Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume 1.1

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Maranatha Baptist Bible College Maranatha Baptist Seminary

Volume 1, Number 1

Spring 2011

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal www.mbbc.edu/journal ISSN 2160-1623

Published semi-annually by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary 745 W. Main Street Watertown, Wisconsin 53094 920.261.9300 www.mbbc.edu www.mbbc.edu/seminary Editor: Larry R. Oats

Communications and books for review should be addressed to the editor.

The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is published two times a year (spring and fall).

The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is a ministry of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary.

Copyright Š by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary.

All rights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced without the permission of the Editor, except for reproduction for classroom use by students or professors.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume One, Number One

INTRODUCTION LARRY OATS

1

PRESIDENT’S PAGE MARTY MARRIOTT

5

MARANATHA IS BAPTIST DAVID SAXON

9

MARANATHA IS FUNDAMENTALIST FRED MORITZ

27

MARANATHA IS DISPENSATIONAL BRUCE MEYER

67

MARANATHA IS MINISTRY BRIAN TRAINER

103

MARANATHA COMMITMENT STATEMENTS BIBLE AND SEMINARY FACULTY

125

Introduction Welcome to the first edition of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal. This peer-reviewed journal is the product of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. The purpose of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is to promote biblical scholarship from a Baptist, dispensational, and conservative theological position. Articles will be academic and practical, biblical and theological, focused on the needs of the pastor and church leader, and, above all, faithful to God‘s Word.

Maranatha Baptist Seminary and Maranatha Baptist Bible College educate men for pastoral and related ministries and women for ministry opportunities in cross-cultural studies, counseling, and other biblically-based ministries.

Maranatha seeks to strike a balance between the necessary academic studies suitable for an advanced education with the practical experiential needs of the fulltime minister. Therefore, Maranatha Baptist Seminary has chosen to hire men as fulltime professors in the academic areas of biblical studies, theology, history, and languages. Professors in pastoral studies and cross-cultural studies are adjuncts who are currently involved in the area of ministry in which they teach; in this way, our students will be learning from current practitioners in the arenas of practical theology.

2

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Maranatha also seeks to assist men and women who desire to remain where they are, while still obtaining some biblical education. Some of these may already be in a ministry they do not want to leave.

Others are not in fulltime ministry and have no call to be, but they may want to enhance their ability to serve in a volunteer capacity in their churches. Still others are interested in entering ministry, but are unsure of God‘s call on their lives and are not yet ready to uproot their families and move to begin their seminary education. Toward these ends, Maranatha Baptist Bible College offers an online Bible Certificate program, consisting of our undergraduate Bible core and an online Masters of Arts in Bible. This allows those who wish to remain in their current location to actively pursue formal education.

Maranatha Seminary also offers virtual classes; these are our traditional semester-based classes offered through the internet, using technology on the Seminary site that allows the student to see and hear both the professor and the students, to view the class notes, PowerPoints, and other materials the professor uses, and to ask questions and participate in the discussion in real time. Maranatha Baptist Seminary also offers oneweek modules in January, May, and June.

Maranatha believes that a Christian servant is most effective when he or she has a comprehensive working knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and systematic theology. Maranatha believes that the interpretation of Scripture needs to be thoroughly grounded in a grammatical-historical hermeneutic that

Introduction

3

is based on a dispensational approach to the Scripture. Maranatha believes that the most effective Christian servant is one who gives himself to the diligent study of the biblical text itself, especially in the original languages if at all possible. The rewards of a thorough academic preparation and continued study of the Word over a lifetime of ministry are eternal.

Maranatha also believes that the education of a person in ministry, whether as a vocation or volunteer, is a continuing process. For that reason, Maranatha has begun its own Theological Journal to assist individuals in their ongoing education. The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal seeks, therefore, to provide for the serious student of the Word a continuing series of articles from which the teacher or preacher may draw upon for sermon preparation, teaching, evaluation of theological trends, background information, proper exegesis, and other areas of interest and benefit for the ministry. While the majority of the articles will be written by the Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary faculty and administration, contributing writers from our movement will also provide additional articles periodically.

This initial volume will be different than following volumes. In this volume, we seek to identify who we are, by providing you with articles that outline the primary theological qualifiers of Maranatha. We are a Baptist institution, thankful for our heritage, and adhering to a New Testament ecclesiology. We are fundamentalists, for we believe that there are core

4

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

doctrines of Scripture that cannot be compromised without losing the truth of Scripture and the confidence of salvation. We are dispensational, which means that we hold to a literal, or perhaps better called, a normal interpretation of Scripture. We are ministry-oriented. All of the academic tools and positions would be worthless if our students were not committed to serve in local churches, mission fields, schools, and other Christian ministries. We are theologically conservative. The Maranatha Position Statement that concludes this volume is an extension and explanation of our doctrinal statement that will give the reader a clearer understanding of Maranatha‘s theological positions. We trust that you will be blessed and challenged as you read this first issue of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal.

Larry R. Oats Editor

President’s Page Maranatha has a rich and uncompromising heritage in Baptist fundamentalism. I came to the campus as a junior in 1974 with no understanding of the ancient origins, recent history, or defining principles of Baptists. I left the campus several years later to serve the Lord, profoundly appreciative of our heritage and thoroughly committed to the practice of Baptist distinctives.

The duty to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints is part of Maranatha‘s institutional fabric. As I continued study in several other schools, I discovered that the dedication, resolve, and sacrifices necessary to fundamentalist principles were lacking. My professors at Maranatha not only taught the important truth of biblical separation inherent in fundamentalism, but they were daily living the principles. These professors could have taught in other more prestigious schools, but they chose to minister ―outside the camp‖ in special fellowship with Christ and following His example. It was apparent to this young student that it had cost something for them to serve the Savior in the context of obedient separation from apostasy and compromise.

One only has to reflect on the name ―Maranatha‖— Behold, He comes—to know that the College is committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. The last stanza of the school hymn reads:

6

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

―Maranatha,‖ He cometh! Behold in the sky, A SHOUT! a VOICE, the TRUMP OF GOD! Our Lord is drawing nigh!

Believe Him, receive Him, look up and thou shalt be TO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY with Him eternally!

Church-age believers are looking for His coming in the Rapture. After that, the Lord will again begin to deal directly with Israel, keeping His promises to His chosen nation and completing His plan for her millennial prominence.

Maranatha recognizes God‘s unique plans for both Israel and the church. Maranatha‘s mission, defined

by God‘s plan for making Himself known in this dispensation, is to train leaders for ministry in the local church and in the world. Preparation for ministry requires local church involvement, as well as personal witness to the world in the context of campus discipleship. Leadership opportunities on campus and in local church participation, prepare students for serving the Lord in any life vocation. They learn the importance of discipline, duty, and deference to others, as well as the highest values in time and for eternity.

Volume 1 of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal (MBTJ) features four articles. The first three describe Maranatha‘s foundational distinctives.

Maranatha‘s position theologically is Baptist, fundamental, and dispensational. The institution‘s methods and goals for student discipleship are described in the last article of this volume.

President‘s Page

7

Our hope is that this volume will both inform readers of Maranatha‘s identity and advance them in spiritual understanding and Christian living. If these goals are realized, we will be grateful to the Lord.

Marty Marriott President Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary

MBTJ 1/1: 9-26

Maranatha is Baptist David Saxon1 Shortly after arriving to teach at Maranatha Baptist Bible College in 1999, I heard from one of my colleagues that he was ―first a Baptist, and second a fundamentalist.‖ I found that interesting because I had always formulated my identity in the opposite fashion: ―first a fundamentalist, and second a Baptist.‖ My reasoning was that one must believe the fundamentals of the faith before the beliefs that make one a Baptist even matter. The fundamentals relate to the gospel, after all. What could be more foundational— fundamental—than the gospel?

After serving at Maranatha for a number of years now, I am beginning to understand my colleague‘s formulation of the question. He is certainly not suggesting that the Baptist distinctives are more important, essential, or foundational than the fundamentals of the faith. They are, however, more defining. Affirming that one is a fundamentalist certainly links one with a great and historic tradition of belief in and defense of the gospel. The New Testament, however, clearly proclaims that the central institution in this dispensation for promulgating the 1Dr. Saxon is Professor of Bible at Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Adjunct Professor of Church History at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

10

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

gospel is the local church. Saying that one is a fundamentalist says little about one‘s understanding of the local church and its purposes. Once one affirms that he is a Baptist, understood historically, then he has said a great deal about how he believes God is working in this dispensation. For us at Maranatha, being a Baptist includes adherence to the fundamentals of the faith but adds additional clarifying information about where we stand and why we are here.

Maranatha is certainly a fundamentalist institution and has been throughout its history. Furthermore, Maranatha is committed to dispensational hermeneutics. But the designation that made its way into the very title of the institution is Baptist.

The Importance of Careful Definition In an age characterized by ecumenical dialog, there is a prevailing tendency to identify core elements in one‘s faith that other Christians share and to celebrate the unanimity that results from focusing on those doctrines. In the case of organizations like the World Council of Churches, such a process has led to the abnegation of doctrinal commitment and the relativizing of the very concept of truth. The result is a pluralistic, postmodern religion that rejects the Scriptures as the authoritative norm for theological reflection.

Among evangelicals who claim to accept the binding authority of God‘s Word, the distillation

Maranatha is Baptist

11

process results in different types of organizations and movements, such as the Evangelical Theological Society, Together for the Gospel, and the Christian Coalition.

These are three very different organizations/movements, but each represents a group of evangelicals who unite around a common thread of agreement, despite widespread disagreement in other areas.

Interestingly, fundamentalism is the same kind of movement. When conservative premillennialists began gathering at the Niagara Conference in the 1870s, they exulted in the fact that they represented a wide spectrum of Protestant denominations in North America. They were united by their allegiance to the fundamentals of the faith and the premillennial hope of Christ‘s return. This limited focus has allowed fundamentalism to be a transdenominational movement ever since. When fundamentalists gather as fundamentalists and for fundamentalist purposes, they need not agree on non-fundamental issues, such as church polity or hermeneutics.

For any fundamentalist, regardless of his denomination, this allegiance to the fundamentals of the faith is, in some ways, his highest ecclesiastical allegiance. Before he settled whether or not to immerse or sprinkle, he had to settle whether or not Jesus Christ is God. The blood atonement takes precedence over whether the church answers to the congregation, the presbytery, or the bishop; i.e., the political question is of little moment if we have not been redeemed by the blood of Christ. The fact that the

12

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

fundamentals are the heart of the Christian faith and determine whether or not someone is saved means that there will always be some level of unity with anyone who affirms those fundamentals alongside us and declares his or her readiness to defend them.

Nevertheless, in this process of focusing on the essential and fundamental and setting aside the nonessential or non-fundamental lies a genuine danger. Kevin Bauder, with a different purpose than that of this article, has leveled a stringent criticism of fundamentalism that addresses this danger: ―Fundamentalists have displayed a tendency to focus upon the affirmation of an ever-shrinking list of core doctrines (and, to be sure, those doctrines deserve focus) at the expense of neglecting both doctrinal detail and doctrinal breadth. Because they are cut off from the Christian past, fundamentalists have little sense of the extent to which they have truncated the whole counsel of God.‖2 Once we have affirmed the gospel and the doctrines that underlie the gospel, namely, the fundamentals, we still have not said everything that is important for the work of God in this dispensation.

Maranatha is committed not only to fundamentalism, but also to the hermeneutic of dispensationalism and Baptist ecclesiology, primarily because we believe that the church—the local church, in particular—is a doctrine of great importance to the work of God in this dispensation. As Israel was the 2In

the Nick of Time, August 21, 2009.

Maranatha is Baptist

13

vehicle for divine action in the world during the dispensation of law, so now God is working through the local church to call out a people for His name. How the church is constituted and how it functions are, therefore, crucial questions that we dare not set aside as unimportant matters.

Like the Catholics, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians, Baptists chose their name from an aspect of their ecclesiology, namely, their commitment to believer‘s baptism by immersion. I doubt that any Baptist would affirm belief in NT baptism as his highest theological commitment, but Baptists chose this appellation because it pointed to a truth that was and is constitutive for Baptist churches: the fact that NT churches are made up of regenerated and immersed believers, whose one and only true baptism is that which followed their salvation. The so-called ―Baptist distinctives‖ are basically scriptural corollaries to this fundamental premise.

How Maranatha Got to This Point Maranatha‘s history is rooted firmly in northern Baptist fundamentalism. Her founder and first president was B. Myron Cedarholm (1915–1997). After studying at Eastern Baptist Seminary, Cedarholm served as the pastor of a small Baptist church in Philadelphia for five years before receiving a call to serve with the new Conservative Baptist Association of America in 1947. For three years Cedarholm functioned as one of the missionary-evangelists of the

14

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

organization, and then in 1950 he was elected as the second national general director. He served as the general director until leaving the Association in 1965.3 Initially, the CBA of A was committed to preserving Baptist theology, which, its members believed, was suffering erosion in the Northern—soon to be American—Baptist Convention.

As CBAmerica historian Stephen LeBar puts it, ―The very word ‗conservative‘ gives identity to the movement, because the intent was to conserve (to keep, to retain) the basic biblical distinctives that have historically distinguished Baptists as a people of God.‖4 Liberals in the NBC had been attacking or undermining the gospel since the founding of the convention in 1907. The great fundamentalist battles of the 1920s among the Baptists had related primarily to the liberal assaults on the fundamentals of the faith. In those battles Baptists had participated in the great interdenominational conservative efforts, such as the World‘s Christian Fundamentals Association, led by Minneapolis pastor W. B. Riley, in addition to distinctively Baptist organizations, such as the Fundamentalist Fellowship and the Baptist Bible Union.

3For

a convenient survey of Cedarholm‘s life before coming to Maranatha, see Kim Ledgerwood, Rich in Mercy: Forty Years of God’s Mercy at Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI: Maranatha Baptist Bible College, 2008), 17–25.

4Stephen LeBar, ―Conservative Baptist Association of America Historical Perspective,‖ 2006, http:// www.cbamerica.org/ documents/history_CBA/CBA%20 Historical%20Perspective.pdf.

Maranatha is Baptist

15

While recognizing the value of interdenominational efforts in certain contexts, the Midwestern Baptists of the 1940s and 50s believed they needed to carry on the fight for the gospel within the context of NT—i.e., Baptist—ecclesiology. This is noticeable in the first three ―fundamental principles‖ of the CBA of A listed

by Director Cedarholm, as summarized by LeBar: 1.

2.

3.

5Ibid.

It was a confessional body, declaring its fundamental doctrines. However, Cedarholm went on to say, ―The CBA believes that details of interpretation and application are the prerogative of the local church, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit.‖ It was a fellowship of independent churches.

He emphasized that the Association is not a denomination. It has no power to make decisions for the churches or to impose programs upon them. It has no desire to establish centralized authority, ecclesiastical connectionalism or dependent organizations that the churches must support. ―However, there rightly exists among the churches an interdependency.‖ It had ―no organic relationship to the organizations which its churches support.‖ Each of the agencies was independent of the others.5

16

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

The tension that Baptists have always felt between centralization and autonomy is clearly present here.

The point is this: battling liberalism is important and can probably be carried out by churches more effectively if they ally with one another. Nevertheless, doing church as the NT specifies is nonnegotiable, and these Baptists insisted that they would not sacrifice the autonomy of their local assemblies for any larger purposes.

During Cedarholm‘s tenure as General Secretary of the CBA of A, the great debate over Billy Graham and his ecumenical evangelism erupted among the churches Cedarholm served. The well-documented rupture of the organization occurred in the early 1960s, with a fundamentalist minority separating from the Association by 1965.6 Cedarholm clearly sided with the fundamentalists and resigned that year, accepting a call from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College to be its second president.

The Minnesota Baptist Convention, like the Conservative Baptists, emerged from the NBC, separating officially in 1946. Ten years later, R. V. Clearwaters, pastor of Fourth Baptist Church of Minneapolis, led the MBC to convert Pillsbury Academy into a Bible college. Pillsbury opened its doors in 1957 under the leadership of Clearwaters 6For a portrayal of the events from the standpoint of the evangelical majority, see Bruce Shelley, A History of the Conservative Baptists (Chicago: Conservative Baptist Press, 1981). Accessed at http://www.cbamerica.org/cba_ Resources /Documents.php.

Maranatha is Baptist

17

and, shortly thereafter, Monroe Parker. Both of these men were also to figure prominently in the fundamentalist fight in the CBA of A, and both were warm associates of Myron Cedarholm; therefore, Pillsbury‘s reason for existence was the desire of Minnesota Baptists to have a fundamentalist context for training their young people. The school was equally committed to fundamentalist separatism and Baptist ecclesiology.7 Cedarholm‘s presidency of Pillsbury was numerically successful but featured unfortunate controversy between Cedarholm and Clearwaters. This controversy did not relate to theological matters; both men were staunch Baptists and fundamentalists. In 1968 Cedarholm resigned from Pillsbury and began Maranatha Baptist Bible College in Watertown, Wisconsin. Theologically, Maranatha belonged to the same tradition as Pillsbury and the militants who had left the CBA of A (who now constituted the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship). Maranatha existed because fundamentalists needed Bible colleges, but, like Pillsbury, it was oriented toward a certain community within fundamentalism, namely, those committed to Baptist polity.

This orientation was obvious to the first generation of students at Maranatha. First, Cedarholm preached 7For an interesting history of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, see Jon Pratt, ―Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, A Legacy of Serving the Lord‘s Church: The Story of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College,‖ Vox Ecclesia 6:1 (Feb 2009), 6:2 (Apr 2009), and 6:3 (June 2009).

Accessed at http:// edenbaptist.org.

18

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

on the local church so often that students‘ Bibles almost literally fell open to Matthew 16:18. Second, the academic dean was Richard Weeks, whose enthusiasm for Baptist history was infectious. His collection of rare Baptist works still remains a treasure trove for Maranatha students. Third, the students discovered that Maranatha‘s focus was unswervingly on local church ministry. Throughout the school‘s history, the faculty, staff, and student body have actively engaged in ministry in the area churches. For his first twentythree years in ministry, Cedarholm poured himself into local churches, and he obviously regarded his work in higher education—both at Pillsbury and at Maranatha—as an expansion of that focus rather than a re-direction or mitigation of it.

