Your Thoughts on the FBFI

While Scott and I would not agree with how certainly you can assess these things, it is functional Pelagianism to argue that man’s depravity has no impact on his art. If we’re going to give theology its proper place in developing our understanding of worship, then we can’t eliminate or ignore the role that a biblical view of depravity plays in that.

Good point. What I mean by that is not that man’s depravity has no impact - it absolutely has an impact, as Ps. 51:5, Romans 3:23, and a host of other passages would affirm. Everything that man does (apart from God’s redemptive work and Holy Spirit’s empowering) is based on a worldview that is radically anti-God. I do not intend to affirm any kind of Pelagian belief.

My point is that any argumentation for the kind of music that would please God has to start primarily with what the Bible says about praise and how to offer it. To start with the assumption that ‘electric guitars are evil’ or that ‘rock music is really OK’ is to launch a voyage from the wrong dock because the underlying principle is not Scriptural. Scripture alone is both launch pad and goal line when it comes to matters of praxis.

Appreciate the interjection and correction, Dr. Doran.

[Dave Doran]

…it is functional Pelagianism to argue that man’s depravity has no impact on his art. If we’re going to give theology its proper place in developing our understanding of worship, then we can’t eliminate or ignore the role that a biblical view of depravity plays in that.

This has huge implications in this discussion. In a sense, it really levels the playing field. In other words, the classical tradition is depraved. Likewise, whatever genre you choose is depraved. But it seems that there are some who argue that the classical tradition is less depraved than others. And that is where their argument fails in my opinion. You don’t need to spend too much time studying classical music history or engaging the modern classical music environment to realize that it is fraught with depravity - just like the world of hip-hop is fraught with depravity. But the automatic assumption for many is: classical is good, hip-hop is bad. When you add to the mix guys like Shai Linne who have vibrant testimonies for Christ and communicate via the genre of rap if further complicates this issue. For further complication :), add to the mix all of the bad “conservative Christian” music (as in, really bad texts that remain stalwarts in the hymn book) that continues to be ignored and things get really confusing!

That’s why I believe, at the end of the day, this comes down to a matter of conscience before God. It comes down to passages like Romans 14 being applied to everyday life. Guys like Shai Linne are godly Christians who love the gospel and who happen to communicate via the genre of rap. Many others are godly Christians who love the gospel and who happen to communicate via the genre of conservative music in the classical tradition. I happen to like the classical tradition. But I can appreciate that Shai Linne and many others are using a different genre to reach a different demographic. This doesn’t mean I have to have Shai Linne minister at my church. I can appreciate his ministry from afar :). At the end of the day, be who you are for the glory of God! And let others be who they are for the glory of God! “To their own Master, servants stand or fall”. Yes, I understand that Romans 14 can’t be reduced to that one phrase. But, in the context of this broader discussion I really do think it gets ridiculous for organizations to “call out” or separate from people they’ve never met over doubtful things. “So then, each of us will give account of ourselves to God.”

on why the FBFI is what it is. B. Myron Cedarholm, Richard Weeks, et al. were Fundamental Baptists, not Baptist Fundamentalists. Further, they (at least those who I studied under at MBBC,77-81) held to a local church only interpretation of ekklesia. They did not hold to a universal, invisible church. Agree with them or not, this colored the founding of the FBF. They held to Francis Wayland’s dictum:

A Baptist Church cannot be represented in any body [whose decisions would be binding upon it] outside itself.

This under pining explains why the FBF is a fellowship of like minded individuals and not churches.

Fundamental Baptists, not Baptist Fundamentalists.

What is the significance of the distinction being made? I imagine there were significant points attached to each of the terms that they wished to embrace and avoid…

It means they were “denominationalists”. In the first, Fundamental describes Baptist. In the second, Baptist modifies Fundamentalist. IOW, they did not view immersion as a denominational peculiarity. They viewed it as the only possible translation of baptizo. If Modernism hadn’t reared its ugly head, they would have continued on as Northern Baptists had for over a hundred years.

[Greg Linscott]

[Rob Fall] Fundamental Baptists, not Baptist Fundamentalists.

