Category: Hot Topics

One Last Thing I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Personal6 Comments

Despite those I’ve offended, I can’t help but notice the overwhelmingly positive response to this little series. And though I might undo that goodwill with this post, it has been worth it if I have at least gotten you to consider these things. 

Change, for me, has been a very slow process. I was raised in the fluff of the IFB, and it takes a long time to get rid of that mindset. Honestly, most of the change has come from people who loved me enough to challenge my assumptions and demand that I defend my positions with Scripture. I am thankful for those who have done so (HT: Kent Brandenburg). And I hope to do the same for my readers.

That said, here is this series’s final installment. Think of it as the 39th stripe. The others can be found if you follow this set of links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and for Part 5, scroll down one post (sorry, I can’t link it right now).

Overstated Anti-Calvinism

And there go all my readers. 

You aren’t going to like this. You’ll probably say mean things about me for writing it. But rabid anti-Calvinism isn’t the answer to Calvinism. And Calvinism isn’t a doctrine of devils. 

I heard a preacher say from the pulpit, twice in fact, in two separate sermons, “The God of Calvinism isn’t the God of the Bible.” 

I didn’t say “Amen.” I understand why good men disagree on the Doctrines of Grace. I recognize why good friends of mine despise Calvinism while other friends embrace it. The disagreement won’t likely end in our lifetimes, and I doubt it will end until the Millenial Reign of Christ. But some of the slanders I hear hurled at Calvinism are absolute garbage.

To say that the God of Calvinism isn’t the God of the Bible, one must also maintain that Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, and most other Baptists before the 1900s were all false prophets and today burning in hell. Because historically, Baptists were nearly all Calvinists until the late 1800s. 

Continue reading “One Last Thing I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists” →

Two More Things I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church3 Comments

Now that I have lost a few friends and alienated a few admirers, I want to move into two areas that might not be as controversial but should still be addressed. But before I do, let me say again that I don’t say these things as the enemy of Independent Baptist churches. Not at all. My dad led our family into an Independent Baptist church when I was maybe 8 or 9, and I have been one ever since. I have no desire to leave. 

One of the things I love about being an Independent Baptist is that we respect each other’s right to be different. I will admit that the idea of being “Independent” is somewhat sullied by the heavy-handed way some leaders have imposed their opinions on everyone else and demanded lock-step loyalty or risk separation and alienation. As I said in an earlier post, the “F” in “IFB” isn’t supposed to mean “Fragile.” But I find that many of my brethren turn into candy canes when they encounter a differing view. 

I also hold some stout and passionate opinions about the way things ought to be in God’s churches. I’ve limited my list to ten of the things I think are more grievous errors among Independent Baptist churches. You are welcome to, as they say, take it or leave it. But as I believe these things contradict Scripture, I find that I must at least appeal to Scripture to call for a return to those legendary “Old Paths” – which, as I understand it, stands for faithfulness to God’s Word.

Here is #8 and #9 on my list of things I wish would change. You can read the earlier installments here, here, here, and especially here.

Using people to build the program

Of all the points I have made so far, I would guess this one will be overlooked more than any. And that’s too bad. Sure, this isn’t a hot-button topic. People haven’t done extensive rage blogging or started podcasts to deal with this particular fault. But still, there it is. 

I doubt this problem is limited to the IFB. But I’m quite sure this is a problem in many IFB churches. I understand how it happens. I’ve been a pastor for long enough to know how easy it is to fill holes and find people to carry on in a ministry they aren’t equipped to do because we have to keep the ministry going. We really should pause for a minute and consider what we are doing.

Continue reading “Two More Things I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists” →

One Big Thing I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Preservation29 Comments

For a few weeks, I’ve been laying out my own personal objections to commonly held views amongst Independent Baptists. I’ve given my wish list in twos up to now. But to keep within a readable word count, I find that I must give you a single point in this article, the seventh of ten things I wish would change among Independent Baptists.

The King James Only controversy is probably the most heated and passionate of all our disputes, both within the IFB and without. Even among those who call themselves King James Only, there are a variety of meanings and heaps of fire all around. For example, the KJV Churches website uses seven categories, five of which refer to varying degrees of commitment to the King James Bible. Our church is listed as “Use KJV.” Other churches are listed as “KJV Inspired,” “KJV Position Undeclared,” “KJV Preserved,” “KJV Preferred,” or simply “KJV.”  I couldn’t find any definitions for these various positions, nor could I find any explanation of the differences. I’m unsure how they concluded that we “Use” the KJV (as opposed to these other positions). But I don’t dispute it either.

