"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath
sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I
am the Son of God?"
(John 10:35-36)
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that
the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,
and to enter into his glory?"
(Luke 24:25-26)
If there is any term that has a negative connotation in American
journalism today, it is "fundamentalism." Fanatics and madmen are called
"fundamentalists." The lunatic fringe of any religion is designated as
"fundamentalist." Contemporary writers identify many forms of
fundamentalism, but insist that they are all based upon ignorance,
hatred, and fear. The odd truth, however, is that real fundamentalism is
a very rational point of view.
The Fundamentalist Movement rose up in the early twentieth century among
evangelical Christians to oppose the growing acceptance and influence of
"liberal" theology in the mainline denominations. They were called
"fundamentalists" because they asserted that Christianity can be defined
by certain "fundamental" doctrines. If a preacher or theologian denies
any of the "fundamentals" he cannot be called a true Christian. An older
term, "orthodoxy," points to what fundamentalists say Christianity is.
Orthodoxy comes from the Greek expression for "straight" or "right"
doctrine. Unorthodox teachers are not to be accepted as representing a
truly Christian point of view. Christians differ on lesser issues, but
the fundamental doctrines actually define Christianity, fundamentalists
say. Those who claim the Christian label but contradict the Christian
faith are wolves in sheep's clothing, false prophets, and not merely new
kinds of Christians. So the fundamentalists said, and on this battleline
they fought.
To them the hallmarks of orthodoxy were obvious. To be a true Christian
one must believe that the scriptures are infallible. This includes
believing in the Genesis account of creation. One must believe that Jesus
Christ is deity in order to be truly Christian. Belief in the virgin
birth is part of this fundamental also. The crucifixion and death of
Christ were an atoning sacrifice for man's sins, they insisted, and no
other "theory of the atonement" is Christian. It is essential to the
Christian faith to believe that Jesus arose literally and bodily from the
dead, they proclaimed. It is also necessary to believe that men are saved
from their sins by faith in Christ alone, and not through their good
deeds or even the sacraments of the church. By these doctrines, all found
in the Bible, fundamentalists separated the sheep from the goats. And
separation is very basic to fundamentalism, since their premise leads to
separation from church bodies and ministerial alliances that do not weed
out the liberals.
Over the years, the liberals that came to dominate the American
ecclesiastical and academic establishments gave fundamentalism a very bad
name. The vilification of this point of view has now escalated to
identifying world terrorism with it! Yet careful consideration of the
fundamentalist view will led us to conclude that it is the only rational
and consistent representation of monotheism in the world! One who follows
the logical path laid out by the various world views will eventually
arrive either at fundamentalism or atheism! This assertion may seem
extreme and indefensible at first, but it does deserve consideration.
God Without the Bible?
Cannot a reasonable person believe in God without believing the Bible?
Fundamentalism is usually associated primarily with belief in every word
of the Bible as the Word of God. All of the fundamentals are derived from
simple faith that whatever the Bible says is true. Yet many claim to
believe in a personal, transcendent God who do not believe that the Bible
is His Word. Are they being logical?
The fact is that we know nothing about a singular, personal,
transcendent, all-powerful, eternal God apart from the Bible! Nobody ever
came up with that idea without the influence of the holy scriptures. Two
of the great montheistic religions (Judaism and Christianity) are
obviously based upon the testimony of the Bible. The third is Islam,
which got its concept of monotheism from the Christians and the Jews!
Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism believes in the Creator-God Western
civilization has so long recognized and revered. They are atheistic or
pantheistic philosophies with spiritual overtones, and pantheism is a
form of atheism if God is defined in the ususal way. The deniers of God
are at least more consistent and logical than those who have a belief in
God not based upon faith in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures!
Both trained and armchair theologians claim to be able to speak about God
without any authoritative source of information about Him! Some speak of
His love, but how do they know without the Bible that God loves us? Some
speak of His justice, but how can they know anything about that apart
from what the Bible says about it? How does anybody know anything about
God without the Bible?
If, as some say, the Bible has been discredited as a reliable witness to
the true God, then we know nothing about Him. The scriptures claim to be
God's self-revelation. Notice what I Corinthians says in Chapter 2.
"We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which
God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes
of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us
by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things
of God." (Verses 7-10)
The words that follow these make it clear that God's Spirit has revealed
the truth about God through the writings of apostles and prophets.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which
is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of
God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things
with spiritual." (Verses 12-13)
II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:21 say the same thing. The Bible is divine
revelation.
Everybody's concept of God, if they believe in one God Who is the Creator
and Ruler of the Universe, is founded on the Bible's revelation of the
One Genesis 1:1 calls "God." They may say that they do not agree with
what the Bible says about God, but they must realize that the very idea
of God originated in the Bible and that we have no other authoritative
information about Him. If the scriptures are not the infallible final
word that Jesus said they are, that they themselves claim to be, and that
Christians have always regarded them as, then man has no knowledge of
God.
The Bible Without Orthodoxy?