Integrally involved in this vision for the local church is the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

From the beginning, the Baptist insistence that evangelism is a mandate to the local church to be carried out through the local church dominated the philosophy of Cedarholm and Maranatha. The goal of evangelism is regenerated people, immersed into a local body of believers, and experiencing discipleship through the proclamation of the Word.

Thus, while acknowledging that non-Baptist fundamentalists faithfully win souls and build churches, Cedarholm and the other early leaders of Maranatha conceived of every aspect of their ministries as integrally connected to their identity as Baptists.

Therefore, to say, ―I‘m a Baptist first and a fundamentalist second,‖ is another way of saying, ―I‘m

Maranatha is Baptist

19

never just a fundamentalist; I am always a Baptist fundamentalist.‖ The NT church is the context in which the gospel—the fundamentals of the faith—is lived out.

It is not surprising, then, to discover that these leaders, especially Richard Weeks, devoted considerable effort to carefully elucidating exactly what constitutes a Baptist. What he achieved has become a distinctive facet of Maranatha‘s ethos.

Maranatha’s Formulation of the Baptist Distinctives8 Dr. Richard Weeks, Maranatha‘s first academic dean, was an avid bibliophile and Baptist historian.

Well educated, he had pastored for several years in Chicago before he went to Pillsbury and then finally to Maranatha to teach Baptist Polity and Baptist History, among other classes. Not content with the usual BAPTIST acrostic for the Baptist distinctives, he began a study of the various lists of distinctives identified by a wide variety of Baptist writers—old and new, northern and southern, American and European, and especially fundamental Baptists of the early 20th century. Out of this study he created a list of what he 8The

majority of the next section was previously published in Sunesis, an electronic publication of the Bible faculty of Maranatha. See ―The Logic of Brapsis2: A More Excellent Way to Spell Baptist‖ (Summer/Fall 2006) at http://www.mbbc.edu/ page.aspx?m=1490.

20

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

viewed to be the key Baptist distinctives, without trying to force them into an acrostic grid. He also established an order to these distinctives, considering not so much that some distinctives are more important than others, but rather that some distinctives tend to flow out of other distinctives. The result was BRAPSIS2. The following paragraphs will not seek to prove each distinctive scripturally, since such reasoning is readily available in other Maranatha publications and, indeed, in any faithful analysis of Baptist polity. Instead, this discussion will focus on the logic that drove Dr. Weeks to organize the Baptist distinctives as he did.

The first distinctive, of course, is ―B—Bible, the sole authority of faith and practice‖ in the local church. Other Protestant denominations might object that they also hold this principle, which, indeed, is generally regarded by historians as the formal principle of the Reformation (justification by faith being the material principle).9 What is distinctive about Baptist theology is that Baptists regard the New Testament as the source of their polity and the ruling authority in their churches. Because the distinctives are, by definition, ecclesiological and show how Baptists differ from Protestant denominations, this first distinctive has the role of establishing that the 9The authority of Scripture is the ―formal‖ principle in the sense that it establishes the framework within which all the other advances occurred. Justification by faith is the ―material‖ principle in that it was the main theological issue to be hammered out.

Maranatha is Baptist

21

rest of the points will find their authority in the NT alone. This claim instantly sets Baptists apart from Reformed models of the church that look to the Old Testament and episcopal models that depend on tradition for their principal authority. Incidentally, this Baptist claim that the NT is the sole authority for ecclesiological faith and practice is implicitly dispensational, since dispensationalists insist that the church is solely a NT phenomenon. The first and most important point that Baptists derive from the Scriptures regarding the local church is the makeup of its constituency: ―R—a regenerated and immersed church membership.‖ At a stroke, this thoroughly biblical assertion rules out pedobaptism, the parish church structure, and the state churches that constituted Christendom from the fourth century until modern times. If the church is made up only of believers—those who have consciously chosen Jesus Christ as their Savior—then the local church is obligated to reflect as accurately as humanly possible the body of Christ. Thus Baptist churches accept into their membership only those who have professed both by word and by scriptural baptism that they belong to Christ. If ―B‖ is the formal principle of the Baptist distinctives, consider that ―R‖ is the material principle; that is, each of the remaining distinctives flows logically out of the concept of the church as reflected in the NT: a body of visible, baptized believers.

Can such a body answer to any authority outside itself other than Christ? Can the local assembly guard its purity if it answers to a human authority such as a

22

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

bishop or a presbytery? Baptists say no, affirming ―A— the autonomy of the local church.‖ Baptists do not deny the kinds of fellowship, cooperation, and fraternity between local churches that are demonstrable from the NT, but they recognize in each local assembly the right and responsibility to carefully guard its own purity. The purity of the church is the corollary of the immediate headship of Christ over the assembly. In other words, the stubborn Baptist insistence on autonomous churches is just another way of saying the ―submission of the local church is to Christ alone as its Head.‖ Viewed in this way, it is easy to see that ―P—the priesthood of the believer‖ is the personal application of the principle implicit in the autonomy of the church. Just as local churches cannot be made to answer to manmade institutions, such as the papacy, other episcopal overlords, or extra-church presbyteries, so the individual believer within the context of the local assembly answers to Christ alone. We do not need the church to give us authorized interpretations of Scripture or a priest to hear our confession or dispense grace to us, and we ourselves exercise the ministry of reconciliation. In short, we do not need a priest because we are priests.

Can such a principle have even wider application?

Is there a sense in which every man answers directly to Christ rather than to some ecclesiastical authority?

If, in fact, every man will stand individually before God and give an account, then it necessarily follows that each man is personally responsible for his own beliefs.

Baptists have historically defended the ―S—soul

Maranatha is Baptist

23

liberty‖ right of every man to enjoy the freedom to determine his own religious beliefs. No room exists in such a view for coercion of religious persuasions or ecclesiastical activities or for persecution of any sort.

The Baptist struggle for religious liberty is a glorious theme in church history. It is remarkable that a great many Baptists have paid the ultimate price for their convictions while at the same time staunchly defending the soul liberty of the very ones that were persecuting them.

The final three distinctives in Dr. Weeks‘ list do not connect as obviously to the previous four, but they are important components of the Baptist witness. Having already affirmed that only immersed believers belong in the church, BRAPSIS2 now argues that Baptists are not sacramentalists: they believe in only the two ordinances commanded by Christ in the NT: hence, ―I—Immersion and the Lord‘s Supper, the only two ordinances.‖ Of course, one must flesh out this distinctive quite a bit to make it truly descriptive of the Baptist position. By insisting that baptism is immersion and only immersion, Baptists are tacitly arguing that baptism is symbolic only, not sacramental. How one performs baptism conveys the symbolism the NT intends by the rite. Baptists believe that the crucial fact about baptism is its ability to picture the believer‘s death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. When churches alter the mode of baptism, they not only disobey the express command of Christ (who, after all, said to ―baptize,‖ a Greek word that clearly means to immerse) but also destroy the

24

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

symbolism of what the NT intends to be simply a symbol. While some sacramentalists have immersed (such as the Greek Orthodox), few have insisted on immersion because the sacramental churches regard the rite itself, not the symbolism of the rite, as the crucial thing. Baptists react strongly against any attempt to associate spiritual transactions with physical or ecclesiastical activities. Here, perhaps, is the connection with the previous distinctive. Each soul is answerable directly to God; that is a fundamentally spiritual assertion. External acts, such as the ordinances and ecclesiastical affiliations, reflect or perhaps symbolize spiritual realities, but they do not create or sustain those realities.

Such reasoning naturally also leads Baptists to understand the Lord‘s Supper symbolically as well.

Communion with Christ is not conveyed in some special way by the physical activity. Dr. Weeks closed his list with the two varieties of separation that should result if one takes the previous six distinctives seriously. Before this article addresses them, however, note that the acrostic does not assert that Baptists have only two offices. Dr. Weeks certainly believed in only two offices, and the Baptist Heritage class at Maranatha incorporates the belief in the two offices of pastor and deacon in the lecture on the autonomy of the local assembly. Historically, however, some Baptists adopted the Reformed belief in ruling elders who are distinct from the pastoral office. Today, some Baptist churches are employing this Reformed model; others are urging a plurality of elders but insist that

Maranatha is Baptist

25

the pastor and elders have the same office though sometimes varying levels of practical authority. In any event, Dr. Weeks believed it historically inaccurate to say that Baptists were distinguished by a belief in two offices, and therefore he did not include this point in BRAPSIS2. This is yet another indication that Dr. Weeks‘ acrostic was carefully designed with both historical and theological factors in mind.

It is interesting that Dr. Weeks believed that both ―S1—Separation of Church and State‖ and ―S2— Separation: Ethically and Ecclesiastically‖ are Baptist distinctives. The first of these points, which flows logically out of the Baptist belief in soul liberty, is undisputed and remains a magnificent contribution of the Baptist churches to modern Western civilization.

Dr. Weeks also taught that Baptists are intrinsically separationists. Given the substantial number of Baptists in church history who have failed to maintain either ecclesiastical or personal separation, one can imagine this point in BRAPSIS2 facing significant challenge. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical separation is the necessary corollary of belief in autonomous churches, and ethical separation is the biblical outworking of the priesthood of the believer. It is interesting that since 1930, the large majority of fundamentalists have been Baptist. As noted earlier, fundamentalism is defined by the doctrines essential to gospel proclamation and thus necessarily spans conservative denominations; perhaps, though, the separation that has defined the fundamentalist movement finds its most natural affinity to Baptist ecclesiology. In short, Dr. Weeks‘

26

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

inclusion of separation, while controversial, may itself provide an interesting insight not only into our distinctiveness as Baptists but also our identity as Baptist fundamentalists.

Conclusion Maranatha views its historic commitment to being Baptist as a commitment to the NT model of the church. We value our non-Baptist brethren, particularly those committed to fundamentalism, and appreciate their contributions to the work of Christ.

Nevertheless, we are convinced that to the degree that we successfully inculcate NT teachings into our students, to that same degree those students will choose to be Baptists.

This is a day in which many eschew labels and regard them as unnecessarily divisive. We, however, do not know of any other effective way of proclaiming our adherence to the polity of the NT as it has been understood historically by Baptists than by proclaiming ourselves Baptists; and we do not hesitate to align ourselves with the glorious history of men and women who ministered, suffered, and sometimes died, not for the label, but for the biblical truths the label communicates.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist Dr. Fred Moritz1 Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary was born in a theological tradition of fundamentalist, Baptist, separatist, dispensationalist theology. My assigned task is to speak about Maranatha as a fundamentalist school. Others will write articles dealing with other distinctive positions.

As far as we know, the term ―fundamentalist‖ was coined by Curtis Lee Laws. The Fundamental Fellowship within the Northern Baptist Convention met for the first time in 1920 at the Delaware Avenue Baptist Church in Buffalo, New York. After that meeting Laws, editor of the Watchman Examiner, wrote stating: ―We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called 2 ‗Fundamentalists.‘‖ Blaine Myron Cedarholm (1915–1997) founded and served as the first president of Maranatha. Dr. Cedarholm ministered out of the fundamentalist

1Dr.

Fred Moritz was formerly the Executive Director of the Baptist World Mission and is currently Professor of Systematic Theology, Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

2Larry D. Pettegrew, ―Will The Real Fundamentalist Please Stand Up?‖ Central Testimony (Fall 1982): 1, 2.

28

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

theological conviction that the Bible is the Word of God and that those who believe it must ―earnestly contend for the faith‖ (Jude 3). Cedarholm was the son of an early fundamentalist preacher. His father, Anton Cedarholm, had ministered as a singer for Evangelist Dr. R. A. Torrey. He later served the Burton Avenue Baptist Church in Waterloo, Iowa, as pastor. Through his radio and pastoral ministry the church experienced God‘s blessings.3 B. Myron Cedarholm was educated at the University of Minnesota, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Princeton Seminary. After a successful five-year pastorate at the Lehigh Avenue Baptist Church in Philadelphia, he was called to serve as an evangelist with and then become the General Director of the Conservative Baptist Association of America.

From 1947 through 1965 the association, during Dr. Cedarholm‘s tireless and dynamic ministry, grew from one hundred churches to 1800 in the fellowship.

Maranatha‘s founder began his ministry in the framework of the Northern Baptist Convention, and he left over the theological liberalism that pervaded the convention and auxiliary organizations. He then devoted eighteen years to the CBA of A and then severed his connections to that movement because of the compromises of ecumenical evangelism and the New Evangelicalism. Throughout his ministry he maintained a testimony of absolute fidelity to the Word 3http://familyaltarbroadcast.com/anton.html accessed July 30, 2010.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

29

of God and the biblical fundamentals that provide the framework for fundamentalism. He believed the fundamentals, and in the words of Curtis Lee Laws, he did ―battle royal‖ for them throughout his ministry.

I was a nine-year-old boy when Dr. and Mrs. Cedarholm first came to our church for a Sunday evening service. I still have the volume on Baptist history that he gave me just before I enrolled at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College in 1959. He later offered advice about the choice of a seminary when I was a junior in college. That advice has positively affected the course of my entire ministry. He often served as a trusted counselor when I was a pastor. We served together in the ministry of Baptist World Mission. His influence, advice, and convictions were positive and godly. He evidenced a passion to glorify God and to advance His work around the world through the preaching of the gospel and the planting of local churches. I thank the Lord for Dr. Cedarholm‘s godly influence as a fundamentalist, Baptist, dispensationalist, and separatist leader.

Fundamentalism as a movement has not been static. Many changes have occurred in doctrinal and practical emphasis over the years. Some of these changes have occurred because new attacks on Scripture arose and new forms of compromise developed. Some of these developments have been positive, and others have been negative. The purpose of this article is to describe the historical framework in which fundamentalism developed and to understand the nature of the movement.

30

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Maranatha unashamedly self-identifies as an institution of higher learning within the framework of historic fundamentalism.

It is impossible to fully understand what fundamentalism is and how it came about until we understand the historical setting in which it developed. In order to accomplish this task, it will be necessary to at least sketch the development of theological liberalism because that movement provided the backdrop of attacks on Scripture against which fundamentalism arose and developed.

The Rise of Liberalism Theological liberalism appeared as a movement in the middle of the 19th century. A survey of the history makes it clear that this denial of Scripture began to develop about two centuries earlier.

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) Spinoza was a Portuguese Jew who was born in Amsterdam. He grew up with a Jewish education, but was expelled from the Jewish community in Amsterdam in 1656.4 His philosophy is important because his ―extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being, and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy 4Steven Nadler, ―Baruch Spinoza‖ in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005), 2. Accessed at http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/spinoza, May 14, 2008.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

31

centered on the control of the passion leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion.‖5 Spinoza‘s philosophy contained the seeds of the rational theological liberalism that later developed. He almost equated nature with God. ―Spinoza could be read as trying either to divinize nature or to naturalize God.‖6 His critics called his positional view of God ―atheistic materialism.‖7 He also placed great emphasis on human reason. He reacted against the power exercised in governments by religious authorities and saw the clergy as ambitious and self-serving, desiring to control their followers. He also reacted against the support that civil governments gave to religious authorities.

Spinoza also adopted an apostate view of the Bible.

He denied that the Bible is a revelation from God, but instead argued that it is a source of natural truth, saying it only teaches a simple, moral message: love your neighbor. He accused Bible believers of idolatry and worshiping words on a page. He denied that God had any special place in His plan for Israel. He viewed Scripture as strictly a product of history, not as a supernatural revelation from God. He denied that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and that 5Ibid.,

1.

6.

7Ibid., 9.

6Ibid.,

32

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

the prophets predicted the future. He held that a later scribe (perhaps Ezra) compiled the entire Old Testament from existing records. Further, Spinoza denied that miracles ever occurred.8 Spinoza lived 200 years before the formal appearance of theological liberalism, but this brief survey establishes that his teachings advocated ideas which later developed into the full system of liberalism.

It is also easy to see the seeds of the movement later known as secular humanism in Spinoza‘s thinking.

Spinoza‘s ethic (―love your neighbor‖) also appears in John Hick‘s approach to pluralism.

Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791) Semler was a German church historian and biblical critic.

He was the first to reject with sufficient proof the equal value of the Old and the New Testaments, the uniform authority of all parts of the Bible, the divine authority of the traditional canon of Scripture, the inspiration and supposed correctness of the text of the Old and New Testaments, and, generally, the identification of revelation with Scripture. . . . He led the way in the task of discovering the origin of the Gospels, the Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse. He revived previous doubts as to the direct Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, called in question Peter's authorship of the first epistle, and

8Ibid.,

19–23.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

33

referred the second epistle to the end of the 2nd century. He wished to remove the Apocalypse altogether from the canon. In textual criticism Semler pursued further the principle of classifying MSS in families, adopted by R. Simon and J. A. Bengel.9

Jonathan Edwards’ Early Alarm Edwards (1703–1758) is best known as one of the leaders of the Great Awakening in America. This revival occurred in 1734–35 and again in 1740–43.

George Whitefield and Gilbert Tennent were also greatly used as preachers during these movements of the Spirit of God. Edwards is also remembered as one of America‘s greatest theologians. It is most interesting to note that Jonathan Edwards saw the beginnings of liberalism at this time and viewed their development with alarm.

Near the end of his life, he wrote against a philosophical skepticism that he saw coming to prominence. ―The crucial issue was the widely popular idea that reason should be the judge of revelation.‖10 This was the application of the Enlightenment to matters of religion and theology.

Edwards grounded his preaching, theology, and writing in Scripture. His view of Scripture and God‘s

9―Johann

Salomo Semler‖ http://www.1911 encyclopedia. org/Johann_Salomo_ Semler. Accessed May 9, 2008.

10George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 476.