Perhaps we earned that tag because of what I am about to say. The historic view of preservation has been set down in some of the old confessions of faith, including this statement from the London Baptist Confession of 1689:

Continue reading “One Big Thing I Wish Would Change Among Independent Baptists” →

How Important Is Church Growth?

On By Dave MallinakIn Contemporary Worship, Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Pastors, Worship2 Comments

Jesus had a following.  A conservative estimate would have 10,000 people gathered on the hillside above the Sea of Galilee, possibly doubling that number (John 6:10).  That’s a crowd.  Most pastors would feel that their ministry was successful, given similar results.  The crowds were very enthusiastic about Jesus.  “He perceived that they would come and take Him by force to make Him a king” (6:15).  So, they were all in.  What an opportunity, if that was the point.

I’m a child of the 80s, and in the 80s, Jack Hyles was the king of church growth.  When I talk to older pastors from that era, almost universally, they will tell me that they made the trek to Hammond for the Pastor’s School.  My own family migrated towards and eventually landed at a Hyles church.  And those were exciting days.  I remember a discussion my dad had maybe a year or two before our family moved to the Hyles church.  We were visiting friends in Kansas, and the topic of Jack Hyles came up.  Everyone was talking about him at that time.  He had one of the biggest churches in America – he said it was the biggest.  My dad and his friend discussed his methods, and I listened from the back seat of the car.  As I recall, they were a bit skeptical.  But eventually, we ended up there.  Who can argue against a growing church?

The ministry of First Baptist in Hammond is a case in point that, for many Christians, church growth trumps many vital things.  If a church is growing, we will give them a pass on nearly anything – heresy, impropriety, even immorality.  Chicks dig the big crowd.  Perhaps then, we could be instructed by how Jesus handled His enthusiastic followers above Tiberius.

Continue reading “How Important Is Church Growth?” →

Answering Some Twitter Claims About the Text Issue

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Preservation

I came across this tweet from David Green @Biblicist4Life a little late.  I have interacted with David several times on Twitter and generally found him rigorous and studied.  Since I was late to interact with this particular tweet (given the very short shelf-life of Twitter), I decided to write a post about it.  David is pretty dogmatic in this tweet – not that I object to raw assertion.  But I found several “facts” in it that I think require a little more information than he provides.  And since King James Only debates have been the rage for nigh unto two decades running, I thought I would feed the beast and keep things going. 

As debates go, both sides believe they hold the stake to drive through the heart of the opposing side.  Yet, somehow, the discussion continues.  This comes, no doubt, from the obstinance and implacability of the other side.  Plus, KJV people don’t think much.  Plus, we all talk past each other.  Plus, King James might have been a homosexual.  And we know he was an Anglican.  So, the debate continues. 

Anyhow, let me start by copying and pasting the entire tweet.  Then, I will break it down and attempt an answer for each point.  Here’s the tweet…

7 Facts I Wish KJV-Onlyists Would Get Straight:

1. There is no received text. Sorry. There are errors in all Greek manuscripts. Not only are there not 5000+ manuscripts that agree with each other, there actually aren’t any manuscripts that perfectly agree with each other. And I’m not talking about just the dreaded “Alexandrian” manuscripts. All of the manuscripts have errors. The Greek NT hasn’t been passed down cleanly.

2. The KJV translators didn’t have one text in front of them. They consulted many texts that differed from each other because…there was no received text. So they guessed. Somewhat educated guessing, sure. But sometimes there is good evidence on both sides of a textual variant. Hard to say which is original and which is an error. And the KJV translators didn’t hide this fact. They made textual choices, and they included marginal notes with alternate readings where they were uncertain due to their Greek texts disagreeing.

3. Westcott and Hort didn’t discover any manuscripts. Vaticannus has been housed in the Vatican Library (hence its name) for centuries. Sinaiticus was discovered by Tichendorf in St. Catherine’s monastery. (This point isn’t overly relevant. It just bugs me when people talk about Westcott and Hort discovering these. Lol)

4. It’s true that Westcott and Hort published a new edition of the Greek New Testament in the 1800s, but they didn’t only use 2 manuscripts to create it. That’s absurd. What would be accurate is to say that they leaned heavily (not exclusivity) on a few manuscripts. At times they leaned too heavily on them. Pretty much everyone today acknowledges that. Which leads to the next fact…

5. NO ONE IS STILL USING WESTCOTT & HORT’S GREEK TEXT. This whole argument from KJV-onlyists is super outdated. The KJVO attacks on Westcott and Hort’s text were an exaggeration a hundred years ago. They’re completely irrelevant today. No one is still using Westcott & Hort’s text. Zero Bibles are being translated from it.