What is the significance of the distinction being made? I imagine there were significant points attached to each of the terms that they wished to embrace and avoid…

What, in their mind or yours (since you can’t speak for them authoritatively), would be a good contrasting example of an individual, institution or organization who viewed “immersion as a denominational peculiarity”? Who did they consider could be legitimately defined as a Baptist Fundamentalist? Did they consider that a derogatory term?

As to who views immersion as a denominational peculiarity, I heard that personally from Dr. Bob III. I would hazard to add others who are inter/nondenominationalists. As for the rest, those are my observations and not theirs. No, the wouldn’t consider it a derogatory term and neither do I. It’s a bit more precise than is usual. But, it’s not derogatory. IOW, in college, I learned Baptist polity not church polity. Other churches were considered to be out of order. Yes, we were in the same family. but, not in the same body. (Remember what I wrote about ekklesia being local church only not universal invisible.) Further, nobody on the faculty or administration was lobbing hand grenades at the Presbyterians or the Methodists. Though we did tend to refight the 30 Years War when we played the Lutherans and Catholics on the football and soccer fields. (The last was an attempt at humor.)

[Greg Linscott]

What, in their mind or yours (since you can’t speak for them authoritatively), would be a good contrasting example of an individual, institution or organization who viewed “immersion as a denominational peculiarity”? Who did they consider could be legitimately defined as a Baptist Fundamentalist? Did they consider that a derogatory term?

When I have taken teens to visit the campus of MBBC, I have detected a different kind of attitude toward BJU than I have at other Baptist schools (say, Faith or even Northland). It wasn’t exactly disdain, but perhaps what you’re saying sheds some light on the reasoning behind it.

The attitude of Baptists like Robert Ketcham who served in the ACCC (Bauder references this group in the “other” thread) seems a different option than what you explained, or what you referenced BJ3 articulating. Again, some of that may stem from the conception of the universal church that they would have.

But there you go.

As far as I know, the FBF folks didn’t have ties with the ACCC. Good men may differ on this point. And I agree with your comment “some of that may stem from the conception of the universal church that they would have.”

Also, I check some and found the following:

From 1977-1979, MBBC Catalog:

B. Myron Cedarholm, B.A, B.D., Th.M. D.D Litt.D., L.H.D. Iowa State College, University of Minnesota, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, Northwestern Schools, Baptist Bible College [Denver] , Bob Jones University

M. James Hollowood, B.A., Th.B., D.D., University of the City of New York, National Bible Institute, Eastern Baptist College, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Central Baptist Seminary

Richard C. Weeks, B.A., B.D. M.A. D.D. Wheaton College, Albion College, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, University of Chicago [Residence work completed for Th.D.] Pillsbury College

The above three were MBBC’s founding troika. And:

Dr. Cedarholm’s Th.M. is from Princeton. He also completed the residence courses for a “theological doctorate” from Princeton. (Mattsen, Steven M.; B. Myron Cedarholm: Man of Character, Man of God; Frontline Magazine; May/June 1999.) I assume the “theological doctorate” would have been a Th.D.. Though considering Dr. C’s character it might have been a Ph.D..

Each of them had solid graduate theological training if not partial post graduate training. In my opinion, some of Maranatha’s attitude grows out of I see as their collective non-reliance on BJC\U for training at any level. So, here you have men, who though slightly younger Dr. Bob, Jr. was born in 1911 and Dr. Cedarholm in 1915, considered themselves his peers.

[Greg Linscott]

When I have taken teens to visit the campus of MBBC, I have detected a different kind of attitude toward BJU than I have at other Baptist schools (say, Faith or even Northland). It wasn’t exactly disdain, but perhaps what you’re saying sheds some light on the reasoning behind it.

The attitude of Baptists like Robert Ketcham who served in the ACCC (Bauder references this group in the “other” thread) seems a different option than what you explained, or what you referenced BJ3 articulating. Again, some of that may stem from the conception of the universal church that they would have.

But there you go.

