# The Most Hideous Doctrine - Don Fortner



## JM

A new vid I posted on YouTube.

[video=youtube;42zgwz-0G1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42zgwz-0G1E[/video]

The preaching in this video is from the sermon "The Most Hideous Doctrine In The World" by Don Fortner

Another video featuring portions from the same sermon can be found at the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_0WIEMroww&feature=channel_video_title


----------



## Pergamum

Very good clip.

I preached at Pastor Fortner's church once on a wednesday night. They endured me. I am sure they were glad to get this man's booming voice back the next Sunday. Learning I was headed to the mission field, he gave me a stack of cd-roms containing the equivalent of dozens of books on theology. I would have thanked him more heartily had I not been choking on his ciger smoke. He also gave me a cd of his own sermon outlines, which is really good stuff. 

I also quoted Fortner's sermons (along with Jonathan Edwards) for my Master's thesis at RTS proposing that the saints in heaven will witness hell and that this will NOT be a grievous sight for them to behold (i.e. hell, or at least some knowledge of hell will be known and maybe even seen by the saints in heaven as an evidence of God's everlasting grace to them, and thus can even be seen as a gift from God to the saints..).

Fortner and the pastors that fellowship with him are called Sovereign Grace Baptists. This is also the moniker my circle of churches uses. There are doctrinal differences among us and some of those who Fortner fellowships with (and Fortner himself perhaps) believe in "eternal justification (the doctrine that God did not merely decree to justify the elect from all eternity, doing it in time.... but that God actually did justify the Elect from all eternity). Also, some critics would accuse some of the Sovereign Grace Baptists of being antinomian, but if this is so, it would be doctrinal only and not practical. Also, one time I heard Fortner, speaking of David's sin with Bathsheba, state that God was just as pleased with David when he was in Bathsehba's arms as He was when David was...(I think) fighting Goliath. I hope that he meant that God "loved" David equally, though it seems like the phrase "was pleased with" was used...and might have been used, for shock value.

While disagreeing on some doctrinal points with them, Fortner and the Sovereign Grace Baptists who fellowship with him are plain-spoken preachers who are often very powerful and I have found blessing in listening to most of them (though, sometimes their tone is more often polemical than irenic and their sermons are sometimes an equal parts condemnation of Arminianism as it is an explanation of the truth). Many, in addition, would deny the term "calvinism" or "reformed" and would resist the need for seminary or for confessions of faith (i.e. they are not merely non-confesssional, but some are anti-confessional). I would I could project my voice and preach like some of these guys.


----------



## JM

> I would have thanked him more heartily had I not been choking on his ciger smoke.



It's funny you mentioned that...a few years ago I hit it off with a member of his church on CF, we share a lot of similar beliefs including justification from eternity and he sent me a pipe! Now I can choke people with good doctrine and smoke as well.


----------



## Pergamum

Jason,

Maybe we should start another thread on the doctrine of "justification from eternity" in order to deal with your error. Before your eventual lung cancer kicks in....

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Here's a few places to start:

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

"Eternal Justification" by Louis Berkhof


----------



## Pilgrim

Some of the Sovereign Grace Baptists appear to be more or less confessional in the sense of actually affirming one covenant of grace. I listened to a sermon by Henry T. Mahan the other day that seemed to affirm it, at least in a way that a dispensationalist or even a NCT adherent would not. In my experience they are not necessarily scared of the Calvinist or Reformed label but don't think it's the most accurate label to describe their views. Unlike many current Calvinistic Baptists, many of them tend to think that those labels properly refer to Reformed paedobaptists. Thus they will instead use terms like Sovereign Grace or Doctrines of Grace. 

Even if they do affirm one covenant of grace, often they will not have a well defined covenant theology. Some will affirm the unity of the covenant of grace only to turn around and state that not only does the Mosaic Covenant contain a republication of the Covenant of Works (a la Kline) but that it IS a Covenant of Works. You can see this with the recently published _The Fatal Flaw_ by my friend Jeffrey Johnson. I think it's a good book in many respects, but I'm still somewhat bewildered by those who claim to be covenantal confessional Baptists (and who are not from the "Sovereign Grace" camp referred to here) touting this book as being the single best treatment of infant baptism from a covenantal standpoint when the author when the author repeatedly states throughout the book that the Mosaic Covenant is a Covenant of Works. Anyone familiar with the LBCF should see the inconsistency there and the author himself acknowledges it.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is Fortner on the subject:

