Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

How to “sustain meaningful discourse without resorting to name-calling or cowardly equivocation”

by

Kevin DeYoung‘s “Defining Discourse Down” in First Things is superb. I benefitted from it even more after re-reading it this evening.

This part hurts the most:

We are all proud. Because I’m proud I get hurt when people disagree with me strongly. Because I’m proud I feel the need to give thirteen qualifications before I make an argument, not usually because I’m a swell guy but because I love for people to love me and loathe for them to dislike or misunderstand me. Because I’m proud I hedge my criticisms so that I won’t have to publicly repent and recant when I go too far and get something wrong. Because we’re proud, protectors of self more than lovers of truth, we often don’t discuss things with candor or with verve.

Read the whole thing—esp. the last four paragraphs.

The “Fundamentalist” Label: An Interview with John Woodbridge

by

John D. Woodbridge is research professor of church history and the history of Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he has taught since 1970. One of his areas of expertise is the history of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. (I benefited from taking a seminar with him on that subject in fall 2007.) His father, Charles Woodbridge, taught at Fuller Seminary (cf. George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism) and later wrote The New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1969). So John Woodbridge has had a front-row seat on this issue since childhood.

Trinity Magazine recently published this useful interview:

John D. Woodbridge. “The ‘Fundamentalist’ Label: An Interview with John Woodbridge.” Trinity Magazine (Spring 2009): 7–9, 23.

The subtitle of this evenhanded interview captures its theme: “We regularly hear people from different religious backgrounds referred to as ‘fundamentalist.’ Is this labeling appropriate?” Woodbridge responds to nine questions and statements:

  1. What do you think the word “fundamentalist” means to people today?
  2. Where did this concept of “world fundamentalisms” come from?
  3. Were there any other significant contributing factors?
  4. Is it legitimate to use the word “fundamentalist” for Muslims?
  5. How does this usage misunderstand actual American fundamentalism as well?
  6. I think what happens in the media is that they end up thinking about the kind of people who bomb abortion clinics, then assume that that’s really where this type of Christianity leads.
  7. What can happen because of this popular misusage of “fundamentalism”?
  8. Has anyone challenged the assumptions of Fundamentalisms Comprehended?
  9. There is a challenge in all this for us as evangelical Christians as well.

Read the whole thing.

For a more thorough handling of this issue, see the following:

Timothy George and John D. Woodbridge. “What’s in a Name: Are We All Fundamentalists?” Pages 123–50, 182–83 in The Mark of Jesus: Loving in a Way the World Can See. Chicago: Moody, 2005. 192 pp. This important chapter traces a significant etymological trajectory of the label “fundamentalist” and usefully overviews fundamentalism’s history.

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

by

Phil Johnson wrote a lucid article in 1998 that those using the term “hyper-Calvinism” would do well to read:

Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it “hyper-Calvinism” is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.

Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. . . .

A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”):

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
  2. OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
  3. OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
  4. OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
  5. OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message

Read the whole thing.

HT: JT

Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come”

by

“Time to Speak Up” is a bold, timely, provocative, sane word from Kevin Bauder that accomplishes at least three goals:

  1. refutes Danny Sweatt’s recent diatribe (cf. “An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving“)
  2. assures young fundamentalists that “Sweatt does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism”
  3. challenges fundamentalist leaders (esp. in the FBF) to face this Calvinism-phobia (of which Sweatt’s diatribe is symptomatic) directly and promptly

Update:

  1. John Piper comments on Bauder’s article: “Good Breeze from a Fundamentalist Neighbor“
  2. Justin Taylor in “Fundamentalism 101“: “Slandering fundamentalists is something of an acceptable pastime for evangelicals (not to mention the wider Christian commnunity and culture). But since slander is sin, we’re better off showing respect (even when we critique) and seeking to learn what we can.”