The language of “denominational peculiarity” is the interesting concept, I guess. I don’t think that is exactly how GARBC men like Ketcham or Fuller understood it- they too would see it as the only literal way to understand baptism- yet also seemed to understand that there were “limited partnerships” that could (and even should) be enjoyed outside of local church fellowship. My wife grew up in Grand Rapids at Wealthy Street/Park Baptist Church, where their pastor, David Otis Fuller, sat on the board of Wheaton College for many years. They also had involvement in efforts that were not Baptist-only, such as Children’s Bible Hour. Henry Bosch, a long time member there, worked for Radio Bible Class and was a regular contributor to Our Daily Bread.

[Rob Fall]

on why the FBFI is what it is. B. Myron Cedarholm, Richard Weeks, et al. were Fundamental Baptists, not Baptist Fundamentalists. Further, they (at least those who I studied under at MBBC,77-81) held to a local church only interpretation of ekklesia. They did not hold to a universal, invisible church. Agree with them or not, this colored the founding of the FBF. They held to Francis Wayland’s dictum:

A Baptist Church cannot be represented in any body [whose decisions would be binding upon it] outside itself.

This under pining explains why the FBF is a fellowship of like minded individuals and not churches.

Rob—I think you are offering a fair summary of Cedarholm, Weeks, and their affirmation of “Wayland’s dictum.” And you may well be right about the way this colored the founding of the FBF. But I don’t think their affirmation of Wayland is what lead to their rejection of the universal church.

For instance, Wayland’s idea is affirmed by Paul Jackson (Doctrine and Administration of the Church) and Kevin Bauder (Baptist Distictives and New Testament Church Order). For that matter, Wayland’s idea is repeated in Hiscox. But Jackson, Bauder, and Hiscox also affirm the universal church (in a way that did not compromise their ideas about autonomy).

In the GARBC (church fellowship) model, the churches are not members of the GARBC, they are in fellowship with the GARBC. A church does not send representatives to the annual conference, it sends messengers. For the GARBC, this is more than mere hair-splitting. So if the conference messengers vote to affirm a resolution, their action is considered to be nonbinding on the fellowshipping churches. Yes, their action is an important expression that summarizes the belief of the messengers on a particular issue of the day, but no, the messengers can’t do anything to bind their churches.

position wasn’t based on Wayland. As I noted earlier, the men were educated enough to be nigh on fluent in Koine Greek (I’ve heard Dr. Hollowood read his morning NT devotions from his Greek NT.) From sitting at their feet, I’d say it was based on their understanding of ekklesia. Their position is explained in Edward H. Overbey’s The Meaning of Ecclesia in the New Testament.

[Dave Doran]

Just one quick, passing comment, for Jay: I think you are missing something very significant about what Scott Aniol (or Makujina or a host of others) is saying when you pit theological versus cultural as you do.

Cultural expressions all have some theological component since they are expressions of people’s worldview (which includes their religious beliefs). While Scott and I would not agree with how certainly you can assess these things, it is functional Pelagianism to argue that man’s depravity has no impact on his art. If we’re going to give theology its proper place in developing our understanding of worship, then we can’t eliminate or ignore the role that a biblical view of depravity plays in that.

“You say that cultural expressions contain lost person’s worldview including religious beliefs.”

However Christian music expresses a Christian worldview in its theological content (words).

“functional Pelagianism” as an impact on art?

So now its the music and not words? Could I suggest that you have maybe made a false distinction?

I believe Michael Horton succinctly sets forth what Pelagianism teaches and, I believe, correctly identifies Biblical examples of this heresy. Functionally this heresy looks more like those of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship than Christians who use biblical concepts with contemporary music.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/pelagiannatural.h…

Am I reading you coorectly? Are you laying a charge of heresy against the FBF?

[alex o.] SNIP

Functionally this heresy looks more like those of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship than Christians who use biblical concepts with contemporary music.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/pelagiannatural.h…

[Rob Fall]

Am I reading you coorectly? Are you laying a charge of heresy against the FBF?

[alex o.] SNIP

Functionally this heresy looks more like those of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship than Christians who use biblical concepts with contemporary music.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/pelagiannatural.h…

No, not laying a charge, yet. (I certainly reserve the right to expose error where i find it)

Dr. Doran’s charge didn’t seem correct and was puzzled by his use of Pelagianism in reference to the use of contemporary music with a Christian worldview.