What Does It Mean to Be Reformed



> The 1689 Baptist Confession states the heresy even more explicitly. "This personal work of sanctification is indeed carried further…Sin's mastery is completely broken…Evil desires are increasingly weakened…moving towards a fulness of holiness in the fear of God."



and



> In the 1689 Baptist Confession we read, "The sum total of God's revelation concerning all things essential to His own glory, and to the salvation and faith and life of men, is either explicitly set down or implicitly contained in the Holy Scripture." In other words, God's Word must be supplemented by our reason and logic to determine our faith and practice!



Above are two selections for the highlight reel.

---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

Chris:

I wouldn't consider Jeff Johnson or his dad in the same side of the camp of Sovereign Grace Baptists as Henry Mahan and Fortner (unless I be lumped in among them as well). Some of the Mahan/Fortner folks seem to entertain ideas such as eternal justification and their calvinism is much too high for me.

Before publication of his book, me and Jeff took about a 2-hour hike and discussed his upcoming publication, which I was pleased to read even though I disagreed with him about the Mosaic economy, even though I myself am somewhat confused as to the place of the Mosaic economy and he is much more studied than I.... I myself consider the mosaic economy to be part of the unfolding covenant of grace even though it seems to be a republication of the covenant of works and has many aspects as such (but instead of to Adam alone, to Israel corporately). Though that Galatians verse speaks of covenants (plural)...and this confuses me. ...send any guidence my way if you can.


Most of my Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches which support me claim to hold to the 1689 but many are single pastor-led instead of elder-led and most do not hold to the Reformed Baptist view of the Sabbath or the moral law. They "generally agree" with it, I guess and others opt for the 1644, thinking (falsely) that the two documents teach something different.


----------



## JM

Pergamum said:


> Jason,
> 
> Maybe we should start another thread on the doctrine of "justification from eternity" in order to deal with your error. Before your eventual lung cancer kicks in....
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------
> 
> Here's a few places to start:
> 
> Banner of Truth Trust General Articles
> 
> "Eternal Justification" by Louis Berkhof



lol, no thank you...especially since you started by posting an article from B of T. lol


----------



## Rufus

JM said:


> lol, no thank you...especially since you started by posting an article from B of T. lol



Something wrong with Banner of Truth?


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Rufus said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, no thank you...especially since you started by posting an article from B of T. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something wrong with Banner of Truth?
Click to expand...


According to a certain of the particular Baptists in this circle, especially Ella and "New Focus" magazine authors, Banner of Truth is not trustworthy and promotes bad theology and distorts by-gone theologian's 'correct' views to make them seem to support 'aberrant' views. I don't speak as a proponent of this perspective, but just what I've learned having come into contact with one in this circle.


----------



## JM

I stopped reading anything from B of T after finding out they would remove whatever they thought objectionable from the works they reprint.

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 AM ----------




AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, no thank you...especially since you started by posting an article from B of T. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something wrong with Banner of Truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to a certain of the particular Baptists in this circle, especially Ella and "New Focus" magazine authors, Banner of Truth is not trustworthy and promotes bad theology and distorts by-gone theologian's 'correct' views to make them seem to support 'aberrant' views. I don't speak as a proponent of this perspective, but just what I've learned having come into contact with one in this circle.
Click to expand...


http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_106.pdf

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/pinks-sovereignty-god-development-38897/


----------



## Pergamum

Maybe you should stop reading Ella.


----------



## JM

I didn't even quote Ella.


----------



## py3ak

Jason, I think it's hardly fair to act as though BoT will remove anything they disagree with from any work. They publish, for instance, both sides of John Owen's self-contradiction in his works, though they could hardly agree with both. And if you boycott them on the basis of Pink's _Sovereignty of God_, for which, after all, they did get his wife's permission, until quite recently you were depriving yourself of easy access to much of the best literature of the past, and even now you are depriving yourself from hard copies of that literature. Who else has published the _Works_ of Sibbes, Charnock, Flavel, Swinnock?


----------



## Pergamum

JM said:


> I didn't even quote Ella.



You were quoting him in your mind.... JEDI MIND TRICK!


----------



## seajayrice

Pergamum said:


> Maybe you should stop reading Ella.