34

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

works in creation was that ―each was ‗a system‘ and ‗the voice of God to intelligent creatures.‘ Each pointed to the mysteries of God‘s ‗unsearchable wisdom.‘ Yet each was also intended to be a guide to rational creatures.‖ Edwards understood that God gave Scripture for the purpose of revealing Himself and truth to mankind. He further ―tried to view Scripture from God‘s perspective, as intricately designed . . . to reveal the great end of creation, God‘s redemptive love.‖11 The religious developments that alarmed Edwards were markedly different than his view of Scripture as God‘s Word and revelation to the human race. The critics against whom Edwards wrote advocated ―that Scripture was to be interpreted like other books‖ and was ―most essentially a product of human history.‖12 Critics were, as early as Edward‘s time, arguing that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible, and they were attacking the reliability of the Gospel accounts of Christ‘s resurrection.13 Edwards recognized that if the Bible was a product of history and not a result of God‘s revelation, then there would be no absolute authority for human conduct. ―Christian revelation would be dissolved into cultural relativism.‖14

11Ibid., 12Ibid.,

478–79.

480.

13Ibid.

14Ibid.,

487.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

35

It is important for us to understand this because the themes of theological liberalism were present fifty to one hundred years before they coalesced and became widely known.

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834) Schleiermacher, a German theologian, preacher, and classical philologist, is generally recognized as the founder of modern Protestant theology. His major work, Der christliche Glaube (1821–22; 2nd ed. 1831; The Christian Faith), is a systematic interpretation of Christian dogmatics.15 One of the first things we must understand about Schleiermacher is his view of religion. He believed that the essence of religion consists ―primarily in feeling; belief and action are secondary.‖16 Religion was ―basically a feeling of dependence upon God.‖17 Even the neo-orthodox theologians said that ―Schleiermacher led the great defection whereby liberal theology focused on human potentiality and religiosity at the expense of God's own reality, majesty, and grace.‖18

15―Friedrich Schleiermacher,‖ http://www.britannica. com/eb/article-9066148/ Friedrich-Schleirmacher. Accessed May 31, 2008.

16―Friedrich Schleiermacher,‖ http://www.island-of-freedom. com/SCHLEIER.HTM. Accessed May 31 2008.

17Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation, The Struggle for A Pure Church, 2nd ed. (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2008), 83.

18―Friedrich Schleiermacher.‖

36

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Some of his most destructive work to biblical faith was done in his writings on hermeneutics—the science of biblical interpretation. ―Friedrich Schleiermacher is usually regarded as the first scholar to insist that biblical hermeneutics must be part of a general theory of understanding.‖19 He questioned and denied the inspiration and supernatural character of the Bible.

Given the great variety of ideas of inspiration, it is best, first of all, to test what sort of consequences the strictest idea leads to, i.e. the idea that the power of the spirit extends from the inception of the thought to the act of writing itself. Due to the variants, this no longer helps us. . . . If one then asks why the Scriptures did not arise in a totally miraculous way without the involvement of humans, we must answer that the divine spirit can have chosen the method it did only if it wanted everything traced back to the declared author.

Therefore, this interpretation must be correct. The same point holds with respect to the grammatical side. But then every element must be treated as purely human, and the action of the Spirit was only to produce the inner impulse.‖20 [Emphasis mine.]

He denied that Scripture universally applies to all people. ―But for this reason we must not suppose that 19Moises

Silva, ―Has the Church Misread the Bible?‖ in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20, n.7.

20Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, ―General Theory and Art of Interpretation‖ in The Hermeneutics Reader, ed. Kurt MuellerVollmer (New York: Continuum, 2000), 78.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

37

their writings were addressed to all of Christendom. . . . Whether the view that everything in the Scriptures was inspired means that everything must relate to the whole church? No.‖21 I must pause here to say that this liberalism that denied the supernatural character of Scripture and approached it from an experience orientation survives to this day, and sometimes in the most surprising of contexts. A few years ago I taught a course entitled ―History of Fundamentalism‖ to a group of Kenyan pastors near Nairobi. When the preceding quotations from Schleiermacher were read to those pastors, they ―pounced‖ on those statements and related that this is exactly the rationale that charismatics in Kenya use to justify allowing women in the ministry. The charismatics allege that Paul did not write 1 Timothy 2 for the entire church, but only to address a specific situation in Ephesus.

Wayne Grudem documents this same point in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.22 In Chapters 3–12 he deals extensively with 118 different arguments the feminists/egalitarians use to advocate their position. There are two major issues that lie at the heart of this debate. Grudem deals with the first issue in Chapter 9, entitled, ―Evangelical Feminist Claims About How to Interpret and Apply the Bible.‖ I was amazed to read some of the interpretive approaches to 21Ibid.,

80.

Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004).

22Wayne

38

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Scripture that the egalitarians use. They contend that Moses, Paul, and other biblical writers used language that reflected patriarchal and Greek cultures. They fail to acknowledge that God inspired that language.

Some, including Walter Kaiser, try to prove that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 ―are not Paul‘s words, but are a quotation from the Corinthians that Paul rejects.‖23 Hermeneutics has been a great debate in the theological world for several years. The humanistic idea that we must interpret Scripture no differently than any other work of literature is at least as old as Schleiermacher. Some Evangelicals are affirming that position today. The hermeneutical approach of the egalitarians often reflects that philosophy, and it should cause alarm to Bible believers.

Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) and Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) Graf and Wellhausen‘s theory, also known as ―higher criticism,‖ was the final development that gave shape to the idea we know as theological liberalism.

Judaism and Christianity had historically accepted the fact that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and recognized that someone had been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Deuteronomy 34, which is the story of Moses‘ death. He would not have been present to write that! But none of these discussions and questions raised any doubt about Moses being the author of the five books. The Graf-Wellhausen theory 23Ibid.,

238.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

39

―grew out of a movement to find rationalistic, natural explanations for the biblical text. Once one assumes that supernatural revelation cannot occur, any other explanation must take precedent.‖24 The Graf-Wellhausen theory developed over several years. Jean Astruc, a French physician, argued that two different names for God are used in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. In 1753 he wrote a work entitled Conjectures in which he proposed the idea that two authors, using the two different names for God, wrote the separate chapters.25 Others took this theory and added the idea that there was a ―priestly‖ writer and also a separate writer for Deuteronomy. Thus the theory became known as the JEDP theory. Not only did these ideas deny that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but they also placed the dates for the Pentateuch much later than is normally accepted. Graf brought these developments together in his book The Historical Books of the Old Testament, which was published in 1866.26 Wellhausen is the man who popularized these views and wrote Prolegomena to the History of Israel in 1878. Others later developed the theory that Isaiah did not write the entire book that bears his name, but that two, or possibly three, or even four different authors 24Don

Closson, ―Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?‖ http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/moses.html, 3.

Accessed May 31, 2008.

25Colin Smith, ―Critical Assessment of the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis,‖ http://vintage. aomin.org/JEDP.html 2002, 1. Accessed May 31, 2008.

26Ibid., 2.

40

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

wrote that book. Others asserted that Daniel was not written during Israel‘s captivity, but after.

It is significant to note that Charles Darwin‘s book The Origin of the Species was published in 1859 at the very time this theory was being fully developed and becoming popular. Sometimes one will read about ―historical consciousness,‖ which ―can thus be defined as individual and collective understandings of the past, the cognitive and cultural factors which shape those understandings, as well as the relations of historical understandings to those of the present and the future.‖27 This theory holds that all we understand about history (and biblical history in this instance) is limited by the cultural factors in which people live and function. This theory would naturally deny the reality of revelation from God, and it would deny the possibility of supernatural occurrences.

The resultant theological liberalism several philosophical presuppositions.

1.

rests

on

As noted above, it was an attempt to find rational, natural explanations for the biblical text.28

27―Definition

of Historical Consciousness,‖ http:// www.cshc.ubc.ca/about.php. Accessed September 1, 2010.

28This is another of mankind‘s deliberate attempts to deny God‘s revelation and reject His authority over their lives. It is a reflection of the Bible indictment of man‘s sin as recorded in Romans 1:18–32.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

41

This denies the idea that God created the world by a direct act.

It denies the idea that the Bible is a revelation from God. It is a repudiation of biblical inspiration and authority.

It also attacks the validity of the supernatural and of miracles.

It reduces Scripture to an account of how man‘s religious thinking developed in an evolutionary manner. It was built on the assumption ―that religions move from a primitive to a more advanced form over time.‖29 Its result is to destroy the Bible as a standard for human conduct. According to this theory, The Ten Commandments and all other biblical teaching simply reflect man‘s moral standards at any given time in history. The same would be the case for Old Testament and New Testament pronouncements against homosexuality or Paul‘s statements about women in local church leadership roles.

It was an attack on both the Old and New Testaments. The Graf-Wellhausen theory centered on Old Testament studies and popularized the movement. The earlier works of Semler, Baur, and Strauss mounted a similar attack on the New Testament. The

29Rick Simonsen, ―History of Fundamentalism‖ (Thika, Kenya: Independent Baptist Graduate Bible Institute, 1996), 2.

42

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

work of Schleirmacher attacked Scripture on the basis of hermeneutics, or how we interpret the Bible.

This is a brief sketch of theological liberalism as it developed from Spinoza to the mid-nineteenth century.

It was against the onslaught of these denials of Scripture that fundamentalism developed and against this philosophy that so many Bible believers stood.

Before leaving this part of our discussion, we should note that liberalism gave rise to a new movement after World War I known as Neo-Orthodoxy.

That movement was characterized by the teachings of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Tillich, C. H. Dodd, and others. Barth‘s theology ―came to be known as ‗dialectical theology,‘ or ‗the theology of crisis‘; it blossomed into a school of theology known as neo-orthodoxy, which influenced theology for decades and included thinkers like Emil Brunner and Reinhold Niebuhr. Many Catholic theologians (like Hans Küng) and evangelical theologians (like Donald Bloesch) have acknowledged Barth's key influence on them.‖30 We do not devote attention to Neo-Orthodoxy in this article because this movement evolved after fundamentalism began to develop. Fundamentalists withstood and exposed the errors of Neo-Orthodoxy, but it developed after fundamentalism began to take form.

30http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2000/issue65/5.23.html.

Accessed September 1, 2010.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

43

The Birth of Fundamentalism Throughout history God has raised up believers who trust His Word and stand for it against the tide of unbelief. He did that work as liberal theology made its inroads in churches and schools. That phenomenon took place on both sides of the Atlantic.

Fundamentalism, as a defined movement, arose in the 1870s as a reaction against theological liberalism. The designations ―fundamental‖ and ―fundamentalist‖ are of uniquely American origin, but the same spirit of loyalty to God‘s Word and willingness to defend the faith was apparent in Europe as well.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon The most famous instance of one defending the faith in Europe was the ―Downgrade Controversy‖ in England. Charles Haddon Spurgeon led the defense of the faith and fought the battle almost by himself.

Spurgeon saw the inroads of liberalism in the Baptist Union of Great Britain. In 1887 he published two articles in The Sword and Trowel, a paper that he published from the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. In the articles he alleged that men in the Baptist Union were going to ―downgrade‖ or leave the ―higher ground‖ of ―faith in the inspired Word of God and the fundamental doctrines therein presented.

They were accepting lower, more humanistic views of

44

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Scripture.‖31 Dallimore characterized Spurgeon‘s attitude toward the inroads of the higher criticism and evolution as ―militant opposition.‖32 Up to this time the Baptist Union had no formal doctrinal statement, so Spurgeon publically called for the Baptist Union to adopt a statement of faith that clearly stated evangelical doctrine. He further urged the Baptist Union to stipulate that a church or individual must subscribe to that statement to continue membership.33 The Baptist Union avoided the issue in their meeting that fall at Sheffield, England. Thus, on October 28, 1887, Spurgeon resigned his membership in the Baptist Union. In his resignation letter he wrote: ―It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretence of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin.‖34 On April 23, 1888, the Union met again. More than 2000 attendees voted on a resolution that was designed to appease the liberals and the Bible believers, but the resolution amounted to a repudiation of Spurgeon. The record is that more than 31Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for A Pure Church, 2nd ed. (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2008), 88.

32Arnold Dallimore, Spurgeon (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988), 203.

33Ibid., 205.

34Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 150.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

45

2000 voted for the resolution and only seven voted to support Spurgeon.35 Many of those who voted to repudiate Spurgeon were graduates of his college or pastors whom he had helped in some way. The historical account records that there was great cheering when the vote was recorded. It is often very difficult to stand for truth, and many times we must stand alone, or practically alone.

Fundamentalism as a Movement Some ―historians believe the birth of fundamentalism could be set at 1876. It was in 1876 that an interdenominational Bible conference met at Swampscott, Massachusetts, to discuss the rising tide of modernism. This was only the beginning of a series of Bible conferences that ran throughout the late 1800s.‖36 This original Bible conference changed locations several times and settled in New York. It became known as the Niagara Bible Conference. In 1878 those attending this conference published a confession that listed fourteen biblical teachings as ―fundamental‖ to biblical Christianity: 1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of Scriptures in the original manuscripts

35Pickering,

the

88–90; Dallimore, 210–212; Murray, 155, 156.

Harriman, ―How We Came to Be Where We Are Today,‖http://ifbreformation.org/OriginsofIBFs.aspx#C5.

Accessed June 2, 2008.

36Larry

46

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

2. The Trinity 3. The creation of man, his fall into sin, and his total depravity 4. The universal transmission of spiritual death from Adam 5. The necessity of the new birth 6. Redemption by the blood of Christ 7. Salvation by faith alone in Christ 8. The assurance of salvation 9. The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures 10. The constitution of the true church by genuine believers 11. The personality of the Holy Spirit 12. The believer‘s call to a holy life 13. The immediate passing of the souls of believers to be with Christ at death 14. The premillennial Second Coming of Christ37 From this beginning, further revisions emerged.

The most well-known listing is the famous ―five fundamentals,‖ which are commonly cited today. At the beginning the ―five fundamentals‖ included: 1.

2.

3.

4.

The The The The

inerrancy of Scripture virgin birth of Christ substitutionary atonement of Christ bodily resurrection of Christ

37David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 375–79.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

47

5. The authenticity of miracles38 ―Later fundamentalists usually combined number five with one of the first four and included some statement on the second coming of Christ.‖39 Fundamentalism as a movement developed in several ways. The Bible conference movement flourished in the United States. In addition to the Niagara Bible Conference were D. L. Moody‘s Northfield, Massachusetts, conference; R. A. Torrey‘s conference at Montrose, Pennsylvania; the Gull Lake and Maranatha conferences in Michigan; the Winona Lake Bible Conference and Cedar Lake Conference in Indiana; and Mount Hermon in California. These conferences and others were founded as places to teach and preach the Word of God and to emphasize the fundamentals of Scripture.

Fundamentalists also published literature to promote the cause of biblical Christianity. Moody Bible Institute began a printing ministry in 1894. That ministry published Moody Monthly magazine for many years and still prints books and Christian literature as Moody Press.

The Scofield Reference Bible was first published in 1909. This study Bible presented and popularized dispensationalism. Speaking in 1990 at a World Congress of Fundamentalists meeting in London, 38Larry D. Pettegrew, ―Will the Real Fundamentalist Please Stand Up?‖ Central Testimony (Fall 1982): 1, 2.

39Ibid.

48

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Stewart Custer observed that by popular usage the Scofield Bible became the de facto Bible of fundamentalism. This study Bible is still printed and used, and for at least fifty years it was the most commonly used Bible by American Bible believers.

The Fundamentals was a twelve-volume series issued by the Testimony Publishing Company between 1910 and 1915. This was a compilation of articles on major biblical themes. It covered doctrinal issues like the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the reality of miracles, the testimony of Christ to the Old Testament, sin, eternal judgment, and justification.

A number of publishing houses began during this era. These companies printed many books and commentaries for those who believed the Word of God. These included Zondervan, Eerdmans, Baker, Dunham, and several others.

Fundamentalists reacted against the liberalism in denominational schools. The result was the founding of many Bible institutes and colleges across the nation. Most of these were independent of any denominational control. Some (such as Gordon and Northwestern) were founded under the auspices of a local church, with the pastor serving as president. The following list is a sample and cites only some of the most prominent of the schools.

1.

A. B. Simpson was the founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which was a fellowship of churches. He also founded a Bible institute in 1872, known

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

49

today as Nyack College, the first of the fundamentalist schools.40 This school was never strongly identified with fundamentalism, though its doctrine was evangelical.41 D. L. Moody founded Moody Bible Institute in Chicago in 1886.

In 1889 A. J. Gordon founded a Bible institute in Boston that now bears his name — Gordon College.

Northwestern Schools were founded by William Bell Riley in Minneapolis in 1902.

The Bible Institute of Los Angeles was founded in 1908, and in 1912 R. A. Torrey became its first dean.

Dallas Theological Seminary was founded in 1924 under the leadership of Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Bob Jones, Sr. founded Bob Jones College (now Bob Jones University) in 1927 as part of the same fundamentalist protest against liberalism.

Some schools were also founded within denominational frameworks as protests against the liberalism in the denominations.

The Northern Baptist Convention was founded in 1907. Prior to that time the Baptist churches in the 40Beale,

89. a personal conversation with historian Robert Delnay, June 5, 2008.

41From

50

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

north were independent, being affiliated with local and state associations, and loosely bound together on a national level by mutual interests in schools, mission boards, and publishing houses. The ―architect‖ of the Northern Convention was Shailer Matthews, a liberal theologian and dean of the school of religion at the University of Chicago. The Bible-believing churches across the northern U.S. were deceived into joining the convention, which was under the control of liberals from the day it was born.

Most of the schools that became part of the Northern Baptist Convention were either liberal or heavily influenced by liberals. Bible believers were concerned about trends in the convention and tried to get control of it from the liberals. As part of that attempt they began some new schools that were committed to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Northern Baptist Theological Seminary was founded in 1913 in Chicago. Some noteworthy fundamentalist graduates of Northern were R. V. Clearwaters, George Carlson, Robert Delnay, and Richard Weeks.

