# New Reformed Fundamentalism



## fredtgreco (Feb 2, 2006)

This is one of the best series of postings I have seen on the internet in a long time. I encourage you to follow along this thread. There is a particularly excellent series of comments by Rev. Chris Hutchinson:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/22561

[Edited on 2/2/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## turmeric (Feb 2, 2006)

My browser is not accepting their cookies...


----------



## Gregg (Feb 2, 2006)

....Did somebody mention cookies? MMMmmm:bigsmile:


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Feb 2, 2006)

THOU MUST DRINK WINE!

......this portion reminded me of a story I heard about one of the old Princeton guys (Hodge,I think) that was talking about the travelling preachers who would come through that area and preach against things such as the above list (cards, drinking, etc.). He stated that he did not have "a taste for spirits" but would intentionally have a drink when they would come through the town in an effort to excercise liberty.

It is certainly easy to be immature w liberty. Freedom in Christ has many responsibilities obviously. 

much to think about...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 2, 2006)

Some good things to think about.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> My browser is not accepting their cookies...



The Warfield list is a private list. You have to join the group to view the messages.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2006)

Fred, 

You're right. This is a good posting. 

Something I've found very disconcerting is young Reformed people thinking there's some particular virtue in drinking. Many go way beyond moderation. Most of them are from fundy or pentecostal backgrounds and have overreacted in the other direction. I think this is in part what Mohler and Moore were reacting to, rightly or wrongly. 

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



Oops, I was wrong and thinking of another list. It says it's a "private" list (which usually means you can't view messages w/o joining) but you can view messages without joining. Maybe they changed it at some point.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2006)

My thought is that the devil isn't troubled one bit by this new "fundamentalism". 

It gets people off track wrangling over nonessentials.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 3, 2006)

> 1.) Thou must drink wine.
> 2.) THou must have as many children as thou art physically able to have (because God is sovereign over the womb.).
> 3.) Thou must see home schooling as superior to Christian schools (and we have just begun to homeschool!).
> 4.) THou must court, and thy parents shalt choose thy mate. Never shalt thou date, neither shalt thou go to the soda shop, neither shalt thou attend a movie with a girl.
> ...



Some of these are amusing, some legalistic, but some are motivated by a legitimate desire to be obedience to God commands. Love of God is obedience to God's commands. So the question then is, which items on the "fundamentalisms" list are being legalistic, and which are being faithful to God. 

Maybe I misunderstand the point of this list. But it seems to me that it is easy to make fun of God fearing Christian's who's only desire is to show their love for God. 

Even the phrase "God fearing Christian" is derided these days, piety is a dirty word, and being a Puritan is being puritanical.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 3, 2006)

"Most of them are from fundy or pentecostal backgrounds and have overreacted in the other direction."

That has not been my experience. Most of the Presbyterians I know that drink come out of a Romanist, Lutheran, or Reformed background. My own family comes from the Congregationalist (UCC) church, so we never grew up with strictures on drinking.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "Most of them are from fundy or pentecostal backgrounds and have overreacted in the other direction."
> 
> That has not been my experience. Most of the Presbyterians I know that drink come out of a Romanist, Lutheran, or Reformed background. My own family comes from the Congregationalist (UCC) church, so we never grew up with strictures on drinking.



I was talking about the ones who glory in their newfound Christian "liberty" and look down their noses at "weaker" brethren.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 4, 2006)

> Maybe I misunderstand the point of this list. But it seems to me that it is easy to make fun of God fearing Christian's who's only desire is to show their love for God.
> 
> Even the phrase "God fearing Christian" is derided these days, piety is a dirty word, and being a Puritan is being puritanical.



I agree with you. It seems the list is rather mean-spirited, designed to deliberately hurt through ridicule. 

And I also think that at least two items on the list are quite biblical.


----------



## satz (Feb 4, 2006)

I am not sure if my browser is displaying the thread properly... how many messages are there supposed to be? I am only seeing about 5-6 messages.



> Maybe I misunderstand the point of this list. But it seems to me that it is easy to make fun of God fearing Christian's who's only desire is to show their love for God.
> 
> Even the phrase "God fearing Christian" is derided these days, piety is a dirty word, and being a Puritan is being puritanical.



I definitely agree. It is easy for us to get so caught up on liberty that we froget about the value of holiness and zeal.

Yet... with regards to the first post, church discipline is a very serious matter and i do think we need to be very sure something is a sin before proceeding. Dating, i do not think can be proven to be absolutely sinful. It can be conducted according to christian principles, even if some will say that by that time it looks exactly like courtship. As for holding hands... well, there are a lot of issues to consider and a pastor might preach against it, and a parent might well decide to forbid this for his or her child, but i do think that without explicit biblical condemnation it should not be the subject of church discipline.