----------



## JM

Perg and his mind tricks...I don't know what is what anymore.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

JM said:


> I stopped reading anything from B of T after finding out they would remove whatever they thought objectionable from the works they reprint.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, no thank you...especially since you started by posting an article from B of T. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something wrong with Banner of Truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to a certain of the particular Baptists in this circle, especially Ella and "New Focus" magazine authors, Banner of Truth is not trustworthy and promotes bad theology and distorts by-gone theologian's 'correct' views to make them seem to support 'aberrant' views. I don't speak as a proponent of this perspective, but just what I've learned having come into contact with one in this circle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_106.pdf
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/pinks-sovereignty-god-development-38897/
Click to expand...

Mind you, Jason, I see the point of frustration that Ella and others has, as well as that of authors of the tract that you linked. I find the revisions regrettable. I am a high Calvinist myself, but would not find a great deal of kinship with Ella and "NF." The objects of God's love, the loose use of "free offer" popular today, the hazy meaning of "duty faith" etc - I share these concerns. But where I disagree is with the "NF" views on moral law and their case for eternal justification. Likewise, I'm covenantal and paedobaptist. But, I would bet you that I'd be labeled "hyper" in a heartbeat for the places where I and "NF" do agree. My point in saying what I said was to represent as fairly and generally as I could without placing wholesale agreement with "NF."


----------



## JM

Thank you Christopher for your post. I think, historically, I have a place at the table. Not all Baptists of the Particular stripe adhered to the 1689 and the Reformed traditions.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Chris:
> 
> I wouldn't consider Jeff Johnson or his dad in the same side of the camp of Sovereign Grace Baptists as Henry Mahan and Fortner (unless I be lumped in among them as well). Some of the Mahan/Fortner folks seem to entertain ideas such as eternal justification and their calvinism is much too high for me.



Perg, thanks for the quotes from Fortner. I am not that familiar with their theology. Practically the sum total of my knowledge is the fact that Mahan was a key figure in the early "Sovereign Grace" movement along with B.B. Caldwell and a few others. Some of the men I met at a Bible camp would occasionally refer to Caldwell. I know some Sovereign Grace men (some of which are close to the Johnsons) who strongly reject eternal justification and ultra-high Calvinism. 

Over the years, I've learned that about the only thing you can count on doctrinally with "Sovereign Grace" Baptists is TULIP and antipaedobaptism. With regard to ecclesiology, some of them are hardly any more Baptist than Bunyan was. Some don't have formal church membership and some who do have it do not insist on immersion on the part of those transferring membership. On the other hand, some are basically Landmark. (And some of those that I've found on Sermon Audio that are more Landmark are actually more covenantal!) So, needless to say they are a rather diverse lot. 



Pergamum said:


> Before publication of his book, me and Jeff took about a 2-hour hike and discussed his upcoming publication, which I was pleased to read even though I disagreed with him about the Mosaic economy, even though I myself am somewhat confused as to the place of the Mosaic economy and he is much more studied than I.... I myself consider the mosaic economy to be part of the unfolding covenant of grace even though it seems to be a republication of the covenant of works and has many aspects as such (but instead of to Adam alone, to Israel corporately). Though that Galatians verse speaks of covenants (plural)...and this confuses me. ...send any guidence my way if you can.



I was pleased to read his book as well and want to go back and re-read portions of it. I was surprised to learn the extent to which Jeffrey's book is covenantal. (I wonder to what extent, if any, his contact with Richard Belcher and Tom Nettles during the process had to do with that.) I knew that your pastor Holmes Moore was covenantal but I had tended to lump Don and Jeff with a group that I'm familiar with that I know is pretty strongly against covenant theology. But there's at least one brother in that circle that I believe is still essentially dispensational and KJV Only, so it resists generalization. Just because a man regularly preaches at a certain camp or conference doesn't necessarily mean he's in large agreement with the host on most issues. But as someone who had only been converted a short while before getting involved with them, I tended to make those kinds of assumptions.

WRT the Mosaic, here lately I've been using the phrase "works principle." I think I know what I mean, but perhaps no one else does! I'm not sure it can quite be said that it's a republication of the COW in the way that Kline and his successors teach. I think referring to it as a conditional covenant in a way that the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants are not is pretty accurate. But admittedly I have a lot more study to do. I'm only now refocusing on covenant theology and the relation between the covenants after not having given it much thought over the past few years. 



