is it possible to appreciate this man’s [Piper’s] heart for the Word, expository preaching, people’s souls, and God’s glory without being questioned about one’s fundamentalist convictions?
I think the answer is no, given Piper’s notable errors on matters that are fundamentalist convictions. [Read more…]
Now that John MacArthur has thoroughly and fully spoken on the subject, perhaps my complaints will be taken a little more seriously, eh?
Oh, what subject? Read MacArthur
and here
and here
and here
If you want to reference my complaints, please see my posts in the archives connected with the preacher in question. See also this post where I express my dismay about some who might be in a certain ecclesiastical camp.
I really have to applaud Dr. MacArthur on this issue. I highly recommend, no, urge and admonish you to read his posts if you have not already done so. They are very well done. Would that fundamentalists would be so strong. Worried that they are not and don’t see the need to be. I’ll give you MacArthur’s closing paragraphs after the jump…
In two earlier posts, we have consider theology as science and attempted to define theology as ‘the science of God’.
This post continues our look at an essay by Warfield entitled "The Idea of Systematic Theology". Today our subject is the source of theology. In short, the source of theology is revelation. Without revelation, we could know nothing of God. Warfield earlier made the point that the fact of revelation by itself implies a personal God who is interested in His creatures. If there were no such person, there would be no revelation. There would be no idea of God if existence were truly random, uncaused, entirely by chance. The very ordered systems in which we live (water cycle, food chain, etc.) speak of an Orderer, not disordered random chance. If disorder were true, our world (if it could exist at all) would be chaos.
From these thoughts of the physical world, we find that revelation is not solely confined in Holy books. It is not merely written. Revelation is in ‘divers manners’. Revelation comes, Warfield says, from God’s ‘work or word’:
"Our reaching up to Him in thought and inference is possible only because He condescends to make Himself intelligible to us, to speak to us through work or word, to reveal Himself." ((Warfield, Works: Studies in Theology, p. 58))
More Warfield today….
Warfield moves on in his discussion of theology to give us this definition:
A science is defined from its subject-matter; and the subject-matter of theology is God in His nature and in His relations with His creatures. Theology is therefore that science which treats of God and of the relations between God and the universe. ((Warfield, Works: Studies in Theology, p. 56.))
Warfield says the simple phrase ‘the science of God’ can be used as a sort of shorthand for this definition, since it implies the notion of God as God and God in relation to His creatures. (By the way, this ‘relation to creatures’ is essential for there to be a theology at all – if the Deists were right there could be no theology for God would have no interest or part in his creatures, if they could be called that. It seems to me that theistic evolutionists have something of the same problem.)
Terms like ‘the science of faith’, however, or ‘the science of religion’ or even ‘the science of Christian religion’ confuse the issue and are inadequate as definitions of theology. Why is this so? They are inadequate primarily because they are subjective.
In Canada, this is something we sing and mean it. However, this post isn’t about her. It is rather about the “queen of the sciences”.
What is the queen of the sciences? Google it… and you will see the title claimed for either mathematics or theology. Who is the usurper here? How dare they! Which queen should we ask God to save?
Of course, you may guess that I am interested in the theological side of the question. I am doing a little reading in Warfield and thought I might muse on something he said in his essay, “The Idea of Systematic Theology”.
Warfield wrote the article in response to a somewhat sneering evaluation of the term ‘Systematic Theology’ in the 1894 Bibliotheca Sacra, where a Dr. Simon declared the term to be an “impertinent tautology”. Dr. Simon finds the tautological term offensive because it suggests that there are other departments of theology “which are not methodical.”
Dr. Warfield wrote in defense of the notion. I am just getting into this essay, I read Warfield when I have a few minutes here and there, so we will only progress on this at a snail’s pace (my favourite way). Warfield argues that the idea of systematic theology has to do with what is meant by its presentation, as a system of ideas (or a philosophy or science of theology) rather than as suggesting other types of theology are not methodological.
Now, I have been known to suggest that systematic theology is inferior to other forms of theology because it suffers a particular failing. Dr. Warfield, I find, is convincing me that I am perhaps too hasty, at least as far as the idea of systematic theology is concerned.
In a recent meeting of the Minnesota Baptist Association’s men’s fellowship, a question was raised by the panel discussion moderator, Kevin Bauder. The question and answer is highlighted in a post by Ben Wright, claiming that fundamentalist churches have nothing to fear from the ministry of conservative evangelicals, especially the ministry of his hero, Mark Dever.