Well-known New Evangelical graduates were Carl Henry (who later taught there) and Warren Wiersbe. Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary was founded in Philadelphia in 1925. As previously noted, B. Myron Cedarholm graduated from Eastern. Both of these schools have since left fundamentalism. In 1927 the Baptist Bible Union gained control of Des Moines University in Iowa. The school struggled and folded in 1929.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

51

Within Presbyterianism, Westminster Seminary was formed in 1929 as a theologically orthodox school within the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Westminster‘s founding took place after the battle over liberalism and biblical Christianity at Princeton Seminary.42 Identifying Fundamentalism This study leads us to the task of identifying what fundamentalism was in its genesis. What was it that the Bible believers from the 1870s stood for and believed? What drove them and motivated them to take the stand they took, pay the price they paid, and found the institutions they brought into being? What distinctive coalesced into the movement that Curtis Lee Laws dubbed as ―fundamentalism?‖ What was the fundamentalism to which R. A. Torrey, Anton Cedarholm, and later B. Myron Cedarholm subscribed?

A Theological Component We cannot consider the history that led to fundamentalism without understanding that theology was at the heart of the nascent and then the fully developed fundamentalism. The foundational doctrine of the movement was certainly Bibliology. Modernism

42George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1973), 88.

52

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

had attacked the Bible, and the fundamentalists boldly affirmed the supernatural character of God‘s Word.

Beyond that, fundamentalists subscribed to a fairly comprehensive, commonly held body of doctrine. This fact is substantiated by the fourteen points in the Niagara statement and the broad spectrum of doctrinal themes that were articulated in The Fundamentals.

Men and institutions who believed that the Bible was the Word of God reacted when that faith was attacked by scholars and leaders who had become apostate.

They formulated statements of doctrine to which they could mutually subscribe. They wrote to enunciate and defend biblical doctrines. They built churches, schools, and mission agencies to perpetuate that doctrinal framework. They believed the Bible and what it taught. That conviction was ―in their souls,‖ and they stood for it. The fourteen points of Niagara and the ―five fundamentals‖ of the Presbyterians were popular representations of those beliefs. The Fundamentals (now available in four volumes) fleshed out those beliefs in some detail.

William Ward Ayer understood this genius of fundamentalism. Speaking to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1956, he put the issue in historical perspective: Fundamentalism represents a resurgence of ancient practices, which began not with Martin Luther but at Pentecost. Fundamentalism is apostolic, and the doctrine of justification goes back to Paul.

That branch from which the fundamentalist movement sprang lived obscurely

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

53

through the ages and had never been completely silenced even in the Dark Ages . . . What fundamentalism did was to awaken the slumbering apostolicism from lethargy. The theme of the Reformation, like the cry of the fundamentalists today, was ―back to the Bible and the Apostles,‖ with no mediator between men and God except Christ. Fundamentalists are in the direct line of succession to those preaching this same message.43

Ayer is right! Certain doctrinal and theological distinctives have marked fundamentalists because they come from the Word of God. A Militant Component Those who embraced this position were adamant in their statement of their own position, and they were also bold to expose and refute the higher criticism that bred the denial of the Scriptures. In the 1880s Spurgeon was outspoken in his opposition to the invading apostasy. A reading of Hengstenberg, David Baron, and others reveals that they ―took on‖ the assertions of the higher critics and other opponents of biblical revelation. The Fundamentals contained several articles exposing the new theology. All these indications took place before Curtis Lee Laws coined the term ―Fundamentalist.‖ Just before the Laws article appeared, W. B. Riley preached at the first 43William Ward Ayer, speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, April 1956, quoted in Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 1930–1956 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 reprint), 2, 3.

54

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

meeting of the Fundamentalist Fellowship in Buffalo.

His message dealt with unbelief in the Northern Baptist schools. He affirmed his friendship and affection for the leaders of several of those schools and then proceeded to name them and expose their unbelief.

Before moving on, let us pause here to reflect that those two characteristics of fundamentalism are far older than Spinoza in 1650, Schleiermacher in the early 19th century, Graf, Wellhausen, or any of the men who stood against them. They are not mere historical reactions against unbelief that was current at the time. Nor are those two characteristics built on tradition because we look back to Curtis Lee Laws‘ famous statement. It is against that historical backdrop and in that theological tradition that fundamentalism was born.

But before the end of the first century Jude wrote and said: ―Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints‖ (Jude 3). There is a body of truth that God has ―once for all delivered‖ to His people. That is the ―whole counsel of God‖ (Acts 20:27). It must be declared as Paul preached it to the Ephesians. It must be contended for as Jude exhorted.

The truth is God‘s truth. We believe it because He revealed it. We are bold to contend for it at any cost because He exhorts us to do that very thing. We are convinced that there is a body of revealed truth which

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

55

must be accepted and which forms the basis for our faith. We are further persuaded that ―the faith once delivered to the saints‖ must be earnestly contended for. That conviction and persuasion comes from the Word of God itself.

Fundamentalism and Separatism This militant component of fundamentalism eventually manifested itself in another way—that is, fundamentalism necessarily became characterized by separatism. Some have criticized early fundamentalists because later fundamentalists exhibited a separatist spirit that was not evident in the early stages of its development. Rolland McCune has observed: ―One may rightfully distinguish between non-conformist fundamentalism (pre-1930) and separatist fundamentalism (post-1930).‖44 McCune cites Beale noting that ―the separatist position did not solidify as a distinct, militant movement until the 1930s.‖45 The early fundamentalists sought to effect corrective measures in their respective denominations. When those attempts failed they separated from the apostate denominations and formed new denominational structures and new service agencies.46 44Rolland

D. McCune ―The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,‖ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Spring 1996): 28. McCune is citing David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, 5.

45Beale, 5.

46It is beyond the purview of this particular paper, but we must at least note that this is the separatism against which Harold John Ockenga reacted. In his book The Epistles to the

56

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

When there was no recourse in Presbyterianism, the new Westminster Seminary and a new Presbyterian ecclesiastical structure came into existence. When the battle over liberalism was lost in the Northern Baptist Convention, fundamentalists formed new associations of churches, such as the Baptist Bible Union, then the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, and later, the Conservative Baptist Association of America. New mission agencies, schools, and other service ministries also began. In interdenominational circles, new fellowships of churches like the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA) and new schools, mission agencies, publishing houses, and evangelistic outreach ministries were formed. Fundamentalists had no choice but to practice biblical separation when they could not reverse the trends toward liberalism.

Pettegrew observed:

Thessalonians, Proclaiming the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), 3:136–37 he argued ―That there is a form of unbelief which may be permitted to exist within the churches;‖ and based on 2 Timothy 2:16–26 he further argued that ―we are responsible to seek to turn apostates from their error instead of separate from them.‖ [Emphasis mine] It must be observed that Ockenga rightly emphasized the biblical command to seek the restoration of those who embrace false doctrine (v. 24–26). At the same time we must note that Ockenga completely overlooked the commands to separation in the earlier verses of that passage (v. 16–19, 21–23).

Garth M. Rosell, The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 174–78 says that Ockenga viewed separatism as ―wrongheaded and dangerous.‖

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

57

What does all this tell us about the modern fundamentalist movement? Without question, ecclesiastical separation has rightly become a more important aspect of the fundamentalist movement in recent years. Some would even say that it has become the distinctive.47

McCune assesses this issue saying of separatism: ―It is at once both the most maligned and/or misunderstood distinctive of fundamentalism and probably the most defining one. Fundamentalism and separation walk in lockstep.‖48 Fundamentalism and Interdenominationalism49 We have already seen that fundamentalism places primary emphasis on the supernatural character of the Bible as God‘s revelation to the human race. It is safe to say that fundamentalists are what they are because they believe Scripture to be a revelation from God, written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That conviction is the fundamentalist‘s foundation — it is our very reason for being.

We who are Baptists are quick to assert that the very same tenet, the authority of Scripture, is also the reason we are Baptists. The same Word that teaches us our doctrine also mandates our practice. Chester E. Tulga, longtime Research Secretary of the 47Pettegrew,

2.

27-28.

49This section from Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2000), Chapter 1.

48McCune,

58

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, stated: ―The basic tenet of the historic Baptist faith is that the Bible is the Word of God and the sole authority of faith and practice.‖50 British Pastor and historian Jack Hoad states: ―It is the Biblical doctrine of the church, with an unqualified submission to scripture as the Word of God, which becomes the test of what is a baptist church. . . . The baptist is a scripture-ruled believer.‖51 In the New Testament, we find that local churches were independent of any outside controlling authority.

They enjoyed a voluntary, fraternal relationship with one another (Acts 15:1–35). We find that only saved people became members of New Testament churches (Acts 2:47). The New Testament teaches only two officers in the local church—pastors and deacons (1 Tim 3:1–13) and only two symbolic ordinances— baptism and the Lord‘s supper (Rom 6:3–5; 1 Cor 11:23–34). Scripture declares that each believer is a priest before God and has direct access into the presence of God through the blood of Christ (1 Pet 2:9; Heb 10:19–22). Jesus taught that the Christian lives in two frames of reference — ―Caesar‘s‖ and ―God‘s‖ (Matt 22:20, 21). Therefore, we believe the church and the state should be separate. We hold that these issues of church practice (commonly called the Baptist 50Chester

E. Tulga, ―What Baptists Believe About Soul Liberty,‖ in The Baptist Challenge (Little Rock, AR: Central Baptist Church, October 1997), 21. Tulga was the long-time Research Secretary of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship.

51Jack Hoad, The Baptist (London: Grace Publications Trust, 1986), 7, 225.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

Distinctives) Scripture.

come

from

and

are

59

mandated

by

Having said that, we must understand that fundamentalism was an interdenominational movement. Christians who believed the Bible and opposed modernism set aside their denominational distinctives to come together and lift a united voice for those truths that made up the ―irreducible minimum‖ of Christianity. They fought against liberalism in their own denominations and also united outside the denominational frameworks to fight against it. Richard Harris, himself a Baptist, explains the thinking of most fundamentalists on this issue: There have always been honest differences of interpretation on church organization, as well as on other issues, among good men who love Christ.

There was a time when men could amicably differ on issues which did not affect fundamental Christian doctrine and still respect and firmly defend one another. Great Christian leaders of the past were able to respect those differences and yet recognize that the men with whom they differed were still Fundamentalists and brothers in Christ.

They were Christian statesmen.52

Speaking of the formation of the American Council of Christian Churches in 1941, Harris goes on:

52Richard A. Harris, ―A Plea for Christian Statesmanship,‖ The Challenge (Bethlehem, PA: American Council of Christian Churches, December, 1997), 1.

60

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

It made no difference that some of them were Baptist, some were Evangelical Methodists, some were Bible Presbyterians, and some of other persuasions. Their fellowship was characterized by their common belief that the Bible is the authoritative, inerrant Word of God. All of them believed in the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement for sin, His bodily resurrection and ascension into Heaven and His coming again in power and glory. Each believed the Bible taught that the Church should be separate from apostasy and Christians should be obedient to Christ.53

The early fundamentalists represented many denominational traditions, and fundamentalism was an interdenominational movement. There should still be a place for fundamentalists of various persuasions to come together and stand together for ―the faith once delivered to the saints‖ and against ―certain men crept in unawares.‖ The American Council of Christian Churches still performs a legitimate service. It is still proper for the International Testimony to An Infallible Bible to call fundamentalists from around the world to stand united in a World Congress of Fundamentalists.

We need to help and encourage each other.

Latitude within Fundamentalism Having identified the major characteristics of historic fundamentalism, it is important to also note 53Ibid.,

2.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

61

that fundamentalists viewed certain issues as not essential to their united stand for the great fundamentals, and to the struggle that ensued for them.

Denominational Distinctives For better or worse, fundamentalism was an interdenominational movement. As higher criticism and the resultant theological liberalism invaded every denominational body, fundamentalists united to fight a common enemy, and in that battle they did not make their denominational positions on church polity and government an issue. Thus Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and representatives from other denominations could meet for the World‘s Conference of Christian Fundamentals in 1919. This does not mean that their denominational distinctives were unimportant to them. It means simply that they did not emphasize them in the battle with unbelief.

Bible Versions Fundamentalists simply did not make the use of a particular Bible version an issue.54 Although he was in England and not identified with the nascent movement, it is noteworthy that Spurgeon read the English Revised Version after its appearance in 1881.

54Rolland D. McCune, ―Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism‖ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Fall 1996): 171–177, discusses this issue in detail.

62

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Several of his sermons survive in print in which he preached from that version of the Bible.

A reading of The Fundamentals reveals that several of the authors made reference to the 1881 English Revised Verson or the 1901 American Standard Version of the Bible. Anyone who has read collections of R.A. Torrey‘s sermons recalls that he made frequent use of and references to one of the two new versions. I stood in his home in Montrose, Pennsylvania, and held one of his Bibles. It happened to be a copy with the King James Version and 1881 ERV in parallel columns.

Though the King James Version was the Bible of common usage, Bible colleges routinely recommended use of the American Standard Version and the New American Standard for reference and study. In this author‘s Life of Christ class in college, for example, the professor assigned reading in a harmony of the Gospels that used only the ASV. Fundamentalists universally affirmed the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts. The ―Articles Put Forth by the Baptist Bible Union‖ in 1923 serves as an example of a fundamentalist statement of that time. It says: We believe that the Holy Bible was (a) written by men supernaturally inspired; (b) that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter; and (c) therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

63

supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried. (Explanatory) By ―THE HOLY BIBLE‖ we mean that collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which, as originally written, does not contain and convey the word of God, but IS the very Word of God. By ―INSPIRATION‖ we mean that the books of the Bible were written by holy men of old, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally inspired and free from error, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.55

At the same time, fundamentalists stood united against unreliable Bible versions. The Revised Standard Version Old Testament was published in 1952. The reaction by fundamentalists (and many evangelicals) against the interpretation and faulty translation of Isaiah 7:14 was immediate. When Good News for Modern Man came out in 1966 and 1968, fundamentalists again united to raise their voices against its denials of the virgin birth and the blood of Christ.

Calvinism and Arminianism ―Fundamentalism has never had a united voice on Calvinism-Arminianism issues although by and large it

55http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/bbu.htm. Accessed September 7, 2010.

64

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

has been moderately Calvinistic, probably three or four-point Calvinism.‖56 A cursory survey of The Fundamentals is again instructive. L. W. Munhall was a Methodist. R. A. Torrey was Congregationalist in his orientation. These men were on opposite ends of the sovereignty/freewill spectrum and discussion. And yet they were united for the fundamentals of the faith. In later years Carl McIntire and Alan MacRae were Princeton graduates and Presbyterian. They were strongly Calvinistic in their orientation. And yet good men could put their differences aside to stand for ―the faith once delivered to the saints.‖ Modern-day fundamentalists can learn from this.

No finite human being can finally settle the tension between an infinite God‘s sovereignty and man‘s finite will. Scripture leaves the issue in tension. Honest men on both sides of the discussion admit their inability to resolve the issue, and it seems that most of what results from discussions of the matter is a fight!

Fundamentalists on both sides of the debate need to learn again the wisdom of granting each other latitude.

Stridence on either side seems to produce intolerance and contention.

Conclusion The fundamentalist movement began to develop in the 1870s as a defense of biblical doctrine and

56McCune,

―Doctrinal Non-Issues,‖ 177.

Maranatha is Fundamentalist

65

theology against the theological liberalism that developed from 1650 and took shape in the nineteenth century. The term came into usage in 1920.

Fundamentalism as a movement is the historical expression at a particular point in history of the Bible truth that God has revealed Himself to the human race in His Word. This movement also takes at face value that the divinely revealed truth is to be earnestly contended for as Jude 3 mandates. At its best fundamentalism is a ―back to the Bible‖ movement to proclaim and contend for the truth.

Fundamentalism is therefore a theological and militant movement. It was interdenominational by definition. Fundamentalists also allowed each other latitude in the use of Bible versions and in their understanding of Calvinism and Arminianism.

Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Maranatha Baptist Seminary embrace fundamentalism in this historical setting. We believe, teach, defend, and boldly stand for ―the whole counsel of God‖ (Acts 20:27) with ―a conscience void of offence toward men and toward God‖ (Acts 24:16).

MBTJ 1/1: 67-101

Maranatha is Dispensational Bruce K. Meyer1

Throughout history, humanity has pursued knowledge about God, His world, and His plans for the world. Graciously, God has provided a revelation of His story, a revelation of His work and plans for His creation. Like any book, however, people can read the Bible in such a way to distort the message and the God of the Bible. Sadly, there have been many who have fashioned distorted teachings using the Bible to justify their bizarre beliefs and practices. Accurate interpretation of the Scriptures is the key to understanding Who God is and what He is doing.

Therefore, who should set the rules for interpreting God‘s Word? Certainly God has not left His creation to a hopeless state of uncertainty, never able to understand His self-revelation. It should be obvious to anyone seeking to understand a document that the author is the determiner of the intended meaning, since that person knows what he himself was thinking when he wrote the document. Stein writes,

1Dr. Meyer is Professor of Biblical Studies, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, and Adjunct Professor of Biblical Counseling, Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

68

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

[W]hat the author willed to convey by the linguistic symbols used (whether the symbols were Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin is immaterial) possesses a meaning that can never change. What a biblical author willed by his text is anchored in history. . . . What a text meant when it was written, it will always mean. It can no more change than any other event of the past can change, because its meaning is forever anchored in past history.2

The responsibility, therefore, of the biblical interpreter is to understand the sacred text as the author intended it to be understood. This is the nature of the debate between dispensationalists and nondispensationalists—which system of interpretation best allows the text to speak with authorial intent, especially in prophecy?

Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary is committed to dispensational hermeneutics because dispensationalism provides a hermeneutic that allows the text to speak for itself. Therefore, because of the essential characteristics that dispensationalism espouses, this hermeneutical system provides a superior interpretive template over covenantalism. The author will demonstrate this superiority by examining the importance of a dispensational interpretation, the definition and biblical use of the term ―dispensation,‖ the essential characteristics of dispensationalism, and the relationship of the testaments in dispensationalism.

2Robert Stein, ―Who Makes Up the Rules,‖ Rightly Divided, ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 38 [emphasis added].