6. The Greek text that is being used today (Nestle-Aland 28th edition or the UBS 5th, same text just different apparatus) has made hundreds of changes in favor of the majority of Greek manuscripts. In other words, the imbalance of Westcott and Hort relying too heavily on a few manuscripts has been corrected. Decades ago. Now you might think it hasn’t gone far enough and it is still somewhat imbalanced. Fine. Make that argument. But don’t say that we’re all using Westcott & Hort’s text that was created by comparing only 2 manuscripts. Both of those are lies. Stop it.

7. The KJV isn’t based on majority readings. Here’s where the argument really falls apart…Most KJV-onlyists believe that there are 5,000+ Greek manuscripts that support their text, and basically only 2 manuscripts line up with the modern text. They tend to be shocked when they find out that this just isn’t true. For example, take the 2 most significant “missing verses” in the NT: 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37. Both of these verses are absent in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. So the “We have 5000 on our side and you guys have 2” argument is just not true. In hundreds of places, the exact opposite is true. When it comes to 1 John 5.7, the KJV guys have like 4 Greek manuscripts that contain it (all dated to over 1000 years after 1 John was written).

Some KJV-onlyists know this last fact. And when you bring it up, they will never be ok with removing a verse like 1 John 5:7, even though the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts don’t have it. They’ll come up with some reason to keep everything just as it is in the KJV. Because at the end of the day, the manuscript evidence doesn’t really matter to them. What matters is whatever the KJV says. The argument about a “Received Text” is just a distraction. KJV-onlyism is a conclusion in search of an argument. So, the advocates of KJV-onlyism have to use inconsistent/contradictory arguments for their position, depending on which variant is being discussed.

Let’s take this apart, point by point…

Continue reading “Answering Some Twitter Claims About the Text Issue” →

Legalism and Scripture 4: Pastor, Preach Standards

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Legalism

Standards are inescapable.  It isn’t a question of whether your church will have them – your church has standards.  Every church has standards.  The question is, who will set the standard, and what will be the basis of that standard. 

Every church has a dress code.  It doesn’t matter if the church uses fog and theater lighting like a nightclub or uses robes and collars like a cathedral.  Every church has a dress code.  Somebody sets the expectations for those who attend church regularly.  Everyone who attends knows what that expectation is and what the boundaries and limits are.  Your wife or daughters can probably tell you who sets it.  And those who attend the church regularly will, for the most part, conform to the expectation.

Of course, there are exceptions.  I am setting forth general observations here, not hard and fast rules.  I am pointing out the way things are in churches.  But I intend to argue something from these generalizations.  Since dress codes and standards are inescapable and there will be a standard wherever you go, the church’s leadership should set the standards intentionally.

I don’t intend to say what that standard should be in this article.  I think my view of these things is pretty well-known.  I have written on them in the past.  My point here is to say that there is a standard, and since there is, the church’s leadership should set out to establish a Biblical standard (as they see it) from Scripture.

This article is the fourth and final installment for this go-around on legalism.  In the previous three articles (here, here, and here), we have highlighted a few things about legalism.  First, it is not a Scriptural category – the Bible never speaks directly about legalism, and in fact, many of our notions about legalism do not fit with anything we see in Scripture.  For example, God doesn’t forbid law-keeping or treat it as if it were contrary to New Testament Christianity.  Jesus taught His disciples that their righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees and that they should do what they said – but not what they did.  Second, legalism is, to some degree, inescapable.  We all have rules that we are very rigid about and would impose on everyone around us if given the opportunity.  Those rules can be all across the spectrum – from “live and let live” casual to super-uptight suit-and-tie fundamentalism.  Legalism isn’t found in any particular rule.  Legalism is a kind of spiritual pride that attaches to whatever standard one might hold, believing that I am spiritually superior to others because I have high, low, or even no standards. 

I want to extend this idea a little further.  It isn’t legalistic to establish a standard in your church that will be preached and taught and honored.  It is, in fact, necessary to the unity of the church and part of what it means for a pastor to shepherd the people.  So here are a few points for consideration.

