Now, About Those Differences, Part Seven

NickOfTimeRead Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

Second Premise Arguments

Making generalizations about either fundamentalists or other evangelicals is a bit presumptuous. Both groups are quite diverse, and exceptions can be found to most generalizations. Non-fundamentalistic evangelicalism covers an especially broad array of influences and movements.

The diversity of each group has rarely been realized by the other, however, and so each group does tend to posit generalizations about the other. One of those generalizations has to do with the matter of worldliness and legalism. Fundamentalists tend to think of other evangelicals as worldly. Those evangelicals tend to think of fundamentalists as legalistic.

We are not yet to the point of weighing the merits of these perceptions. For the moment, what we are trying to do is to understand what each group means when it speaks about the other. What do fundamentalists see that leads them to think evangelicals are worldly? What do evangelicals see that leads them to perceive fundamentalists as legalistic?

Articulating these perceptions more fully will be useful in two ways. First, it will furnish us with criteria for assessing the merits of the judgments that evangelicals and fundamentalists make about each other. Second, it will provide us with a device for distinguishing some evangelicals from other evangelicals as well as some fundamentalists from other fundamentalists.

In a previous discussion, I have suggested that the mutual recriminations of fundamentalists and evangelicals center upon two areas: standards of conduct and methods of ministry. I have further suggested that controversy over standards of conduct centers upon two kinds of issues: revivalistic taboos and second-premise arguments.

By second-premise arguments, I mean those attempts to apply Scripture that rely not only upon a premise supplied by a specific biblical passage or principle but also upon a premise supplied from outside of Scripture. The outside (second) premise may come from any of a variety of sources: intuition, experience, observation, deduction, tradition, or even authority. The second premise provides the warrant for applying the biblical statement or principle to a particular situation.

Here is an example of a second-premise argument.

  • Biblical principle: Christians should not engage in enslaving behavior (1 Cor. 6:12).
  • Outside premise: The recreational use of heroin is enslaving behavior.
  • Conclusion: Christians should not engage in the recreational use of heroin.

What I am trying to do here is to articulate an argument that I think will be acceptable to the majority of both parties. Perhaps there are better ways of making the argument, but very few evangelicals or fundamentalists are actively advocating the recreational use of heroin as a matter of Christian liberty. Most would actually deploy several related arguments to support their stance against the recreational use of heroin: it is addictive, it is physically destructive, it damages the testimony, it is illegal, etc. My point is not to evaluate these arguments. My point is simply that they are all second-premise arguments. They all rely upon some information or perspective that comes from outside of Scripture.

Without second-premise arguments, we would not be able to apply Scripture at all. Because our names do not occur in the text, the applicability of virtually every biblical promise, command, prohibition, and principle depends upon some version of the second-premise argument. This is true even in the matter of salvation. Here is an example.

  • Biblical principle: God commands all humans everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
  • Outside premise: I am a human.
  • Conclusion: God commands me to repent.

This argument is so natural for us that we do not even realize that we are making it. Unless we did, however, we could not apply the text to our own situation. The strength of the argument depends upon the certainty of the assertion that we are humans. Since our confidence in this assertion is unshakable, we regard the application of the text as certain.

We regularly employ second-premise arguments in our moral reasoning. For example, consider a woman who is thinking about feeding her husband a large quantity of arsenic. For moral guidance we point her to Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill.” How do we respond if she asks, “What Scripture tells me that feeding arsenic to my husband will kill him?” We would reply that we do not need such a Scripture. We have other ways of knowing the consequences of ingesting arsenic, and it is precisely those ways that allow us to apply the biblical commandment to her situation.

Both evangelicals and fundamentalists rely upon second-premise arguments in all sorts of ways. When it comes to moral applications, however, I think it is fair to say that the more explicitly an argument relies upon the second premise, the more evangelicals tend to become suspicious of it, while fundamentalists tend to remain unbothered. In other words, many fundamentalists are willing to apply some second-premise arguments that many evangelicals find specious.

What are some examples of second premises over which evangelicals and fundamentalists might differ? Here is a very partial sampling.

  • Music is sensual (or rebellious).
  • Bikinis are immodest.
  • Theater is spiritually subversive.
  • Piercings and tattoos are worldly.

These premises pertain to the kind of issues over which fundamentalists and other evangelicals typically differ (though younger fundamentalists are inclined to take the evangelical side). What these premises have in common is that they rely upon an element of judgment. In the case of music, how does one judge whether a particular composition expresses rebellion or sensuality? For that matter, when is it wrong to expose one’s self to expressions of rebellion or sensuality? In the case of bikinis, how much exposure constitutes immodesty? Might this vary depending upon one’s culture? In the case of theater, how and why is it judged to be spiritually subversive? As for piercings and tattoos, are they always and necessarily worldly? If so, what makes them worldly? If not, how can we tell the worldly ones from the non-worldly ones?