No one should condemn another for doing what he or she feels is right and wise in God's sight. But i think we need to be very careful about imposing convictions that cannot be proven firmly from the bible on others. Certainly church discipline is not a word to be used lightly simply because we disagree with another position.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> 
> 
> > Maybe I misunderstand the point of this list. But it seems to me that it is easy to make fun of God fearing Christian's who's only desire is to show their love for God.
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> 
> 
> > Maybe I misunderstand the point of this list. But it seems to me that it is easy to make fun of God fearing Christian's who's only desire is to show their love for God.
> ...



You must not have read some of the countless threads here on homeschooling, birth control, and drinking then. The point is not that the items on the list are unbiblical, but rather the growing tendency within Reformedom to basically equate such things with the gospel.

Most of these items are becoming on the same level that the "secret rapture" is for Dispensationalism - you can confess whatever you want about Christ, but as soon as you say you don't believe in the secret rapture, well then you probably aren't a Christian.

And do you really mean to say that it is Biblical to "understand that the Reformed faith did not exist before the birth of Van Til (or Clark, or name your other cult figure)"

Really?


----------



## JJF (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Globachio_
> ...



Fred, I'm sure glad you wrote this post. This rank "Reformed Fundamentalism" makes me sick to my stomach. I can understand that many people are well-meaning and have good intentions when they try to make such rules coeval with the gospel, but their good intentions are nonetheless wrong.  to your post!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 4, 2006)

I'm with Fred. We have had folks over the years at our church who wanted their "issue" or "issues" of this type to take priority. Two things happened just prior to our recent growth spurt necessitating looking for a new church building: we "lost" the most recent example of this kind of behavior, and we raised money to build a new hostel for the overseas orphanage we help support. The first removed an impediment to growth in my opinion, and for the second, in my pastor's words, it was only "after we did our part in making sure that the orphans in Myanmar had a place to sleep and food to eat that God gave us a [new] place to congregate as well."


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Globachio_
> ...



 A gazillion dittos!

I think a good many of the posts before Fred's missed the whole point! We really are becoming deformed fundamentalists!


----------



## Swampguy (Feb 4, 2006)

You know when it comes to making rules you can't beat us humans. There is something about making a law that we must like. The problem is once we make a law we have to break it.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 4, 2006)

"I was talking about the ones who glory in their newfound Christian 'liberty' and look down their noses at 'weaker' brethren."

Ah, I misunderstood, but how could it be any other way? The only people who are going to have a newfound liberty to flaunt are those who did not experience it before.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > 1.) Thou must drink wine.
> ...



I've reviewed this list and the posts that followed. It's a well-built straw man which lumps a variety of unconnected issues together and inaccurately portrays the nature of fundamentalism in Reformed circles. 

It's mocking tone is highlighted by the fact that no one ever says "thou shalt" with respect to these issues. By using that language it portrays falsely anyone who might hold to one of these positions or some variation thereof as being "holier-than-thou" when in fact the whole tone of the post itself seems to me to be "holier-than-thou." Thus, it is unbalanced and "mean-spirited." 

1. I've never encountered anyone on the Puritan Board or in Reformed circles who says "thou must drink wine." The people who advocate the Christian liberty to drink wine (in contrast to true fundamentalists who say that it is sin to drink in public or to own or operate a pub), in my experience, are constantly defending themselves against those who say they may not exercise their liberty for fear of offending others. 

2. The subtle implication here is that birth control is a matter of Christian liberty. Yes, this issue has been debated and, yes, I personally believe it is a sixth and seventh commandment issue, not a matter of Christian liberty to use birth control, but the way this is characterized is a straw man.

3. I personally view homeschooling as the norm and Christian schools as a secondary option. I do not "look down" upon those who choose Christian schools. Some Christian schools are great; others are expensive, take federal money, and not all that "Christian." Homeschoolers usually advocate choice as to educational setting, in contrast to those who advocate statist schools and compulsory education laws. I think this point is much ado about nothing.

4. I think courting is Biblical and dating is not. That is because courting involves parents and dating essentially does not. Dating is usually preparation for divorce not marriage. To the extent that, as Mark suggested, parents are involved in the "dating" of their children, then it may look like courting. But as the list portrays the position of the pro-courting camp, it makes a mockery of their position.

5. There are some who say their children may not touch someone who is a potential spouse in the interests of avoiding temptation. And some may go so far as to say that it is sinful to do so in all situations. That would indeed cross the line between prudence and fundamentalism. 

6. Who has ever said that the Reformed faith didn't begin until Van Til or Clark arrived on the scene? Certainly not Kevin. 

7. There are some who say that communion should be practiced every week. I agree this is unwarranted. "Frequent" and "at the discretion of the session" is what the Westminster Directory of Public Worship advises, and that is what I think is Biblical. 

I think the term fundamentalism should be reserved for its standard usage: ie., those opposed to the exercise of Christian liberty to drink in moderation, and other such matters of adiaphora. To lump a diverse group of issues upon which Reformed brethren have passionate convictions as representative of a new type of fundamentalism is to do a disservice to the healthy discussion of those individual issues, and a disservice to the word fundamentalism as it has been historically used. No one that I have ever met or observed has ever equated any of these issues with the gospel, contrary to what has been said. That is hyperbole which does not help the tenor of the discourse on specific debatable issues, and only serves to divide not unite the brethren.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 4, 2006)

Andrew,

Respectfully, you need to get out more. Dozens of pastors of all kinds of Churches - from PCA to nondenoms to microdenominations - all have seen these tendencies. The fact that you cannot see any of this is telling, in my opinion.