Continue reading “Legalism and Scripture 4: Pastor, Preach Standards” →

Legalism and Scripture 3: We’re All Legalists

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Legalism4 Comments

Inside every one of us lurks a little legalist, clamoring to get out.  So we keep him in chains and prison until someone breaks one of our rules or in some way violates “the code.” Then, our fire-breathing legalist comes charging out, finger-wagging, pontificating.

Let’s face it, we all love rules.  Especially rules for thee (though not necessarily for me).

So far, we have pointed out the struggle of defining legalism from the Bible since no equivalent term is found anywhere in Scripture.  Legalism isn’t a Scriptural category, though I deny that there is such a thing.  I have argued that we throw the term about too casually and that it poisons any discussion of standards.  Our fear of the charge of legalism has a way of preventing a Biblical consideration of standards. 

We pointed out that, though legalism is almost always associated with the Pharisees, legalism is not the sin Jesus rebuked in the Pharisees.  Jesus didn’t charge the Pharisees with being too scrupulous about the law.  He criticized them for not being strict enough.  He condemned them for disregarding the law in favor of their traditions.  He rebuked them for a blatant double standard.  And He urged His disciples to be more righteous than the Pharisees.

We also examined the legalism Paul spoke against in Galatians (which I think is closer to the idea of legalism that Christians should try to avoid – an attempt to increase personal holiness by embracing external standards and law-keeping).  Whether or not Paul’s arguments against extreme self-denial in Colossians should be applied to legalism or not is a good question.  Paul shows that being subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not) is a vain attempt at sanctification.  But Paul allows strictness in diet and so forth.  He tells the Colossians, “Let no man therefore judge you;” “Let no man beguile (disqualify) you” (Colossians 2:16, 18).

This brings us to the next important point:

To some extent, “legalism” is inescapable.

Though some legalism is more overt than others.  But the question is not whether you have rules or standards you live by and are perhaps a little uptight about.  We all do.  This is not a matter of whether we are sometimes wound a little tight about rules, but which rules we are wound a little tight about. 

If “legalism” amounts to law-keeping, if “legalism” is a commitment to or loyalty to a standard, everyone is a legalist.  Because every Christian holds to a set of standards which they also believe to be faithful to the requirements of Scripture.  And unless we carefully guard our hearts, adherence to a standard will produce a sense of superiority about the standards we hold.  We tend to view those who share our standards as allies while resisting and repudiating those who differ, whether stricter or laxer.  Call it human nature; our fallenness lived out loud.  But it is often the case.  Furthermore, we tend to call everyone to the left of our standard “licentious” and everyone to the right “legalistic.” 

Continue reading “Legalism and Scripture 3: We’re All Legalists” →

Legalism and Scripture 2: Pharisees and Spartans

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Legalism1 Comment

Part 1 available here.

Consider again the two definitions of legalism we have mentioned.  The first is a more general, albeit straightforward, definition.

Legalism is the conviction that law-keeping is now, after the Fall, the ground of our acceptance with God – the ground of God being for us and not against us.  (John Piper)

The second offers a more specific and detailed view of a proper use of the charge.

  • We might call someone “legalistic” if they are overly scrupulous about behaviors that are not prohibited or commanded in the New Testament.
  • We might call someone “legalistic” if they fail to see that the Mosaic system of sacrifices and priestly ceremonies and rites of purification and food laws and rituals that distinguish Israel from the nations are not binding any longer on the Christian.
  • Finally, we might call someone “legalistic” if they treat the law or any moral behavior as the ground of our full acceptance with God instead of seeing Christ’s blood and righteousness as the only ground of our acceptance, and faith in him as the only means of having what he died to obtain.  (John Piper)

In this installment, we will examine four Bible passages dealing with legalism.  First, we typically regard the Pharisees as the original legalists, so we will consider the fault of the Pharisees.  Then, we have the “Jerusalem council,” where the apostles repudiated Judaism in its original form.  Post-Antioch, Judaism demonstrated an uncanny ability to adapt, so Paul addresses soft legalism in Galatians.  And finally, Paul offers a Scriptural view of strictness and self-denial in the book of Colossians. 

Here’s hoping we can do this without exhausting the reading public.

The Spirit of the Pharisees

Many lump “legalists” together with Pharisees – and I think rightly so.  We should consider the connection between the Pharisees and what many consider “legalism” today. Despite the legendary antagonism Jesus showed the Pharisees, He never dismissed them as absolute reprobate.