The question was something like this: should Bauder have availed himself of the opportunity to contribute an article to the 9Marks e-Journal or not? The answer of older pastors essentially was, “No.” Ben explains the rationale this way:
Then the conversation turned to Bauder seeking advice from these pastors as to how he should respond to a request from Mark Dever to write something for one of his publications. (He later identifies this request, which he declined, as an article in the 9Marks E-Journal on what fundamentalists look for in seminary education.
The responses were mixed. The first was a definite no, and the rest were more ambiguous. I was fascinated by what their answers revealed about their rationale, their motivations, and their fears. Their basic argument was that Bauder writing for Dever could function as an endorsement of Dever’s ideas as well as other conservative evangelicals. The chief threats to them seem to be losing members of their churches to Bethlehem Baptist Church (pastored by John Piper) and younger generations of fundamentalists identifying more with conservative evangelicals than their roots.
Bauder comments on Ben’s post, saying that he didn’t write the article due to the press of time more than anything else, and encouraging all to listen to the response of the younger pastors. So I did, and their answer was essentially, “Yes,” with my understanding of the main rationale being, “you ought to take advantage of opportunities to influence young evangelicals towards a more fundamentalist position.” (You can listen to the recording yourself to see if I have gotten it right concerning the answers.)
A comment later in the thread by someone named Dave says this:
The automatic response to avoid assimilation or discussion of conservative evangelicals teaching does not serve most ministries well, these discussions are going on among the “young” fundamentalists and unless you engage in the discussion biblically and with knowledge of the teaching in question (not just what you have heard about the teacher in your camp) you are pretty much ineffective in steering them away from what might be legitimate concerns regarding some of these ministries and teachers.
But let’s be accurate here. I think Dave is reacting to what Ben thought he heard, but that isn’t exactly what the older pastors in the panel discussion were saying! [Read more…]
Lighthouse Trails alerts us to a Memorandum to Christian Leaders concerning Mark Driscoll. The memo is written by Cathy Mickels, co-author of Spiritual Junk Food: the Dumbing Down of Christian Youth, (also available from the authors here). Cathy Mickels is calling the men of the so-called Gospel Coalition to account for their refusal to repudiate Driscoll’s repulsive ministry. Another evangelical woman, Ingrid Schlueter joins the fray at Slice of Laodicea.
You should read the memo, especially if you are among those alleged fundamentalists who promote Driscoll’s materials. It is time for the heroes of the FINOs to do something heroic, like kick this blasphemer out of their fellowship.
The September/October issue of Frontline magazine features the second instalment in a series of articles by Mark Minnick on the subject, “What’s an Evangelical to Do?”
The question is asking what is the appropriate response for any evangelical Christian to the false teaching of alleged evangelical Christians. N. T. Wright is offered as the exemplary false teacher. John Piper is offered as a typical evangelical in response to Wright’s false teaching. The article concludes with these words:
This is the first thing Evangelicals ought to do. They ought to require that any organization to which they belong for Christian endeavor or any professing Christian theologian with whom they enter into any spiritual cooperation whatsoever give unfeigned, unqualified, dogmatic assent to every single Fundamental of the Christian (that is, “Evangelical”) faith.
If, after repeated appeals, an organization or individual refuses to do so, those who are truly Evangelical ought to withhold Christian recognition and avoid him (Rom 16.17), and for the love of the Truth and the safety of Christ’s flock, cry “wolf!” Interminable, deferential, academic fencing will not do. There’s no Scriptural paradigm for it whatsoever. Well-intentioned or not, it’s a betrayal of Christ and the gospel. [bolded words my emphasis]
This advice is exactly what ought to be done, but it is exactly what many Evangelicals will not do. Take for example
The LA Times reports that Robert Schuller has fired his son, Robert Shuller, sort of. The son “remains” senior pastor, but it is unclear whether he will be allowed in the pulpit. Obviously there is more to this story than is being reported. Interesting to see the power of positive thinking at work!
I wrote recently about problems with the current Desiring God conference and the silence of FINOs with respect to it. As an update, you should check out another post by Steve Camp, Steve Camp’s outrage over Mark Driscoll. The culpability of Piper et al with respect to the blasphemous Driscoll grows with each passing day. No rebuke from anyone? Will the Piper groupies, any of them, turn in their Fan Club badges?
I must say, however, to Steve Camp, when we are speaking of profaning the holy, how is Driscoll’s language any worse than your music? The sound of the bar and the disco isn’t the sound of the choirs of heaven, is it?
I agree with everything Steve has written in these posts about profane speech. But profanity (making things common) occurs in more ways than just by speech. The church culture that ultimately produced a Mark Driscoll is one that has been profaning holy things for a long time.
May we all repent of our sins and plead our unworthiness before our Holy Saviour.
The latest audio from the GBCvic
Comments