Maranatha is Dispensational

69

Importance of the Discussion Often the author encounters individuals who believe dispensationalism is primarily concerned with eschatological issues.3 While many of the implications of dispensationalism have shaped premillennial eschatology, the hermeneutical system shapes many other doctrines as well. Larry Oats, for example, has explained how the covenantal approach allows for evangelicals to justify their lack of ecclesiastical separation.4 Their reasoning is that since the nation of Israel existed with mixed conditions, then the church today will exist with a mixture of true and false.5 Although for different reasons, even Ryrie acknowledges this tension stating, ―[n]ot only has the dispensational teaching concerning the church been the subject of controversy, but also the ramifications of that teaching in ecclesiastical life have been attacked.‖6 Additionally, denominations associated with covenantal positions have for some time practiced infant baptism, since, in their view, New Testament [NT] baptism has replaced Old Testament [OT] 3Further, the author has encountered those who believe erroneously that all who hold to premillennial positions are dispensational.

4Larry Oats, ―Dispensationalism: A Basis for Ecclesiastical Separation‖ (Conference on Baptist Fundamentalism, Watertown, March 2003).

5Edward Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 136.

6Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 123.

70

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

circumcision as the sign of the covenant for believers in this age.7 Bromiley states that baptism is ―a covenant sign (like circumcision, but without bloodshedding), and therefore a sign of the work of God on our behalf which precedes and makes possible our own responsive movement.‖8 Therefore, baptism places the child into a covenant relationship with God as he awaits regeneration.9 Many nouthetic counseling authors incorporate covenantal concepts in their writings. Frequently, such authors comment that believers are ―covenantal‖ creatures and that they have a ―covenantal relationship‖ with God. Such a focus would be somewhat acceptable if those authors were referencing only the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 in which believers participate, but they are in fact referring to the covenant of grace.10 In addition to these beliefs, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has recently sided with Arab nations against the nation of Israel regarding middle-eastern 7Louis

Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 633.

8Geoffrey Bromiley, ―Infant Baptism,‖ Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 117.

9Berkhof, 287–8.

10Ibid., 633. Berkhof defines this covenant as: ―that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience‖ (277). This covenant furthermore forms the basis for the particular or limited atonement position so prevalent in covenant theology (278).

Maranatha is Dispensational

71

policy, since, in their theology, the church has replaced Israel and God has annulled His promises to Israel.11 Ergun Caner, a converted Muslim, explains that he is often the object of anger from Christians because of his personal support of Israel.12 Such a position is based upon a replacement theology, that is, the church has replaced Israel and all the promises of the Old Testament, since conditional, have been invalidated.13 These examples illustrate a crucial point: dispensationalism is concerned about the accurate interpretation of Scripture resulting in both a solid theology and a sound practice. Wrong interpretation leads to a wrong theology and a wrong practice.

Dispensationalists disagree with these theological perspectives because they are founded upon a wrong hermeneutic.

The Definition and Biblical Use of “Dispensation” The Greek word for ―dispensation‖ occurs nine times in the NT and refers to the activity or

11Elwood

McQuaid, ―Presbyterians Come Out of the Closet,‖ Israel My Glory (Nov/Dec 2004), 12. For further explanations of these positions, see Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?

(Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 2003).

12Ergun Caner, ―The MBBs‘ [Muslim-background believers] ‗Dirty Little Secret,‘‖ Israel My Glory (Nov/Dec 2004), 8–10.

13Ibid., 10.

72

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

function of a steward.14 The term implies that an authority has required a particular responsibility of a steward, an accounting of that responsibility, and a reevaluation of the relationship based upon faithfulness to the responsibility (Luke 16:1–2). Burggraff explains: The world is seen as a household administered

by God in connection with several stages of revelation that make up the different economies in the outworking of his total program. These economies are the dispensations in dispensationalism.

Thus from God‘s viewpoint a dispensation is an economy; from man‘s it is a responsibility to the particular revelation given at the time. In relation to progressive revelation, a dispensation is a stage within it.15

Various men have defined dispensationalism as: ―a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.‖16

14Walter Bauer, ― ‖ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and augmented by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 2nd ed., ed. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 559. This word is also used in Luke 16:2–4; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col 1:25; and 1 Tim 1:14.

15David Burggraff, ―Determining Our Place in the World: A Growing Difficulty for Modern Dispensationalism,‖ National Leadership Conference, Feb. 2003, Lansdale, PA., 2–3.

16C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), 5.

Maranatha is Dispensational

73

―a stage in the progressive revelation of God constituting a distinctive stewardship or rule of life.‖17 ―. . . a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God‘s purpose.‖18 ―. . . [a dispensation] simply refers to an administrative arrangement in the plan of God. . . . Dispensationalism as a theological system attempts to discuss the nature and relationship of the different administrative arrangements within God‘s plan, ‗to rightly divide the Word of God.‘ It seeks to explain how the Bible fits together.‖19 Do the biblical authors, however, use the term ―dispensation‖ in the sense that is different from the dispensational usage as some covenantalists argue, namely as God giving a specific stewardship to man?

Paul not only recognizes this usage but he also uses the word in this sense in three contexts. First, Paul speaks of ―the dispensation of the fullness of times‖ in Ephesians 1:10. In the context, Paul stresses the doxological culmination of God‘s plans in the millennial kingdom. This passage is significant for the millennial debate, since Paul identifies the ―fullness of 17Lewis

Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, rev. John Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 126.

18Ryrie, 28.

19Darrell L. Bock, ―Charting Dispensationalism,‖ Christianity Today (12 September 1994), 27.

74

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

times‖ as taking place within history, rather than during the eternal state. Furthermore, the apostle explains that God will gather all things together in Christ at that time. Therefore, the text explains both the timing (―the fullness of times‖) and the purpose (―gather together in one all things in Christ‖) of the millennial rule of Christ. Hoehner confirms this interpretation in explaining: Hence, the ―times‖ are completed when Messiah rules. This [Luke 21:24] is analogous to Eph 1:10, for the mystery of this will is made known according to his good pleasure which he purposed in Christ for the administration of fullness of the ―times,‖ which is that future promised in the OT, . . . discussed in the Gospels, . . . not fulfilled at Christ‘s ascension, . . . and hoped for by the church. . . .

Therefore, the fullness of time refers to the future unification of all things under the headship of Christ. It does not primarily refer to the present church age but the future messianic age. That will be the time of restoration and harmony under one head.20

Second, Paul speaks of the present ―dispensation‖ in Ephesians 3:2, 9. Here, Paul contrasts the present dispensation of the church with the previous dispensation of the law. Therefore, Paul is demonstrating the change that has occurred in this dispensation (Jew and Gentile in one body) contrasted 20Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), 219, 225.

Maranatha is Dispensational

75

with that of the law (a Gentile became a Jew first).21 Furthermore, Paul also highlights the progressive nature of revelation as he now has the responsibility to share this formerly hidden truth (―mystery‖) with believers. The apostle recognizes both the need for biblical distinctions in God‘s economy and the progressive nature of revelation.

These three passages frame two important considerations concerning dispensationalism. First, dispensationalists are not reading the idea of ―dispensations‖ into the text, since Paul mentions three distinct stewardship arrangements. Second, although Paul mentions only three dispensations, he does establish a key concept in the Scriptures that allows for more. The distinctions in God‘s dealing with man throughout the OT would argue for the necessity of more dispensations, but are not absolutely necessary for one to be a dispensationalist.22 Additionally, conservatives use other terms that do not appear in Scripture, yet those theological concepts are valid.23 One should note, however, that the definition of the term ―dispensation‖ and its use in the NT do not define what dispensationalism is as a system. These definitions merely establish the functional concepts within the system.24 21Ibid.,

424.

47.

23The theological terms ―Trinity‖ and ―rapture‖ for example.

24John Feinberg, ―Systems of Discontinuity,‖ Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 69.

22Ryrie,

76

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

The Essentials of Dispensationalism There are additional reasons why dispensationalism is indispensable. These form the sine qua non of dispensationalism—the essential features.25 First, dispensationalism provides a framework (structure) for understanding God‘s plan as it unfolds within Scripture (a philosophy of history) that centers in God‘s glory.26 Without careful thought, some may be inclined to believe that the Bible is merely a collection of stories and teachings that take up space until one can get to the really big story of Jesus. On the contrary, the Bible is one grand story of God‘s plan for His created world.

Dispensationalism provides an interpretive grid that organizes the stories and teachings into a unified whole, a philosophy of history that endeavors to understand temporal history as culminating in a purposeful conclusion (the millennial reign of Christ as highlighted in Eph 1:10). The seven dispensations explain how God‘s work is progressing towards a final goal in the kingdom as illustrated in the following table. Since God gave His revelation progressively in history, He reveals His purpose for history through that revelation in conjunction with the biblical covenants throughout the OT. This overall framework 25The

author is presenting the sine qua non in an atypical order, from the more general to the specific.

26For a thorough treatment on philosophy of history, see Ramesh Richard‘s three-part series, ―Premillennialism as a Philosophy of History,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan–July 1981): 13.

Maranatha is Dispensational

77

highlights God‘s doxological purpose in history, rather than merely a soteriological purpose. This broader purpose recognizes not only God‘s work with redemption, but also with non-believers, nations, kings, Satan, and nature.

Eternity Past

TEMPORAL HISTORY Innocence

Conscience

Individuals

Human Government

Promise

Law

Church

Kingdom

Families

Israel

Gentile Nations

All Nations

Covenant theology also recognizes the need for these distinctions through biblical history. Charles Hodge, a covenant postmillennialist, lists four dispensations (his term): Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and the Gospel.27 Berkhof, a covenant amillennialist, describes two dispensations: the old and the new. Oddly, Berkhof recognizes the need to ―subdivide the [old covenant] into several periods or stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace‖ reminiscent of the dispensational 28 understanding. One should note that the use of the

27Charles

Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997 reprint of 1872 edition), 2:373–77.

28Berkhof, 292.

Eternity Future

Dispensationalism

78

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

term ―dispensation‖ does not necessitate that person is a dispensationalist.

The covenantal grid, however, does not allow for sufficient dispensations to satisfactorily explain God‘s plans in various epochs, since there are obvious differences between what God was doing with Noah then Abraham then Israel and now with the church. A covenantal philosophy of biblical history focuses upon three covenants: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.29 VanGemeren explains: ―Reformed Theology wholeheartedly embraces the covenantal structure of our relationship with God. God is in covenant with mankind as he is with all of creation.‖30 These three covenants relate to the historical structure of Scripture, but fail to provide a purposeful goal within temporal history besides redemption. As VanGemeren confirms, [T]he covenantal structure also helps us to uncover our relatedness to Israel in the past, to understand man‘s place in God‘s creation, to enjoy the Father‘s presence and guidance in the history of redemption, the oneness of salvation in the mediator Jesus Christ with both Israel under the

29Renald

Showers, There Really Is a Difference (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990) provides a thorough analysis of the validity of these covenants, 7–18.

30Willem VanGemeren, ―Systems of Continuity,‖ Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 60. One should question how the nonelect fit into this covenant relationship.

Maranatha is Dispensational

79

Old Covenant and the church in the New Covenant, the ministry of the Spirit of God in transforming our lives. The covenantal structure encourages openness to God and his world and encourages the Christian community to look toward the closure of this age and the renewal of heaven and earth.31

As evident from this statement, the amillennial system, the most popular covenantal position, positions God‘s victory outside of temporal history in the eternal state. Allis, an amillennialist, writes: Such a picture of an ideal age raises only one serious difficulty. It is whether the Bible and especially the New Testament predicts or allows for such a period of blessedness before the eternal state is ushered in, or whether the picture given to us by Isaiah is a description of that eternal state itself under earthly forms and images.32

Furthermore, according to the covenantal position, rather than Jesus manifesting a righteous reign in the millennium, He ―reigns‖ in the hearts of believers now.

Satan is already bound in the sense that he cannot deter the gospel. The unifying historical principle for covenant theology is soteriological—the covenant of grace (as illustrated in the following chart). As Johnson clarifies, ―[i]t is not that the Reformed tradition ignores the glory of God but simply does not identify the theme as an interpretive key in canonical

31Ibid.

32Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 237.

80

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

interpretation.‖33 Therefore, covenantalism views the promises pertaining to Israel in spiritual terms rather than physical, since redemption becomes their primary focus. If redemption lies at the heart of God‘s work, there is no room, nor need, for promises relating to the physical realm.

Covenant of Redemption

Covenant of Works

Covenant of Grace

The National Church (or Israel) merges into the Universal Church

Eternity Future

Covenantalism TEMPORAL HISTORY

Eternity Past

The second essential of dispensationalism is the consistent application of a literal hermeneutic. Ryrie stated in 1965 in his ground breaking book, ―[c]onsistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures.‖34 Bernard Ramm, the ―classic‖ among hermeneutics authors, describes a literal interpretation at length: We use the word ―literal‖ in its dictionary sense: ―. . . the natural or usual construction and 33Elliott

Johnson, ―Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and Not Yet,‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 198.

34Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 46.

Maranatha is Dispensational

81

implication of a writing or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; not allegorical or metaphorical‖ (Webster’s New International Dictionary). We also use it in its historical sense, specifically, the priority that Luther and Calvin gave to literal, grammatical, or philological exegesis of Scripture in contrast to the Four Fold Theory of the Roman Catholic scholars (historical meaning, moral meaning, allegorical meaning, eschatological meaning) developed during the Middle Ages and historically derived from Augustine‘s Three Fold Theory. It was particularly the allegorical use of the Old Testament that the Reformers objected to, and the manner in which Roman Catholic dogma was re-enforced by allegorical interpretation. Hence the ―literal‖ directly opposes the ―allegorical.‖35

It is quite significant that the Reformers were quick to identify the error of allegorical interpretation in the Roman system, but retained the practice in their own hermeneutic for prophetic genres.

With regard to symbols and figurative language, Ramm writes: All secondary meanings of documents depend upon the literal stratum of language. Parables, types, allegories, symbols, figures of speech, myths and fables presume that there is a level of meaning in language prior to the kind of language this kind of literature is. The parable of the sower is understood

35Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed.

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 119.

82

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

only within the context of literal ―farm‖ language.

The symbolism of a lion is based upon what is asserted about lions in literal speech. . . . In that all non-literal statements are ―take-offs‖ from the more original, more primitive literal language, then the literal exegesis is the point of departure in all interpretation, Biblical or extra-Biblical.36

Therefore, a literal interpretation allows for figures of speech and metaphors, but insists upon contextual markers that would indicate the use of metaphorical language.37 Daniel, for example, describes the fourth beast as having ten horns (Dan 7:23). The text explains that the ten horns are ten kings (Dan 7:24) and that the beast is the fourth kingdom on the earth (v. 23).

God uses symbols, but He identifies those symbols for readers through textual indicators. Ryrie clarifies the issue in saying: Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved.38

He adds further that ―to be sure, apocalyptic literature does employ symbols in prophecy, but they 36Ibid.,

124.

Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 194–5, lists several contextual clues: explicit contextual statements, conflicting imagery, and juxtaposition of images.

38Ryrie, 80–1.

37Elliott

Maranatha is Dispensational

83

stand for something actual.‖39 The covenantal view that one symbolic word can represent an unrelated symbolic concept leads to a more subjective interpretation that lacks contextual justification.

Ramm cautions, ―[t]o rest one‘s theology on the secondary strata of meanings is to invite interpretation by imagination.‖40 It is this author‘s belief that the amillennial position is one remaining ―carry-over‖ from the Catholic Church that the Protestant Reformation has yet to jettison, although covenantalists have made modifications that would distinguish their system from Catholicism.

Ice clarifies the difference between a literal interpretation and the interpretation of metaphorical language when he explains: The church will not be substituted for Israel if the grammatical-historical system of interpretation is consistently used because there are no indicators in the text that such is the case. Therefore, one must bring an idea from outside the text by saying that the passage really means something that it does not actually say. This kind of replacement approach is a mild form of spiritualized, or allegorical, interpretation. So when speaking of those who do replace Israel with the church as not taking the Bible literally and spiritualizing the text,

39Ibid.,

87 [emphasis added].

40Ramm, 125.

84

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

it is true, since such a belief is contrary to a macroliteral [textual] interpretation.41

Ice is highlighting the two senses in which dispensationalists use the word ―literal.‖ The first use of the word literal is what Johnson calls ―microliteralism.‖42 This use of the word focuses upon whether one understands a word or phrase to be literal as opposed to a figure of speech. This would be the sense one would apply to the phrase ―I‘m so hungry I could eat a horse.‖ Common usage, or ―historical interpretation,‖ demands that the reader understand that expression as a figure of speech (unless there exists an actual glutinous person who is especially partial to equestrian delicacies). The literal meaning to that saying is that one is extremely hungry (a macroliteral interpretation) rather than some other spiritual meaning foreign to the expression. An allegorical interpretation might look something like this: the word ―hungry‖ speaks not of a physical hunger, but a spiritual hunger as evident in David‘s hunger for God. Horses in Scripture are metaphorical for that which is unclean, since Israel often purchased horses from Egypt (a picture of the world). Therefore, the expression indicates that a person possesses a spiritual hunger for that which is worldly and unclean.

The blatant misuse of metaphor in this example is obvious, since people use the expression in everyday 41Thomas

Ice, ―Dispensational Hermeneutics,‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 32.

42Ibid., 33.

Maranatha is Dispensational

85

use to communicate extreme physical hunger. The context argues against a spiritualized meaning.

Ice‘s macroliteralism refers to the ―system that views the text as providing the basis of the true interpretation‖ of a text.43 One can diagram these distinctions as follows:

Macroliteralism: Text

Microliteralism: Word or phrase within a text

Therefore, a text always has a literal meaning, but the text may use figures of speech or symbols to communicate that meaning. Even when Paul deliberately uses symbolism (or allegory) in Galatians 4:21–31, he provides textual indicators that explain his intended meaning: law = slavery to the flesh (bondwoman, flesh, Mount Sinai, Hagar [Ishmael], Jerusalem [vv. 22–25]) and Spirit = freedom from sin (freewoman, promise, Jerusalem above, Isaac [Sarah] 43Ibid., 32 [emphasis added]. Ice uses definitions provided by Elliott Johnson, 9.