Precisely because they do not come from Scripture, second premises are always subject to evaluation. To question a second premise is not to question biblical authority. Second premises can and should be examined.

Fundamentalists have sometimes failed to subject their second premises to careful examination. This failure has resulted in silly and sometimes scandalous applications of Scripture. This is the mechanism that some fundamentalists have used to prohibit slacks for women, ban interracial dating, and insist upon the mandatory use of a particular version of the Bible. One fundamentalist leader spent years denouncing the “demon of the AWANA circle.” No wonder some are skeptical of their judgments.

On the other hand, evangelicals have sometimes refused to accept any second-premise argument that relies upon a judgment. Evaluations of matters like dress or the arts are thought to be too subjective to be useful. In these areas, second-premise arguments are dismissed out of hand.

Neither extreme is really useful, and neither extreme gets one to the correct application of biblical precepts and principles. Of course, neither fundamentalists nor other evangelicals necessarily go to the extreme. Nevertheless, in general they do seem to follow these tendencies. Fundamentalists more readily accept second-premise arguments when the second premise relies upon an element of judgment, while evangelicals more quickly reject those arguments.

The True Christmas
Henry Vaughan (1621-1695)

SO, stick up ivy and the bays,
And then restore the heathen ways.
Green will remind you of the spring,
Though this great day denies the thing ;
And mortifies the earth, and all
But your wild revels, and loose hall.
Could you wear flow’rs, and roses strow
Blushing upon your breasts’ warm snow,
That very dress your lightness will
Rebuke, and wither at the ill.
The brightness of this day we owe
Not unto music, masque, nor show,
Nor gallant furniture, nor plate,
But to the manger’s mean estate.
His life while here, as well as birth,
Was but a check to pomp and mirth ;
And all man’s greatness you may see
Condemned by His humility.

Then leave your open house and noise,
To welcome Him with holy joys,
And the poor shepherds’ watchfulness,
Whom light and hymns from Heav’n did bless.
What you abound with, cast abroad
To those that want, and ease your load.
Who empties thus, will bring more in ;
But riot is both loss and sin.
Dress finely what comes not in sight,
And then you keep your Christmas right.


This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Discussion

I had been looking forward to this article, and it did not disappoint. Some Fundamentalists have been especially reluctant to question their second premise arguments with regard to worldliness and sensuality. Furthermore, some have even been unwilling to allow others to question them without casting them out of their circle (or college).
[Don Johnson] Joel, if you can’t see what makes the music of Resolved worldly, nothing can help you.
Brother Don wrote these words in the “Bantam Rooster” thread. Without attempting to re-ignite the controversy there, and without undue criticism, since Don has formed a theology of what he believes constitutes worldliness, I note that this demonstrates one of Dr. Bauder’s points. This statement exemplifies a second premise that Don considered undebateable. Others debated it anyway.

Doctor Bauder rightly makes the point that we cannot apply Scripture at all without second premises, but I think that it is important to make sure that our second premises with regard to Biblical categories (like “worldly” or “carnal”) be grounded in Scriptural definitions of those categories. Furthermore, more work needs to be done in building a theology of the interface between Christianity and culture. I still believe that too much of our thinking is built on Catholic monastic assumptions of what the world is and how it influences us (witness the cultural isolation that some of our more conservative colleges attempt to achieve).

I do not support capitulation to those who want to stop thinking of worldliness as a category and engage the world by becoming nearly identical to it — a fault too many evangelicals fall into. What I would like to see are second premises more grounded in a Biblically-based Christian world-view rather than merely our own tradition. In other words, I’d like to see second premises that move a little more toward first-order force due to careful Biblical exposition.

http://www.awana-mi.com/images/offici1.jpg

If you can’t see the obvious occultic symbolism there, you’ve just been reading too many books by neo evangelicals! J-)

On a more serious note, I appreciate the amount of energy Kevin is putting into thinking clearly about these things. With the “tools of thought” so neglected for so long (this is culture wide, not just fundamentalist), we often have no idea how we’re arriving at conclusions!