One example: there are at least two threads on PB itself in which it was declared to be "blasphemy" to impose any restrictions on the use of alcohol, and in which those who did not drink were looked down upon. The opposite, of course, is also true, but my guess is that the Reformed have absoluetly no problem spotting that. If a prohibitionist post were made, my guess is that the server would be inundated with Christian liberty posts within mintues. Not that it is wrong to assert Christian liberty, but my point is that it is very easy to see others' sins.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 4, 2006)

Regarding what people on both sides of this issue are saying, I somewhat agree that the way the items on the original list are stated does not exactly make for the most useful of helpful discussion on the issues, from either side.

At the same time, don't overreact to that tone, and thus completely miss the (in my opinion much-needed) real point of that list, and even of the "thou shalt" language - which _of course_ is not used in order to say that some people _literally_ take it to that extent in an _explicit_ way, but rather it is to point to the nature of the very-real underlying mindset that so often accompanies the discussing (and I would say pushing, oftentimes) of those issues.

As Fred noted with regard to some of them, I personally think that is especially relevant to the birth control issue ("you guys don't trust God"), homeschooling, courtship and weekly-communion issues. 



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Globachio_
> ...



Fred, I think you misread Kevin's post to say "the last two items," when it says "at least two items."

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## JJF (Feb 4, 2006)

[qoute]I think the term fundamentalism should be reserved for its standard usage: ie., those opposed to the exercise of Christian liberty to drink in moderation, and other such matters of adiaphora. To lump a diverse group of issues upon which Reformed brethren have passionate convictions as representative of a new type of fundamentalism is to do a disservice to the healthy discussion of those individual issues, and a disservice to the word fundamentalism as it has been historically used. No one that I have ever met or observed has ever equated any of these issues with the gospel, contrary to what has been said. That is hyperbole which does not help the tenor of the discourse on specific debatable issues, and only serves to divide not unite the brethren.[/quote]

Andrew, I only direct the term "Reformed Fundamentalism" towards those who don't think that such matters are in the realm of Christian liberty; For a "Reformed Fundamentalist," these "laws" are emphasized more than the cross, and, when this is done, moralism (pietism) begins to take root and grow. What a "Reformed Fundamentalist" says, in effect, is that you must confess these things or you're not Reformed; where is that in our Confessions?

Yes, the seven "laws" are hyperbolic, but, for a "Reformed Fundamentalist", these seven "laws" become hyperbole. All in all, these "laws" seem to me to be pietistic, not confessional.

Do you say that people must confess these "laws" (even some of them) or they're not Reformed?

[Edited on 4-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Regarding what people on both sides of this issue are saying, I somewhat agree that the way the items on the original list are stated does not exactly make for the most useful of helpful discussion on the issues, from either side.
> 
> At the same time, don't overreact to that tone, and thus completely miss the (in my opinion much-needed) real point of that list, and even of the "thou shalt" language - which _of course_ is not used in order to say that some people _literally_ take it to that extent in an _explicit_ way, but rather it is to point to the nature of the very-real underlying mindset that so often accompanies the discussing (and I would say pushing, oftentimes) of those issues.
> ...


Another  I also believe that the "list" should be read in the context of the Warfield forum on which it appeared and with the subsequent discussion. Some of what I believe is targeted on the list (courtship vs dating for instance, and the author later qualified I think if I recall correctly) but it is the way these issues are "pushed" by some that is the point of criticism in my opinion.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 4, 2006)

> You must not have read some of the countless threads here on homeschooling, birth control, and drinking then. The point is not that the items on the list are unbiblical, but rather the growing tendency within Reformedom to basically equate such things with the gospel.
> 
> Most of these items are becoming on the same level that the "secret rapture" is for Dispensationalism - you can confess whatever you want about Christ, but as soon as you say you don't believe in the secret rapture, well then you probably aren't a Christian.
> 
> ...



Doubtless you're correct on the confusion some of these people have regarding law and gospel. My problem is the way the criticism was levelled. It's intentionally sarcastic and, I would think, somewhat hurtful. Hollywood and the anti-Christian media are very good at those approaches. To bring up the issues in a straightforward way is a healthier, more God-pleasing manner. 

But keep in mind that I say this recognizing that I myself have often - very, very, very often - have resorted to cutting, wounding, sarcasm. Some of my past posts in other places have hurt some people terribly. So please understand that I'm not trying to be superior, just speaking from my own disgusting experiences.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



This is the point.