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.  (Matthew 23:1-3)

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for three faults.  First, He criticized how they overturned God’s law with their traditions. 

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.  And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.  (Mark 7:6-9)

Continue reading “Legalism and Scripture 2: Pharisees and Spartans” →

Legalism and Scripture 1: Definitions

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Independent Baptists, Issues Facing the Church, Legalism1 Comment

About a year and a half ago, a friend asked me if I listened to the “Recovering Fundamentalist Podcast.”  He went on to describe their meteoric rise to fame and popularity as they hammered away at the “legalism” that has often characterized fundamentalism.  This particular genre of Internet sensation exposes just how offensive people find the arrogance that comes from crotchety fundamentalism.  No doubt, we have a lot to answer for.

More than a few Christians have been seriously hurt by fundamentalism.  I will be the first to acknowledge the warrant for some of the criticisms – I have seen the damage personally, as these things have irreparably damaged members of my own family.  Over the past 20 years, countless blogs, forums, websites, and now podcasts have sprung up in an attempt to repudiate the arrogance and extremes of fundamentalism.  It is low-hanging fruit, sure to get attention.  And in a sense, these kinds of Internet sensations have become commonplace enough that we might say they are a dime-a-dozen.  Nonetheless, the demand for these sites illustrates the deep pain many feel at the legalism they have encountered in IFB churches. 

My purpose in this post is not to defend arrogance in any form or to argue particular standards. No doubt, many would consider me a legalist.  But my purpose is not to provide cover for IFB cranks.  Some things are easy to caricature, and I have heard far too many cringe-worthy sermon clips from my brethren in the IFB.  Much of what has alienated Bible-believing Christians could be resolved by a return to what past generations might have called “Bible preaching.”  Despite all the yipping to the contrary, I hear very little Biblical content in far too many IFB sermons.  Ranting makes for a good show.  But let’s don’t equate opinionating with Bible preaching. 

Continue reading “Legalism and Scripture 1: Definitions” →

One Example of the Shoddy Way People Treat the Preservation Passages

On By Dave MallinakIn Apologetic, Hot Topics, Preservation9 Comments

And yes, I know that is a long title.  Maybe I read the Puritans too much.

Recently, I encountered a lengthy but well-written blog post describing the three major approaches to the preservation of God’s Word.  The article on the Berean Patriot blog sets forth its purpose in the title: Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101.

Kudos

The article is, according to the author, more than 18,000 words (I took his word for it).  I had a long flight recently, so I loaded the article before the flight and read it (with a few breaks) over about 3 hours.  The author does (in my opinion) tremendous work laying out the principles of textual criticism and the nuanced approaches of those who hold to the critical text compared to those who hold to the majority text.  I especially appreciated Berean Patriot’s (BP) honest interaction with these two approaches. 

But BP’s handling of the Confessional position (about 2/3 through the article) left much to be desired.  If you take the time to read it, you will no doubt notice the shift from careful analysis and interaction to a casual dismissal of the confessional position.  I find this bias frequently, so I thought I should take the opportunity to interact with BP’s description and analysis as an example of the shabby ways the confessional position gets treated. 

But before I deal with what BP gets wrong, let me say he gets some things right.  He rightly states that confessional bibliology assumes

God must have “kept (the scriptures) pure in all ages”.  By this, they mean that God wouldn’t allow the true version of the Scriptures to be replaced with a corrupt version of the scriptures.  Or at least, He would preserve a true version for His faithful followers.

He quotes Thomas Watson in support of this, which I appreciate.  John Owen also wrote extensively about this, and recently Jeff Riddle has published John Owen’s work on this subject.  It is helpful to note that the Puritans believed that God preserved the words of Scripture, not just the message and that this is the historic view of preservation. 

I appreciated BP’s clarification of the source for the Textus Receptus:

The primary Greek source for the King James Version was the 1598 version of Theodore Beza’s Greek New Testament.  The main source for Beza’s New Testament was Robert Estienne’s 1550 Greek New Testament.  (Estienne was also known as Stephanus.)  Estienne’s New Testament is remarkably similar to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, but Estienne claimed he didn’t use Erasmus’ work as a source.  The first document to be called “Textus Receptus was the 1633 printing of the Elzevir Greek New Testament, which was substantially identical to the 1565 version of Beza’s Greek New Testament.

Continue reading “One Example of the Shoddy Way People Treat the Preservation Passages” →