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Mike Durning] Doctor Bauder rightly makes the point that we cannot apply Scripture at all without second premises, but I think that it is important to make sure that our second premises with regard to Biblical categories (like “worldly” or “carnal”) be grounded in Scriptural definitions of those categories. Furthermore, more work needs to be done in building a theology of the interface between Christianity and culture. I still believe that too much of our thinking is built on Catholic monastic assumptions of what the world is and how it influences us (witness the cultural isolation that some of our more conservative colleges attempt to achieve).
Mike, I think this would be a discussion worth having. I have been working on defining worldliness, worldly and godliness in a series of articles at oxgoad.ca and in a series of Bible studies at our church (they can be found at gbcvic.org with audio and pdfs of the outlines). It seems to me that you think I am not defining the terms biblically, is that correct? If not, why don’t you write a paper defining these terms biblically and have Aaron publish it here at SI. Then we can have at it. Or, alternatively, we could start a separate thread here, or as a third alternative, we could engage the discussion at oxgoad. I really wouldn’t mind getting into a little more fine-tuning of my thinking in these areas. I have been attempting to derive my arguments from the Scriptures first, then come to conclusions afterwards. Of course, it is probably impossible to do this without prejudice, but that was what I was attempting to do, in any case.

So rather than getting this thread clogged up with that discussion, let’s get into it somewhere else for the purpose of hammering out a better understanding of the terms.

BTW, I don’t much disagree with this article of Kevin’s either. I think he is articulating a true difference between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism here. I suppose if I looked hard enough I could find a sentence or phrase somewhere that I disagree with, but the basic argument is correct in my opinion. I am sure Kevin will be much relieved to hear this news.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Is that they are willing to take on the “second premise” and attempt to make applicaitons to culture. Even when you think they are wrong, at least you know there is a respect for the holiness of God and there is an attempt to make delineations between a Christian and what the Bible calls “the world”. The fact is, we can always find someone more “legalistic” than ourselves. And, as Francis Schaeffer correctly observed many years ago, loosening standards generally has less to do with not having taboos and more to do with individuals wanting to overturn specific taboos. We all have standards (even Adam and Eve had them in the Garden), but the question is: what are they and how are they derived and applied?

IMHO, worldliness has to do with the derivation of a “second premise” as well as its application. I have seen specific instances where individual believers sought out a biblical interpretation that suits their actions (i.e. believers changing their stance on divorce and remarriege when they have been divorced and want to remarry). Also, the reason for the application of the second premise can be to suit a specific situation (i.e. a pastor is trying to please recalcitrant church members).

What is greatly needed is a more clear understanding of the balance of being in the world and being of the world. This is a principle that is much discussed in general but very little in specific. It is my hope that the author will take this up in the near future.

On a more serious note, I appreciate the amount of energy Kevin is putting into thinking clearly about these things. With the “tools of thought” so neglected for so long (this is culture wide, not just fundamentalist), we often have no idea how we’re arriving at conclusions!
Totally agree. There is a critical thought deficit in both spheres. If one is engaging in an activity or prohibiting such activity, there should be an articulable purpose for either position. Evangelicals often do what they please with little to no thought beyond their version of Semper Fi…Christian Liberty! Fundamentalists rarely do what they please as they shout their motto, “Avoid all appearances of evil.” The topic should not center around what you can and can’t do, but why do you believe it expedient and edifying to act or not act?. And this should apply to any of life’s commonalities not just the hot button, fire-in-the-forum topics. If we apply critical thought as to our purpose for anything in which we engage, it will help us build a deeper, better nuanced, and more robust systematic worldview that embeds controversial subjects instead of highlighting them.

1) Would someone be so kind as to point me to a technical definition of second premise? It seems Dr. Bauder is making use of syllogism. Is the ‘second premise’, as he uses it, the same as the ‘minor premise’ of a syllogism.

2) Do any fundamentalists believe in sanctification any more? Isn’t the Holy Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ? Shouldn’t we keep our eyes on Christ and not the taboos of the world. It seems there is very little mention of Christ in this 7-part series on those differences that are distinct and yet not different (but really are) series.

[Aaron Blumer]

I appreciate the amount of energy Kevin is putting into thinking clearly about these things. With the “tools of thought” so neglected for so long (this is culture wide, not just fundamentalist), we often have no idea how we’re arriving at conclusions!
Aaron, I couldn’t agree more. Recently on another thread, I put in a plug for Kevin’s excellent series from a few years ago, “Shall We Reason Together?” I’m going to put in another plug here. Anyone who read (and truly digested) that series probably already anticipated much of the content of this latest essay as soon as Kevin mentioned that it would be about “second premise arguments.” (Go to the [URL=http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/132-nick-archives] archives [/URL] and scroll down to 9/15/2006.) Kevin practices in his own writing what he teaches in that series. I greaty appreciate the way constructs arguments (meticulously defining terms & premises, then reasoning rather transparently from those premises).