For example: we homeschool. I think homeschooling is good. I even can say that I think homeschooling represents the best approach to educating one's children. What I won't say is that those who don't homeschool are sinning, or are "lower Christians," or treat them with suspicion. I won't preach against Christian schools, or even the idea of public schooling _per se_ from the pulpit. I will preach about ungodliness in the public schools, and the use of wisom, but I will not make a "law" about this.

It should strike us before we become so adamant about something like birth control - on either side - that the Confessions (any of them) do not speak to these issues. That does not mean that they are completely up for grabs, but it does mean that we need to use some caution in being adamant.

Does it not both anyone else that there are Reformed church members who don't think very often about the active obedience of Christ, or the work of the Holy Spirit, or the benefits of baptism, but who go on and on about the latest Reformed cultural fad?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> Fred, I think you misread Kevin's post to say "the last two items," when it says "at least two items."



I did. I am sorry Kevin. I mis "heard" you. My apologies.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Does it not both anyone else that there are Reformed church members who don't think very often about the active obedience of Christ, or the work of the Holy Spirit, or the benefits of baptism, but who go on and on about the latest Reformed cultural fad?


Bothers me!
We don't preach our distinctives at FPCR; we may teach them when appropriate; but our ministers preach "the gospel."


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 4, 2006)

> 1.) Thou must drink wine.
> 2.) THou must have as many children as thou art physically able to have (because God is sovereign over the womb.).
> 3.) Thou must see home schooling as superior to Christian schools (and we have just begun to homeschool!).
> 4.) THou must court, and thy parents shalt choose thy mate. Never shalt thou date, neither shalt thou go to the soda shop, neither shalt thou attend a movie with a girl.
> ...



I'll bite. At this point--mainly because I have battles to fight that dwarf the above in size and importance, so I really don't care either way. At this point my "fundie" worldview can be summarized by the Montgomery Gentry song, "You do your thing, I'll do mine."

1. Granted that some abuse the privilege, arminian baptists still outnumber Reformed people cultrually speaking, so I think continuing a sensible argument for healthy moderation is still very much needed. I will quote non-theonomist Mike Horton (by definition correct), "If you are at a restaurant and the waitress asked your table, 'Can I get you all some drinks,' and they reply, 'we are Christians, we don't drink.' Then You must (argues Horton) order a beer for the gospel." Ok, overstatement but the point is valid.

2. God does control the womb, and children are a blessing, but God aslo controls the womb by secondary causes. I refuse to enter the argument, so I ignore this "fundie commandment."

3. I see homeschooling and Christian schooling equally valid. but not homeschooling is not a sin. 

4. While the modern dating system is a colossal train wreck, and an emotional roller coster, whatever. I realize that courting is strained in some situations. The fact that not everyone does it perfectly in no way militates against it. 

5. I don't know of any personally who have this position (I don't doubt they exist, though). I draw lines where the Bible draws lines. Do you know how Ruth and Boaz courted? Boaz got drunk one night and woke up with a beautiful woman beside him!

6. I don't lose sleep over it.

7. Along with fundamentalist Mike Horton, I personally like communion every week, but my home town church doesn't and I have never mentioned it in any way.

[Edited on 2--4-06 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 2--4-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 4, 2006)

Good points, Jacob.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Does it not both anyone else that there are Reformed church members who don't think very often about the active obedience of Christ, or the work of the Holy Spirit, or the benefits of baptism, but who go on and on about the latest Reformed cultural fad?



That is an excellent point, and should serve, if nothing else, at least as a sign that there is some truth in our day to the point of the initial list.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## cupotea (Feb 4, 2006)

> I did. I am sorry Kevin. I mis "heard" you. My apologies.



No problem.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 4, 2006)

Jacob,

Right on the money, and so is Dr. Horton. I've been around fundamentalist, family, who had so much legal spirit entrenched around them that one was afraid to draw a breath of air for doing wrong or in a way that might "hurt my witness" or be "unspiritual". I was a new Christian back then and joined right in. I honestly think it would have been more freeing to have flagelated myself back then, the mental pressures always out weigh the physical.

It's like Luther said we can make a legal requirement out of anything, even freedom. The one that must be resisted is the one making a "thing" (drink or not drinking) a legal requirement by attaching some "spiritual" weight to it. We have to be careful here for few in modern America today make explicit legalisms, they rather come in the form of "the more spiritual man ____; or to protect my witness I do/don't _______", and so forth. Rarely do we see an old blue law like in the days of old.

I do find it quite amazing that Paul is warning against a doctrine of demons in the church over forbidding of marriage, eating and drinking among Roman gentiles who normally would have over indulged easily and no problem doing so especially the later two as it was. That is one would think the warning superflous given the indulgent culture - yet Paul gives it anyway which shows the weight of fear against legal ways obscuring Christ. And this is like modern America which too is over indulgent, yet the legal pietist insist that due to the culture we need to abstain from "xyz" as they hide the Gospel and disdain the cross. Paul does not seem to agree with such foolishness seeing the bigger picture.