Pergamum said:


> Most of my Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches which support me claim to hold to the 1689 but many are single pastor-led instead of elder-led and most do not hold to the Reformed Baptist view of the Sabbath or the moral law. They "generally agree" with it, I guess and others opt for the 1644, thinking (falsely) that the two documents teach something different.



Is there anything in the 1689 that calls for elder-led? I can't find it, but maybe I've missed it. Ideally I think there should be plural eldership. But I don't see a hard distinction between teaching and ruling elders the way that Presbyterians do. Most Baptists don't argue for that kind of distinction, but in my experience most elder-led and elder ruled baptistic churches in practice have that distinction, with some elder boards acting as little more than a board of directors who have little involvement in actual shepherding. 

It seems to me that if a church uses a different ordination process for pastors vs. elders then that is a tacit admission that they are two different offices no matter what title they use.


----------



## bookslover

py3ak said:


> Jason, I think it's hardly fair to act as though BoT will remove anything they disagree with from any work. They publish, for instance, both sides of John Owen's self-contradiction in his works, though they could hardly agree with both. And if you boycott them on the basis of Pink's _Sovereignty of God_, for which, after all, they did get his wife's permission, until quite recently you were depriving yourself of easy access to much of the best literature of the past, and even now you are depriving yourself from hard copies of that literature. Who else has published the _Works_ of Sibbes, Charnock, Flavel, Swinnock?



Ruben, regarding Iain H. Murray's notorious re-write of Pink's book _The Sovereignty of God_, getting his wife's permission is not relevant. The permission wasn't hers to give. But, beyond that, it was unethical for Murray to do what he did. If you disagree with how an author presents a doctrine, you can (a) publish a lengthy review article or a regular-length book review to explain your concerns, or (b) you could write your own book to refute the one you disagree with. But, what you do NOT do is re-write an author's book to suit yourself, wifely permission or not - especially once the author himself is safely dead and unable to object or defend himself.

Murray, in effect, was not willing to allow Arthur Pink to state the doctrine involved the way he wanted to state it. Murray has taken a lot of heat for this over the years, and rightly so.

Fortunately, Baker has kept Pink's original book in print, which is the one I always recommend to readers.


----------



## JM

I don't want to fuss and fight, I thought Fortner had a good message, made a video and wanted to share it. That's all. I understand that some of his teachings are not traditionally Reformed...but I didn't post anything against the traditions of the Reformed confessions.

jm


----------



## py3ak

bookslover said:


> The permission wasn't hers to give.


I'm not sure copyright law would agree with you. But I've never understood why there was a push to print A.W. Pink's stuff in the first place. I think we'd be better off if 90% of the energy that went into publishing things from the 20th century had been invested in republishing things from the 16th. As it stands now, it is apparently more common for people to learn about Reformed doctrine from idiosyncratic exponents rather than from the classical authors.


----------



## bookslover

py3ak said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The permission wasn't hers to give.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure copyright law would agree with you. But I've never understood why there was a push to print A.W. Pink's stuff in the first place. I think we'd be better off if 90% of the energy that went into publishing things from the 20th century had been invested in republishing things from the 16th. As it stands now, it is apparently more common for people to learn about Reformed doctrine from idiosyncratic exponents rather than from the classical authors.
Click to expand...


Well (he said cynically), I think the major reason there was such a "push" to print Pink's writings (starting in the 1950s, not long after Pink's death in 1952) was that publishers quickly realized that Pink had never bothered to formally copyright most of his productions. Everyone's favorite word is "free" - publishers included - so, knowing they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Pink (or anyone else), publishers started publishing him.

As for the classical authors versus modern authors view, two points: (1) aren't you practicing a version of "chronological snobbery"? and (2) Pink may have had his idiosyncrasies, but they were more personal than theological. Pink was writing at a time when theological liberalism had more or less overwhelmed the world (1920s through 1940s). His was one of the few voices trying to hold the fort against them. I value much in Pink's writings. He expresses himself just as well as those 17th - 19th century dead guys do.


----------



## JM

Did anyone like the photos in the video?