Then there are those who want to uphold the Bible in some way, but refuse
to accept orthodox Christianity. Some such people are "cultists" who
claim to believe the Bible to be infallible, but deny such doctrines as
the deity of Christ, His bodily resurrection, or salvation by faith in
Him. Some who want to keep the Bible but discard orthodoxy are liberals
who grant the old Book respect as a religious guide but deny it the
infallibility it claims. All of these people have left logic somewhere
behind!
If the books of scripture claim to be the written Word of God, then they
either are what they claim to be, or they are the worst example religious
fraud in the world! If the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God, it
isn't worth the paper on which it is printed. Those who accept divine
inspiration for the moral and strictly religious sections of scripture,
but reject it for the miracle stories and for some of the historical
accounts, are conveniently ignoring the fact that divine inspiration is
claimed for every section of the Bible!
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God . . ." (II Timothy 3:16)
"Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that
the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,
and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning
himself." (Luke 24:25-27)
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that
accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his
writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)
Jesus (the only Jesus we know about, Jesus Christ of the Bible, the
historic Jesus) taught that the first five books of the Bible were
written by Moses and that they are historically, scientifically, and
religiously accurate. This is clear in Matthew 19.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and
they twain shall be one flesh?" (Verses 4-5)
He also affirmed that Jonah was really swallowed by a whale (See Matthew
12:40-41). When He said that "the scripture cannot be broken," He meant
it! If a man says that the Bible is a good book, and that Jesus was the
Son of God, but that parts of the Bible cannot be trusted, he is not a
logical thinker. We must take God and Christianity and the Bible
together, or else reject them together.
Those who deny the deity of Christ or salvation by faith while still
claiming to be Christians and to believe the Bible are also illogical.
All of the orthodox doctrines are clearly taught in the Bible. The
Watchtower Society must retranslate the New Testament to remove the
teaching Jesus is God (as in Matthew 1:21-23, John 1:1, and John 10:30).
To respect the Bible in any way while denying any facet of orthodoxy is
not reasonable.
Orthodoxy Without Separation?
There are evangelicals who loudly declare that they are not
fundamentalists! Perhaps some of them make this declaration in order to
avoid the stigma the term has gained. However many more say it because
they refuse to accept the fundamentalist insistence on separation from
false doctrine. After the Second World War, there arose a very public
religious movement in America that claimed to be the "New
Evangelicalism." This designation was adopted specifically to reject the
fundamentalist label. The New Evangelicals and their offspring preach the
great "evangelical" (Gospel) doctrines, but do not insist that those who
believe them separate from those who don't. This kind of evangelical will
support liberal denominational programs and will unite with liberals in
religious endeavors. In practice they recognize the unorthodox as
Christians. Although this "new" approach is the prevailing policy of
evangelicals today, it is absolutely unscriptural and completely
irrational.
On the first day of creation, "God divided the light from the darkness"
(Genesis 1:4). There is a difference, a clear distinction, between light
and darkness. In the realm of truth, this distinction and division is
required in all of the Bible.
"And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to
king Jehoshaphat, shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that
hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD." (II
Chronicles 19:2)
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15)
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject .
. ." (Titus 3:10)
If a man must believe in the atoning sacrifice and the justifying
resurrection of the God-Man in order to be saved, shall we call him a
Christian when he publicly denies these truths? Does not recognizing a
man as a legitmate preacher constitute recognizing him as a fellow
Christian? Is a preacher a Christian minister who denies fundamentals of
Christian faith? Actually the New Evangelicalism was and is casuistry. It
follows the morally-bankrupt Jesuit doctrine that the end justifies the
means. Evangelicals today will generally do anything to get a new
opportunity. Their pragmatism outweighs their principles nearly every
time! It is not reasonable to be an evangelical without being a
fundamentalist, to profess belief in the saving Gospel but to deny its
vital importance!
Reason will draw the mind to one of the two extremes on the spectrum of
religion. Either the mind will be drawn toward atheism or to the opposite
end and fundamentalism. Both views can be argued logically, but nothing
in between will survive reasonable examination. Either God has revealed
Himself by the holy scriptures, or we know nothing of a God at all.
Either the Bible is what it claims to be, or it is a foul example of
religious deception. Either the Gospel is true, or the Bible and Christ
and God are false, too. Finally you must end up at atheism or
fundamentalism. In this question we thankfully find the evidence for God
and the Bible far more convincing than the arguments against them. We
will also find that God always guides the humble mind to the truth and to
Himself.
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it
be of God . . ." (John 7:17)
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all
your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)
Monthly Article
June 2003
by Dr. Rick Flanders
currently Pastor of
Juniata Baptist Church
|
Juniata Baptist Church
5656 Washburn Road
Vassar, MI 48768
juniatabaptist@juno.com
(517) 823-7848
|
Dr. Rick Flanders Biographical Data
Converted in 1963 through a radio ministry.
Earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from Bob Jones University.
Honorary D.D. from Pensacola Christian College.
Pastor at Juniata Baptist Church since 1973.
On BCPM Board, (Baptist Church Planting Ministry)
and also MACS. (Michigan Association of Christian School)
- Articles published in the;
- Sword of the Lord
- Baptist Preacher,
- Frontline,
- Christian View of the News,
- Pulpit Helps,
- Maranatha Watchman
- Church Bus News,
- and other national periodicals.
|