Ldh

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## cupotea (Feb 4, 2006)

> It's like Luther said we can make a legal requirement out of anything, even freedom. The one that must be resisted is the one making a "thing" (drink or not drinking) a legal requirement by attaching some "spiritual" weight to it. We have to be careful here for few in modern America today make explicit legalisms, they rather come in the form of "the more spiritual man ____; or to protect my witness I do/don't _______", and so forth. Rarely do we see an old blue law like in the days of old.



Let me try and wrap my head around some of this and see if I am getting it.

I recently emailed a friend and told him about the "Crown & Covenant" set that I just got. It's a wonderful set of historical novels (supposedly for kids, but I find 'em to be great) about the Covenanters in 17th century Scotland. I offered them to him once I was finished.

He responded that he doesn't read novels, or fiction of any kind. Nor will he allow his children to do so. The reason is they are "entertainment" that borders on, if not cross over into, self-indulgence and sin. After all, he noted, there are no novels mentioned in Scripture. 

I found that to be rather legalistic and a bit over the top. 

Is this the mentality and theology that we're speaking about?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 4, 2006)

Kevin,

I think so. Luther always spoke of the freedom of the Gospel as highest, except if "a freedom" became a new imposition or law imposed. It is always detected when not necessarily explicitly stated, "obey this law to be save/go to heaven", but rather if an implicit spiritual pressure is brought to bear upon the conscience of the believer (the more spiritual christian will ______). For in the Christians hearers mind this becomes a legal obligation to be done if he wants to be "more spiritual" (for what believer doesn't desire this?) or conversely the one already "doing the more spiritual thing" it becomes a point of pride and lauding over his fellow believers. 

Luther always pointed men objectively outward to the objective Cross of Christ for knowing without doubt one's status before God, all other things cannot give that status (e.g. life is good doesn't mean blessing from God and life is suffering doesn't mean God has abandoned you). 

This idea that a "thing is pleasing" or "more spiritual" always feeds works mentality, the legal way, driving men to either despair or pride depending upon the disposition at the time. This is the reason for a singular fixed focus on the Cross of Christ, then just live one's life. The freedom comes from not needing to "please" God by anything, but trusting Christ who has pleased God. This frees the believer from religious legal activity, which is futile anyway, to naturally love and serve their neighbor per their various vocations and positions in life. That's how true good works naturally arise from faith. Faith in a sense stops working for God by trusting in Christ, and then one's gifts, vocation can then naturally serve without being self-interested.

But if I impose a freedom as a "law" upon a man saying something like if you truly were free you'd drink a beer, I'm merely creating another law on an other wise free activity. Rather teach them the freedom they do have for Christ's sake and then if they wish they can. Now those who say "I don't drink a beer to protect my witness" are to be openly resisted for "their witness" is to working my way to heaven. One can easily discover this by asking an unbeliever what it means that "Christians don't drink". Their answer gives one the witness being born to.

The book example would function similar. An unbeliever might hear that and say, "The Christian religion is about rigour and moral fortitude", not redemption. In which case it visible differs none from Islam, Mormonism and well the whole of all fallen religion.

I hope that helps or I'm confused, which is quite possible!

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Jacob,
> 
> Right on the money, and so is Dr. Horton. I've been around fundamentalist, family, who had so much legal spirit entrenched around them that one was afraid to draw a breath of air for doing wrong or in a way that might "hurt my witness" or be "unspiritual". I was a new Christian back then and joined right in. I honestly think it would have been more freeing to have flagelated myself back then, the mental pressures always out weigh the physical.
> ...





Human beings are in many ways extremist by nature and there's a tendency to overreact. The end result of much of this wrangling over drinking, schooling, etc is to obscure the gospel. That's not to say we shouldn't have an opinion on such things, but way too much ink is spilled on relatively minor issues.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> 
> 
> > It's like Luther said we can make a legal requirement out of anything, even freedom. The one that must be resisted is the one making a "thing" (drink or not drinking) a legal requirement by attaching some "spiritual" weight to it. We have to be careful here for few in modern America today make explicit legalisms, they rather come in the form of "the more spiritual man ____; or to protect my witness I do/don't _______", and so forth. Rarely do we see an old blue law like in the days of old.
> ...







Exactly.





This is not to say that there are not bad things to read, or that some novels should be offlimits. But it is the kind of mentailty that lumps the worst of fiction in with Dickins, or Milton, or you name it, and then declares (implicitly or explicitly) that somehow you are less of a Christian (or maybe not one at all) unless you follow along with that rule.

If that is not fundamentalism, I'm not sure what is.

[Edited on 2/4/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## satz (Feb 4, 2006)

[quoted]He responded that he doesn't read novels, or fiction of any kind. Nor will he allow his children to do so. The reason is they are "entertainment" that borders on, if not cross over into, self-indulgence and sin. After all, he noted, there are no novels mentioned in Scripture. [/quote]

The problem, i think, arises when people start to make statements like these and do not give an verses whatsoever to back them up. Or, they give some very general verses about how much God hates sin, or why worldliness is wrong, but which do not address the issue itself, even indirectly.