----------



## py3ak

bookslover said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The permission wasn't hers to give.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure copyright law would agree with you. But I've never understood why there was a push to print A.W. Pink's stuff in the first place. I think we'd be better off if 90% of the energy that went into publishing things from the 20th century had been invested in republishing things from the 16th. As it stands now, it is apparently more common for people to learn about Reformed doctrine from idiosyncratic exponents rather than from the classical authors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well (he said cynically), I think the major reason there was such a "push" to print Pink's writings (starting in the 1950s, not long after Pink's death in 1952) was that publishers quickly realized that Pink had never bothered to formally copyright most of his productions. Everyone's favorite word is "free" - publishers included - so, knowing they wouldn't have to pay royalties to Pink (or anyone else), publishers started publishing him.
> 
> As for the classical authors versus modern authors view, two points: (1) aren't you practicing a version of "chronological snobbery"? and (2) Pink may have had his idiosyncrasies, but they were more personal than theological. Pink was writing at a time when theological liberalism had more or less overwhelmed the world (1920s through 1940s). His was one of the few voices trying to hold the fort against them. I value much in Pink's writings. He expresses himself just as well as those 17th - 19th century dead guys do.
Click to expand...


The freeness makes sense, but it would also apply to the Puritans and Reformers - though there might be some additional editorial or translational work involved there.

It's not about the time period: it's about the characteristics of the age. There are high points and low points, and the 20th century was a low point in many ways. 
I don't believe all of Pink's idiosyncrasies were merely personal: there is a thread on the board that shows he set out incorrect ideas with regard to sanctification, for instance. 
I can appreciate that all things considered he did good work for his time; but there are many people who labor well within their own time who don't need to be preserved for subsequent generations. As for expressiveness - well, if you compare him to Boettner he doesn't come off too badly I suppose, but there are more than a few throughout the history of the church who have spoken better: with Vos on the one side and Lloyd-Jones on the other, it is unlikely that Pink will win any style awards. I once heard him described as "grimly tolerable" and that seems fairly accurate. 
I don't mean to sound ungrateful: certainly _The Sovereignty of God_ and his studies on _Elisha_ were very helpful to me. But I'm something of a hostile reader: an author has to justify the time spent on him, not only absolutely, but also in comparison of how the time could have been spent. And when others are more attractive, more consistent, more insightful - well, life is short, and art is long: some selection must be made.


----------



## Rufus

JM said:


> Did anyone like the photos in the video?



Reminds me of New Hampshire (where I live) a bit, except less pine trees, I love the forest.


----------



## Pilgrim

py3ak said:


> Jason, I think it's hardly fair to act as though BoT will remove anything they disagree with from any work. They publish, for instance, both sides of John Owen's self-contradiction in his works, though they could hardly agree with both. And if you boycott them on the basis of Pink's _Sovereignty of God_, for which, after all, they did get his wife's permission, until quite recently you were depriving yourself of easy access to much of the best literature of the past, and even now you are depriving yourself from hard copies of that literature. Who else has published the _Works_ of Sibbes, Charnock, Flavel, Swinnock?



I don't know of a single premillennialist among those who have been strongly identified with BoT. But they don't excise the decidedly premillennial parts of Ryle's _Expository Thoughts_, not to mention the fact that they would consider him to be shaky at best on Limited Atonement. (In that case however the only choice would be to publish or not publish given the nature of the work. Murray even wrote a book in which he wrote some nice things about Wesley! 

It appears that guarding against perceived Hyper-Calvinism was an issue for BoT, especially early on e.g. _Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism_.

Have they ever edited anything else in the way that they did Pink? (I know some of I. Murray's own writings have come under criticism from some quarters with regard to historical accuracy and related issues, but that's a separate issue. And some no doubt think they have neglected Puritan writings on other subjects. But that's not the same as editing a previously published work.)

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Chris:
> 
> I wouldn't consider Jeff Johnson or his dad in the same side of the camp of Sovereign Grace Baptists as Henry Mahan and Fortner (unless I be lumped in among them as well). Some of the Mahan/Fortner folks seem to entertain ideas such as eternal justification and their calvinism is much too high for me.



Here's a message on the Free Offer on the Gospel (and Duty Faith) by a Sovereign Grace Baptist pastor who probably wouldn't be considered to be in the same camp either, albeit for different reasons. The Free Offer of the Gospel - SermonAudio.com


----------



## JM

Another video I made a while ago.

[video=youtube;TPSG2Sxe4AQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPSG2Sxe4AQ&feature=channel_video_title[/video]


----------