86

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

[vv. 26–30]). These symbols have a literal meaning that Paul explains throughout his text. Feinberg rightly identifies the fallacy within the covenantal system in noting that the system‘s ―objection fails to recognize the difference between kinds of language (figures of speech, plain language, e.g.) and methods of interpreting language.‖44 In Revelation, for instance, the text has a literal meaning (macroliteralism), whereas the text may also contain figures of speech (microliteralism) to convey the meaning. Likewise, when God promises ―land‖ to Israel throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews correctly understood God to mean land as ―physical property‖ or ―territory‖ rather than ―spiritual blessings‖ because of God‘s promises beginning in Genesis 12.

For the nondispensationalist to insist that the term ―land‖ in the NT is now metaphorical for ―blessings‖ to all believers, he must have some contextual basis for making that claim. In other words, God must have imbedded in the text a marker, a clue that He is now speaking metaphorically, since He had previously used ―land‖ for centuries to mean literal land. The burden of proof falls on the covenantalist to demonstrate the annulment of the promises rather than the dispensationalist to show they have not been annulled.

Covenantalists employ a literal approach selectively, resorting to an allegorical approach in prophecy (―land‖ equals ―blessing‖ or ―Christ‘s throne‖ equals ―the believer‘s heart‖). Ramm states that 44Feinberg,

74.

Maranatha is Dispensational

87

allegorical interpretation is ―the interpretation of a document whereby something foreign, peculiar, or hidden is introduced into the meaning of the text giving it a proposed deeper or real meaning.‖45 Covenantalists, however, argue that their hermeneutic views such statements as metaphors. Oswald Allis remarks: [W]hat may be called the popular and naïve idea of a millennium is derived largely from such a passage as Isa[iah 11]. It is to be a golden age, when the ―the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,‖ when none shall ―hurt or destroy,‖ when the earth shall be ―full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.‖46 Such a picture of an ideal age raises only one serious difficulty. It is whether the Bible and especially the New Testament predicts or allows for such a period of blessedness before the eternal state is ushered in, or whether the picture given to us by Isaiah is a description of that eternal state itself under earthly forms and images.47

The covenantal explanations of key millennial passages are not without problems. Isaiah 65:17–25, for example, contains images that neither fit the church age nor the eternal state. Isaiah describes a scenario in which death is rare (v. 20), a description that rules out the possibility that this passage describes the church age. The second half of the verse, 45Ramm,

223.

236.

47Ibid., 237 [emphasis added].

46Allis,

88

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

however, is especially problematic for the amillennial position. Here, Isaiah states that a person who dies at age one hundred is viewed as a youth and the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

This statement eliminates the eternal state as the interpretation, since there will not be any death then.

God is saying more than ―there is no death then.‖ He is allowing for the possibility of death to occur, but also indicating that death, especially at an early age of one hundred will be exceptional. This statement certainly cannot refer to the church age, since living to one hundred is not the norm now either.

Even clearer than the former passage, Zechariah 14 contains elements that cannot refer to the eternal state (unless one spiritualizes). In verses 16–19, God warns those who would choose not to participate in the Feast of Tabernacles would experience drought and plagues. The amillennial interpretation argues that this reference teaches no such rebellion will exist in the eternal state.48 This interpretation overlooks the level of specificity with which God warns the potential rebels. Zechariah records three verses of explanation detailing the punishment for those who fail to participate. There is more included in this text than merely a metaphorical description of the absence of rebellion.

48Thomas McComiskey, ―Zechariah,‖ in An Exegetical & Expository Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed. Thomas McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 3: 1242.

Maranatha is Dispensational

89

In an effort to explain the features of Revelation from an amillennial position, Anthony Hoekema provides a good example of a ―metaphorical‖ interpretation: Obviously the number ―thousand‖ which is used here must not be interpreted in a literal sense.

Since the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression ―a thousand years‖ as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length. . . . we may conclude that this thousand-year period extends from Christ‘s first coming to just before his Second Coming.49

In explaining the binding of Satan in the abyss during this period, Hoekema explains: The word Abyss should rather be thought of as a figurative description of the way in which Satan‘s activities will be curbed during the thousand-year period. . . . During the gospel era which has now been ushered in, Satan will not be able to continue deceiving the nations the way he did in the past, for he has been bound. . . . We conclude, then, that the binding of Satan during the gospel age means that,

49Anthony

Hoekema, ―Amillennialism,‖ in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 161. One should wonder in what way this is obvious.

Furthermore, this author believes that if the church is currently in the millennium, as the amillennialists believe, then the church has great cause for disappointment. Only if one interprets the lion and lamb imagery to be, say, Lutherans and Presbyterians living in unity, can an individual say these conditions are currently present.

90

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church.50

If it is true that Satan is bound at this moment and, as Hoekema claims, that he is no longer able to gather all the enemies of Christ together, then for what purpose does God loose Satan at the end of this amillennial church age? Amillennialists stumble over the loosing of Satan at the end of the millennium, but fail to provide a good answer for why God would loose him at the end of their ―church age.‖ The ―metaphorical‖ or allegorical interpretation of the nondispensationalist fails to answer many of the specifics of many passages. A literal interpretation allows the text to speak in a normal way without creating the dilemmas of the amillennial position.

Third, dispensationalism allows for biblical distinctions between Israel and the church, arising from a consistently literal hermeneutic. The church has not supplanted nor merged into Israel, but rather Israel remains a nation (ywOG) not just a people (m[;) in which God will work in the future (Rom 9–11), drawing them to salvation in Christ.51 Dispensationalism understands the church is an organism composed of people from all nations, both Jew and Gentile alike, but limited to those believers from the beginning of the 50Ibid.,

161–62.

Saucy, ―Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,‖ in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 245.

51Robert

Maranatha is Dispensational

91

church (Acts 2) to the Rapture.52 The genesis of the church at Pentecost is supported by the institution of Spirit baptism which had not occurred yet in Acts 1:5.

Although Acts 2 does not mention Spirit baptism occurring at Pentecost, Acts 11:15–16 does. This new institution is the mystery of which Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:11–3:7.

In fact, Fruchtenbaum demonstrates that the word ―Israel‖ in the NT refers overwhelmingly to an ethnic group, not to the church.53 Covenantalists argue that since there is one program in God‘s work (redemption), there is but one people of God. This position habitually cites Galatians 6:16 as linking Israel and the church. Grammatically, the kai in this passage and the context of the book eliminate the possibility that Paul is equating the church with Israel.54 Non-dispensationalists see the church as existing throughout the OT into the New. Berkhof describes the covenantalist‘s view of the church in different dispensations—the patriarchal period, the Mosaic period, and the NT period. He adds: ―At the time of the 52Although God uses the term ―assembly‖ with reference to either Israel or the church, one should not confuse a common trait (a group that assembles) as a common identification that links the two. To share a common characteristic does not demand that the two are one-in-the-same. God also uses the words ―assembly‖ and ―congregation‖ for the wicked (Ps 22:16; 26:5; and Jer 9:2; 15:17).

53Arnold Fruchtenbaum, ―Israel and the Church,‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 118–20.

54Ibid., 123.

92

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

flood the Church was saved in the family of Noah, and continued particularly in the line of Shem. . . .‖ During the Mosaic period, ―the whole nation constituted the Church; and the Church was limited to the one nation of Israel. . . .‖55 During the NT dispensation, Berkhof claims, The New Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation. As far as their essential nature is concerned, they both consist of true believers, and of true believers only.

And in their external organization both represent a mixture of good and evil. . . . In connection with this the national boundaries of the Church were swept away. What had up to this time been a national church now assumed a universal character.56

What is fascinating about the covenantal view of the church is that covenantalists are so willing to combine the NT terms for the church with the OT terms used for Israel when there are essential differences between the structure of Israel and that of the church. At the same time, however, these same interpreters refuse to make the connection between millennial motifs in Revelation 20 and the OT concepts that foreshadow the millennium.57 The implications of this hermeneutic are serious. If Israel has merged into the church, there is no 55Berkhof,

570–72.

571.

57Ibid., 699.

56Ibid.,

Maranatha is Dispensational

93

temporal or eternal future for Israel as a nation, contrary to Romans 11. Second, many of the prophecies in Scripture are meaningless for the nation, but have rather strange implications for the church.

Exactly when does the church experience the strange and extreme events of Revelation in the history of the church? Better still, when does the church experience the wonderful millennial characteristics covenantalists claim for today? Third, as observed earlier, if the church has replaced Israel, then one can make the case that separation is nonessential. Fourth, if these interpretations are correct, then the interpretation of the Scripture becomes an exercise in subjectivity.

Continuity and Discontinuity in the Testaments At the crux of the arguments between the literal and the allegorical interpretations is the question of how to use the OT in light of the NT. Furthermore, this is one of the most difficult topics in the study of hermeneutics. Covenantalists see more continuity between the testaments (Israel becomes the church and baptism continues circumcision as the covenantal mark), whereas dispensationalists see more discontinuity (the church is a new program). Feinberg clarifies the justification for a discontinuity position when he states: ―Talk of continuity between the Testaments seems misguided with so much apparent

94

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

discontinuity within each Testament.‖58 Feinberg‘s statement highlights the distinctions within the various biblical epochs, distinctions that dispensationalism endeavors to respect. The issue that causes the debate between covenantalists and dispensationalists, however, is the question of how the Testaments relate. Paul Feinberg frames the debate this way: It is difficult to think of any problem that is more important or fundamental than the relationship between the Testaments. There are two Testaments; no one questions that. How do they form one Bible? In evangelical, fundamental circles traditionally two answers have dominated the scene: Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

Regardless of what one thinks of these approaches, they should be seen as serious attempts to answer this question. Not uncommonly the relationship between the Testaments resolves itself into how one ought to interpret the OT. It deals with the history and institutions, as well as predictions about the future, of the nation of Israel. How do these matters relate to the church which is a multi-national body?

Is the church spiritual Israel, and thus heir to her promises? Or are the church and Israel distinct, each with a separate future? Or does the truth lie somewhere between these apparent extremes?59

58Feinberg,

63.

Feinberg, ―Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,‖ Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 111.

59Paul

Maranatha is Dispensational

95

While Feinberg thinks the truth lies somewhere between what he considers to be two extremes, his statement serves well in identifying the complexity of the problems surrounding this issue.

Because of the size and importance of this topic, this paper is not able to address the details of the debate, but the author seeks to outline the main issues. This paper has already discussed the merits of the grammatical-historical approach to biblical literature, regardless of the Testament one is approaching.60 But the question of interpretation takes on a slightly different form in this debate.

Covenantalists argue that ―the New interprets the Old.‖61 This NT priority drives the amillennial position, viz., that God has annulled the kingdom promises of the OT, since He does not repeat them in the NT (an evident argument from silence). Berkhof‘s comment illustrates this covenantal tendency when he writes, ―Prophecies should be read in the light of their 60This issue is where the contemporary debate hinges between traditional and progressive dispensationalists, a topic outside of the scope of this paper. The traditional view states that a prophecy, for example, has only one meaning and that the NT does not alter that meaning. The progressive view, what progressives call a complementary hermeneutic, holds that a later reading may ―deepen‖ or ―enhance‖ the meaning of an OT prophecy, but does not change the meaning. See Elliott Johnson and Darrell Bock, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999) for a comprehensive comparison of dispensational views.

61Bruce Waltke, ―Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,‖ in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 264.

96

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

fulfilment, for this will often reveal depths that would otherwise have escaped the attention. The interpreter should bear in mind, however, that many of them do not refer to specific historical events, but enunciate some general principle that may be realized in a variety of ways.‖62 Covenantalists argue that dispensationalists hold an OT priority. The author disagrees with this assessment, however, since the dispensationalist begins with the OT and endeavors to understand the progress of revelation into the NT (cf. the trajectory between Daniel and Revelation for example).

Dispensationalists maintain that an OT passage stands on its own. The text possesses a meaning that the author intended before God provided the NT. Therefore, no one has the right to alter that meaning based upon later revelation, unless the NT specifically states the annulment of a particular OT teaching (ex.

Torah). Later revelation may expand information that helps the reader understand the events of previous revelation (such as the tribulation or kingdom), but the meaning of the text should remain the same because of authorial intent. Therefore, the ―‗fulfillment‘ cannot contradict the original meaning of a prophecy in its historical context.‖63 Otherwise, the OT text was

62Louis

Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950), 153.

63Charles Dyer, ―Biblical Meaning of ‗Fulfillment,‘‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 70.

Maranatha is Dispensational

97

meaningless to readers until such time when God gave the NT ―commentary.‖ A second issue pertains to OT prophecies and what constitutes fulfillment. NT authors use OT texts in different ways; not always are they indicating a prophetic fulfillment. In some cases an author may use the OT prophecy as a parallel to the NT events.

Matthew‘s use, for example, of Hosea 11:1 is not a ―fulfillment‖ in the sense of the English word, since Hosea‘s reference is to the Exodus redemption of Israel from Egypt, a historical account rather than prophecy.

Matthew‘s purpose in citing Hosea is to show the ways in which Messiah has accomplished (―fulfilled‖) what Israel was unable to do successfully.64 Archer and Chirichigno argue that Hosea is using the Exodus deliverance as a prophetic type that finds meaning in Christ‘s ―exodus‖ from Egypt.65 This passage illustrates one of several different ways authors use the word . Bauer lists six senses for this word as follows: (1) make full, fill (as in an object or space) with content, (2) of time, fill (up), complete a period of time, reach its end, (3) bring someth. to completion, finish someth. already begun, (4) fulfill, by deeds, a prophecy, an obligation, a promise, a law, a request, a purpose, a desire, a hope, a duty, a fate, a destiny, etc., (5) complete, finish, bring

64Ibid.,

54–5. Dyer supplies a useful table that lists the comparisons between Israel and Messiah.

65Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1983), 147.

98

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

to an end, and (6) complete a number.66 Even a cursory glimpse of these senses reveals that the Greek word has a broader semantic range in the New Testament than does the English word ―fulfill.‖ Dyer states that less than one-third of the occurrences of in the New Testament fit the sense of prophetic fulfillment (#4 above) and, therefore, an interpreter should not assume that every time the word appears, a prophecy has been fulfilled.67 Such is the problem that lies behind the debate concerning Joel 2/Acts 2 and Amos 9/Acts 15.

Covenantalists argue for a fulfillment to support their replacement theology. Dispensationalists argue either for analogy or two referents. A correct analysis of a fulfilled prophecy will include both an accurate understanding of the original prophecy and a one-forone correspondence with the NT passage, the latter of which is missing in both these examples.68 How then should the interpreter understand passages in which the word ―fulfilled‖ appears? Zuck lists the following ways writers use the OT: 1.

To point up the accomplishment or realization of an Old Testament prediction

2.

To confirm that a New Testament incident is in agreement with an Old Testament principle

3.

To explain a point given in the Old Testament

66Bauer, 67Dyer,

―

53.

68Ibid., 70.

.‖

Maranatha is Dispensational

99

4.

To support a point being made in the New Testament

5.

To illustrate a New Testament truth

6.

To apply the Old Testament to a Testament incident or truth

7.

To summarize an Old Testament concept

8.

To use Old Testament terminology

9.

To draw a parallel with an Old Testament incident

New

10. To relate an Old Testament situation to Christ69 A third issue for this problem is the question of the human author‘s understanding of what he wrote. This issue cuts to the heart of interpretation versus fulfillment, that is, the sense or meaning versus referent. Paul Feinberg explains these concepts: The sense of a sentence is roughly equivalent to its meaning, and the reference of that sentence to the object or state of affairs referred to. . . . I think that predictions in the OT had a sense, and that sense was determinate. It was known to the author and to those who heard or read what he had to say.

If sense was lacking or not intelligible, then it is difficult to see how the utterance could have been a revelation of any kind in its original context. 70

69Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor, 1991), 260–70. Zuck provides examples for each of these.

70Paul Feinberg, 117–18 [emphasis added].

100

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Feinberg‘s explanation highlights two important observations. First, the text itself reveals meaning without the further explanation of later passages, or else the revelation was not a revelation at all. Second, there is a difference between the immediate meaning and the subjective or objective referent. Moses and Israel understood the protoevangelium, for example, was predicting a coming deliverer who would come from the woman, while the identification of the seed (and other details) remained a mystery. The NT presentation of the seed, however, remains consistent with the OT prediction.

It is here that views over one‘s hermeneutic will become sharply divided. Dispensationalists would argue for a single intent of the author. Therefore, an OT prophecy has a singular sense and the text carries that meaning. Covenantalists argue for the sensus plenior (double intent) or ―fuller sense.‖ This methodology answers why the covenantalist can read the church into prophecies concerning Israel, since a ―fuller sense‖ can reinterpret the Old Testament on that basis. Nondispensationalists justify their sensus plenior position on the basis of two passages: 1 Peter 1:10–12 and Daniel 12:6–9. They argue that these two passages show the prophets did not always understand the revelation they received. In both cases, however, the prophets were not seeking further information about that which they spoke, but rather were curious about the timing of the events.71 71Ibid.,

115.

Maranatha is Dispensational

101

Conclusion The interpretation of Scripture is critical to an accurate understanding and application of theology.

Without a hermeneutic that seeks the message God intended, the Word can fit almost anyone‘s personal agenda. Because dispensationalism endeavors to respect the distinctions between the Testaments, maintains essentials of a normal interpretation, uses the concept of a biblical dispensation in a biblically consistent way, and recognizes the theological problems associated with non-literal hermeneutics, dispensationalism provides a superior interpretive template over covenantalism.

MBTJ 1/1: 103-123

Maranatha is Ministry Brian Trainer1 The mission statement of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary declares that we exist to develop leaders for ministry in the local church and the world ―To the Praise of His Glory.‖ This maxim summarizes well our intended goal. First, we are student-oriented.

Our primary intention is the development of people, not the growth of properties, the manufacturing of position statements, or the gain of a financial profit.