Our response to such assertions should always be 'where are your verses?' Because there are many around who love to use strange logic by which they can twist anything until it is sinful. I am also very wary whenever someone uses the old 'it was never mentioned in the bible, so it must be wrong argument'. Yes, that principle does apply in worship, but to apply it to every area of life is , i think, something the bible never intended.

That's not to say that simply because there is no 'thou shalt not XXX' in the bible means that XXX is definitely and always permissible. But there is a world of difference between someone who may say something like ' i don't read novels because i do not want to make provision for the flesh' and the reasoning in the quote above, which is really ,In my humble opinion, a load of unproven assertions.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 4, 2006)

> Does it not both anyone else that there are Reformed church members who don't think very often about the active obedience of Christ, or the work of the Holy Spirit, or the benefits of baptism, but who go on and on about the latest Reformed cultural fad?



I know several have 'Amen'ed this quote, but Fred has hit the core of the inability for the Reformed church to actually affect the world with the Gospels. As I call it, Sanctified Gnat Swallowing. 

I posit a question. How do we prevent this?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> 
> 
> > Does it not both anyone else that there are Reformed church members who don't think very often about the active obedience of Christ, or the work of the Holy Spirit, or the benefits of baptism, but who go on and on about the latest Reformed cultural fad?
> ...



One thing that would help is to somehow teach church members what issues are important, and what issues are secondrary and left to Christian liberty, or at least how to recognize them. And then teach what it means to enjoy Christian liberty (and when to rightfully lay it aside for the weaker brother), not the justifying of our own actions to nay-sayers, but the humble admission to each other that we haven't got it figured out yet so we will not bind each others conscience about secondary matters. Weaker brothers need to understand it more than the mature ones I think. But it is often a mature christian's temptation to use his liberty to snub his critics. Every church new membership class should cover this topic, especially in our day and age of hyper-individualism and postmodernism. Really, it gets back to good old fashioned Christian love. I love my family even though we have serious disagreements. The disagreement doesn't make me love them less. I do not think less of them because we disagree. I know we are all sinners and God will help us work it out. It must be the same in the church. The Word of God is bigger than my own conscience. Love and humility must guide all our actions and disagreements. That is what keeps a church from being petty and divisive, and therefore ever ready to be witness for the gospel. The church should be _the_ model for the world about how to handle minor disagreements among it's people.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2006)

> He responded that he doesn't read novels, or fiction of any kind. Nor will he allow his children to do so. The reason is they are "entertainment" that borders on, if not cross over into, self-indulgence and sin. After all, he noted, there are no novels mentioned in Scripture.



[/quote]

Since I am probably one of the REformed fundamentalists that the post indirectly aimed at, I would like to comment on this. I LOVE fiction. The Bible is the ultimate fairy tale. But more to the point, I would like to comment on the last sentence. There are no novels in the Bible, that is true, but there are giants, dragons, maidens, brides, men on horseback carrying swords killing dragons, etc. (BTW: I hold that Leviathan was NOT a crocodile. It was a many-headed sea dragon that Yahweh killed). In short, we should let the bible determine what is fantasy/fiction and what is not. It says a lot more about dragons and giants than it does many things we consider normal. There is a good CS Lewis quote to this effect.


----------



## crhoades (Feb 5, 2006)

Pietism breeds fundamentalism. There are those in reformedom that ignore all things justice - whether abortion, statism, whatever. The only thing they talk about is salvation. To me, that is the other horn in the delima. Should we strain gnats at the expense of the gospel? By no means! But should we be so focused on redemptive historical typology that we allow 1.3 million babies be slaughtered every year either? God forbid! 

The solution is to neither deride those who take an interest in education, politics, etc. or to deride those who don't. We are a body. I'm probably a toe...others can be hands, eyes, etc. but we are all under the head Christ Jesus. Some are to function and focus more in one sphere than in another. No one should try to force everyone into their own sphere or think they are less of a Christian for focusing on other things. With all of that being said...while there are areas for emphasis of course we should all try and reach a balanced and informed outlook on the world. We are called to take _every_ thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Every one. The gospel thoughts and the law thoughts. 

Another thing that is spurning this on is an improper understanding of the law of God. We have lost the art of causistry. People in the pews have not witnessed pastors exegete the law of God or the WLC to show the weightier things of the law. We have the mint and cummin down to a science. The law is not preached fiercely enough to lay all of our self-righteousness aside in flames. When we are truly humbled and count our own works but dung - then we can realize we are one beggar trying to further God's kingdom to His glory to another beggar who is trying to do the same. 

Final thought...for the parishoners who take an interest in bringing different spheres (politics, business, education, science, etc.) under the Lordship of Christ - a pastor or elder that would come along side them and look at Scripture with them and try to guide them all the while encouraging them and helping them to keep perspective will go much, much farther than telling them that they shouldn't think about those things and only focus on Christ and his righteousness. 

Please read all of the above in a balanced way. There are abuses on both sides. If I highlighted one side or the other in the post in no way discounts that there are extremes on the other side. Just wanting to make sure we don't hit either horn.