If anyone needed parallels of the heresy of Pelagianism and fundamentalism (I won’t list all of them):

1. Stoic Philosophy

2. campaign of moralism

3. legalism

4. denying unconditional predestination

5. emphasis of following worthy examples from the O. T. (this is a subtle point and needs to be understood in a nuanced way. It is NOT the same as the instruction from Paul: “Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ”)

6. salvation could be conferred by the saying of a prayer, affirming instead (with abundant biblical references) that God must awaken the sinner and grant the gift of faith before a person can even seek God. (think “the sinner’s prayer” with a wrong understanding)

Fundamentalism will often talk about “grace” but a significant portion of the mindset is defacto moralism or legalism. So, it appears to me that the Fundamentalists are closer to Pelagianism rather than someone who uses good biblical words with current music.

Art is “something that one does skillfully”: whether it is cutting meat, taking a picture, building a house, driving a car, composing music, etc.

When unChristian messages are attached to any music whether it is a classical selection or a current style, then that is wrong. However the style itself cannot be deemed “depraved” because of the spiritual state of the composer.

In my thinking, John Phillip Souza’s music is associated only with marches and not church music because no one adopted the style to reference Christianity early in its creation (I could imagine ways to adapt it to the gospel message). It would be sort of strange today to put Christian words to it but I believe it could be done.

Christians need to rethink corporate worship as a component of the meeting of the local church. All worship fundamentally is individual and is resultant from us dying to ourselves and abiding in Christ. God needs nothing from us, instead He waits to give us more grace. As John Piper says: “He is a God who can’t be traded with” (read and consider Paul’s address to those in Acts 17).

I haven’t been following this thread for a while, so I wasn’t aware that you had directed a comment toward me until someone emailed me about it, hence the non-response to this point.

I think you’ve read more into my statement than I said. I said simply that if we argue that art and culture are neutral we are operating with the assumption that depravity does not affect these matters, and that assumption is functionally Pelagian. I said nothing about Christians using certain kinds of music. I was warning against adopting a stance that culture (and art as an expression) is neutral. It is not.

[Dave Doran]

I haven’t been following this thread for a while, so I wasn’t aware that you had directed a comment toward me until someone emailed me about it, hence the non-response to this point.

I think you’ve read more into my statement than I said. I said simply that if we argue that art and culture are neutral we are operating with the assumption that depravity does not affect these matters, and that assumption is functionally Pelagian. I said nothing about Christians using certain kinds of music. I was warning against adopting a stance that culture (and art as an expression) is neutral. It is not.

Thanks Dr. Doran for replying.

What you say is a standard response toward culture repeated by fundamentalists for some time now (I’ve heard it for the last 35 years or so). Could you please direct me toward the basis of this thinking or elaborate how it works out? I reject the premise as unsupportable in any sound Biblical theological scheme.

Church history certainly is not on your side nor is current theological thought except from Fundamentalists fighting a cultural war. What mainstream conservative Christian theological thought supports these ideas? From my reading, none.

Culture and artistic expression display the image of God and is only expressed better, I would say, after a person is redeemed. I don’t see how this can be denied.

Culture and artistic expression display the image of God and is only expressed better, I would say, after a person is redeemed. I don’t see how this can be denied

(bolding mine)

Your own statement hints at the possibility of what Dr. Doran asserts. Does all art display the image of God equally? Does some mar or obscure it? Does, say, visual art that seems to expresses approval of depraved actions display the glory of God or does it reflect at least a measure of the artist’s depravity?

Alex,

Dr. Doran you made the statement. I know, or believe I know, where you are coming from and am very familiar with these concepts. How have I misunderstood you? As I said I have mulled over the concept that you have expressed and find it unsupportable theologically.

This idea and others that differentiate Fundamentalism from other Christians culturally is not valid.

If this is a burning conviction in your mind, why start a thread on this if you deem it off topic here?