Second, we seek to influence. Whether in the home, the church, the community, the workplace, or the marketplace, leaders influence. Third, service is a key way to influence. Servant leadership is demonstrated throughout the text of Scripture and is modeled in the person of Jesus Christ. Fourth, the sphere of that influence is localized in the body of Christ, yet it permeates the entire world. We desire that all our students have personal ownership of the axiom that ―life is ministry, and ministry is global.‖ Fifth, the ultimate aim for this purpose, for all people, and for all of life is doxological. We exist to exalt God. Why does Maranatha exist? To develop leaders—influential, service-oriented church-centered leaders—for ministry 1Brian Trainer is the Chairman of the Department of Bible and Church Ministries at Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Adjunct Faculty of Homiletics and Missions at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

104

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

in the local church and the world ―To the Praise of His Glory.‖ This mission statement effectively declares our purpose, but a delineation of the operative verb ―develop‖ is necessary. Many good institutions state a similar, lofty objective. What distinguishes one from another is the way in which each seeks to develop students to achieve that purpose. The focal point of this article is to communicate the foundational principles that shape the methods Maranatha utilizes in fulfilling its mission. How do we define spirituality?

How do we seek to develop spiritual leaders? What means do we utilize to accomplish our purpose? This article is a summary of the biblical principles which we seek to embrace and enact as we develop spiritual leaders for global ministry.2 Four truths summarize the spiritual ethos Maranatha desires in order to effectively develop spiritual leaders: 1.

2.

3.

The Gospel is central to the mission of Maranatha.

Internal growth is the primary focal point for spiritual development.

The distinct environment of a Christian college enhances spiritual development.

2The nature of this article is not intrinsically academic. The purpose is not to exegetically develop or defend a position. This article is a summary of principles of discipleship that were internally placed in writing during the 2009–2010 school year.

These principles impact the entirety of the discipleship emphasis at Maranatha.

Maranatha is Ministry

4.

105

External ministry involvement is necessary for spiritual development.

The Gospel is Central to the Mission of Maranatha The first principle Maranatha embraces to fulfill our mission is to keep central the message of the Gospel. The Gospel initiates our institutional mission.

God‘s ultimate goal for mankind is that they worship Him in spirit and in truth. He is seeking worshippers.

Worship begins when a sinner, by grace through faith, acknowledges his sinful condition and trusts the only Savior, when the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ brings him to the knowledge of the glory of God. His heart is regenerated, and he is delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of the Son of God. It is then that all of the magnificent biblical images of salvation and all of the benefits of salvation become realities in his life. The Spirit of God begins to permanently indwell him and becomes the guarantee that all of the positional realities of salvation will be completely fulfilled when final salvation, glorification, is secured.

This message of the Gospel is central to the fulfillment of Maranatha‘s mission. Leaders, intellects, businessmen, politicians, lawyers, homemakers, humanitarians and anyone else who lives outside of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ squander their lives. The message of the Gospel restores one to fellowship with God, renews friendship with his Creator, and reconciles him to his Father. Biblical

106

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

spirituality and leadership do not exist apart from the Gospel. Maranatha should not exist unless it also makes much of the Gospel.

Second, the Gospel initiates and empowers an individual‘s spiritual growth. Until glorification takes place, the believer is instructed to ―work out‖ his salvation. He seeks to be changed into His image. He is actively being transformed by the renewing of his mind. He wants to know Jesus Christ, the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings.

He practices daily death to self and the putting on of Christ. He celebrates his union with Christ. As he allows God‘s Spirit to direct his life, he reflects that control through humility, submission, singing, giving thanks, mortifying sin, and numerous other steps of faith.

Progressive sanctification does not come out of daily duties driven by self-discipline. We are not saved by grace to then walk in the strength of the flesh. We are not moralists or legalists who seek to live holy lives by aspiring to standards of self-righteousness. Our growth in Christlikeness is founded in Gospel truths.

Biblical spirituality and leadership are both birthed out of the Gospel and empowered by it. The sanctified life is one of faith which is produced by the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

The message of the Gospel at Maranatha is not limited to sharing its wonderful truth with the unsaved. The ―old, old story‖ is frequently expounded so that each believer can discover anew its precious power as it fleshes itself out in his daily sanctification.

Maranatha is Ministry

107

The Gospel is that which draws one to Jesus Christ and keeps him before the cross.

Internal Growth is the Primary Focal Point for Spiritual Development The second practice that Maranatha enacts to fulfill its mission is to biblically define spirituality.

Man is comprised of two primary parts: the material and the immaterial. Regardless of one‘s theological position beyond that delineation, the outer man and the inner man are easily distinguished. For a believer, God claims ownership of both. The outer man is to reflect His glory as the believer affirms choices of purity and wise stewardship; yet the fate of the outer man is sealed from the moment of birth—it is perishing. On the other hand, the inner man is very much alive, and it is being renewed day by day in holiness and righteousness. It reflects the image of Christ. While the outer man faints, fades, and validates mortality, the inner man grows, develops, and evidences spirituality.

Maranatha seeks to influence students primarily in the development of the inner man. Outer man conformation without inner man transformation does not further our mission of developing spiritual leaders.

Our desire is to see students changed from the inside out. Spiritual growth is the developmental process of the formation of a whole person in the Lord Jesus Christ under the authority of Scripture, by the power of the Holy Spirit for ministry in the local church and

108

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

the world in order to bring glory to God. Intrinsic within this definition are multiple concepts: 1.

2.

Spiritual growth is a process: Spiritual growth is not an end. It is a process. The task of Maranatha is not to produce a finished product. The goal is to create and maintain an environment in which spiritual maturation can effectively take place.

Thus, we are careful not to identify a ―one-sizefits-all‖ mentality of spirituality. We acknowledge the individuality of each student‘s spiritual background, spiritual struggle, and spiritual growth process. Above a desire to see our students reach a particular external standard of perceived maturation, our aspiration is to see the student moving in the right direction toward truth and grace.

Spirituality integrates the whole man: Spirituality is not limited to merely spiritual activities. The great command is to ―love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.‖ Jesus Christ, our ultimate model, increased ―in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.‖ In light of this, we seek to integrate all aspects of life in order to promote spiritual growth. The classroom, the concert hall, the dorm room, and the athletic field are all forums in which varying aspects of spiritual growth can take place. Any model of spirituality that stresses one aspect of formation over another is rejected by the

Maranatha is Ministry

109

institution.

Historical examples of these incomplete approaches include those that are noted below.

True biblical spirituality incorporates elements of each of these approaches.

3.

The Activist Approach

The Contemplative Approach

Action

Quietism

Morality

Withdrawal

Externals

Hiddenness

Pursuing God as holy

Pursuing God as love

The Intellectual Approach

The Mystical Approach

Analysis

Intuition

Intelligence

Passivity

Doctrinal accuracy

Meditation

Pursuing God as truth

Pursuing God as one

Spirituality is marked by a transformation of the internal man: Biblical imagery of the spiritual life identifies it as the formation of the inner man into the image of Jesus Christ. A Spirit-filled life is marked by the fruit of the Spirit, a life of joy and thanksgiving, and an attitude of humility and submission. Though these key indicators of a truly spiritual man are not easy to assess, the

110

4.

5.

6.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

goal is to emphasize and model these before the student body.

Spirituality is Word-centered: The spiritual life is marked by obedience to the Word of God. The path to spirituality is a correct interpretation of biblical truth. No additional words or traditions are necessary to completely equip someone to ―be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.‖ Thus, the presentation of biblical truth is the most important activity on campus. The Scriptures are the final authority. The most conclusive act of a spiritual man is obedience to the Word of God. Spirituality is Spirit-dependent: A spiritual life is the creation of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. No man can change another man. Man can be pressed by man to conform to an external image or standard, but only God can transform the heart and life. We acknowledge that no amount of emphasis on spiritual growth will be effective unless it is empowered by the Spirit of God. Also, we will not be satisfied with any amount of external conformation if it is not accompanied by internal transformation.

Spirituality has a goal of external ministry: The grace of God that brings us to salvation, identifies us as His workmanship, and creates us in Christ Jesus also empowers us for good works. The spiritual life is not an isolated or independent life.

It demonstrates a vertical love for God that manifests itself in an equally powerful horizontal

Maranatha is Ministry

7.

111

love for man which includes fellow believers, neighbors, and the larger sphere of humanity who abide outside of the love of God. This love motivates us to redemptive action through the venue of the body of Christ, the church. Acts of external ministry will be distinctive for individuals as they develop and utilize their unique giftedness.

Spirituality has its ultimate end in the glory of God: We live and move and have our being for the glory and praise of our Creator and Redeemer. The spiritual life is the renewal of our marred image into the original image ―created in righteousness and true holiness.‖ The progressive nature of our transformation on earth awaits the perfected completion when we arrive in heaven so that we can worship God for all of eternity.

These seven principles are parameters for Maranatha as we seek to see students developed by the Holy Spirit for spiritual leadership.

The Distinct Environment of a Christian College Enhances Spiritual Development The Scriptures clearly identify the growth process of a believer as a spiritual battle. Spiritual growth does not take place naturally. It has both natural and supernatural enemies. At times, even within the context of a Christian college campus, these enemies are more significantly poignant and powerful. A college campus is populated by young people who are often

112

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

characterized by infant faith and incipient spiritual maturation. The world, the flesh, and satanic forces are threats which seek to devour them from within and without. These enemies are obstructions to the growth process and must be recognized, so that appropriate action can be taken to eradicate some elements from the environment, neutralize others within the environment, and at least prepare students for their onslaught whatever their source.

At Maranatha, we seek to identify these enemies and, when possible, protect students from the fullness of their onslaught. Part of this protection is accomplished through an established, structured discipline system. The structured discipline system is a means of establishing environmental controls. These controls do not produce spirituality, nor are they all inherently biblical in themselves. They merely function as a means to create an atmosphere in which spiritual growth can thrive and potentially deadly enemies can be thwarted. We do not want any member of the Maranatha family to become dependent upon an external system for spiritual safety. The battle that will be fought by every member of the Maranatha family must be won via Holy Spirit-dependent, gracemotivated, Gospel-centered discipline. We recognize that the ―grace of God that bringeth salvation . . . teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts.‖ A structured system for spiritual accountability is not antithetical to a Gospel-centered life. Both can exist and be beneficial within a Christian community.

Maranatha is Ministry

113

The purpose of our structured discipline system is fourfold.

Functional Management. As an educational institution which has a specified purpose, we must institute specific rules for the sake of accomplishing organizational objectives. These rules are not always based upon biblical principles or moral necessities, but are designed to assist all members of the institution in functional aspects of educational and campus life. Types of these rules include expectations in basic cleanliness and timeframes for activities.

Moral Accountability. As a body of believers we are instructed in Scripture to maintain watch care for one another‘s spiritual growth. There are numerous ―one another‖ passages that provide guidelines for this type of accountability. These include positive commandments to provoke one another to good works and seemingly negative commandments to identify the unruly and rebuke him. Both of these are for the sake of the growth of the individuals within the Christian community. For this reason, we ask all members of the Maranatha family to abide by rules that seek to enforce biblical commands and implement biblical principles. This category of rule is clearly inter-related to biblical instruction and is communicated as more than just institutional preference. Some of these guidelines are birthed directly from the text of Scripture. For example, we prohibit all forms of swearing, cursing, and degradation of the name of God. There are sufficient texts in the Old and New Testaments that explicitly exclude such language from

114

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

a believer‘s life. Other rules that aid in moral accountability are implicitly noted in Scripture and are appropriate applications of principles in our contemporary milieu. For example, Paul did not address the challenge of the Internet in collegiate settings; yet, there are sufficient biblical principles for us to arrive at a rule that prohibits students from viewing inappropriate material.

Explicit New Testament commands are true for all time regardless of cultural context. As an institution, we consistently seek to delineate and communicate the distinctions between explicit biblical commands and the application of biblical principles. We desire to model before students the need for unquestioned obedience in areas in which the Scriptures are clear, and careful, wise discernment in areas in which the Scriptures allow for personal application.

Distinctive Environment. Since Maranatha seeks to prepare Christians for global ministry, we intentionally create an environment in which external influences are limited so that they not distract from potential spiritual growth. We know that the allure of the world is contrary to spiritual development. We know that there are issues that may be inherently morally neutral, but in our context they act as weights or disruptions for young people who are training for spiritual leadership. Like any organization whose purpose is to prepare specialists, we are selective in what we allow to impact our environment. Thus, we desire to limit the distractions within our campus life.

In place of those diversions, however, we seek to create

Maranatha is Ministry

115

spiritually healthy alternatives that promote holistic growth without undue temptation. Examples of this include the limited access students have in watching television, guidelines in dating relationships, and structured dorm activities. The goal is not isolation from the world, nor do we suggest that limitations create spirituality. But within our unique environment, we deliberately protect students from what could be spiritually unhealthy distractions.

Institutional Identity. Maranatha serves a broad constituency of churches. As a servant to these churches we seek to maintain a campus environment that is consistent with our diverse constituency. When doing so, we sometimes have to make choices that are based upon our own institutional identity. Utilizing the principles of Romans 14–15, we at times will create an institutional rule to limit our biblical freedoms for the sake of loving another brother in Christ. The goal of such a rule is not to create a boundary for holiness, but to communicate a bond of unity and love. These rules do not intrinsically produce character or develop leadership. They are not thrust upon students as standards necessary for the rest of their lives. They are unique to this institution as it seeks to model principles of love and sacrifice for the sake of fellow believers. These rules are not moral imperatives; they are patterns for how Christians live peaceably together. They may change as the constituency and the world changes. An example of this type of rule is our institutional standard for music. Maranatha believes the Scriptures are wholly sufficient in

116

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

communicating what is acceptable music to God. We also recognize that many who make a similar claim come to differing conclusions regarding what is ―acceptable music to God.‖ We teach without hesitation what we believe, but our institutional practice does not demand that we sing, play, or listen to everything that we believe is acceptable. Since fellow believers within our constituency may strongly take issue with a particular song or artist, we may choose to sacrifice our liberty in playing or even listening to that particular song. We do so not to be enslaved by the conscience of another, but to exhibit a spirit of love and unity. These are the types of decisions that all broad-based institutions make.

If improperly understood or communicated, this type of guideline can be confused with a rule for moral accountability.

When correctly understood, however, these communicate love, honor, humility, and peace.

Maranatha believes that a structured discipline system can enhance the spiritual growth of all members of the community. We acknowledge, however, that any structured system can potentially lead to individuals who seek merely to conform to external standards without any internal change. We are concerned that some in fleshly arrogance deem external conformation to rules as biblical spirituality.

This spirit of legalism is deadly to authentic transformational sanctification, but we do not believe that eradication of a structured discipline system is the necessary response to this danger. We believe the appropriate response is threefold. First, keep the

Maranatha is Ministry

117

Gospel central to all that we do. Second, focus on transparent internal spiritual growth.

Third, consistently communicate to students the reasons for the structure. Young, growing believers of all ages can thrive in a structured environment. A structured system of accountability, accompanied by open communication that clarifies the reasons for the rules, a spirit of grace that enforces the rules, and willingness for institutional self-assessment, is a wonderful benefit for all involved.

External Ministry Involvement is Necessary for Spiritual Development Ephesians 2:8–10 are familiar verses that describe the work of grace which brings one to salvation. Often the emphasis of the passage is on the salvific act, but the concluding phrase states that we are ―created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.‖ The grace of God that initiates the Gospel and spurs us to internal spiritual growth also empowers us to outward acts of service to our Savior. At Maranatha, we believe that acts of service, good works, and involvement in global ministry are the necessary outworking of salvation and spiritual growth. We believe the order developed in Ephesians is crucial to a healthy spiritual life.

Salvation is followed by sanctification which in turn prompts service. Acts of service without either salvation or internal development are not acceptable to the Lord. Demanding acts of spiritual service in

118

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

students‘ lives without a corresponding emphasis on spiritual growth leads to student frustration, legalism, and a dutiful view of Christian ministry. On the other hand, internal spiritual growth without external acts of service is malformed. It lacks integrity and wholeness and results in spiritual stagnation and arrogance. The model presented by Jesus Christ is one of seeing the needs of others, being moved with compassion, speaking to them, and then touching their lives (Luke 7:13–14). Our Savior came to seek sinners and serve His disciples. He came to change lives. The Great Commission of Matthew 28 provides the framework for what Christian service should look like.

First, Christ presupposes the scope of Christian ministry by implying that disciples should be traversing the world for the sake of His name. The opening participle is a reminder that believers should be going into the entire world. In other words, as believers are going, we are to be making disciples. A vital aspect of Maranatha‘s mission in developing Christlike servant-leaders is to expose students to the needs of the world. Maranatha has a strong history of seeing its alumni serve overseas. Our desire to see God glorified among the nations prompts us to pray that more students would be thrust into the harvest and to plan for more participation in global evangelism. To meet that need, in 2007 Maranatha instituted the Office of Global Encounters, whose sole purpose is to assist students and faculty in participating in global evangelism. The mission statement and core values of

Maranatha is Ministry

119

Global Encounters correspond to the institutional purpose.

Mission Statement: Global Encounters exists to strategically mobilize the faculty and students of Maranatha into needy regions around the world for the purpose of local church development.

Core Values: 1. Local Church Focus: The focus of Global Encounters is joining God in actively, passionately, creatively, and strategically building and strengthening churches throughout the world.

2. College Team Dynamic: Global Encounters seeks avenues to expose students to multiple geographical regions via short term educational and mission teams, recognizing that college students represent the future of world evangelization.

3. Life is Ministry: The work of world evangelization is the task of every vocational and academic field. Global Encounters seeks to utilize every student and faculty member‘s individual expertise in reaching the lost of the world.

4. Interdependence: The work of Christ in building and strengthening churches demands mutual partnerships among fellow believers in various countries who are committed to faithful obedience to the Word

120

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

of God. Global Encounters desires to assist national pastors and schools when possible.

5. Excellence in Preparation: Global Encounters will emphasize the importance of quality in business, character, and conduct in all of its tasks.

6. Leadership Development and Vision: Through the mission experience, Global Encounters provides an opportunity for students to personally develop as leaders and to capture a vision for the world beyond.

Since 2008, Global Encounters has sponsored twenty mission trips with over 350 students, staff, faculty, and administrators participating. The goal of these trips is to further the discipleship ministry of Maranatha by exposing students to the needs of the world and seeing them engaged in acts of service as they minister to others. Providing global perspective is vital to the fulfillment of Maranatha‘s mission of developing the next generation of Christian leaders.