We 100% don't want to confuse law and gospel but neither do we want to diminish them either.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

If I may add my two cents' worth:

The list is a literary device to make a point. The idea is that some things are treated as marks of orthodoxy when they are not so at all. Or to say it another way, some views have become sacrosanct only by sheer weight of followers, not by weight of argument or necessity. As such, as a literary device, these points make quite an impact. And most of them hit home somewhere. Some of them hit home with me. Like it or not, sometimes things like these points need to be said. Sometimes things need to be exaggerated for us to see things the way they really are.

However, they do make their point rather bluntly. If these points are making a point, it also follows that these notions put in such exaggerated form are being propagated under the charge of present day rulers in the church. No one tied their arms behind their backs. They didn't have to allow an open pulpit, allowing ministers to necessitate what was indifferent. So the jabs go two ways. 

The point is, these things point at us collectively, not merely individually. I'm not a follower of Van Til, but I am just as much to blame for taking so long to come to my senses about the arguments that have upheld his views for so long. I am now ashamed that I let some of them run over me like they did. And the mistakes are not that hard to see now. 

I too was a homeschooler proponent, but I've now seen some of the excesses and ramifications. And now I am in no position to send my children even to a Christian School, much less educate them at home. It just can't be done. I've had my ivory towers shaken, and even pulled down. But it took someone to say something, perhaps in a literary way like the list, to help me see things with a clearer eye. 

Let's not be too judgmental, unless it is of ourselves first. No one is without blame here. And I don't suppose that the members of the Warfield board would think that this leaves them out. If we are going to point fingers at others, just remember that in doing so we have to point three back at ourselves. And this is not just a convenient saying.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 6, 2006)

I think there are times, where in discussion, that BOTH sides see the other as "judging" or "looking down upon" when in actuality, they are simply stating their beliefs, their understanding of scripture, and their reasons.

When a person on the "Christian Liberty" side of the issue is looking at it, they see the other as "fundamentalists"and condemning...when a person on the side of seeing something as scripturally commanded and/or historically practiced, they see the other side as "liberal" and condemning. KWIM?

Many of us in our practice at church and in society, live what we belief, but don't go around shoving it down eachother's throats. (I say many...but there are those who do on BOTH sides...we had someone at our last church that constantly barraged hubby about my covering and our daughters wearing dresses...when we NEVER said anything negative to him about the females in his family).

However, this does NOT mean that we can't openly state our opinions, write books, promote ideals, etc for EITHER side. To imply that only one side should have a voice or be sarcastically parodied is simply not in the interest of the covenant community.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

Colleen:

When I was in the CRC they were talking about the "common sense" that women and men are equal. In other words, they were pushing the status quo on us as if it were a mark of orthodoxy, as if we were arguing against an overwhelming majority. So I just did a simple thing. I wore my hat to church, and was going to tell an elder who defended the egalitarian view that I was going to wear it into the sactuary. If we wanted to stop me, he had two choices: either have all the women remove their hats too; or admit that there was indeed a difference between how he regarded women and men. Well, I did not do it. My wife talked me out of it before I did it. I was young and more brash then, but I don't think I'd have gone through with it anyways. 

But she suggested that all the girls wear hats, and that would do the same thing. So we did that. Without making any accusations or saying anything to anyone about it, that is what we did. And so many were put off by it, because they knew exactly what the statement was that we were making. I might just as well have worn a hat into church. It had the same effect.

So even though you don't say anything, you really are saying something by our actions. And some take offence to it, while others admire you for it. But you're right, the offence is not yours, but those who are offended by you practicing your piety consistently. And these things do clash; we can't have mutually exclusive practices living side by side while thinking all is well.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 6, 2006)

I'm from the south, our homage to fundamentalism is to rebut liberal Yankees. Liberal yankees figure since religion doesn't matter much anyway, they surmise, "You worship God in your way, and we will worship him in our way." In the South, on the other hand, it does matter, and we like to say, "You worship God in your way, and we will worship him in _His_ way."


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I think there are times, where in discussion, that BOTH sides see the other as "judging" or "looking down upon" when in actuality, they are simply stating their beliefs, their understanding of scripture, and their reasons.
> 
> When a person on the "Christian Liberty" side of the issue is looking at it, they see the other as "fundamentalists"and condemning...when a person on the side of seeing something as scripturally commanded and/or historically practiced, they see the other side as "liberal" and condemning. KWIM?


LadyFlynt, this is certainly a danger to be avoided. I realize we've butted heads recently on some of these issues, so maybe you were thinking about me when you wrote this. In general, I don't make a big deal about these issues with Christians I know, so long as they don't try to push them on others.

However, and unfortunately, it becomes an altogether different matter in the public sphere. When people are making sweeping, absolute condemnations regarding these issues (public schools, contraception, etc.) in a public setting, where others might be watching, hearing, or reading (such as the puritanboard), it becomes important from the "Christian liberty" perspective to _actually defend_ Christian liberty. If the things on the list really are matters of Christian liberty, then someone has to stand up and say so, even if only for the sake of those who might be "innocently" reading in the background.