[DavidO]

Culture and artistic expression display the image of God and is only expressed better, I would say, after a person is redeemed. I don’t see how this can be denied

(bolding mine)

Your own statement hints at the possibility of what Dr. Doran asserts. Does all art display the image of God equally? Does some mar or obscure it? Does, say, visual art that seems to expresses approval of depraved actions display the glory of God or does it reflect at least a measure of the artist’s depravity?

The expression of an understood concept to others in art would be the expression of the concept despite the art. The art and its culture is not depraved. Its the concepts that are sinful if the concepts in and of themselves are depraved.

Could you please direct me toward the basis of this thinking or elaborate how it works out? I reject the premise as unsupportable in any sound Biblical theological scheme.

Alex, do you believe that man’s sinfulness affects his judgment and discernment such as Ephesians 4:17-19 seems to indicate?

[Larry]

Could you please direct me toward the basis of this thinking or elaborate how it works out? I reject the premise as unsupportable in any sound Biblical theological scheme.

Alex, do you believe that man’s sinfulness affects his judgment and discernment such as Ephesians 4:17-19 seems to indicate?

It is a stretch or complete misapplication of God’s word to to assert what you have said about Eph. 4.17-19. To take this as a spring board and say that all culture is depraved is wrong. Christians have not generated or are commanded to generate a culture that is distinctive on the level of artistic expression. The culture that Fundamentalists use is a culture from the past that was current at one time but now is somehow sanctified because someone has said it is sanctified.

When David said: “I am wonderfully made” did he say “after I came to know God I am wonderfully made?”

I’ll return tomorrow for further discussion If anyone so desires.

Not the way you apply it Larry

“An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”) is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.”

The charge = “it is functional Pelagianism to argue that man’s depravity has no impact on his art.”

Representative response so far = fundamentalism is wrong

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about, AlexO. Really, I don’t understand your argument.

[alex o.] It is a stretch or complete misapplication of God’s word to to assert what you have said about Eph. 4.17-19. To take this as a spring board and say that all culture is depraved is wrong. Christians have not generated or are commanded to generate a culture that is distinctive on the level of artistic expression. The culture that Fundamentalists use is a culture from the past that was current at one time but now is somehow sanctified because someone has said it is sanctified.

When David said: “I am wonderfully made” did he say “after I came to know God I am wonderfully made?”

I’ll return tomorrow for further discussion If anyone so desires.

Alex, do you agree with Romans 1-3 as a descriptor of all mankind (which would include man’s culture)? If so, what’s the difference between the bolded and the Romans passage?

I am fairly sure you’re saying that the answer to Larry’s question is no, but you won’t put it that bluntly.

Why is the cover made to look like the Warner Brothers background to Looney Tunes?

[Jay]

[alex o.] It is a stretch or complete misapplication of God’s word to to assert what you have said about Eph. 4.17-19. To take this as a spring board and say that all culture is depraved is wrong. Christians have not generated or are commanded to generate a culture that is distinctive on the level of artistic expression. The culture that Fundamentalists use is a culture from the past that was current at one time but now is somehow sanctified because someone has said it is sanctified.

When David said: “I am wonderfully made” did he say “after I came to know God I am wonderfully made?”

I’ll return tomorrow for further discussion If anyone so desires.

Alex, do you agree with Romans 1-3 as a descriptor of all mankind (which would include man’s culture)? If so, what’s the difference between the bolded and the Romans passage?

I am fairly sure you’re saying that the answer to Larry’s question is no, but you won’t put it that bluntly.

Rom. 1-3 does not include culture, at least how I term culture. The Rom. passage speaks of fallen humanity’s *walk* which Eph. 4.17-19 does. Mankind is dead in trespasses and sins, they can hardly *walk* in any other way than sinfully.

As I asserted earlier: human culture is a product of the image of God. Humanity’s expression of sin in cultural ways is the outworking of their being “dead in trespasses and sins.” A distinction needs to be made between God’s given abilities to humanity (culture) vs. sinful expression.

Alex,

Perhaps the disconnect here has been in your definition of culture. A culture is that which sets one group of people apart from other groups. It includes language, religion, tradition, food, clothing, and all of the other the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group. The expression of our God-given abilities is the essence of culture.