While some installments of the current essay series have been called “ponderous” by some, I’ve tried to keep in mind that part of what Kevin is doing here is building a taxonomy. And taxonomies, in order to be complete, tend to have some rather dull components. At this point, I’ve received so much benefit from his writing that I’m willing to suspend judgment whenever things start to seem pedantic: Usually, I discover there are good reasons for the extra details.

One of the reasons I enjoy reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones is that often when I read his preaching on a given subject I go away with not just more knowledge of subject itself but also a more biblically and logically-honed framework for thinking about the subject. That, in turn, results in a rich set of follow-on insights that arise from meditating on the implications of what I have learned. Kevin’s preaching and writing also has this quality.

Philip Knight

[Don Johnson]

Mike, I think this [topic of worldliness] would be a discussion worth having. I have been working on defining worldliness, worldly and godliness in a series of articles at oxgoad.ca and in a series of Bible studies at our church (they can be found at gbcvic.org with audio and pdfs of the outlines). It seems to me that you think I am not defining the terms biblically, is that correct?
Let me add another vote for creating a separate topic on worldliness and its biblical definition. And while I’m putting in plugs for Kevin’s writing and preaching, let me add one more for his sermon series [URL=http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/mp3-audio] “Understanding Worldliness: A Biblical Investigation”[/URL]. Part 1 begins on 9/1/2009 (currently page 2 in the listings).

I just listened to this a few weeks ago, so it’s content is fresh in my memory. It contains excellent biblically-based analysis that would shed much light on the recent posts here. Does anyone know if these sermons are available in printed form?

Philip Knight

[AndrewSuttles] 1) Would someone be so kind as to point me to a technical definition of second premise? It seems Dr. Bauder is making use of syllogism. Is the ‘second premise’, as he uses it, the same as the ‘minor premise’ of a syllogism.
Andrew,

Follow the link to Kevin’s series “Shall We Reason Together?” in my first post on this thread (about 15 minutes ago).

Philip Knight

http://www.philchristensen.com/subpage30.html
But in Garlock’s world, music isn’t just a tool; music is an entity that is good or bad of itself. It is moral or immoral by its very nature, and cannot be neutral. The sound itself is here to either help you or to hurt you. There’s no middle ground.

He attempts to support this truth by associating it with the character of God Himself. Garlock reasons that since (a) God is musical, and (b) God is moral, therefore (c) music is moral by nature. That’s Frank’s Theorum.

(Note: for fun, try Frank’s Theorum with any other two random attributes of God, and see how it works. Here’s one to get you started: (a) God is kind, and (b) God is unchangeable. Therefore (c) kindness is unchangeable. Kids, you can try Frank’s Theorum at home: Rice is white, and Ralph is white. Therefore, Ralph must be rice. Ask for help from your parents before you put Ralph in the rice cooker. But I digress.)

Frank’s Theorum gives birth to Frank’s Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and “acceptable to the Lord” and (b) the style which is immoral and “unacceptable to the Lord.” It’s a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” For those Christians who don’t agree with what he’s proven, he’s clearly adopted the next verse in context: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

So the battle’s on; we’ll either accept what Garlock’s “proven” or be “reproved.” There’s no middle ground, since his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of “worldliness.”

To avoid being reproved, we’ll have to 1) agree with his premise about the morality of music, 2) accept his definition of “worldliness,” and finally we’ll 3) penitently adopt the styles of music he authorizes.

[Don Johnson] Mike, I think this would be a discussion worth having. I have been working on defining worldliness, worldly and godliness in a series of articles at oxgoad.ca and in a series of Bible studies at our church (they can be found at gbcvic.org with audio and pdfs of the outlines). It seems to me that you think I am not defining the terms biblically, is that correct? If not, why don’t you write a paper defining these terms biblically and have Aaron publish it here at SI. Then we can have at it. Or, alternatively, we could start a separate thread here, or as a third alternative, we could engage the discussion at oxgoad. I really wouldn’t mind getting into a little more fine-tuning of my thinking in these areas. I have been attempting to derive my arguments from the Scriptures first, then come to conclusions afterwards. Of course, it is probably impossible to do this without prejudice, but that was what I was attempting to do, in any case.
Don, you have misunderstood me. I have not yet had time to view your article series. It’s possible I’m in complete agreement, but I would expect not. I was only using your stand-alone quote from that one post as an example of a “second premise” — in the sense that you were assuming the truth of a premise that had not yet been expressed and didn’t seem to think anyone would question it. Clearly, it is a second premise in the sense that Dr. Bauder is using the term, since you applied “worldly” to the music of a particular event without plain-spoken Biblical evidence (whether such exists or not might be a great topic of discussion).