I've had friends who read this board and generally respect those who write here, so they tend to take what is posted here very seriously. If they're only reading one side of the issue, and are not aware of the various nuances within the confessional Reformed world, they'll likely conclude that there is no diversity among confessionalists, and that the anti-contraceptive position (for example) is "the" Reformed position. In the past, I remember feeling bullied into believing that my positions, on certain issues, just weren't Reformed enough for some of the folks here, even though my positions were well within the boundaries of the WCF.

Here on the puritanboard, there are some on both sides of many these debates, all of whom _are confessional_. As I recall, when I registered for the puritanboard, I never agreed to only promote homeschooling or to never promote contraception, but I did agree to remain confessional. Thus, there needs to be room for adequate representation on all sides, without the Christian liberty position being maligned as anti-confessional or anti-Reformed.

It was the Westminster Assembly, after all, who wrote this:


> _WCF 20.2_
> God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.



Brian

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I'm from the south, our homage to fundamentalism is to rebut liberal Yankees. Liberal yankees figure since religion doesn't matter much anyway, they surmise, "You worship God in your way, and we will worship him in our way." In the South, on the other hand, it does matter, and we like to say, "You worship God in your way, and we will worship him in _His_ way."



Are you rebutting liberals who happen to be Yankees? Or are you naively saying that all Yankees are liberals? 

Unfortunately, not everyone in the South shares your understanding of how God should be worshipped... the South has their fair share of liberals too...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 6, 2006)

Brian, actually I wasn't thinking of anyone specifically...more of specific debates the board has had...rest assured, I'm not hunting down ppl.

This is a board for discussion and debate. The point I was trying to make is that one side INSISTS that the said issues be seen as "Christian Liberty". The debate in the issues is "is it Christian Liberty or a Scriptural precedence/command/and historically applied?", because as you have seen, some of these issues don't fall into the Christian Liberty compartment for some ppl. Thus, this is where we have the concept of one side "judging" the other. It may be in the sense that those persons believe other persons are wrong. But then, the other side are calling out terms such as "legalist", "unrealistic", "fundamentalist" (which I was raised, so don't really see it as an offensive term), and "biblicist". However, please note...stating that one is believed to be wrong or disagreed with is a far stretch from name calling and mud slinging. So I guess neither the twain shall meet...but will have to learn to live with eachother and occasionally be willing to discuss their views...however, I believe this can be done respectfully...on BOTH sides of any issue.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 6, 2006)

Perhaps it would help to remind people of the definition of "legalism":

It is not someone who is stricter in conscience than me.

It is someone who equates a behavior as necessary for salvation (or implies as much).


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Perhaps it would help to remind people of the definition of "legalism":
> 
> It is not someone who is stricter in conscience than me.
> ...



While I do recognize legalism in this sense, isn't there also another sense of legalism that is teaching the commands of men as though they were the commands of God? (pointing to Matt. 15 and WCF 20.2)

Also, I'd like to point out that _teaching_ the dictates of one's conscience is different than _practicing_ the same. Opening your mouth and telling other people to do something is different than quietly doing it yourself.

Brian

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Perhaps it would help to remind people of the definition of "legalism":
> 
> It is not someone who is stricter in conscience than me.
> ...



"or implies as much". I think that's what the list is doing - implying that people who practice these things have legalistic attitudes. A few examples have been given, but not much hard evidence. 

The list judges the hearts of a whole group of undefined people without giving any evidence other than the assertion that these people are prigs. Tell me who has ever said these behaviors are "necessary for salvation". Of course that is wrong. That would be heresy - to say _anything_ other than faith is necessary for salvation. How did the "imply" these things are necessary for salvation? 

Generalizing that people who promote these things are bing legalistic is wrong. Who are these people? If this is a problem, there should be some clear examples - publications, sermons, pamphlets, posts, where people actually are making these behaviors legal requirements _for salvation_. If all they are arguing is these are the best means of obedience to God's Word, then generalizing is less useful.

Here's a equally helpful generalization: I think it is common for people to falsely judge others who advocate stricter moral standards as being legalistic. 

As someone noted earlier, "like Luther said we can make a legal requirement out of anything, _even freedom._ "


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> While I do recognize legalism in this sense, isn't there also another sense of legalism that is teaching the commands of men as though they were the commands of God? (pointing to Matt. 15 and WCF 20.2)
> 
> ...



What you have described is genus _Legalism_ species _Pharisaism_, and is encompassed by Fred's definition.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> ...



I agree. Thanks Tom.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> ...



In my understanding, it is one thing to require for salvation more than what Scripture requires, but another thing to command, not as a matter of salvation, but still as a matter of commanding the conscience, things that are not mandated by Scripture.

No one on this board from the anti-contraception position (for example) has made their position a matter of salvation. This is why I distinguish between (at least) two kinds of legalism.

Brian


----------