Second, the principal imperative of the Great Commission is to make disciples. As believers span the globe, they are to be disciple makers. At Maranatha, we seek to be actively employed in the process of both making disciples and producing disciple makers. This is Paul‘s model in 2 Timothy 2:2. Disciple making is the impact of one believer on the life of another believer. The heart of Christian service is the fulfillment of the ―one another‖ passages within Scripture. Discipleship is not primarily a formal

Maranatha is Ministry

121

program; it is a spirit of mutual love, caring, confrontation, and edification. It is two believers committed to each other‘s spiritual well-being. This is the type of spirit and activity that we seek to cultivate at Maranatha. The environment of transparent interaction between students, staff, faculty, and administrators is enriching. In the classrooms, hallways, dormitories, offices, and homes, all are invited to openly provoke one another to good works.

In conjunction with the spirit of disciple making on the campus of Maranatha, there are also structured opportunities for enhancing leadership skills as a disciple maker. Paul indicates to Timothy that he is to be ―committing‖ truth to others so that they can lead.

The concept of commitment communicates intentional development of young men and women. Students at Maranatha are offered multiple discipleship opportunities by participating in dormitory leadership, ministry societies, and multiple other co-curricular activities. Within these avenues of outreach, students can serve in over one hundred different leadership roles. Each role has a structured program of mentorship and discipleship. Students are encouraged to think beyond their personal comfort zones. They are challenged to serve others and then instructed in how best to do that. Personal giftedness is assessed and developed.

Selfless living and leadership is encouraged. Making disciples is the operative verb in the Great Commission. Students who are growing spiritually will be both discipled and discipling. These concepts are at the core of Maranatha‘s ethos.

122

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Third, the Great Commission implicitly communicates the primary location in which lifelong spiritual service and ministry takes place. The first step in discipleship of a new believer is baptism. Baptizing identifies the convert with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It also identifies the believer with the visible body of Christ, the local church. As evidenced in Acts and the epistles, the local church is where the teaching ministry takes place. At Maranatha, the local church is recognized as the principal work of God in the world today. Maranatha is committed to the primacy and autonomy of the local church. All students attend a local congregation of believers each Sunday and Wednesday. Many are involved in weekly ministry. Each is encouraged to realize that the local church is to be a priority in his/her life. It is there that truth is taught, families grow, gifts are used, accountability sharpens, and Christ is exalted. Students make the local church a positive habit of life. No artificial replacements to God‘s body are provided or permitted for students. We celebrate the privilege of manifesting the manifold wisdom of God through the church.

External ministry is the supernatural result of a Spirit-filled life. Activity is not the ultimate mark of spirituality, but spiritually growing individuals will serve. The biblical model for that service is a life of discipleship in the context of local churches spread throughout the world. Maranatha seeks to emphasize each of those characteristics of Great Commission

Maranatha is Ministry

123

living: a spirit of discipleship, the primacy of the local church, and a vision for the world.

Conclusion The mission statement of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary declares that we exist to develop leaders for ministry in the local church and the world ―To the Praise of His Glory.‖ This is a mission that cannot be accomplished by the will of man. The foundation for the mission is the power of the Gospel message as it is applied daily. The focal point is the internal spiritual development of each student. The environment is controlled to provide an atmosphere for maximum spiritual development and corporate commitment. The outworking of that spiritual development is a life of service in the local church and throughout the world. We pray that God will continue to empower us to fulfill this mission for ―the praise of His glory.‖

MBTJ 1/1: 125-139

Maranatha Commitment Statements Maranatha‘s Doctrinal Statement originated in the very first year of Maranatha‘s existence. During the summer of 2009, the college Bible faculty and the seminary faculty created an expansion of the doctrinal statement and set forth the following declaration of its commitment to biblical truth and its application of that truth to the lives of its students, staff, and faculty. The purpose of this statement was to make clear to the Board of Trustees, as they commenced the search for the fifth president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, the commitment of the Bible faculty to biblical truth and the positions that Maranatha has historically held.

1. Education: The Bible Department is committed to a God-centered education. We acknowledge that ―of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever.‖ We seek to follow the curriculum of the psalmist who sought to proclaim the praises, power, and providential work of God to the generations to come. Our ultimate goal is that students would ―set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.‖ We trust that this goal will permeate all of our courses and thus produce a

126

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

humble dependence and passionate desire for the person of God in both professors and students.

2. Exegesis: The Bible Department is committed to biblical exegesis. Systems of theology are always subservient to and to be sourced out of the authority of the text of Scripture. The ultimate responsibility of the Bible Department is to teach individuals to be workmen in the text who strive for an accurate understanding of the Author‘s/authors‘ intent. Studies in the original languages and employment of hermeneutical tools are encouraged. We seek to equip the students with exegetical skills which the Holy Spirit, the supreme Helper, can then use to illuminate His Word to the minds and hearts of the students as they prayerfully submit to the authority of the text.

We are concerned for those individuals who embrace systems of theology without first obtaining the exegetical skills necessary to evaluate those systems.

3. Personal Evangelism and Missions: The Bible Department is committed to personal evangelism and global missions. Regardless of vocational calling, all believers are to recognize that life is ministry and ministry is global. Fulfillment of the Great Commission is the expected behavior of all believers at all ages in all geographical settings.

Our desire is to instill within students the joy of sharing the transforming message of the gospel.

Maranatha Commitment Statements

127

This will be accomplished through teaching Scripture in the classroom, modeling evangelism in our personal lives, providing structured opportunities for students to be mentored in witnessing, and encouraging our students to be involved in evangelistic outreaches in the local church. We affirm that the gospel must be shared through the verbal communication of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not merely by the living of a morally upright life. We also rejoice that the chief end of sharing the gospel is the glorification of God as His name is exalted among the nations.

4. Leadership: The Bible Department is committed to education that produces individuals who evidence courageous, compassionate, and convictional leadership. We are convinced that the Word of God is relevant for every age and adequately equips students to lead in this contemporary milieu.

Christian leadership must be distinctively different from worldly leadership that is characterized by personality, power, and politics. Our task is to prepare servant leaders who have strong, biblically-based convictions; who demonstrate grace and Christlike compassion as they live and communicate those convictions; and who stand with resolute courage when the truths of Scripture are mocked and attacked by the post-Christian world.

128

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

5. Baptist Heritage and Polity: The Bible Department is committed to Baptist polity and to our heritage as Baptists. The Bible is the sole authority for our faith and practice. From the New Testament in particular, we derive the following distinctives: churches are constituted solely of regenerated and immersed believers. Local churches are autonomous and self-governing. In association with this distinctive, we teach that each local church should have pastors to lead and deacons to serve the congregation, and that the ultimate earthly authority is the congregation itself. Every believer is a priest before God, and all humans enjoy soul liberty. Immersion and the Lord‘s Supper are the only New Testament ordinances and do not convey justifying grace (i.e., they are not sacraments). Finally, we as Baptists hold to separation of church and state as well as both personal and ecclesiastical separation.

We believe that various religious groups throughout church history have held to key Baptist distinctives and are therefore an important part of our Baptist heritage. We reject the liberal notion that Baptists invented the doctrines that distinguish them, believing rather that Baptists express New Testament teachings that have always been present in some form in church history.

Modern Baptists acknowledge their early heritage and from the early seventeenth century have a continuous documented history. We reject the idea

Maranatha Commitment Statements

129

that Baptists are the only true Christians or that Baptist churches are the only true churches; therefore we reject the Landmark Church History theory that underlies these notions. The heritage of Baptists, as defenders of soul liberty and separation of church and state, should be known and valued by all Baptists.

6. Dispensationalism: The Bible Department is committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. In every Bible course we teach and demonstrate a normal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the text of Scripture that is the foundation of dispensationalism. This hermeneutic does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within the basic framework of literal interpretation. It does acknowledge the progressive revelation of God‘s divine plan through time. Though various stewardships of revelation are acknowledged, the unifying salvific factor for all people for all time is the necessity of responding by faith to the special revelation given. The consequence of this consistent hermeneutic is a distinction between ethnic Israel and the New Testament church.

Covenants established between God and ethnic Israel will be fulfilled in the literal sense in which they were given and received. The unique relationship between Christ and His Bride, the church, is acknowledged and preserved.

130

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Throughout all of eternity, the ultimate purpose of His universal plan is that of glorifying Himself.

We reject covenant theology, its hermeneutic, and the eschatology of amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Furthermore, we reject the progressive concept that Christ is already reigning on the Davidic throne.

7. The Church: The Bible Department is committed to the primacy and autonomy of the local church.

God‘s principal work in the world today is the building of the church. In the first four chapters of Ephesians, God reveals to believers that His primary interest in this dispensation is the church.

Ephesians describes the work of the triune God as He blesses, chooses, predestines, adopts, redeems, forgives, empowers, and enlightens a people for His name to the praise of His glorious grace. The result of these actions is the creation of a body and the construction of a building called the church.

Believers are not to live independently of each other, but are to be joined together as one new body functioning as a single household of God. The accomplishment of the task of bringing together this redeemed group of strangers into a unified body has a single intent: that all earthly and heavenly powers would know the ―manifold wisdom of God.‖

Maranatha Commitment Statements

131

The local body of Christ, ―the pillar and ground of the truth,‖ is under the authority of the Redeemer and Chief Shepherd. As such she functions in an autonomous fashion. Her members alone are responsible for the safeguarding of their doctrine, the working of their governance, and the choices of their ecclesiastical practice. The role of the Bible Department is to serve local assemblies, not by establishing dictums to follow or practices to uphold, but by equipping individuals for leadership in the local church through biblical instruction.

8. Fundamentalism: The Bible Department is committed to Fundamentalism. The fundamentals of the faith have historically been defined as those beliefs that are necessary to the biblical doctrine of salvation combined with a high doctrine of Scripture, so that we have an inerrant record of those doctrines. Fundamentalism as an idea is absolute allegiance to those doctrines united to a willingness to defend those doctrines and to separate from those who deny or contradict them.

Fundamentalism as a modern American movement emerged in the late nineteenth century when theological liberalism began to infiltrate and overwhelm the mainline denominations, and a generation rose up to defend the faith against those onslaughts. The movement has gradually taken shape over the last century as a separatist wing of conservative Christianity, consisting

132

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

primarily, but not exclusively, of premillennarians and Baptists.

Maranatha‘s origin lies squarely within the fundamental Baptist movement. As such, we have self-consciously identified ourselves as a separatist institution serving primarily independent and separatist Baptist churches. We reject the evangelical mindset towards culture and the tendencies to develop strategies for ecumenical evangelism and to cooperate with non-evangelical theologies. We see our mission as militant defense of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints. We regard separation from disobedient brethren a sometimes necessary step in order to maintain fidelity to Scripture. In general, we believe that cooperation is possible in proportion to agreement, and separation is necessary in proportion to disagreement. We also reject the attitudes and actions of fundamentalists who elevate tangential and eccentric teachings to the level of the fundamentals of the faith and separate over them.

With our fundamentalist forefathers, we believe that unity should be enjoyed when possible, separation practiced when necessary.

9. Expositional Preaching: The Bible Department is committed to expository preaching. Because we acknowledge both the authority and the sufficiency of Scripture and because we accept the literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual

Maranatha Commitment Statements

133

hermeneutic, we believe that the natural outcome of an exegetical approach to the study of the Scripture is expository preaching. Each book, chapter, and verse exists within a communicative framework designed to convey truth that is germane to that particular pericope, a dynamic that no other form of preaching fully captures.

Even when students present a topical sermon (e.g., doctrinal sermon), we believe they should present a text or texts in an expositional style, systematically unpacking the meaning of a particular text with reference to that topic in its context.

Furthermore, based upon Paul‘s instructions to Timothy, we strive for a balance between teaching and exhortation (distinguishing the sermon from either a mere lecture or a purely persuasive speech). We also distinguish between exegesis and homiletics (the study of God‘s Word and the communication of God‘s Word). The expositional sermon engages all the elements of human response—intellect, emotion, and will. We endeavor to demonstrate through our preaching the deliberate movement from the text (exegesis), to theology (the canonical context), to application (the contemporary significance of the text), faithfully demonstrating both the authoritative meaning of the text and the authoritative relevance of the text to today‘s Christian. We, therefore, acknowledge that the effectiveness of preaching does not come from the personality of the preacher or the delivery

134

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

of the sermon, but from the intentional exposure of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit who uses it in the lives of the hearers.

We appreciate that God uses preachers who are not expositors, but we strive to teach and model the expository method. We reject anthro-centric (health and wealth, positive thinking) and sociocentric (social gospel) sermons. We choose rather a theo-centric focus. Biblical preaching, therefore, imparts specific truths of a particular pericope so that an individual may know and trust the Savior more.

10. Versions: The Bible Department is committed to a position on the text of the Scriptures that honors textual truths, historical discovery and local church leadership. We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament canon, which, being inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts, is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice. We believe that the Bible teaches the complete preservation of the verbal revelation of God, yet no passage of Scripture specifies the manner in which God preserved His Word. Thus, we hold that God has providentially preserved His Word in the many manuscripts, fragments, and copies of the Scriptures. We hold that the reliability of any text, text type, translation, version, or copy of the Scriptures is to be judged by the autographs

Maranatha Commitment Statements

135

only. Thus any translation or version of Scripture in any language is the Word of God if it accurately reproduces what is in the original languages. We believe that the translation of the Word of God from the original languages into the language of common people is a necessary activity and essential for the spread of the Gospel.

We are thankful that the KJV of the Bible is an accurate translation of the original languages. This version is the preference of multiple churches within our constituency. We use the King James Version in the Maranatha pulpit and classroom.

We reject versions that reflect liberal or cultic bias.

We reject preservation positions that elevate any version to the level of the autographs.

11. Soteriology: The Bible Department is committed to teaching a biblically balanced soteriology. We believe in the divine source of salvation, that all of salvation flows from God‘s free and unmerited grace. We also affirm the responsibility of all people to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. We recognize that good men have differed throughout church history regarding the difficult questions of election and predestination. While believing that it is essential that every student of the Word work through the numerous passages that touch on these difficult issues, we grant both our faculty and students the liberty to investigate the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man in

136

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

various ways. We reject theology that denies the responsibility of all people to repent and believe, or the responsibility of all believers to evangelize everyone they can. We do not support positions that attribute the source of evil to God or that limit the extent of Christ‘s atonement to the elect. We also reject man-centered theologies that depreciate human depravity, emphasizing free will to the extent that they depend upon methodologies and strategies as the crucial components in evangelism and revival. We uphold the biblical doctrine of eternal security. The Bible Department believes that carelessly disparaging men as Calvinists or Arminians is unhelpful and intellectually chilling.

At Maranatha the great doctrines relating to God‘s gracious work are treated with reverence and respect and believers are evaluated according to their obedience and faithfulness to the Word regardless of the labels men ascribe to them. Both scholarship and truth require accuracy and grace when evaluating men and ministries. We believe professors and students ought to be able to interact thoughtfully and respectfully on this issue, bringing all of their theological formulations to the bar of careful biblical exegesis.

12. Sanctification: The Bible Department is committed to the progressive nature of sanctification.

At salvation, believers are made positionally holy in Christ and await the perfected holiness of heaven.

Until that time, an individual must wage war with

Maranatha Commitment Statements

137

the flesh by a Spirit-empowered putting off of the old manner of life and putting on of the new life as he or she is being renewed in the Spirit of holiness.

This progressive battle is won as the man of God utilizes the Word of God in the power of the Spirit of God to become like the Son of God. Because it is an individual battle, we recognize that each believer grows at a different pace and that this growth is manifested in various ways. We also recognize that this growth toward Christlikeness is initially an internal transformation of the heart that results in external indications of biblical change. We acknowledge that individual growth involves an active mortification of the flesh that is enabled by God‘s divine power rather than a passive quietism. The nature of this work is an active dependence upon God‘s Spirit as we walk in daily fellowship with Him. Because there are a variety of positions on sanctification, we, therefore, foster a spirit of grace toward those believers who are inclined towards alternative views.

13. Christian Liberty: The Bible Department is committed to the biblical practice of Christian liberty. We acknowledge that Scripture binds believers together around non-negotiables such as the gospel, fundamental doctrines, and clear biblical mandates, but allows for a variety of applications of biblical principles to areas not specifically enumerated in Scripture. We encourage all believers through their study of Scripture to

138

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

establish personal convictions that glorify God in all areas of life and promote unity with fellow believers.

Paul clearly defines in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8–10 that believers are neither to be ―despising‖ nor ―judging‖ others because of different practices in ―doubtful things,‖ but rather are to receive one another as fellow-servants. We reject all attempts to elevate extra-biblical standards to the level of scriptural authority; such attempts often divide the Body of Christ and/or endeavor to establish one‘s holiness apart from the work of Christ. Such practices lead to spiritual elitism, pride, and inauthentic holiness that stress the external over the internal. Believers must, therefore, be convinced in their own faith of the rightness or wrongness of a practice through their personal study of the Scriptures and stand before God in assurance of their faith while biblically loving those of differing persuasions. We also recognize the need for submission to institutional standards but acknowledge these do not produce holiness in and of themselves, but can be helpful prior to the formation of personal convictions.

14. Contemporary Issues: The Bible Department is committed to transparent interaction with students on contemporary issues. Discernment is a character quality and acquired skill that is necessary for spiritual success. The ability to

Maranatha Commitment Statements

139

practice keen insight and judgment in contemporary issues cannot be developed in an environment that limits discussion and hinders transparency. At the same time, open discussion without progression toward biblical answers does not meet the standard of a valid education. It is our desire to provide students a forum for communication so that education in critical thinking and biblical discretion can take place. In particular, we recognize that our students are being impacted by many conservative evangelicals via their writings, speaking, and internet communication. We acknowledge that many of these men and women have made positive contributions to the Body of Christ. We also note that aspects of their teaching and practices fall outside of the boundaries that we believe are biblical. We seek to instruct and model for students to ―prove all things, hold fast that which is good.‖