I support the idea of a seperate thread on defining “worldliness”. Might I suggest that since you have already written a series of articles, why not ask Aaron to post them? They might make a great discussion starter. The alternative of waiting for me to write one would interject a terrible delay. I already have one article in the works to send to SI, plus I have committed to finishing my first book by summer’s end.

So, it is a worthy discussion. Let’s start it. If you don’t want to ask Aaron to post your articles, I will be happy to launch the thread with a lead post somewhat shorter than article length, but sure to encapsulate the differences between myself and many others here on this vital issue.

[Steve Newman] Is that they are willing to take on the “second premise” and attempt to make applicaitons to culture. Even when you think they are wrong, at least you know there is a respect for the holiness of God and there is an attempt to make delineations between a Christian and what the Bible calls “the world”.
I am in agreement here.

While I shudder at the mis-applications of Scripture and the elevation of fundamentalist traditions to near-doctrinal levels by some, I also am terrified by the indifferent attitudes of some at the opposite extreme of these matters. Draw what conclusions you will, grace notwithstanding: one of the things we can say with certainty about our Lord is that He is quite particular, rather than indifferent, when it comes to details.

[AndrewS] 2) Do any fundamentalists believe in sanctification any more? Isn’t the Holy Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ? Shouldn’t we keep our eyes on Christ and not the taboos of the world.
I don’t think it’s possible to conform to the image of Christ without that having some impact on how relate to the world. To put it another way, to be like Christ where we live, we have to have our eyes on Him and our eyes on the world to see how one relates to the other.
[PhilK] I just listened to this a few weeks ago, so it’s content is fresh in my memory. It contains excellent biblically-based analysis that would shed much light on the recent posts here. Does anyone know if these sermons are available in printed form?
I don’t think they have been transcribed. Maybe we could take up a collection and hire that out (we’d have to get Kevin’s permission).

I [URL=http://www.blumer.org/adam/ know a guy[/URL] who does a little transcribing.

About second premises

In this case, second premises are the ideas about “life as we know it” that are necessary to reason from a biblical premise to an application. So the first premise is “all humans are sinners.” The second premise is outside the Bible in the sphere of life… “I am a human.” It’s necessary to reach the conclusion: “I am a sinner.”

The more controversial second premises are assertions about life where we live that are necessary to apply biblical principles to cultural matters such as dress and entertainment.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Mike Durning]
[Don Johnson] Mike, I think this would be a discussion worth having. I have been working on defining worldliness, worldly and godliness in a series of articles at oxgoad.ca and in a series of Bible studies at our church (they can be found at gbcvic.org with audio and pdfs of the outlines). It seems to me that you think I am not defining the terms biblically, is that correct? If not, why don’t you write a paper defining these terms biblically and have Aaron publish it here at SI. Then we can have at it. Or, alternatively, we could start a separate thread here, or as a third alternative, we could engage the discussion at oxgoad. I really wouldn’t mind getting into a little more fine-tuning of my thinking in these areas. I have been attempting to derive my arguments from the Scriptures first, then come to conclusions afterwards. Of course, it is probably impossible to do this without prejudice, but that was what I was attempting to do, in any case.
Don, you have misunderstood me. I have not yet had time to view your article series. It’s possible I’m in complete agreement, but I would expect not. I was only using your stand-alone quote from that one post as an example of a “second premise” — in the sense that you were assuming the truth of a premise that had not yet been expressed and didn’t seem to think anyone would question it. Clearly, it is a second premise in the sense that Dr. Bauder is using the term, since you applied “worldly” to the music of a particular event without plain-spoken Biblical evidence (whether such exists or not might be a great topic of discussion).
Ahh… Ok, I am often a little slow. But be assured, I take no offense, just suggesting that this is a discussion worth having.
[Mike Durning] I support the idea of a seperate thread on defining “worldliness”. Might I suggest that since you have already written a series of articles, why not ask Aaron to post them? They might make a great discussion starter. The alternative of waiting for me to write one would interject a terrible delay. I already have one article in the works to send to SI, plus I have committed to finishing my first book by summer’s end.
Fair enough. I think I’ll correspond with Aaron about it, and probably need to really edit my material. Too verbose! On one’s own site it doesn’t matter, but I should imagine it needs some editing.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3